Ir/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 81 -IBR-14
January 1982
Air
Industrial Boilers
Emission Test Report
Caterpillar Tractor Company
East Peoria, Illinois
-------
INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
Emission Test Report
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.
BOILER NO. 19
East Peoria, Illinois
August 3-4, 1981
Technical Directives 12 and 13
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
by
C. L. Cornett, Jr. and Windle H. McDonald
Contract No. 68-02-3547, Work Assignment No. 2
(ESED 76/13)
(EMB-81-IBR-14)
July 1982
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION
DAYTON LABORATORY
Dayton, Ohio 45407
-------
CONTENTS
Figures vi
Tables v
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary of Results. 4
Description of Monitoring 4
Test Results 4
3. Process Description 13
Boiler System 13
Scrubber System 13
Monitoring Data 17
Comments on Test '. 22
4. Location of Sampling Points 23
Stack 23
Coal Feed System 23
5. Sampling and Analytical Procedures 27
Summary 27
Stack Sampling 27
Stack Sample Analysis 29
Coal Sampling 30
Coal Analysis 30
Sample Handling 30
Data Reduction 31
Quality Assurance 31
Appendices
A. Field Sampling Data Sheets and Computer
Coding Forms
A-l Field Log and Sample Identification Log. . . . A-l
A-2 Calibration Data A-9
A-3 Computer Input Sheets A-15
A-4 Field Sampling Data Sheets A-18
B. Printouts of Sampling Results B-l
C. Analytical Methods for Sulfuric Acid and
Sulfate Determinations C-l
0195/A-H iii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
D. Analytical Data
D-l Results of Stack Sample Analysis D-l
D-2 Total Particulate Mass Dat? D-4
D-3 Sulfuric Acid Mass Data D-10
D-4 Sulfate Mass Data D-12
D-5 QC Report for East Peoria Plant . D-14
D-6 Coal Analysis Data D-27
E. Project Participants E-l
FIGURES
Number - Page
1 Location of East Peoria Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Plant 2
2 Schematic diagram of Boiler No. 19 and
associated systems at the Caterpillar
Tractor Co. in East Peoria, Illinois 3
3 Dual alkali sulfur dioxide removal process at
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 19 in
East Peoria, Illinois 15
4 Stack sampling site at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria, Illinois. . 24
5 Traverse point locations at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 19 stack in East Peoria,
Illinois 25
6 Coal sampling site at Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria, Illinois. ... 26
7 Dual-probe sampling train 28
8 Coal sampling device 30
IV
-------
TABLES
Number Pac
1 Source Sampling and Analyses at Caterpillar
Tractor Co. Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria,
Illinois. 5
2 Emission Data for Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria, Illinois
(Metric Units) 6
3 Emission Data for Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria, Illinois
(English Units) 7
4 Summary of Differences Between Method 5 and
Method 5B Results at Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria, Illinois. ... 9
5 Summary of Duration of Sampling, Stack Temper-
ature, Stack Flow Rate, Sample Volume, Sample
Water Content and Static Pressure at
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 19 in East
Peoria, Illinois 10
6 Summary of Integrated Gas Analysis Results at
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 19 in
East Peoria, Illinois 11
7 Summary of Coal Analysis at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria, Illinois. . 11
8 Design, Operating, and Performance Character-
istics of the Double Alkali Scrubbing System
at Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 19 in
East Peoiia, Illinois 14
9 Boiler and Scrubber Operating Parameters
(8/3/81 Run 1) 18
10 Boiler and Scrubber Operating Parameters
(8/4/81 Run 2) 19
11 Boiler and Scrubber Operating Parameters
(8/4/81 Run 3) 20
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Emissions from Boiler No. 19 at the Caterpillar Tractor Co. Plant
at 600 West Washington, East Peoria, Illinois, were tested
August 3-4, 1981 by Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC).
Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the plant. This work
was performed for the Emission Measurement Branch of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-02-
3547, Work Assignment No. 2.
The boiler tested was a 70 MW (236 x 106 Btu/hr) capacity coal-
fired spreader stoker with a traveling grate and an economizer.
It was equipped with a mechanical collector, a dual alkali venturi
scrubber, and a demister. Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the
installation showing the locations sampled.
The purpose of the sampling program was to provide background
information on well-controlled industrial boilers for the develop-
ment of new source performance standards. Within this framework
the objectives of sampling at Caterpillar Tractor Co. in
East Peoria, Illinois were to determine the effect of raising the
temperature of the filter and probe on an EPA Method 5 train from
120°C (248°F) to 160°C (320°F) and of baking the filter at 160°C
(320°F) on the amounts of particulate, sulfate, and sulfuric acid
emissions measured downstream of the scrubber and demister.
Method 5 testing with the filter and probe at 160°C ± 14°C
(320°F ± 25°F) and baked at a temperature of 160°C ± 11°C
(320°F ± 20°F) will be referred to as Method 5B testing.
-------
PEORIA
ILLINOIS
To Quincy
Figure 1. Location of East Peoria Caterpillar
Tractor Co. Plant.
-------
STACK SAMPLING
COAL
COAL
'SAMPLING
MECHANICAL
COLLECTOR
ADJUSTABLE
THROAT
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
\
ECONOMIZER
SPREADER
STOKER
BOILER
\
»/
SCRUBBER
LIQUOR
DEMISTER
CYCLONIC
SEPARATOR
DIRTY LIQUOR
DIRTY
SCRUBBER
LIQUOR
REGENERATION
SOLID WASTE
ASH
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of Boiler No. 19 and associated systems
at the Caterpillar Tractor Co. in East Peoria, Illinois.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
DESCRIPTION OF MONITORING
Table 1 summarizes the monitoring that was performed at this
plant. It consisted of three simultaneous runs of Methods 5 and
5B downstream of all pollution control equipment. A special
dual-probe stack test system was used for sampling with Methods 5
and 5B simultaneously through the same sample ports with the
nozzles spaced 4.4 cm (1.75 in.) apart. Sample volumes of at
least 1.06 dry standard m3 (37.4 dry standard ft3) were taken.
The boiler was running under steady state conditions (no soot
blowing, no ash unloading, etc.) at 70% to 75% of its full capac-
ity during the emission testing.
The coal burned was considered to be representative of normal
feed.
The filters and dried acetone washes of the Method 5 and 5B runs
were weighed, baked, and weighed again; this process was repeated
until the sample weight did not change more than 10 mg between
successive weighings. They were then analyzed for sulfuric acid
and sulfates.
Methods 1 through 4 were used during all Method 5 sampling runs,
as in typical compliance monitoring.
Grab samples of coal were taken during every run by sampling
before, during, and after the run. The grab samples were combined
to make one aggregate coal sample for a stack sampling run. The
sulfur, ash, moisture, and Btu content of each sample were deter-
mined by ASTM D 3176 and ASTM D 2015-66(72).
TEST RESULTS
The particulate, sulfuric acid, and sulfate emissions measured by
Methods 5 and 5B are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 (particulate
emissions represent all emissions measured by weighing the
Method 5 and 5B samples and include sulfuric acid and sulfates).
Table 2 shows the percent reduction in particulate mass that was
caused by baking the samples. In addition, Table 3 shows the
percents of the Method 5 concentrations represented by the
Method 5B concentrations measured simultaneously at the same
-------
TABLE 1. SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSES AT CATERPILLAR TRACTOR
CO. BOILER NO. 19 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
MRf Job No. 101.1221
Total
no. of
samples
3
3
4»
Sample
type
Particulate and
bag at exhaust
Farticulate and
bag at exhaust
Coal
Sampl Ing
method
1-4 & SB
special
dual probe
train
1-4 & 5
special
train
GRAB
Contract No. : 68-02-3547
Assignment
Company Name: caterpillar Tractor Co.
Industry:
Sample
collected
by
•
Industrial Boiler
Minimum
sampling
time
100 min.
100 min.
100 min.
Minimum
volume gas
sampled ft3
37
37
Number: ESED 76/i3 Technical Directive: 12 and 13
Company Location: East Peoria, Illinois
Process: c°al Fircd Control Equipment: "uitlclone
Spreader Stoker and Dual Alkali Scrubber
Initial Analysis
Type Method By
Velocity
Temp. HaO
Oj, CO, CO
Velocity
Temp . H20
Oat CO, CO
Inspection
1-4
1-4
Visual
Final Analysis
Type Method By
'articulate
SOj, HaSOo
'articulate
SO3, HaSOu
Sulfur
Ash
Btu
Prepared by
Date:
Approved by
Date:
Method 5B
(Bake sam
pie 160°C
3 hrs)
10/10/80
procedure
Method i
except
bake sam-
ple at
160'C
3 hrs
10/10/80
procedure
ASTM
D 3176
ASTM
D 2015-66
72)
Larry Cornett
i
8/5/81
aOne aggregate coal sample was taken for every stack sampling run by grab sampling before, during an^ after the .
run except for one stack sampling run for which two aggregate coal samples were taken.
-------
TABLE 2. EMISSION DATA FOR CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.
IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS (METRIC UNITS)
BOILER NO. 19
Average
Run Sampling
number Date method
1 8-3-81
5
5B
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
2 8-4-81
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
3 8-4-81 Particulate
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
Pollutant
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Actual
g/dscm
0.260
0.088
0.179
0.079
0.006
0.006
0.026
0.023
0.230
0.058
0.160
0.054
0.010
0.009
0.022
0.013
0.85
0.135
0.101
0.129
0.009
0.005
0.024
0.023
kq,
17
5
11
5
0
0
1
1
15
4
10
3
0
0
1
0
12
9
7
9
0
0
1
1
emi
/hr
.0
.8
.7
.2
.4
.4
.7
.5
.4
.1
.7
.8
.7
.6
.4
.9
.9
.5
.0
.1
.6
.4
.7
.6
ssions
ng/Ja
134
45
92
41
3
3
13
12
114
29
79
27
5
4
11
6
85
62
46
59
4
2
11
11
t
±
±
±
±
±
t
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
11
4
8
3
0
0
1
1
10
2
7
2
0
0
1
1
5
4
3
4
0
0
1
1
Correct
to 12% CO
g/dscm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.362
.122
.250
.Hi
.009
.008
.036
.032
.30
.075
.21
.069
.013
.011
.028
.017
.24
.17
.13
.16
.012
.007
.031
.029
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
t
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
edb
2 '
>
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.02
.005
.01
.004
.001
.001
.002
.001
.02
.01
.01
.02
.001
.001
.002
.002
Percent difference
in sample weight
Percent caused by baking
isokinetic sample
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
98
96
98
96
98
96
98
96
99
103
99
103
99
103
99
103
.6
.9
.6 31
.9 9
.6
.9
.6
.9
.7
.5
.7 30
.5 8
.7
.5
.7
.5
.0
.0
.0 46
.0 5
.0
.0
.0
.0
The "±" values reflect the effect on ng/Joule emissions from the variation in the % O2 between duplicate O2 samples
(one taken behind the Method 5 train and one behind the Method SB train). Uncertainties in the particulate, sulfuric
acid, and sulfate masses are not included.
This is the concentration normalized to 12% CO2. C =
and %CO2 is the percent CO2 measured in the stack.
C x
12
%C02
where C is the measured concentration in the stack.
Weight before baking - weight after baking
weight before baking
x 100
-------
TABLE 3. EMISSION DATA FOR CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. BOILER NO.
IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS (ENGLISH UNITS)
19
Average emissions
Run Sampling
number Date method Pollutant
1 8-3-81
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
SB
2 8-4-81
5
5B
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
3 8-4-81
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Actual
gi/dscf
0.113
0.038
0.078
0.035
0.003
0.002
0.011
0.010
0.100
0.025
0.070
0.023
0.004
0.004
0.009
0.006
0.081
0.059
0.044
O.OS6
0.004
0.002
0.011
0.010
Ib/hr
37.6
12.8
25.9
11.6
0.9
0.8
3.8
3.4
34.0
9.1
23.7
8.4
1.5
1.4
3.2
2.1
28.4
21.0
15.5
20.0
1.4
0.8
3.7
3.6
Ib/mm Btu3
0.31
0. 10
0.21
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.26
0.07
0.18
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.14
0.11
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
t
1
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.
o .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
03
01
02
01
00
00
00
00
03
01
02
01
00
00
00
00
01
01
01
01
00
00
00
00
Percent of Method 5
Corrected. gr/dscf represented
to 12% CO2 , Percent by Method SB gr/dscf
qr/dscf isokinetic at outlet
0.158 ±
0.053 ±
0.109 ±
0.048 ±
0.004 ±
0.003 ±
0.016 ±
0.014 ±
0.13 ±
0.033 ±
0.090 ±
0.030 ±
0.006 1
0.005 ±
0.012 ±
0.007 ±
0.103 ±
0.075 ±
0.056 ±
0.072 ±
0.005 ±
0.003 ±
0.014 ±
0.013 ±
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.002
.006
.002
.001
.000
.001
.001
.008
.006
.004
.005
.001
.000
.001
.001
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
98
96
98
96
98
96
98
96
99
103
99
103
99
103
99
103
.6
.9
.6
.9
.6
.9
.6
.9
.7
.5
.7
.5
.7
.5
.7
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
34
45
67
91
25
33
100
67
73
127
50
91
The "t" values reflect the effect on the calculated lb/106 Btu emissions of the variation in the % O? between duplicate
O2 samples (one taken berind the Method 5 train and one behind the Method SB train). Uncertainties in the particulate,
sulfuric acid, and sulfate masses are not included.
This is the concentraction normalized by 12% C02.
%CO2 is the percent C02 measured in the stack.
C = C x
12
where C is the measured concentration in the stack and
-------
location. Particulate concentrations measured by Method 5B were
32% to 127% of the Method 5 particulate concentrations after both
samples were baked. For the unbaked samples, Method 5B concentra-
tions were 25% to 73% of the Method 5 concentrations. Sulfuric
acid concentrations measured on the baked Method 5B samples were
50% to 100% of the baked Method 5 sample. Sulfate concentrations
measured on the Method 5B samples were 67% to 91% of the baked
Method 5 sample sulfate concentrations. The weight of the Method 5
samples after baking was 54% to 70% of the weight before baking.
The weight of the Method 5B samples after baking was 91% to 95%
of the weight before baking.
Computer printouts of the particulate, sulfuric acid, and sulfate
emission rates are provided in Appendix B.
The differences between Method 5 and 5B emissions are summarized
in Table 4 (using the baked methods and 5B filters). This table
also summarizes what percent of the differences between Method 5
and 5B particulate emissions (baked) can be accounted for by
differences in the amounts of sulfuric acid (and sulfuric acid
and sulfates combined) measured on the baked samples collected by
Method 5 versus 5B. One percent to 31% of the amount of difference
in particulate emissions measured by Method 5 versus 5B (with the
samples baked) are accounted for by differences in the amounts of
measured sulfuric acid emissions. Sulfuric acid and sulfates
combined account for 9% to 31% of the difference in particulate
emissions between measurements by Method 5 and Method 5B (with
the filters baked).
Table 5 summarizes the duration of the Method 5 and 5B sampling,
the sample volumes, the stack temperatures, the stack flow rates,
the water content, and the static pressure of the flue gas. Dif-
ferences in the stack temperature flow rate and water content
associated with the Method 5 and 5B samples are an indicator of
the precision of the results.
Table 6 summarizes the flue gas carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
oxygen, and nitrogen concentrations in integrated Method 3 samples
taken at the exhaust of the trains used to collect Method 5 and
5B samples. Differences between the Method 3 results downstream
of the Method 5 and 5B samples are indicative of the precision of
the sampling, sample handling, and analysis. The average values
are also reported for each run. These average values were used
to calculate the emissions in ng/joule and lb/106 Btu in Tables 2
and 3, along with the results at 12% C02.
Table 7 summarizes the coal analyses results. A duplicate sample
was taken during Run 1 for QA/QC purposes. Comparison of the two
samples indicates a low percent of relative difference.
8
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN METHOD 5 AND METHOD 5B RESULTS AT CATERPILLAR
TRACTOR CO. BOILER NO. 19 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
Method
rs
5a
minus
Run
number
1
2
3
Method
5B
emissions
Pollutant
Particulatea
Sulfuric acid
Sul fates
Sulfuric acid
and sul fates
Particulatea
Sulfuric acid
Sul fates
Sulfuric acid
and sul fates
Particulatea
Sulfuric acid
Sulfates
Sulfuric acid
and sul fates
kg/hr
6.5
0
0.2
0.2
6.9
0.1
0.5
0.6
-2.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
Ib/hr
14.3
0.1
0.4
0.5
15.3
0.1
1.1
1.2
-4.5
0.6
0.1
0.7
Percent of difference
in particulate emis-
sions kg/hr (Ib/hr)
represented by dif-
ference in sulfuric
acid emissions
1%
1%
10%
Percent of difference
in particulate emis-
sions kg/hr (Ib/hr)
represented by dif-
ference in sulfuric
acid and sulfates
combined
3.1%
9%
14%
Emissions measured using masses after baking samples.
-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF DURATION OF SAMPLING, STACK TEMPERATURE, STACK FLOW RATE,
SAMPLE VOLUME, SAMPLE WATER CONTENT, AND STATIC PRESSURE AT
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. BOILER NO. 19 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
Run
number
1
2
3
Sampling
method
5
5B
5
SB
5
5B
Duration
of
sampling.
mm
100
100
120
120
120
120
Measured
stack
temperature
°C
57
57
59
59
59
59
°F
135
135
137
137
138
138
Stack
flow rate
dscm/
mm
1100
1100
1120
1180
1160
1170
dscf/
mm
38,700
38,900
39,500
41,800
40,900
41,300
Sample
dscm
1.06
1.07
2.08
2.19
2.17
2.32
volume
dscf
37.42
37.79
73.58
77.42
76.56
81.76
Sample
water
content.
%
1.78
17.3
18.9
13.3
18.9
18.4
Stack
static
pressures
cm H2O
-0.56
-0.56
-0.56
-0.56
-0.56
-0.56
in. H2O
-0.22
-0.22
-0.22
-0.22
-0.22
-0.22
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF INTEGRATED GAS ANALYSIS RESULTS AT CATERPILLAR
TRACTOR CO. BOILER NO. 19 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
Run
number
1
2
Sampling
method
before
Method 3
bag
5
5B
Average
5
5B
Average
3
5
5B
Average
co2, %
8.6
8.6
8.6
9.9
8.7
9.3 ± 0.6
10.0
8.7
9.4 ± 0.7
CO, %
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.9
9.4
10.2
8.9
10.6
9.8
8.2
9.6
8.9
' /O
± 0.8
± 0.9
± 0.7
Dry
molecular
weight,
kg/kg mole
N2, % (Ib/lb mole)
80.5
82.0
81.2 ±
81.1
80.6
80.8 ±
81.7
81.6
81.6 ±
27
27
0.8 27
27
28
0.3 28
27
27
01 27
.7
.7
.7
.7
.2
.0 ± 0.
.7
.6
.7 ± 0.
3
1 ,
\
Run
number
la
(dif-
ference )
2
3
Total
TABLE 7.
SUMMARY OF
CO. BOILER
Heating
moisture. Joule/gram
percent
18
17
(1)
17
17
dry
29,400
28,700
(700)
28,000
29,100
as received
24,200
23,900
(300)
23,300
24,200
COAL ANALYSIS
NO. 19
value
IN
EAST
Btu/lb
dry
12,600
12,300
(300)
12,000
12,500
AT CATERPILLAR TRACTOR
PEORIA,
Ash,
as received dry
10
10
10
10
,400
,300
(100)
,000
,400
12.4
12.9
(0.5)
15.6
13.0
ILLINOIS
percent
as received
10.2
10.7
(0.5)
13.0
10.7
Sulfur,
percent
dry as received
3.1
3.3
(0.2)
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.7
(0.1)
2.6
2.6
aReplicate samples were taken during this run.
-------
Appendix E-5 contains a summary of available information on the
precision and accuracy of the particulate, sulfate, and sulfuric
acid analysis. Every sample was weighed several times. The
observed particulate masses were stable to within 2.2% of the
values used to calculate emission rates. Six quality control
samples of sulfuric acid were prepared from 0.02 N sulfuric acid
and analyzed along with the East Peoria stack samples. The
measured amounts of sulfuric acid were between 94% and 135% of
the reported "true" values. The results of the analysis of two
EPA sulfate quality control filter strip samples showed the
measured values to be between 99% and 117% of the "true" amounts
of sulfate. A "blank" filter was also analyzed as a quality
control sample; 0.6 mg of sulfate was measured on this filter.
This is much less than the lowest observed amount of sulfate on a
stack sample (24.9 mg). The possibility exists of differences in
the physical and chemical composition of the stack samples
(compared,to those of the quality control samples) changing the
accuracy of analysis of the stack samples from that reported for
the quality control samples.
12
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
BOILER SYSTEM
The boiler house at Caterpillar's East Peoria Plant contains four
traveling-grate, spreader-stoker boilers (Boilers No. 19, 20, 21,
and 22). , The boilers supply 150 psi steam (about 350°F) into a
common plant steam header for use in steam cleaning, space heating,
and other operations. In the summer months when space heating
requirements are minimal, only one boiler operating at 30 to 50
percent load is required. During the test period, Boilers 20,
21, and 22 were down for a summer maintenance outage and only
Boiler 19 was operating. The boilers burn high sulfur (about 3
percent) bituminous coal from several local sources. Untreated
flue gas contains about 2,000 ppm S02.
Boiler No. 19 was installed in 1957, with a maximum continuous
rating of 200,000 pounds per hour of steam. It is equipped with
an economizer and mechanical dust collector. The flue gas temper-
ature at the economizer discharge is about 400°F. Caterpillar
personnel in the boiler house indicated that the unit has been
modified several times since installation, but that most of these
modifications were to improve reliability and simplify maintenance
on the traveling grate mechanism. During the tests, the boiler
was operated at about 180,000 pounds per hour of steam.
SCRUBBER SYSTEM
Each boiler is equipped with a dual-throat venturi scrubber with
an adjustable insert for particulate and S02 control. The scrub-
bers are part of an FMC Dual Alkali regenerable liquor scrubbing
system. Gas flows through the throat of the venturi and is
thoroughly mixed with scrubbing liquor. Sulfur dioxide is absorbed
into the liquor while fly ash particles adhere to the liquor drop-
lets. The gas then passes into a cyclonic-flow separator where the
liquor droplets are disengaged and fall to the bottom of the
separator. The gas passes through a wire-mesh mist eliminator at
the top of the separator before entering the stack. Table 8 lists
design and operating features of the scrubber system. Figure 3
shows a flow diagram of the scrubbers and liquor regeneration
system. Sulfur dioxide is absorbed into a "concentrated" alkaline
liquor containing sodium ions from soda ash (about 1 molar),
13
-------
TABLE 8. DESIGN, OPERATING, AND PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE DOUBLE ALKALI SCRUBBING SYSTEM AT CATERPILLAR
TRACTOR CO. BOILER NO. 19 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
Fuel
Scrubber
Process mode
Scrubber pressure drop
Status
Inlet
Flow rate
S02
02
Particulate
S02 outlet
Scrubbing solution
PH
Total sodium
Active sodium
Soda ash makeup
Lime utilization
Filter cake solids
Filter cake disposal
Approximately 10,000 Btu/lb, 3% sulfur
coal
Single dual-throat venturi with an ad-
justable insert, followed by separator
and mist eliminator.
Concentrated liquor
Adjustable. Normally operated near 15 in.
H20. Designed for 17 in. H20.
Operational
Load-dependent. 54,000 to 58,000 acfm
(25.5 to 27.4 m3/s) during tests.
(Approximately 75% load)
Approximately 2,000 ppm
Varies. Higher at lower loads. 6.6 to
8.5% during tests.
Not available
150 ppm to 200 ppm (design)
5.8 to 7.5
Approximately 1 molar
Approximately 0.3 molar
Higha
1.3 to 2.0 mole/mole S in cake
60 to 70%
Offsite
Curing summer 1981 operations, water balance difficulties had
forced high soda ash makeup rates due to high blowdown. While
this problem was partially under control during the tests, a
reliable baseline makeup rate could not be established.
14
-------
FLUE GAS WITH FLYASH
AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
REMOVED
GAS IS CONTACTED
FLUE GAS CONTAINING W|TH SCRUBBING
FLYASH AND SULFUR DIOXIDE \ LIQUID IN VENTURI
(ONE PER BOILER)
•A
SLAKED
LIME
BOILER
J
ADJUSTABLE
INSERT
SCRUBBING
LIQUID
MIST
ELIMINATOR
-SEPARATOR
SCRUBBING LIQUID
CONTAINING SULFUR
DIOXIDE AND FLYASH
RECIRCULATION
TANK
(ONE FOR UNITS 19 &20,
ONE FOR UNITS 2t ft 22)
SCRUBBING LIQUID TO T
CHEMICAL TREATMENT 1
AND REGENERATION
PHECIPITATFS SULFUR
DIOXIDE AS INSOLUBLE
CALCIUM SULFITE
CONCENTRATES THE
FLYASH AND
PRECIPITATED
CA/CIUM SULFITE
EXHAUST
"TJ
CONCENTRATED
SLURRY
FILTERED REGENERATED
SCRUBBING LIQUID
i
DRY '
SOLIDS
CALCIUM SULFITE AND
FLYASH TO DISPOSAL
PUMP
CLEAR REGENERATED
SCRUBBING LIQUID
PUMP
Figure 3. Dual alkali sulfur dioxide removal process at
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 19 in
East Peoria, Illinois.
-------
sulfite and bisulfite ions from absorbed S02 (about 0.6 molar
total), and sulfate ions from oxidation of sulfite (about 0.4
molar). S02 is absorbed and forms sulfite and bisulfite ions by
several reactions:
H20 + S02 (gas) + SOs (sulfite ion) - >-2HS07 (bisulfite ions)
S02 (g) + H2O - ^H2SO3 (sulfurous acid)
H2S03 + OH~ - >-HS07 + H20
Sodium serves to balance the acidity of the sulfite ions, provid-
ing alkalinity and thus improving the solubility of S02 . Sulfite
and bisulfite ions maintain an equilibrium via the following
reaction:
SOs + H20 - >-HS0 + OH
Temperature, pH, and total concentration affect this equilibrium.
At typical operating conditions, about half of the dissolved S02
will be in each form. This reaction provides a pH "buffering"
effect which allows the liquor to absorb S02 in the scrubber
loop without a severe drop in pH (loss of alkalinity). When
oxygen in the flue gas dissolves in the liquor, a small portion
of the bisulfite is oxidized to form nonregenerable sulfate
ions:
1/2 02
Sulfite-rich solution is bled continuously from the scrubbing
loop to the regeneration system. The solution is reacted with
slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) to precipitate calcium sulfite:
+ 1/2 H20 - ^CaS03-l/2 H20
The solution is then sent to a thickener where fly ash and calcium
sulfite solids settle out. A rotary drum vacuum filter dries the
thickener underflow slurry to a cake containing 60 to 70 weight
percent solids. The cake is disposed of off-site by an independent
contractor and the filtrate is combined with thickener overflow
in the surge tanks. Clear, regenerated liquor from the surge
tanks is returned to the scrubbers.
16
-------
MONITORING DATA
The boiler and scrubber processes were monitored during testing
for the following reasons:
• To insure that the boiler was operating at a relatively
steady state;
• To insure that the boiler was operating within normal
tolerances;
• To insure that the scrubber was operating normally at or
near the desired pressure drop (20 inches H20) and that
no liquor feed abnormalities occurred;
• To record process data used in determining emission rates
(pounds emitted/MM Btu);
• To record process data used as a qualitative guideline to
document normal boiler operation.
Several process parameters were monitored during emissions test-
ing. Table 9 through 11 are a compilation of these data. The pro-
cess parameters recorded are described in the following list.
(1) Steam Production Rates - The steam production rate was
recorded by a continuous monitor. Normal fluctuations
in steam demand at the East Peoria plant caused changes
in the steam production rate which were compensated for by
adjusting steam blowoff. Approximately 50 to 60 percent
of the total steam production was used in the plant, the
remainder was vented. Fluctuating steam demand causes
pressure variations in the steam lines that affect the accuracy
of the steam production monitoring equipment slightly. The
degree to which these fluctuations can affect the accuracy
is unknown. The pressure in the steam supply header was
between 144 and 152 psig during all tests.
(2) Flue Gas Oxygen - The oxygen content in the flue gas
was sampled on a continuous basis at the outlet of the
mechanical dust collector. The instrument is calibrated
regularly by plant personnel.
(3) Scrubber Pressure Drop - The scrubber pressure drop was
measured across the inlet and outlet on a continuous
basis. Before the tests, the venturi insert position
was adjusted to allow the desired pressure drop to be
achieved at normal flue gas flows and liquor-to-gas ratios.
The pressure drop will vary with gas flow, liquor flow,
and insert position.
17
-------
TABLE 9. BOILER AND SCRUBBER OPERATING PARAMETERS (8/3/81 Run 1)
oo
Time
13:30
13:30
13:40
13:50
14:00
14:10
14:20
14:30
14:40
14:50
15:00
15:10
15.20
15:30
15:40
15:50
16:00
16:10
16:10
Mean
Steam
production
(kpph)
(Start)
141.4
146.5
137.8
138.7
138.6
138.6
134.8
135.3
136.1
138.2
137.3
149.2
145.6
144.5
134.9
146/5
148.7
(Finish)
141
Average coal feed:
Inlet air Flue gas
flow oxygen
(kpph) (%)
179.7
179.3
178.5
178.5
178.9
178.9
177.8
175.0
175.0
173.5
172.2
174.5
177.8
179.3
177.8
177.8
179.7
177
14,025
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.7
8.4
8.5
8.3
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.0
7.8
7.9
8.2
8.0
8.2
Ib/hr
Flue gas
temperature
(°F)
401.0
400.5
399.4
400.0
399.1
398.4
398.2
398.4
396.1
395.0
395.2
395.2
399.1
399.4
400.0
399.4
399.8
398
Scrubber
Pressure
drop
(in. H2O)
19.0
18.9
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.7
18.2
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.4
18.5
Scrubber
pH
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7^
6.5a
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5a
Scrubber
liquor flow
(gpm)
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
The pH meter was calibrated between 14:10 and 14:20.
-------
TABLE 10. BOILER AND SCRUBBER OPERATING PARAMETERS (8/4/81 Run 2)
Time
09:30
09:35
09:40
09:50
10:00
10:10
10:20
10:30
10:32
10:40
10:50
11:00
11:10
11.20
11:30
11:40
11:40
11:50
12:00
12:10
12:20
12:30
12:40
12:50
13:00
13:10
13:20
13:20
Mean
i
Steam Inlet air Flue gas Flue gas
production flow oxygen temperature
(kpph) (kpph) (%) <«F)
146.7
(Start)
140.7
148.7
149.6
155.8
152.8
151.0
174.7
172.8
172.5
174.1
176.9
177.1
178.2
Interrupt test - change
149.6
148.6
152.8
149.8
151.4
150.5
149.9
Resume test
152.5
149.5
149.4
152.0
150.3
148.0
148.3
153.5
150.4
150.6
(Finish)
150
178.0
179.0
178.4
175.6
176.6
178.5
179.8
177.1
180.3
180.5
180.9
178.7
182.0
180.8
178.6
111 .2
177.4
180
7.2
7.2
7.0
6.6
6.8
6.9
7.0
filters
7.0
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.3
396.4
395.0
393.9
395.2
398.4
399.4
399.1
in probe
401.2
402.6
402.3
401.0
400.3
401.6
402.3
401.2
402.6
402.8
403.2
403.2
403.2
402.8
401.9
401.2
400.5
400
Scrubber
Pressure
drop
(in. H20)
19.5
19.0
19.2
19.5
19.6
19.7
19.8
19.8
19.8
19.5
19.4
19.7
19.8
19.9
20.0
19.9
19.9
19.9
19.9
19.7
19.6
19.5
19.3
19.6
Scrubber
PH
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
Scrubber
liquor flow
(gpm)
600
580
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Average coal feed: 15,870 Ib/hr
-------
TABLE 11. BOILER AND SCRUBBER OPERATING PARAMETERS (8/4/81 Run 3)
Time
15:00
15:07
15:10
15:17
15:20
15:30
15:40
15:50
16:00
16:10
16:10
16:20
16:30
16:40
16:50
17:00
17:10
17:20
17:29
Steam
production
(kpph)
148.2
(Start)
150.8
Interrupt
145.5
149.1
157.5
149.6
153.3
Resume
146.9
144.8
147.1
150.1
148.8
149.1
154.6
Interrupt
Inlet air Flue gas Flue gas
flow oxygen temperature
(kpph) (%) (°F)
179.0
177.9
test - change
179.2
175.9
179.6
180.7
181.0
182.0
180.6
179.9
181.0
181.4
180.5
182.1
test - replace
7.7
7.5
filters
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.6
* vacuum
401.0
401.0
in probe
401.9
401.4
402.6
402.1
402.3
402.6
401.9
401.0
400.5
403.2
403.7
404.2
pump
Scrubber
Pressure
drop
(in. H7O)
19.6
19.8
19.7
19.7
19.7
19.8
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.3
20.3
20.0
Scrubber
PH
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
Scrubber
liquor flow
(gpm)
620
610
620
620
620
610
620
630
1
.630 ,
620
630
620
630
630
600
(continued)
-------
TABLE 11 (continued)
Time
17:30
17:40
17:50
17:55
18:00
18:10
18:20
18:30
18:40
18:40
18:50
19:00
19:00
19:10
19:20
19:21
Steam
production
(kpph)
153.4
151.1
149.8
Resume
149.9
150.6
151.5
149.8
151.7
Interrupt
152.5
Resume
157.5
152.9
151.0
(Finish)
Inlet air Flue gas Flue gas
flow oxygen temperature
(kpph) (%) (°F)
182.8
182.7
182.7
183.1
181.5
181.1
180.4
181.0
test - change
180.5
182.3
178.8
180.4
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.2
7.6
7.4
7.6
filters
7.5
7.5
7.6
8.0
403.7
403.2
403.5
403.7
402.3
401.9
402.8
403.0
in probe
402.3
402.6
402.3
402.1
Scrubber
Pressure
drop
(in. H9O)
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.9
20.0
19.8
19.9
19.9
19.9
19.9
19.8
Scrubber
PH
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
Scrubber
liquor flow
(gpm)
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
,
600
610
600
Mean
150
181
7.6
402
20.0
6.6
610
Average coal feed: 16,030 Ib/hr
-------
(4) Scrubber pH - The pH in the liquor recirculation tank
was monitored continuously.
(5) Flue Gas Temperature - The flue gas temperature was
monitored at the economizer outlet (mechanical
collector inlet). This temperature typically varies
with boiler load and serves as a measure of steady
operation. Since temperature drop in the mechanical
collector is insignificant, this temperature is close
to that at the venturi inlet, and will determine the
temperature of the quenched gas in the scrubber.
(6) Average Coal Feed Rate - The average coal feed rate
reported at the bottom of the table is measured by
coal feed integrators. The integrators totaled the
number of 0.1-ton buckets of coal fed to the stokers
during the tests.
(7) Inlet Air Flow - The total inlet air (underfire and
overfire) was monitored continuously during the tests.
As coal feed rates were controlled by the air-to-coal
ratio, a relatively constant inlet air flow was a
reliable measure of steady boiler load and steady flue
gas flowrate.
(8) Scrubber Liquor Flow - The flowrate of liquor to the
venturi was monitored continuously during the tests.
A relatively constant flow is essential to maintaining
steady scrubber operation.
COMMENTS ON TESTS
Scrubber Pressure Drop - The venturi was designed for a nominal
17 in H20 pressure drop. Caterpillar had determined in earlier
tests that high pressure drops had negligible effect on removal,
and they normally operated the scrubbers with the inserts backed
down as far as they would go. This would result in about a
15 in. pressure drop at 75 percent load. The hydraulic units
which adjust the inserts were normally shut down, and two of the
four units have had the insert removed and replaced with a smaller
fixed baffle. Caterpillar plans to do this to all four units
eventually.
Also, because the inserts were normally not operated, the instru-
ment which measures insert position on Boiler 19 was put of service,
There was no way to physically measure the insert position, and
it could not be determined if the insert was at the same position
during the tests on 8/4/81 as it was during the test on 8/3/81.
Accuracy of the Data - The control room data logger records data
to one decimal place, and this format was repeated in Tables 9
through 11.
22
-------
SECTION 4
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Emissions to the atmosphere from Boiler No. 19 were measured in
the smokestack. The coal fed into the boiler was sampled at the
end of the two coal feed belts from the coal weighing devices
that dump coal into the trip buckets that feed the spreaders.
STACK
Five 10-cm (4-in.) I.D. sampling ports were located on a 32-meter
high (106-ft), 2.3-meter (90-in.) I.D. round smokestack, divided
in half, with one half for the boiler being tested and the other
half for Boiler No. 20 (see Figure 4). The sampling ports are
24 meters (79 ft) above the base of the stack (more than 10
diameters) and 8 meters (27 ft) below the mouth of the stack
(more than 3 diameters). The site meets all criteria for an
acceptable measurement site for particulate traverses under EPA
Method 1 and Method 5 procedures, except for the unusual shape of
the inside of the stack.
A 20-point traverse was done at this location, with four points
being sampled along each radius of the stack leading to each of
the five sample ports (see Figure 5).
COAL FEED SYSTEM
Coal was sampled through the access doors for the two coal feed
belts leading to the boiler. Figure 6 shows a schematic diagram
and a photograph of the coal sampling site.
23
-------
1. PORT TO TOP OF STACK 27'
2. MONORAIL FITTING 71" FROM CENTER OF PORT
TO TOP OF FITTING
3. CENTER OF PORT TO GRATING OF FLOOR 61"
4. RAIL! NO TO OUTS IDE OF PORT 80"
5. NIPPLE ON PORTS 6-1/4" OUTSIDE, 4" INSIDE
SCAFFOLDING
61"
106'
79'
TOP STACK
MONORAIL
SETTING
-ROOFOFBLDG.
Figure 4. Stack sampling site at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria, Illinois,
24
-------
TRAVERSE
POINT No.
1
2
3
4
DISTANCE FROM
INS IDE WALL
2.9"
9.5"
17.5"
29.1"
Figure 5. Traverse point locations at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 19 stack in East Peoria, Illinois
25
-------
» 2 SCALES TO BOILER* 19
COAL FEED FROM
OUTSIDE OF BLDG.
WITH TRACTOR TO CON-
VEYOR SYSTEM
f
•
»
7~
•-BELT
r~ r
\ \
•
FEED-H
\
\
BELT 17" FROM WALL
COAL DROPS DOWN
TO HOPPER
10" x 10-1/2" DOOR
BOILER 119 BOILER* 19
Figure 6. Coal sampling site at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 19 in East Peoria, Illinois
26
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
SUMMARY
The sampling and analysis methods used at each site are shown in
Table 1. Three simultaneous runs of Methods 5 and 5B sampling were
made at the stack downstream of all air pollution control equip-
ment. A special dual-probe stack test system with the nozzle
centers 4.4 cm (1.75 in.) from each other was used for sampling by
Methods 5 and 5B through the same ports. The flue gas velocity,
temperature, flow rate, oxygen content, and carbon dioxide content
were measured by EPA Methods 1-4 during all Method 5 and 5B stack
sampling runs. Integrated Method 3 samples were taken from the
exhaust of the Method 5 and the Method 5B trains.
The Method 5 and 5B filters and dried probe washes were dessicated,
weighed, baked at 160°C (320°F) for 3 hours, and then weighed
again prior to sulfuric acid and sulfate analysis using procedures
supplied to MRC by EPA on 10 October 1980.
Grab samples of coal were taken for each stack test by sampling
before, during, and after each emission test. The sulfur, ash,
moisture, and heat content of the samples were analyzed by
ASTM D 3176 and ASTM D 2015-66(72).
STACK SAMPLING
Heated glass-lined probes and Reeve Angel Type 934 AH filters were
used for the Method 5 and 5B testing. The filter temperatures
were monitored using thermocouples installed on the back half of
the filter holders. A special dual-probe stack test system was
used for stack testing by Methods 5 and 5B simultaneously through
the sare individual stack ports. Figure 7 is a schematic diagram
of the dual-probe system. The nozzle centers of the Method 5 and
5B trains were 4.4 cm (1.75 in.) apart in this system. A single
pitot tube between the Method 5 and 5B sampling probes was used
to measure the flue velocity for both trains. Method 3 integrated
bag samples were taken from the exhaust of the Method 5 and the
Method 5B trains.
27
-------
aEX LINE
ICE/ATH .MP.NGERS
FILTER
THERMOCOUPLE
THERMOCOUPLE
S-TYPE
PITOT TUBE HEATED PROBE
VACUUM LINE
ICE BATH IMPINGERS
1 THERMOCOUPLE
DRY GAS AIR-TIGHT
METER PUMP
AIR-TIGHT
PUMP
Figure 7. Dual-probe sampling train,
28
-------
Method 5 and 5B sample volumes of at least 1.06 dry m3 (37 ft3)
were taken. When Methods 5 and/or 5B were used, Methods 1-4 were
also used, as in compliance monitoring.
STACK SAMPLE ANALYSIS
EPA provided the general methods to be used for sulfuric acid and
sulfate analysis on the Method 5 and 5B samples at a meeting on
10 October 1980. Gary McAlister clarified these procedures on
24 October 1980, and further refinement of the procedures occurred
during the analysis of samples collected during previous emission
testing under this work assignment. The procedures used are
summarized in Appendix C.
After the probe washes and filters were dried and weighed (using
standard Method 5 procedures), the Method 5 and 5B samples were
baked at an average temperature of 160°C ± 11°C (320°F ± 20°F)
for 3 hours, and then weighed again. This procedure was repeated
until the weight of the particulates was within 10 mg of the
weight on the previous baking. Samples were baked two to three
times before this occurred. Room temperature isopropanol was
then added to each sample. The samples were soaked for at least
12 hours. Then the filter in isopropanol was ultrasonically
extracted for 30 minutes. The extracts were filtered and analyzed
for sulfuric acid using barium-thorin titration. This isopropanol
extraction and analysis procedure was performed three times on
every sample. Those portions of the extracts that were not
titrated were bottled and retained.
After the sulfuric acid extraction with isopropanol, water was
added to the filters and solid residues. After they soaked for
at least 12 hours, they were ultrasonically extracted for 30 min-
utes. The extracts were filtered, passed through a Rexyn-101 ion
exchange column, and analyzed for sulfates (using barium-thorin
titration). The water extraction and sulfate analysis procedure
was performed three times on every sample, and the untitrated
water extracts were bottled and retained.
After all extractions, the filters and solid residues were dried
and saved under nitrogen in a refrigerator, along with the
untitrated extracts. These samples will be saved for no more than
6 months.
Blank filters and residue from the evaporation of clean acetone
were analyzed when the stack samples were analyzed, along with
standards and quality assurance audit samples of sulfate and
sulfuric acid.
29
-------
COAL SAMPLING
Aggregate coal samples, corresponding to the coal burned during
each stack sampling run, were taken by grab sampling the coal
falling off both coal feed belts before, during, and after every
stack sampling run. Figure 8 shows the device used for coal
sampling. The individual grab samples were taken by traversing
a coal sample container along the entire width of the coal feed
belt. The samples weighed about 3 pounds each. The exact
timing of the samples corresponded to the timing of the stack
sampling adjusted for the delay time between coal falling off
the feed belt and coal entering the boiler. The six grab samples
per stack sampling run were combined to make one aggregate
sample per stack sample run (weighing about 18 pounds). The
samples were stored in labeled bottles.
"D" Type Stainless
Handle !~ • --w-- - — |- — g ---- -j Steel Open
'
Horizontal
When Open Top
-— __
of Box Up < // Sealed and
Rounded
Inside and
T°P Box with
Corners
Outside
Figure 8. Coal sampling device.
During one coal sampling run, two separate aggregate coal samples
were taken. The second sample was labeled as if it had come from
a different run, but separate records were kept to identify which
stack sample run it actually was associated with.
COAL ANALYSIS
When the samples were returned for analysis, they were split in
half using ASTM D 2013 riffle sampler protocol. Half of each
sample was saved and the rest was analyzed. The halves analyzed
were homogenized, split, and analyzed for sulfur, moisture, and
ash using ASTM D 3176 ultimate analysis protocol. The heating
value was determined using ASTM D 2015-66(72) bomb calorimetry.
SAMPLE HANDLING
Filters and impinger contents were transferred into clean, closed
containers. Deposits on the inside of the sampling equipment were
removed with acetone and distilled water. The acetone rinse was
bottled. This occurred at the scaffolding at the stack or in the
Company laboratory (inside the boiler house). The coal samples
were stored in bottles until ready for analysis. Access to the
samples was limited by storing them in a locked truck, except
30
-------
when being handled by authorized individuals. The samples were
shipped in the truck to the MRC Dayton Laboratory for analysis.
Records of the chain of custody of the samples were maintained.
DATA REDUCTION
MRC's computer and programmable calculators were used to reduce
the analytical and field data to determine results. The "F" val-
ues used to determine ng/joule (lb/106 Btu) emissions were taken
from the boiler emission regulations in 40 CFR 60.45(f)(4)(ii).
Appendix A contains copies of all raw field data sheets and coding
sheets for data processing.
Appendix B contains complete computer printouts of the results
of the sampling.
Appendix C contains the detailed analytical methods used.
Appendix D contains sample analysis data and a summary of the
results of the quality control and assurance procedures.
Appendix E identifies the people performing the sampling, analysis,
and data reduction.'
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The quality assurance and control program included all applicable
procedures specified in the Federal Register for EPA Methods 1
through 5 and the procedures specified in the EPA Guidelines for
the Development of Quality Assurance Programs for these methods.
In addition, simultaneous Method 3 samples were taken from the
exhaust of both the Method 5 train and the Method 5B train, and
the results were used as an indicator of the precision of the
Method 3 sampling and analysis.
Standard ASTM procedures were used for the coal analysis. To
obtain an indication of the precision of the coal analysis data,
two coal samples were taken during the first stack sampling
run. The second sample was labeled as if it came from a fourth
stack sampling run (with separate records kept showing that
it actually was a duplicate of the sample for Run 1). This
sample was analyzed along with the other samples, and the results
were compared to the results from the run it duplicated as an in-
dicator of the precision of the sampling and analysis. In addi-
tion, Bowser-Morner Testing Laboratories, Inc., the coal analysis
31
-------
subcontractor, participates in EPA's new quality assurance pro-
gram for coal sulfur, ash, and moisture content. This program
involves the analysis of samples provided by EPA.
The accuracy of the data used in computerized data processing
was checked by comparing the printout of the data used to cal-
culate results with the raw field data used to code the computer
input.
32
-------
INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
Emission Test Report
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.
BOILER NO. 20
East Peoria, Illinois
December 1-4, 1981
Technical Directives 17 and 18
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
by
Duane R. Day and Windle H. McDonald
Contract No. 68-02-3547, Work Assignment No. 2
(ESED 76/13)
(EMB-81-IBR-14)
July 1982
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION
DAYTON LABORATORY
Dayton, Ohio 45407
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables v
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 4
Description of Monitoring 4
Test Results 4
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND MONITORING 13
Process Description 13
Monitoring 17
Comments on Tests 19
4. LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS 21
Stack 21
Coal Feed System 21
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 25
Summary 25
Stack Sampling 25
Stack Sample Analyses 27
Coal Sampling 27
Coal Analysis 28
Sample Handling 28
Data Reduction 28
Quality Assurance 29
Appendices
A. Field Sampling Data Sheets and Computer
Coding Forms A-l
B. Printouts of Sampling Results B-l
C. Boiler Monitoring Data C-l
D. Analytical Methods for Sulfuric Acid and
Sulfate Determinations D-l
E. Analytical Data E-l
F. Project Participants F-l
0172/CDE iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Location of East Peoria Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Plant 2
2 Schematic diagram of Boiler No. 20 and
associated systems at the Caterpillar
Tractor Co. in East Peoria, Illinois 3
3 Dual alkali sulfur dioxide removal process
at Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 20
in East Peoria, Illinois 16
4 Stack sampling site at Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria, Illinois. ... 22
5 Traverse point locations at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 20 stack in East Peoria,
Illinois 23
6 Coal sampling site at Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria, Illinois. ... 24
7 Dual-probe sampling train 26
IV
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Source Sampling and Analyses at Caterpillar
Tractor Co. Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria,
Illinois 5
2 Emission Data for Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria, Illinois
(Metric Units) (December 1-4, 1981) 6
3 Emission Data for Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria, Illinois
(English Units) (December 1-4, 1981) 7
4 Summary of Differences Between Method 5 and
Method 5B Results at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria, Illinois
(December 1-4, 1981) 9
5 Summary of Duration of Sampling, Stack
Temperature, Stack Flow Rate, Sample Volume,
Sample Water Content, and Static Pressure at
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 20 in
East Peoria, Illinois 10
6 Summary of Integrated Gas Analysis Results at
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 20 in
East Peoria, Illinois (December 1-4, 1981). . 11
7 Summary of Coal Analysis at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria, Illinois
(December 1-4, 1981) 12
8 Design, Operating, and Performance Characteristics
of the Double Alkali Scrubbing System at
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 20 in
East Peoria, Illinois 15
9 Summary Data and Process Information for
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Boiler No. 20
in East Peoria, Illinois 18
v
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Emissions from Boiler No. 20 at the Caterpillar Tractor Co. plant
at 600 West Washington, East Peoria, Illinois, were tested
December 1-4, 1981, by Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC).
Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the plant. This work
was performed for the Emission Measurement Branch of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-02-
3547, Work Assignment No. 2.
The boiler tested was a 70 MW (236 x 106 Btu/hr) capacity coal-
fired spreader stoker with a traveling grate and an economizer.
It was equipped with a mechanical collector, a dual alkali venturi
scrubber, and a demister. Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the
installation showing the locations sampled. Previous sampling
was performed on Boiler No. 19 at Caterpillar Tractor by MRC in
August 1981 under this EPA contract. Boilers 19 and 20 have
similar capacities and schematic air flow diagrams. The two
boilers share one stack which is divided in half to handle air
emissions from each boiler separately. Sampling during
December 1-4 was originally scheduled for Boiler No. 19 and later
changed to Boiler No. 20 due to a Boiler No. 19 shutdown.
The purpose of the sampling program was to provide background
information on well-controlled industrial boilers for the
development of new source performance standards. Within this
framework the objectives of sampling at Caterpillar Tractor Co.
in East Peoria, Illinois were to determine the effect of raising
the temperature of the filter and probe on an EPA Method 5 train
from 120°C (248°F) to 160°C (320°F) on the amounts of particulate,
sulfate, and sulfuric acid emissions measured downstream of the
scrubber and demister. Method 5 testing with the filter and probe
at 160°C ± 14°C (320°F ± 25°F) will be referred to as Method 5B
testing.
-------
PEORIA
ILLINOIS
PEORIA
WILLOW KNOLLS DR
To Quincy
Figure 1. Location of East Peoria Caterpillar
Tractor Co. Plant.
-------
COAL
u>
COAL
SAMPLING
ADJUSTABLE
THROAT
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
STACK SAMPLING
DEMISTER
DIRTY
SCRUBBER
LIQUOR
MECHANICAL
COLLECTOR
ECONOMIZER
SPREADER
STOKER
BOILER
SOLID WASTE
ASH
Figure 2.
Schematic diagram of Boiler No. 20 and associated systems
at the Caterpillar Tractor Co. in East Peoria, Illinois.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
DESCRIPTION OF MONITORING
Table 1 summarizes the monitoring that was performed at this
plant. It consisted of nine simultaneous runs of Methods 5 and
5B downstream of all pollution control equipment. A special
dual-probe stack test system was used for sampling with Methods 5
and 5B simultaneously through the same sample ports with the
nozzles spaced 4.4 cm (1.75 in.) apart. Sample volumes of at
least 2.1 dry standard m3 (73 dry standard ft3) were taken. The
boiler was running under steady state conditions (no soot blow-
ing, no ash unloading, etc.) at 60% to 70% of its full capacity
during the emission testing.
The coal burned was considered to be representative of normal
feed.
The filters and dried acetone washes of the Method 5 and 5B runs
were weighed to a constant weight (until the sample weight did
not change more than 5 mg between successive weighings) prior to
sulfuric acid and sulfates analyses.
Methods 1 through 4 were used during all Method 5 sampling runs,
as in typical compliance monitoring.
Grab samples of coal were taken during every run by sampling
before, during, and after the run. The grab samples were combined
to make one aggregate coal sample for a stack sampling run. The
sulfur, ash, moisture, and Btu content of each sample were deter-
mined by ASTM D 3176 and ASTM D 2015-66(72).
TEST RESULTS
The particulate, sulfuric acid, and sulfate emissions measured by
Methods 5 and 5B are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 (particulate
emissions represent all emissions measured by weighing the Method 5
and 5B samples and include sulfuric acid and sulfates). Table 2
also shows the percent isokinetics for each run, which ranged
between 96.7% and 103.6%. Table 3 shows the percent of the
Method 5 concentrations represented by the Method 5B concentra-
tions measured simultaneously at the same location. Particulate
-------
TABLE 1. SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSES AT CATERPILLAR TRACTOR
CO. BOILER NO. 20 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
MRC Job No. 101.1221
Total
no. of
samples
9
9
ioa
Sampl e
type
Particulate and
bag at exhaust
Particulate and
bag at exhaust
Coal
Sampling
method
1-4 s SB
special
dual probe
train
1-4 S 5
special
dual probe
train
Grab
Contract No. : 6R-02-3'i47
Assignment
Company Name: Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Industry: Industrial Boiler
Sample
collected
by
Minimum
sampl ing
time
100 min.
100 min.
100 min.
Minimum
volume gas
sampled ft3
73
73
Number: j-;KI,,, 7ri/) ,
Technical Directive: 17 and i-'i
Company Location: r.ast P, or
Process: coai-rir-ri
Spreader Stoker
Initial Analysis
Type Method By
Veloci ty
Temp. HzO,
02, CO,
COa
Velocity
Temp. HzO,
02, CO,
COa
Inspection
1-4
1-4
Visual
ia , 1 1 1 i noi s
Control Equipment: Muiticion"
anri Dual Alk.ili Scrub1 ur
Final Analysis
Type Method
Porticu-
late
SCb
, HzSOu
Particu-
late
503, HaSOu
Sulfur
Ash
Btu
Pref
Date
Appi
Date
>ared by
> .
•oved by
& *
10/10/80
nrocedure
Method 5
10/10/80
procedure
ASTM
D 3176
ASTM
D 2015-
66(72)
By
; Duane R. Day
12/18/81
'one aggregate coal sample was taken tor overy stack sampling run by grab sampling before, during and aftrr the run except fo
stack sampling run for which two aggregate coal samples were taken.
>r one
-------
TABLE 2. EMISSION DATA FOR CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.
BOILER NO. 20 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
(METRIC UNITS) (DECEMBER 1-4, 1981)
Average
K'jr. Sampling
r.uTr.ber Date method
•I 12-1-81 5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
3 12-2-81 5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
f. 12-2-81 5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
- 12-3-81 5
5B
5
SB
5
5B
6 12-3-81 5
5B
5
5B
5
SB
9 12-3-81 5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
10 12-4-81 5
5B
5
SB
5
SB
11 12-4-81 5
5B
5
5B
5
SB
12 12-4-81 5
5B
5
SB
5
SB
Pollutant
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Actual
g/dscm
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
096
108
Oil
010
022
023
099
092
009
013
088
025
064
078
Oil
022
021
024
075
070
010
009
020
019
072
066
Oil
Oil
023
022
062
060
007
007
015
016
069
069
017
009
021
018
081
057
012
009
024
020
096
067
027
016
024
021
emissions
kq/hr
7.
8.
0.
0.
1.
1.
8.
7.
0.
1.
2.
2.
4.
6.
0.
1.
1.
1.
6.
5.
0.
0.
1.
1.
5.
5.
0.
0.
1.
1.
4.
4.
0.
0.
1.
1.
5.
5.
1.
0.
1.
1.
6.
4.
0.
0.
2.
1.
8.
5.
2.
1.
2.
1.
4
4
82
78
7
8
1
5
74
03
2
0
9
0
86
73
6
9
0
6
83
72
6
5
7
3
91
86
8
8
8
5
51
52
2
2
6
6
3
73
7
5
6
7
9
73
0
7
0
6
2
3
0
7
ng/J
41.
46.
4.
4.
10.
9.
42.
39.
3.
5.
11.
10.
27.
33.
4.
9.
8.
10.
32.
29.
4.
3.
8.
7.
31.
28.
4.
4.
10.
9.
26.
25.
2.
3.
6.
6.
29.
29.
7.
3.
9.
7.
35.
25.
5.
3.
10.
8.
41.
28.
11.
6.
10.
9.
3
6
5
3
0
9
4
8
8
5
5
6
0
2
7
4
9
3
3
9
4
8
6
9
0
3
9
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
6
7
8
7
3
8
0
7
7
1
1
8
6
8
4
9
4
9
3
0
Corrected
to 121 C02,
g/dscm
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
106
119
012
Oil
024
025
109
101
010
014
097
028
069
084
012
024
023
026
080
075
Oil
010
021
020
077
071
012
012
025
024
066
064
008
008
016
017
074
074
018
010
023
019
089
063
013
010
026
020
104
072
029
017
026
023
Percent
isol-.ineti c
98
102
98
102
98
102
96
101
96
101
96
101
103
100
103
100
103
100
102
100
102
100
102
100
100
99
100
99
100
99
100
102
100
102
100
102
100
96
100
96
100
96
97
99
97
99
97
99
99
101
99
101
99
101
.9
.0
.9
.0
. 'j
.0
.9
.0
.9
.0
.9
.0
.6
.4
.6
.4
.6
.4
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.4
.2
.4
.2
.4
.2
.0
.9
.0
.9
.0
.9
.9
.7
.9
.7
.9
.7
. 3
.1
.3
.1
.3
.1
-7
.0
.7
.0
.7
.0
"This is the concentration normalized to 12% C02. C = C x ; where C is the measured concentration
in the stack, and %C02 is the percent C02 measured in the 2
stack.
-------
TABLE 3. EMISSION DATA FOR CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.
BOILER NO. 20 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
(ENGLISH UNITS) (DECEMBER 1-4, 1981)
Average emissions
Kv.r. Sampl ing
number Date method
4 12-1-B1
5 12-2-81
6 12—2-81
7 12-3-81
8 12-3-81
9 12-3-81
10 12-4-81
11 12-4-81
12 12-4-81
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
5B
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
S
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
5B
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
5B
5
5B
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
Pollutant
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Actual
gr/dscf
0.042
0.047
0.005
0.004
0.010
0.010
0.043
0.040
0.004
0.006
0.038
0.011
Oft ")R
, \J 4o
0.034
0.005
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.033
0.030
O.OOS
0.004
0.009
0.008<
0.031
0.029
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.027
0.026
0.003
0.003
0.007
0.007
0.030
0.030
0.007
0.004
0.009
0.008
0.036
0.025
0.005
0.004
0.011
0.009
0.042
0.029
0.011
0.007
0.010
0.009
Ib/hr
16.4
18.5
1.80
1.71
3.82
3.94
17.8
16.4
1.63
2.27
4.86
4.39
in B
AU . D
13.4
1.89
3.80
3.55
4.11
13.2
12.3
1.83
1.59
3.55
3.29
12.7
11.6
2.01
1.89
4.07
3.90
10.7
10.0
1.12
1.15
2.63
2.60
12.3
12.5
3.00
1.60
3.73
3.21
14.6
10.3
2.08
1.61
4.33
3.65
17.6
12.3
4.87
2.93
4.35
3.83
Ib/mm Btu
0.096
0.108
0.011
0.010
0.022
0.023
0 . 098
0.092
0.009
0.013
0.027
0.025
Oftfi 1
. Ut> J
0.077
0.011
0.022
0.021
0.024
0.074
0.069
0.010
0.009
0.019
0.018
0.072
0.066
0.011
0.011
0.023
0.022
0.062
0.060
0.007
0.007
0.015
0.016
0.069
0.069
0.017
0.009
0.021
0.018
0.085
0.059
0.012
0.009
0.025
0.020
0.097
0.067
0.027
0.016
0.024
0.021
Percent of Method 5
Corrected gr/dscf represented
to 12% CO,, by Method 5B gr/dscf
gr/dscf at outlet
0.046
O.OS2
0.006
0.004
0.011
0.011
0<047
0.044
0.004
0.007
0.042
0.012
Oft tfl
. U JU
0.036
O.OOS
0.011
0.010
0.012
0.035
0.032
0.005
0.004
0.010
0.009
0.033
0.032
0.005
0.005
0.011
0.011
0.029
0.028
0.003
0.003
0.008
0.008
0.032
0.032
0.008
0.004
0.010
0.009
0.041
0.028
0.006
0.005
0.013
0.010
0.045
0.031
0.012
0.008
0.011
0.010
. 112
80
100
93
150
29
121
200
122
91
80
89
94
100
100
96
100
100
100
57
89
69
80
82
69
64
90
This is the concentration normalized to 12% CO,. C = C x .t* ;
stack, and »COa is the percent CO, measured in the stack. *t-Ul
where C is the measured concentration in the
-------
concentrations measured by Method 5B were between 69% and 121% of
those measured by Method 5. Sulfuric acid concentrations measured
by Method 5B were 57% to 200% of the Method 5 concentrations.
Sulfate concentrations measured by Method 5B were 29% to 122% of
the Method 5 concentrations.
Table 4 summarizes the differences between particulate emissions
measured by Methods 5 and 5B as represented by sulfuric acid and
sulfate emissions. It is expected that the difference between
particulate emissions measured by Methods 5 and 5B be greater
than the values listed in Table 4. This difference is noted in
the above paragraph where Method 5B particulate concentrations
were 69% to 121% of Method 5 particulate concentrations. The
probable cause for these values is that the sulfuric acid concen-
tration in the Method 5 samples are lower than expected, based
on previous tests performed at Caterpillar, resulting in lower
particulate concentrations (particulate concentrations include
sulfuric acid and sulfate concentrations). The cause for low
sulfuric acid concentrations is uncertain.
Table 5 summarizes sampling duration, stack temperature, flow
rate, static pressure, and sample volume and water content.
Run 12 was stopped after 60 minutes of sampling due to failure -
of the probe to maintain temperature.
Table 6 summarizes integrated gas analysis results. Integrated
Method 3 samples were taken from the exhaust of the Method 5B
train.
Table 7 summarizes the coal analysis results for percent moisture,
heating value, percent ash, and percent sulfur content.
8
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN METHOD 5 AND
METHOD 5B RESULTS AT CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.
BOILER NO. 20 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
(DECEMBER 1-4, 1981)
Run
nuir.her
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Pol lutant
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Particulate
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfuric acid
and sulfate
Percent of difference
Percent of difference in particulate emis-
Method 5 in particulate emis- sions kg/hr (Ib/hr)
minus sions kg/hr (Ib/hr) represented .by dif-
Method 5B represented by dif- ference in sulfuric
emissions ference in sulfuric acid and sulfates
kg/hr Ib/hr acid emissions combined
-1.0
0.04
-0.1
-0.06
0. 6
-0.29
5.2
4.91
-1.1
-0.87
-0.3
-1.17
0.4
0.11
0.1
0.21
0.4
0.05
0.0
0.05
0.3
0.03
0. 0
0.03
0.0
0.57
0.2
0.77
1.9
0.17
0.3
0.47
2.4
0.9
0.3
1.2
-2.1
0.09 -4a
-0.12
-0.03
1.4
-0.64 -48a
11.51
10.87
-2.6
-1.91 79a
-0.56
-2.47
0.9
0.24 28
0.26
0.50
1.1
0.12 13
0.17
0.29
0.7
-0.03 10
0.03
0.0
-0.2
1.4 >100a
0.52
1.92
4.3
0.47 9
0.68
1.15
5.3
1.94 38
0.52
2.46
6a
818a
106a
53
13
10
>100a
25
50
Note Method 5B emissions are greater than or equal to Method 5 emissions.
-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF DURATION OF SAMPLING, STACK TEMPERATURE, STACK FLOW RATE,
SAMPLE VOLUME, SAMPLE WATER CONTENT, AND STATIC PRESSURE AT
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. BOILER NO. 20 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
Run
number
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sampling
method
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
Duration
of
sampling,
min
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
60
60
Measured
stack
temoerature
°C
59
59
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
53
53
53
53
54
54
°F
139
139
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
128
128
128
128
130
130
Stack
flow rate
dscm/
min
1,290
1,290
1,370
1,350
1,280
1,300
1,330
1,340
1,330
1,340
1,290
1,260
1,350
1,370
1,360
1,380
1,380
1,390
dscf/
min
45,600
45,700
48,400
47,500
45,100
45,800
46,800
47,200
47,000
47,300
45,600
44,600
47,500
48,300
48,100
48,800
48,800
48,900
Sample
dscm
2.1
2.5
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.5
2.1
2.5
2.1
2.5
2.1
2.6
1.3
1.6
vo 1 ume
dscf
73.9
88.8
76.9
91.3
76.7
87.7
78.4
90.1
77.4
89.5
74.8
87.4
78.7
89.0
76.8
92.1
47.9
56.4
Sample
water
content ,
17.1
16.8
14.6
16.6
19.2
17.6
17.6
16.8
17.8
17.2
17.4
19.5
17.6
15.9
17.1
15.7
17.4
17.3
Stack static
pressures
cm H2O
-2.49
-2 .49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
-2.49
in. H20
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-0.98
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF INTEGRATED GAS ANALYSIS RESULTS AT
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. BOILER NO. 20 IN
EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS (DECEMBER 1-4, 1981)
Dry
molecular
weight,
Run kg/kg mole
number CO2, % CO, % 02, % N2, % (Ib/lb mole)
4 10.9 0.0 8.1 81.0 28.0
5 10.9 0.0 8.1 81.0 28.3
6 11.2 0.0 7.9 80.9 27.8
7 11.2 0.0 8.1 80.8 28.0
8 11.2 0.0 8.1 80.8 28.0
9 11.2 0.0 8.1 80.8 28.0
10 11.2 0.0 8.1 80.8 28.0
11 10.9 0.0 8.4 80.7 28.0
12 11.1 0.0 8.1 80.7 28.0
11
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF COAL ANALYSIS AT CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.
BOILER NO. 20 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS (DECEMBER 1-4, 1981)
Run
number
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
moisture,
percent
17.0
16.4
15.1
16.0
15.9
16.2
14.4
16.3
16.3
Heating value
Joule/gram
dry
29,390
29,310
29,610
29,080
29,750
29,430
29,640
28,830
29,570
as received
24,
24,
25,
24,
25,
24,
25,
24,
24,
400
510
130
420
010
660
360
120
760
Btu/lb
dry
12,650
12,620
12,740
12,520
12,800
12,670
12,760
12,410
12,730
as received
10, 500
10,550
10,820
10,510
10,760
10,610
10,920
10,380
10,660
Ash, percent
dry
12.7
11.9
12.1
12.3
11.7
12.3
12.1
14.1
12.0
as received
10.
10.
10.
10.
9.
10.
10.
11.
10.
6
0
2
4
8
3
3
8
0
Sulfur, percent
dry
3.0
3.3
2.6
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.6
3.7
3.4
as received
2.5
2.8
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.2
3.1
2.8
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND MONITORING
(supplied by Radian Corp.)
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Boiler System
The boiler house at Caterpillar's East Peoria Plant contains four
traveling-grate, spreader-stoker boilers (Boilers No. 19, 20, 21,
and 22). The boilers supply 150 psi steam (about 350°F) into a
common plant steam header for use in steam cleaning, space heating,
and other operations. During the summer of 1981 Boiler No. 19 was
tested. During the December 1981 test period, Boiler No. 19 was
down for scheduled maintenance outage and Boilers No. 20 and 21
were operating. Boiler No. 20 is very similar to Boiler No. 19
and was chosen for the December test. The boilers burn high
sulfur (about 3%) bituminous coal from several local sources.
Untreated flue gas contains about 2,000 ppm S02.
Boiler No. 20 was installed in 1957, with a maximum continuous
rating of 200,000 pounds per hour of steam. It is a Springfield
boiler with an American Engineering traveling grate spreader
stoker and is equipped with economizers and mechanical dust
collectors. The flue gas temperature at the economizer discharge
is about 400°F. Caterpillar personnel in the boiler house
indicated that the unit has been modified several times since
installation, but that most of these modifications were to improve
reliability and simplify maintenance on the traveling grate
mechanism. During the tests, the boiler was operated at about
180,000 pounds per hour of steam.
Scrubber System
Each boiler is equipped with a dual-throat venturi scrubber for
particulate and S02 control. The scrubbers are part of an FMC
Dual Alkali regenerable liquor scrubbing system. Gas flows
through the throat of the venturi and is thoroughly mixed with
scrubbing liquor. Sulfur dioxide is absorbed into the liquor
while fly ash particles adhere to the liquor droplets. The gas
then passes into a cyclonic-flow separator where the liquor
droplets are disengaged and fall to the bottom of the separator.
The gas passes through a wire-mesh mist eliminator at the top of
13
-------
the separator before entering the stack. Table 8 lists design
and operating features of the scrubber system. Figure 3 shows
a flow diagram of the scrubbers and liquor regeneration system.
Sulfur dioxide is absorbed into a "concentrated" alkaline liquor
containing sodium ions from soda ash (about 1 molar), sulfite
and bisulfite ions from absorbed S02 (about 0.6 molar total),
and sulfate ions from oxidation of sulfite (about 0.4 molar).
S02 is absorbed and forms sulfite and bisulfite ions by several
reactions :
H20 + S02 (sulfite ion) + SOs (gas) — *- 2HSOa~ (bisulfite ions)
S02 (g) + H20 — +• H2S03 (sulfurous acid)
H2S03 + OH~ — HSOa" + H20
Sodium serves to balance the acidity of the sulfite ions, provid-
ing alkalinity and thus improving the solubility of S02 . Sulfite
and bisulfite ions maintain an equilibrium via the following
reaction:
SOg + H20 q±r + HSOj + OH~
Temperature, pH, and total concentration affect this equilibrium.
At typical operating conditions, about half of the dissolved S02
will be in each form. This reaction provides a pH "buffering"
effect which allows the liquor to absorb S02 in the scrubber
loop without a severe drop in pH (loss of alkalinity). When
oxygen in the flue gas dissolves in the liquor, a small portion
of the bisulfite is oxidized to form nonregenerable sulfate
ions:
1/2 02 + HSOa" -*• 304 + H+
Sulfite-rich solution is bled continuously from the scrubbing
loop to the regeneration system. The solution is reacted with
slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) to precipitate calcium sulfite
Ca++ + SOa + 1/2 H20 — - CaS03 • 1/2 H20|
14
-------
TABLE 8. DESIGN, OPERATING, AND PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE DOUBLE ALKALI SCRUBBING SYSTEM AT CATERPILLAR
TRACTOR CO. BOILER NO. 20 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
Fuel
Scrubber
Process mode
Scrubber pressure drop
Inlet
Flow rate
S02
02
Particulate
S02 outlet
Scrubbing solution
pH
Total sodium
Active sodium
Soda ash makeup
Lime utilization
Filter cake solids
Filter cake disposal
Approximately 10,000 Btu/lb, 3% sulfur
coal
Single dual-throat venturi followed by
separator. Adjustable insert had
been welded in a fixed position.
Concentrated liquor
Throat insert in a fixed position.
Pressure drop during this period
ranged from 17 in. to 18 in. of
water.
Load-dependent. 185,000 to 189,000
pounds per hour of air during test
period. Approximately 85% to 95% of
full boiler load.
Approximately 2,000 ppm
Varies. 6.9% to 7.7% during tests as
measured just prior to ID fan.
Not available
150 ppm to 200 ppm (design)
5.9 to 6.4 during test period
Approximately 1 molar
Approximately 0.3 molar
35 to 40 pounds per ton of coal
2.4 mole/mole S in cake
60% solid
Offsite
15
-------
FLUE GAS WITH Ft YASM
AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
REMOVED
FLUE GAS CONTAINING
FLYASH AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
GAS IS CONTACTED
WITH SCRUBBING
LIQUID IN VEN1URI
(ONE PER nOILEH)
BOILER
' J
ADJUSTABLE
INSERT
SCRUBBING
LIQUID
SCRUBBING LIQUID
CONTAINING SULFUR
DIOXIDE AND FLYASH
PUMP
RECIRCULATION
TANK
(ONE FOR UNITS 19 &20,
ONE FOR UNITS 21 & 22)
SCRUBBING LIQUID TO
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
AND REGENERATION
PRECIPITATES Sill FUR
DIOXIDE ASINSOLUOI.E
CALCIUM SULFITE
CONCENTRATES THE
FLYASH AND
PRECIPITATED
CA/CIUM SULFITE
r~*r5
>-
-------
The solution is then sent to a thickener where fly ash and calcium
sulfite solids settle out. A rotary drum vacuum filter dries the
thickener underflow slurry to a cake containing 60 to 70 weight
percent solids. The cake is disposed of off-site by an independent
contractor and the filtrate is combined with thickener overflow
in the surge tanks. Clear, regenerated liquor from the surge
tanks is returned to the scrubbers.
MONITORING
The boiler and scrubber processes were monitored during testing
for the following reasons:
• To insure that the boiler was operating at a relatively
steady state;
• To insure that the boiler was operating within normal
tolerances;
• To insure that the scrubber was operating normally at or
near the desired pressure drop and that no liquor feed
abnormalities occurred;
• To record process data used in determining emission rates
(pounds emitted/MM Btu);
• To record process data used as a qualitative guideline to
document normal boiler operation.
Several process parameters were monitored during emissions test-
ing. Table 9 is a summary of these data. Most of the data was
recorded at 15 minute intervals and these log sheets are in
Appendix C. The process parameters recorded are described in the
following list. Comments on parameters which appear abnormal are
included in the comment section.
(1) Steam Production Rates - The steam production rate was
recorded by a continuous monitor. The pressure in the
steam supply header was between 161 psig and 165 psig
during all tests. Steam production rates did not vary
more than ±5% from the averages indicated in Table 9.
(2) Flue Gas Oxygen - The oxygen content in the flue gas
was monitored on a continuous basis by a thermal
analyzer at the inlet to the induced draft fan. A
portable Teledyne instrument was used to measure
oxygen content just after the economizers. These spot
checks are tabulated in Table 9.
17
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY DATA AND PROCESS INFORMATION FOR CATERPILLAR TRACTOR
CO. BOILER NO. 20 IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS
oo
ECOIKI- Combnr.-
ron 1 Steam mizet HC P'.-rrcnt oxyyn lion st'-nm
Scrubber ur.cd. flow, tennpfi - .\P. Avimii.- fli'-r-l; ait t'-mner-
Run
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Test time
Start Finish GPH
1352 1605 400
0820 1020 400
1320 1517 400
0740 0930 500
400
400
1100 1248 400
1401 1553 400
0750 0946 400
1102 1257 400
1443 1550 400
AP in
water
17
18
18
18.5
17
17
17
17
17
17
Steam. tons/ H Ibn/ aturr, in at with fJnw. .itni".
pH psig min hr "t HyO breeching Teledyne H Ibs/hl "f
6.4 162 0.157 174 402 2.8 7.7 7 7 186 347
6.4a
6.2. - 0.156 174 401 2.8 7.5 7.5 186 346
6.2b
6.2 165 0.149 169 401 2.8 7.5 7.3 185 348
6.0 165 0.152 174 403 2.8 7.2 6.5-7.0 187 347
5.9d
6.0 165 0.161 180 403 2.8 7.0 186 348
6.1e
6.1 165 0.169 182 402 2.8 6.9 185 348
6.2e
6.1 161 0.157f 180 405 2.9 7.8 189 346
6.1*
6.0 162 0.157f 179 405 2.9 7.7 5.0 189 348
6.0e 5.5
6.0 163 0.158
Furnai '•
pr'".-;'ii f . Bottom IVm i :. I " i
in. of a.sh Soot Ba'-k ^1 .in
water b.iill^d blow wasti w.-it.*-! Date
0.2 J J V 0.8 I?/ 1/81
Prior to
test
0.2 V V v 12/2/81
0730 to
0815
0.2 V V -J 1.0 Prior to
1.0C test
0.3 V V V 1.0 12/3/81
Prior to
test
0.2 V J 1.0 Prior to
test
0.3 V V 1.0 Prior to
1.0 test
0.3 0.9 12/4/81
0.2 Prior to
test
Lab checked pH 6.4, 6.4 and 6.3 (1200, 1400, 1600).
bLab check 0800, 1000.
Backwashed demister 5 minutes. No change in AP.
''lab check 0800.
eLab check.
Based on average during 0730 to 1415.
-------
(3) Scrubber Pressure Drop - The scrubber pressure drop was
measured across the inlet and outlet on a continuous
basis. Before the tests, the venturi insert position
had been adjusted to fully open and fixed in this
position by welding the adjusting mechanism. The
pressure drop will vary with gas and liquor flow.
(4) Scrubber pH - The pH in the liquor recirculation tank
was monitored continuously.
(5) Flue Gas Temperature - The flue gas temperature was
monitored at the economizer outlet (mechanical
collector inlet). This temperature typically varies
with boiler load and serves as a measure of steady
operation. Since temperature drop in the mechanical
collectors is insignificant, this temperature is
close to that at the venturi inlet, and will determine
the temperature of the quenched gas in the scrubber.
(6) Average Coal Feed Rate - The average coal feed rate
reported is measured by coal feed integrators. The
integrators totaled the number of 0.1-tons buckets of
coal fed to the stokers during the tests.
(7) Inlet Air Flow - The total inlet air (underfire and
overfire) was monitored continuously during the tests.
A relatively constant inlet air flow was a reliable
measure of steady boiler load and steady flue gas flow
rate. Changes in inlet air temperature can be expected
to affect the accuracy of such instrumentation. The
degree to which these changes did affect the accuracy
is unknown.
(8) Scrubber Liquor Flow - The flow rate of liquor to the
venturi was monitored continuously during the tests.
A relatively constant flow is essential to maintaining
steady scrubber operation.
COMMENTS ON TESTS
Accuracy of the Data
The control room data logger records data to one decimal place,
and this format was repeated in Table 9. At the conclusion of the
test, the coal feed system was checked and found to be weighing
correctly. The thermal analyzer was used to continuously monitor
oxygen content in the flue gas. The instrument is calibrated
regularly by plant personnel. No other special calibrations of
the boiler instrumentation were performed.
19
-------
As previously discussed, a portable Teledyne instrument was used
to measure oxygen content just after the economizers. These spot
checks, as tabulated in Table 9, compare closely with the contin-
uous log of the thermal analyzer which monitored oxygen content
in the flue gas at the inlet to the induced draft fan, except for
Test 11. The continuous log read 7.7% and the spot check read
5.0% and an hour later 5.5%. The low reading could not be
explained. All combustion factors, such as coal feed rate,, inlet
air flow, flue gas temperature, and condition of the fuel bed,
were checked and seemed to be normal. The instrument zero was
carefully checked and the instrument appeared to be functioning
normally. Different oxygen content can be measured at different
locations in a boiler of this type but these particular readings
seem to be an anomaly.
No opacity evaluations were planned as part of this test. At
this time of the year the water vapor from the scrubber condenses
as the boiler gases exit the stack. It is difficult to evaluate
such a plume.
The boiler and scrubber were operated in a normal manner, at a
relatively steady state.
20
-------
SECTION 4
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Emissions to the atmosphere from Boiler No. 20 were measured in
the smokestack. The coal fed into the boiler was sampled at the
end of the two coal feed belts from the coal weighing devices that
dump coal into the trip buckets that feed the spreaders.
STACK
Five 10-cm (4-in.) I.D. sampling ports were located on a 32-meter
high (106-ft), 2.3-meter (90-in.) I.D. round smokestack, divided
in half, with one half for the boiler being tested and the other
half for Boiler No. 19 (see Figure 4). The sampling ports are
24 meters (79 ft) above the base of the stack (more than
10 diameters) and 8 meters (27 ft) below the mouth of the stack
(more than 3 diameters). The site meets all criteria for an
acceptable measurement site for particulate traverses under EPA
Method 1 and Method 5 procedures, except for the unusual shape of
the inside of the stack.
A 20-point traverse was done at this location, with four points
being sampled along each radius of the stack leading to each of
the five sample ports (see Figure 5).
COAL FEED SYSTEM
Coal was sampled through the access doors for the two coal feed
belts leading to the boiler. Figure 6 shows a schematic diagram
and a photograph of the coal sampling site.
21
-------
1. PORT TO TOP OF STACK 27'
2. MONORAIL FITTING 71" FROM CENTER OF PORT
TO TOP OF FITTING
3. CENTER OF PORT TO GRATING OF FLOOR 61"
4. RAILING TO OUTSIDE OF PORT 80"
5. NIPPLE ON PORTS 6-1/4" OUTSIDE, 4" INSIDE
SCAFFOLDING
61"
106'
79'
TOP STACK
71
MONORAIL_1
SETTING
-ROOF OF BLOC.
Figure 4. Stack sampling site at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria, Illinois
22
-------
TRAVERSE
POINT No.
1
2
3
4
DISTANCE FROM
INS IDE WALL
2.9"
9.5"
17.5"
29.1"
Figure 5. Traverse point locations at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 20 stack in East Peoria, Illinois
23
-------
I 2 SCALES TO BOILER 120
COAL FEED FROM
OUTSIDE OF BLDG.
WITH TRACTOR TO CON-
VEYOR SYSTEM
'— ~7-
1 1
'
-BELT
( t
\ 1
_— — - '
FEED-H
\
\
BELT 17" FROM WALL
COAL DROPS DOWN
TO HOPPER
y
10" x 10-1/2" DOOR
BOILER! 20 BOILER 120
Figure 6. Coal sampling site at Caterpillar Tractor
Co. Boiler No. 20 in East Peoria, Illinois,
24
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
SUMMARY
The sampling and analysis methods used at each site are shown in
Table 1. Nine simultaneous runs of Methods 5 and 5B sampling
were made at the stack downstream of all air pollution control
equipment. A special dual-probe stack test system was used for
sampling by Methods 5 and 5B through the same ports (with the
nozzle centers 4.44 cm (1.75 in.) from each other. The flue gas
velocity, temperature, flow rate, oxygen content, and carbon
dioxide content were measured by EPA Methods 1-4 during all
Method 5 and 5B stack sampling runs. Integrated Method 3 samples
were taken from the exhaust of the Method 5B train.
The Method 5 and 5B filters and dried acetone probe washes were
weighed (to a constant weight) prior to sulfuric acid and sulfate
analyses. Sulfuric acid and sulfate concentrations were deter-
mined by techniques supplied to MRC by EPA on 10 October 1980.
These techniques are described in this section and in Appendix D.
Grab samples of coal were taken for each stack test by sampling
before, during, and after each emission test. The sulfur, ash,
moisture, and heat content of the samples were analyzed by
ASTM D 3176 and ASTM D 2015-66(72).
STACK SAMPLING
Heated glass-lined probes and Reeve Angel Type 934 AH filters
were used for the Method 5 and 5B testing. The filter tempera-
tures were monitored using thermocouples installed on the back
half of the filter holders. A special dual-probe stack test
system was used for stack testing by Methods 5 and 5B simultane-
ously through the same individual stack ports. Figure 7 is a
schematic diagram of the dual-probe system. The nozzle centers
of the Method 5 and 5B trains were 4.4 cm (1.75 in.) apart in
this system. A single pitot tube between the Method 5 and 5B
sampling probes was used to measure the flue velocity for both
trains. Method 3 integrated bag samples were taken from the
exhaust of the Method 5B train.
25
-------
FLEX LINE
ICE/ATH IMPINGERS
THERMOCOUPLt
FILTER
THERMOCOUPLEy0"
VACUUM LINE
DRY GAS
METER
AI.R-TIGHT
PUMP
Figure 7. Dual-probe sampling train.
26
-------
Method 5 and 5B sample volumes of at least 2.1 dry m3 (73 ft3)
were taken. When Methods 5 and/or 5B were used, Methods 1-4 were
also used, as in compliance monitoring.
STACK SAMPLE ANALYSES
EPA provided the general methods to be used for sulfuric acid and
sulfate analysis on the Method 5 and 5B samples at a meeting on
10 October 1980. Gary McAlister clarified these procedures on
24 October 1980, and further refinement of the procedures occurred
during the analysis of samples collected during previous emission
testing under this work assignment. The procedures used are
summarized in Appendix D.
The probe washes and filters were dried and weighed (using
standard Method 5 procedures). The weighing was repeated until
the weight of the particulates was within 10 mg of the weight on
the previous weighing. Room temperature isopropanol was then
added to each sample. The samples were soaked for at least
12 hours. Then the filter in isopropanol was ultrasonically
extracted for 30 minutes. The extracts were filtered and analyzed
for sulfuric acid using barium-thorin titration. This isopropanol
extraction and analysis procedure was performed three times on
every sample. Those portions of the extracts that were not
titrated were bottled and retained.
After the sulfuric acid extraction with isopropanol, water was
added to the filters and solid residues. After they soaked for
at least 12 hours, they were ultrasonically extracted for 30 min-
utes. The extracts were filtered, passed through a Rexyn-101 ion
exchange column, and analyzed for sulfates (using barium-thorin
titration). The water extraction and sulfate analysis procedure
was performed three times on every sample, and the untitrated
water extracts were bottled and retained.
After all extractions, the filters and solid residues were dried
and saved under nitrogen in a refrigerator, along with the
untitrated extracts. These samples will be saved for no more
than 6 months.
Blank filters and residue from the evaporation of clean acetone
were analyzed when the stack samples were analyzed, along with
standards and quality assurance audit samples of sulfate and
sulfuric acid.
COAL SAMPLING
Aggregate coal samples, corresponding to the coal burned during
each stack sampling run, were taken by grab sampling the coal
falling off both coal feed belts before, during, and after every
stack sampling run. The individual grab samples were taken by
27
-------
traversing a coal sample container along the entire width of the
coal feed belt. The timing of the samples corresponded to the
timing of the stack sampling adjusted for the delay time between
coal falling off the feed belt and coal entering the boiler. The
three grab samples per stack sampling run were combined to make
one aggregate sample per stack sample run. The samples were
stored in labeled bottles.
COAL ANALYSIS
When the samples were returned for analysis, they were split in
half using ASTM D 2013 riffle sampler protocol. Half of each
sample was saved and the rest was analyzed. The halves analyzed
were homogenized, split, and analyzed for sulfur, moisture, and
ash using ASTM D 3176 ultimate analysis protocol. The heating
value was determined using ASTM D 2015-66(72) bomb calorimetry.
SAMPLE HANDLING
Filters and impinger contents were transferred into clean, closed
containers. Deposits on the inside of the sampling equipment were
removed with acetone and distilled water. The acetone rinse was
bottled. This occurred at the scaffolding at the stack or in the
Company laboratory (inside the boiler house). The coal samples
were stored in bottles until ready for analysis. Access to the
samples was limited by storing them in a locked truck, except
when being handled by authorized individuals. The samples were
shipped in the truck to the MRC Dayton Laboratory for analysis.
Records of the chain of custody of the samples were maintained.
DATA REDUCTION
MRC's computer and programmable calculators were used to reduce
the analytical and field data to determine results. The "F" val-
ues used to determine ng/joule (lb/106 Btu) emissions were taken
from the boiler emission regulations in 40 CFR 60.45(f)(4)(ii).
Appendix A contains copies of all raw field data sheets and coding
sheets for data processing.
Appendix B contains complete computer printouts of the results
of the sampling.
Appendix C (supplied by Radian Corp.) contains boiler monitoring
data during the testing.
Appendix D contains the detailed analytical methods used.
Appendix E contains sample analysis data and a summary of the
results of the quality control and assurance procedures.
28
-------
Appendix F identifies the people performing the sampling, anal-
ysis, and data reduction.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The quality assurance and control program included all applicable
procedures specified in the Federal Register for EPA Methods 1-5
and the procedures specified in the EPA Guidelines for the
Development of Quality Assurance Programs for these methods.
In addition, during one run simultaneous Method 3 samples were
taken from the exhaust of both the Method 5 train and the Method 5B
train, and the result indicated the precision of the Method 3
sampling and analysis, such that for future sampling only one
Method 3 sample was taken at the exhaust of the Method 5B train.
Standard ASTM procedures were used for the coal analysis. Bowser-
Morner Testing Laboratories, Inc., the coal analysis subcontractor,
participates in EPA's new quality assurance program for coal
sulfur, ash, and moisture content. This program involves the
analysis of samples provided by EPA.
The accuracy of the data used in computerized data processing was
checked by comparing the printout of the data used to calculate
results with the raw field data used to code the computer input.
29
------- |