United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
ZMB Reoort 81-PLY-2
May 1962
Air
Plywood/Veneer
Emission Test Report
Champion Internationa!
Lebanon Plant
Lebanon, Oregon
-------
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT TESTING
PERFORMED AT THE
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT
LEBANON, OREGON
SEPTEMBER 1981
Environmental
Consultants, Inc
EMB Report 81-PLY-2 Prepared by:
ESED Project 80/02 Peter W. Kalika P.E.
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3543 Program Manager
Work Assignment No. 1 Eugene A. Brackbill P.E.
TRC Project No. 1460-E80-51 Work Assignment Manager
John H. Powell
Prepared for: Project Scientist
C.E. Riley, EPA/EMB Eric A. Pearson
Task Manager Project Scientist
S. Dexter Peirce
Environmental Engineer
May 1982
800 Connecticut Blvd.
East Hartford, CT 06108
(203) 289-8631
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air,
Noise and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of company or product names does not constitute
endorsement by EPA. Copies are available free of charge to Federal
employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations -
as supplies permit - from the Library Services Office, MD-35, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Order: EMB Report 81-PLY-2
-------
PREFACE
The work described herein was conducted by personnel from TRC - Environ-
mental Consultants, Inc., Research Triangle Institute (RTI), Del Green
Associates (DGA), CH2MHill, Engineers, Planners, Economists and Scientists;
the Champion International Corporation in Lebanon, Oregon; the National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emission Measurement
Branch (EMB).
The scope of work was issued under EPA Contract 68-02-3543, Work Assign-
ment 1. The work was performed under the supervision of Eugene A. Brackbill,
P.E., TRC work assignment manager, and John H. Powell, TRC field team leader.
Robert L. Chessin of RTI monitored process operations and was assisted by
Paul Willhite of DGA. RTI was responsible for preparing Section 3 and
Appendix I of this report, both of which deal with process descriptions and
operations. Mark S. Boedigheimer supervised Method 5X analyses performed by
CH2MHill. Victor Gallons supervised NCASI sampling and analysis activities
as well as providing helpful suggestions and comments in support of the test
program. Jack Hayes, plant engineer for Champion, provided invaluable assist-
ance and guidance to TRC, EPA, and RTI in the performance of the test pro-
gram. Clyde E. Riley, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
Emission Measurement Branch, EPA, served as task manager and was responsible
for coordinating the test program.
Edwin J. Vincent, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Chemical
and Petroleum Branch, EPA, served as project lead engineer. Mr. Vincent was
also responsible for coordinating and directing the process operations
monitoring.
-11-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
PREFACE ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Summary of Process and Emissions 1-2
1.3 Applicability of EPA Reference Test Methods 1-4
1.3.1 EPA Method 5X 1-5
1.3.2 EPA Method 25 1-6
1.3.3 Comparability of Test Methods 1-7
1.4 Measurement Program Summary 1-7
1.4.1 Veneer Dryer Exhaust 1-7
1.4.2 Boiler 2 Outlet 1-8
1.4.3 Boiler 1 Outlet 1-9
1.4.4 Wet Fan - Boiler 2 1-9
1.4.5 Fugitive Emissions 1-9
1.4.6 Ambient Air Measurements 1-9
1.4.7 Clean-Up Evaluations and Audit Samples 1-9
1.5 Report Sections 1-10
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2-1
2.1 Background and Definitions 2-1
2.1.1 Particulate Emissions 2-1
2.1.2 Condensible Emissions 2-2
2.1.3 Noncondensible Emissions 2-2
2.1.4 Total Organic Emissions 2-2
2.2 Method 5X - Particulate/Condensible
Organics Emission Tests 2-3
2.2.1 Veneer Dryer Exhaust 2-6
2.2.2 Boiler 2 Outlet 2-8
2.3 Method 25 - Total Organic Tests . . . 2-13
2.3.1 Veneer Dryer Exhaust 2-13
2.3.2 Boiler 2 Outlet 2-16
2.4 Visible Emissions 2-22
2.5 Boiler 1 Flow Measurements 2-22
2.6 Wet Fan Operational Data 2-30
2.7 Summary of Fugitive Emissions 2-32
2.8 Ambient Air Measurements 2-32
2.9 Method 5X Clean-Up Evaluation 2-33
2.10 Method 25 Audit Sample Analyses 2-33
2.11 Conclusions 2-39
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONS 3-1
3.1 Process Equipment 3-1
3.2 Emission Control Equipment 3-1
3.3 Production and Control Equipment Monitoring 3-3
3.4 Process Operating Conditions During Test Program . . 3-3
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS 4-1
4.1 Veneer Dryer Exhaust 4-1
4.2 Boiler 2 Outlet 4-1
4.3 Boiler 1 Outlet 4-5
4.4 Visible Emissions Observation Locations 4-5
-iii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
4.5 Wet Fan Pressure Drop Measurement Locations 4-7
4.6 Wet Fan Liquor Sampling Locations 4-7
4.7 Fugitive Emissions 4-7
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 5-1
5.1 EPA Reference Methods 5-1
5.2 Preliminary Measurements 5-2
5.3 Measurements for Particulate, Condensible and
Noncondensible Emissions 5-3
5.3.1 EPA Reference Method 5X - Particulate and
Condensible Organic Compounds 5-3
5.3.2 EPA Reference Method 25 - Condensible and
Noncondensible Organic Compounds 5-10
5.4 C02 and 02» CO Determination 5-23
5.5 Preliminary Moisture Determination 5-24
5.6 Preliminary Velocity Determination 5-24
5.7 Visible Emissions 5-25
5.8 Pressure Drop Measurements 5-25
5.9 Wet Fan Solution Samples 5-25
5.10 Fugitive Emissions 5-26
5.11 Ambient Temperature and Relative Humidity 5-26
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 6-1
6.1 Method 5X 6-1
6.2 Method 25 6-3
6.3 Method 3 6-3
6.4 Method 9 6-3
-iv-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1-1 Veneer dryer exhaust system at Champion plywood
plant, Lebanon, Oregon 1-3
2-1 Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet at
Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon 2-26
2-2 Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet at
Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon 2-27
2-3 Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet at
Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon 2-28
2-4 Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet at
Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon 2-29
2-5 Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet at
Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon 2-30
4-1 Veneer dryer exhaust system at Champion plywood
plant, Lebanon, Oregon 4-2
4-2 Veneer dryer exhaust sampling location at Champion
plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon 4-3
4-3 Boiler outlet (#1 and #2) sampling location at
Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon 4-4
4-4 Overhead view of visible emission observation locations
at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon 4-6
4-5 Wet fan solution collection points and pressure drop
monitoring points at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon,
Oregon 4-8
5-1 Modified EPA particulate and condensible organics samp-
ling train. (August 18, 1977 Federal Register) .... 5-4
5-2 Method 25 Sampling Train 5-11
5-3 Method 25 Trap Preparation 5-13
5-4 Method 25 Tank Purging and Evacuation 5-13
5-5 Method 25 Flow Control Assembly Adjustment 5-13
5-6 TRC Nonmethane Organic Analyzer 5-17
5-7 TRC Condensate Recovery and Conditioning Apparatus. . . . 5-19
-v-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
2-la (English Units) Summary of Method 5X Particulate and
Condensible Organics Collected at the Veneer Dryer
Exhaust and Boiler 2 Outlet 2-4
2-lb (Metric Units) Summary of Method 5X Particulate and
Condensible Organics Collected at the Veneer Dryer
Exhaust and Boiler 2 Outlet 2-5
2-2 Summary of Method 5X Particulate and Condensible
Organic Measurements at the Veneer Dryer Exhaust 2-7
2-3 Summary of Method 5X Particulate and Condensible
Organic Measurements at the Boiler 2 Outlet 2-9
2-4 Comparison of Veneer Dryer Exhaust Emissions
(Concentration Method vs. Area Ratio Method) 2-10
2-5a (English Units) Summary of Method 25 Individual Total
Organic Measurements at the Veneer Dryer Exhaust 2-14
2-5b (Metric Units) Summary of Method 25 Total Organic
Collection at the Veneer Dryer Exhaust 2-15
2-6a (English units) Summary of Method 25 Individual Total
Organic Measurements at Boiler 2 Outlet 2-16
2-6b (Metric units) Summary of Method 25 Individual Total
Organic Measurements at Boiler 2 Outlet 2-17
2-6c Summary of Method 25 Individual Total Organic Measurements
at the Boiler 2 Outlet Corrected for C02 Interference . 2-18
2-7 Summary of Method 25 Individual Total Organic
Measurements at the Veneer Dryer Exhaust 2-20
2-8 Summary of Method 25 Individual Total Organic Trap and
Tank Measurements at the Boiler 2 Outlet 2-22
2-9 Summary of Visible Emissions from Boiler 2 Outlet ..... 2-25
2-10 Summary of Volumetric Flow Measurements at Boiler 1
Outlet Compared to Boiler 2 Outlet and Veneer
Dryer Exhaust 2-31
2-11 Summary of Pressure Drop Data Across Boiler No. 2 Wet Fan . 2-33
2-12 Summary of Method 5X Clean-up Evaluation 2-36
2-13a TRC Method 25 Audit Sample Results Direct Injection .... 2-37
2-13b TRC Method 25 Audit Sample Results Prepared Sampling
Trains 2-37
-vi-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
2-14a NCASI Method 25 Audit Sample Results Direct Injection . . . 2-38
2-14b NCASI Method 25 Audit Sample Results Prepared Sampling
Trains 2-38
3-1 Summary of Operating Conditions 3-4
-vii-
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act of 1970 charges the administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency with the responsibility of
establishing Federal Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
(SPNSS) that may significantly contribute to air pollution. When promul-
gated, these standards of performance for new stationary sources are to
reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through application of
\
the best demonstrated emission control technology. Emission data collected
from controlled sources in the plywood industry will provide a portion of the
data base used by EPA to develop SPNSS.
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards selected the Champion
plywood plant in Lebanon, Oregon, as a site for an emission test program
because it is considered to employ process and emission control technology
representative of modern plywood manufacturing plants.
The test program was designed to determine the emission rate of partic-
ulate, condensible and noncondensible organic material emitted from the veneer
drying operation. A second objective was to measure the destruction
efficiency of wastewood-fired boilers as incinerators for condensible and
noncondensible organic emissions.
TRC - Environmental Consultants, Inc. was retained by the EPA Emissions
Measurement Branch (EMB) to perform emission measurements at the Champion
plywood plant in Lebanon, Oregon. Testing was performed on the veneer dryer
emissions and their pollution control system which consists of two
wastewood-fired boilers used as incinerators. This report has been prepared
in accordance with EPA Contract No. 68-02-3543 under the provisions of Work
Assignment No. 1.
1-1
-------
The Research Triangle Institute (RTI), the New Source Standard (NSS) con-
tractor/ was responsible for coordinating the overall test program with
Champ on personnel and for assuring that process and control equipment operat-
ing conditions were suitable for testing. Related process data were monitored
and recorded by RTI. Fugitive emissions from the veneer dryers, ambient air
temperature and relative humidity were monitored and recorded by RTI and their
subcontractor, Del Green Associates (DGA).
Additional testing for total organic compounds was performed by the
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI)
simultaneously with the TRC test program. This testing was performed at the
request of the American Plywood Association (APA) for research purposes and to
provide an additional measure of quality assurance.
1.2 Summary of Process and Emissions
The Champion-Lebanon plywood plant is part of a large complex including
veneer peeling, drying, plywood layup and finishing processes as well as a
hardboard plant. Approximately 870,000 square feet (3/8-inch basis) of veneer
is dried per day (24 hours/3 shifts) . A diagram of the total veneer dryer
exhaust system is presented in Figure 1-1.
Champion's Lebanon plant has seven veneer dryers. Dryer 7 is heated by
hot gases from an Advanced Combustion Systems Fuel Cell, and is not included
in this program. The remaining six dryers, installed in the late 1940s, are
steam-heated by two Combustion Engineering water tube boilers.
The veneer drying operation begins after the veneer has been peeled from
the log at the lathe operation. The veneer then proceeds to the drying opera-
tion. Here, the veneer is continuously hand-fed onto the dryer feed conveyor
and into the dryer. The purpose of the operation is to thermally drive the
moisture out of the veneer in preparation for the layup and laminating opera-
1-2
-------
VENEER DRYERS
\
1,
\
r
^
1,
N
r
1
\
1
\
r
DAMPERS
O
BOILER NO.2
HOG FUEL
1
SANDERDUST
INJECTION
O
I.D.
FAN
1
IRFIRE
MR
E
L
IDAMPERS
UNDERFIRE AIR
Figure 1-1. Veneer dryer exhaust system at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
-------
tions which follow. During the drying operation, organic compounds are also
driven out of the veneer. These organic compounds are the emissions of
interest.
Each dryer has two exhaust ducts. Atop each duct is an abort damper for
emergency use only (a source of fugitive emissions). All 12 exhaust ducts
converge to a common 48-inch inside diameter (i.d.) duct which carries the
effluent through a set of dampers to an induced draft (I.D.) fan. The dryer
exhaust is then ducted through another set of dampers and fed into two
wastewood-fired boilers as overfire and underfire air.
The exhaust from each boiler is ducted to wet I.D. fans which were
originally installed as spark arresters rather than pollution controls. The
exhaust is then ducted to the atmosphere.
1.3 Applicability of EPA Reference Test Methods
EPA is required to publish a national reference test method for each
regulated source category and pollutant for which a New Source Performance
Standard (NSPS) is established. Reference test methods are usually specified
by a State regulatory agency during the State Implementation Planning process
and may be different from national reference test methods.
The purpose of establishing a national reference test method is to ensure
that emission data collected from a specific source is representative of that
source and comparable to data collected at other designated sources. The
primary purpose of this test program was to collect emission data using
standardized test methods which allowed the data to be evaluated to develop a
national SPNSS. Two different test methods were selected by EPA to measure
emissions from plywood veneer drying operations. These methods are briefly
described in the following subsections and are described in detail in
Section 5.
1-4
-------
1.3.1 EPA Method 5X (Provisional)
Provisional Method 5X is similar to the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) Method 7 used to measure condensible organic emissions. EPA
Method 5X measures particulate and condensible organic matter. "Particulate
matter" is defined as any finely divided solid or liquid material, other than
»
uncombined water, that condenses at or above the filtration temperature range
of 350 +25°F (177 +14°C), and is collected by the probe and filter (front
half of the sampling train). "Condensible organic matter" is defined as any
material remaining after extraction, filtration and ambient evaporation of the
ether-chloroform extract of the impinger portion of the sampling train.
Particulate matter and condensible organic matter are quantified
gravimetrically and results are expressed as the mass of collected material.
The purpose of the 350 F filtration temperature is to precondition the
Method 25 slipstream sample being withdrawn from the Method 5X sample stream.
This temperature was selected on the basis of average veneer dryer operating
temperatures throughout the industry. This temperature condition excludes
only matter than can condense at or above 350 F from the Method 25 samples.
It does not affect Method 5X results because the remaining sample is caught in
the condenser portion of the train.
1.3.2 EPA Method 25
EPA Reference Method 25, as promulgated in the October 3, 1980 Federal
Register (volume 145, no. 194, 65959 ff.), applies to the measurement of
organic compounds as total gaseous nonmethane organics (TGNMO). Emissions are
expressed as equivalent carbon (C,) mass. Method 25 sample fractions are
separated by a gas chromatographic column, oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO.),
and reduced to methane (CH.) prior to analysis by flame ionization detector
(FID). Since all the sample organic compounds are reduced to CH , the
1-5
-------
problems associated with the variable FID response characteristic for differ-
ent organic compound structures is eliminated. This allows comparison of
emission data on a uniform C, basis. Method 25 is discussed in greater
detail in Section 5 of this report.
Major procedural modifications to Method 25 were required to measure
accurately emissions from plywood veneer drying facilities. An additional
condensate trap immersed in water ice was placed in the sampling train ahead
of the standard dry ice immersed condensate trap. The purpose of the
additional trap is to condense moisture that would freeze in the dry ice
immersed trap and cause a premature sample flow stoppage. In this manner gas
stream moisture content, which may range from 30 to 60 percent by volume may
effectively be reduced to 3 percent or less before entering the dry ice
immersed trap.
The use of the Method 5X sampling train as a sample preconditioner also
represents a major modification. In addition to the 350 F sample stream
temperature, isokinetic sample extraction from the source using Method 5X was
also deemed necessary to obtain a representative Method 25 sample. This is
particularly the case when moisture-saturated gas streams, such as those
following wet scrubbing devices, are being sampled. Entrained water droplets
may contain organic materials that would not be collected using the normal
Method 25 constant sampling rate procedure.
1.3.3 Comparability of Test Methods
Methods 5X and 25 are not related and measured results may not be compared
under any circumstances. Condensation temperatures differ by more than
100 F between the two methods, and consequently different condensible com-
pounds are collected by each method. In addition, it has been demonstrated
1-6
-------
that Method 5X has limited collection capabilities for organic compounds with
high-vapor pressures. In addition a loss of organic material is experienced
during normal sample recovery and drying operations.
1.4 Measurement Program Summary
The measurement program was conducted at the Champion plywood manufactur-
ing facility in Lebanon, Oregon during the week of September 21, 1981. Tests
were performed at the veneer dryer exhaust duct and at the outlet of boiler 2,
which used veneer dryer exhaust for combustion air.
All emission testing was performed by TRC and NCASI personnel. RTI
personnel monitored process operating conditions, while DGA personnel moni-
tored fugitive emissions, ambient temperature and relative humidity. Wet fan
operational data and solution samples were taken by TRC personnel.
1.4.1 Veneer Dryer Exhaust
Preliminary Measurements
Preliminary testing was performed on September 21 to determine volumetric
flow rate and stack gas moisture content. An integrated gas sample was
also taken to determine concentrations of CC^, 02 and CO. Stack
diameter and the sampling port configuration were confirmed at this time.
Method 5X - Particulate and Condensible Organics Tests
Four Method 5X tests were performed, one each on September 21, 22, 23 and
25, concurrently with tests performed at the boiler 2 outlet.
Method 25 - Total Organic Tests
Sixteen Method 25 samples were taken at this location concurrently with
the Method 5X tests performed. Four Method 25 samples were taken concur-
rently with each Method 5X test.
1.4.2 Boiler 2 Outlet
Preliminary Measurements
Preliminary tests were performed on September 21 to determine volumetric
flow rate and stack gas moisture content. An integrated gas sample was
1-7
-------
taken to determine the concentration of Cto^, $2 anc^ ^0 in the gas
stream.
Method 5X - Particulate and Condensible Organics Tests
Four Method 5X tests were performed at this location on September 21, 22,
23, and 25 concurrently with tests performed at the veneer dryer exhaust.
Two additional tests were performed on September 24 while no veneer dryer
emissions were ducted to the boiler. These two additional tests were
boiler background emission tests.
Method 25 - Total Organic Tests
Sixteen Method 25 samples were taken at this location concurrently with
the Method 5X samples (four per test run). In addition, four more samples
were taken concurrently with each Method 5X boiler background emission
test. A total of 24 Method 25 samples were taken at this location.
Method 3 - Determination of CO?, 0^, and CO
An integrated gas sample was taken simultaneously with each Method 5X
sample. A total of six tests were performed.
Method 9 - Visible Emissions
Visible emissions from the boiler 2 outlet were monitored concurrently
with each Method 5X test performed at this site.
1.4.3 Boiler 1 Outlet
Two velocity traverses were performed at the boiler 1 outlet during each
Method 5X test performed at the boiler 2 outlet. A total of 12 traverses were
t
performed.
1.4.4 Wet Fan - Boiler 2
Pressure Drop Measurement
Pressure drop (AP) across the wet fan sump was monitored at 30-minute
intervals during each Method 5X test performed at the boiler 2 outlet.
Solution Sampling
Solution samples were taken from both the water supply and drain of the
wet fan sump at 30-minute intervals during each Method 5X test performed
at the boiler 2 outlet. The samples were composited into two separate
samples for each test.
1-8
-------
1.4.5 Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions from the veneer dryers were monitored by RTI and DGA
during each Method 5X test.
1.4.6 Ambient Air Measurements
Ambient air temperature and relative humidity were monitored and recorded
by DGA at the beginning and end of each Method 5X test.
1.4.7 Clean-Up Evaluations and Audit Samples
Prior to any emission testing, two Method 5X sampling trains were pre-
pared and charged, ready to perform a test. The unexposed trains were then
cleaned according to the method and samples recovered. The samples were
analyzed to establish background and/or contamination levels from the sample
collection equipment.
Method 25 audit samples were prepared by RTI and analyzed at the TRC
laboratory in Wethersfield, Connecticut and by NCASI in their laboratory in
Corvallis, Orgeon. These audit samples were known concentrations of toluene
and propylene analyzed to determine the accuracy of Method 25 analysis by the
individual laboratories.
i
1.5 Report Sections
The remaining sections of this report present the Summary and Discussion
of Results (Section 2), Process Description and Operations (Section 3),
Description of Sampling Locations (Section 4), Sampling and Analytical
Procedures (Section 5) , and Quality Assurance (Section 6) . Descriptions of
methods and procedures, field and laboratory data, and calculations are
presented in various appendices as noted in the Table of Contents.
1-9
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A summary of all emission measurements and collected data is presented in
this section. Section 2.1 provides a brief background discussion and defini-
tions of measured parameters. Section 2.2 presents Method 5X particulate/
condensible organics results with a complete breakdown and discussion of
parameters at both sampling sites. Method 25 total organic emission results
are described in detail in Section 2.3, which includes a discussion of
emissions at both sampling sites as well as a breakdown of major analytical
data. Section 2.4 summarizes the visible emissions observations. Section 2.5
compares the volumetric flow rates of the veneer dryer exhaust and the exhaust
outlets of boilers 1 and 2. A summary of wet fan (boiler 2 only) operational
data is presented in Section 2.6. Fugitive emissions are discussed in Section
2.7. A full discussion of the Method 5X (cleanup) evaluation and results may
be found in Section 2.8. Testing was conducted only during drying of Douglas
Fir veneer.
2.1 Background and Definitions
The test program was designed to measure particulate, condensible, and
noncondensible organic material emitted from veneer dryers, and the destruc-
tion efficiency of wastewood-fired boilers as a control for those emissions.
2.1.1 Particulate Emissions
Particulate emissions are defined as any finely divided solid or liquid
matter, other than uncombined water, that condenses at or above 350 +25 F
(177 +14 C) and is collected in the probe and filter (front half) of the
Method 5X sampling train.
2-1
-------
2.1.2 Condensible Emissions
Condensible emissions are defined differently in Methods 5X and 25.
Although called by the same name, these two sample fractions differ signifi-
cantly in content and composition and may not under any circumstances be com-
pared.
Method 5X condensibles are collected in glass impingers containing deion-
ized distilled water and immersed in a water ice bath, and on a back-up filter
following those impingers. Any material remaining after extraction, filtra-
tion and ambient evaporation of the impinger solution, plus any material
collected on the desiccated back-up filter, is defined as Condensible organic
matter. Quantification of this matter is done gravimetrically.
Method 25 condensibles are collected in two stainless-steel traps, one
immersed in water ice followed by another packed in dry ice. Material
collected in the traps is oxidized, reduced and analyzed by flame ionization.
Results are expressed as a concentration of carbon (C..) .
2.1.3 Noncondensible Emissions
Noncondensible emissions are measured by Method 25 only and are those that
pass through both ice traps to the evacuated sample tank at the end of the
Method 25 train. These samples are oxidized, reduced and analyzed by FID.
Results are expressed as concentrations of carbon (C,).
2.1.4 Total Organic Emissions
Total organic emissions are those collected by the complete Method 25
sampling train drawing a preconditioned sample slipstream from a Method 5X
train. These emissions include condensible and noncondensible emissions as
defined above.
2-2
-------
2.2 Method 5X - Particulate/Condensible Organics Emission Tests
A summary of Method 5X particulate and condensible organics data collected
at the veneer dryer exhaust and the boiler 2 outlet is presented in
Tables 2-la (English units) and 2-lb (metric units). These tables include
relevant emission data: stack gas temperature, moisture content and volu-
metric flow rate; veneer drying production rate; and a summary of the total
measured particulate/condensible emissions by concentration, mass emission
rate, and emission rate per unit production.
Emission data are presented for five of the six test series performed.
Tests 1, 3 and 6 were performed concurrently at the veneer dryer exhaust and
the boiler 2 outlet. Tests 4 and 5 were boiler background emission tests
without veneer dryer exhaust for combustion air and were performed at the
boiler 2 outlet only. Test 2 was entirely voided because of a broken filter
holder at the boiler 2 outlet discovered at the conclusion of the test.
Emissions from the veneer dryer exhaust duct averaged 33.4 Ibs/hr (15.0
kg/hr) or 1.19 lbs/1000 ft? veneer on a 3/8-inch basis (5.62 kg/1000 n? on
9.5 mm basis) for the three valid tests performed. Emissions from boiler 2
averaged 33.0 Ibs/hr for the same three tests. The concentrations of the
emissions from the two sources, however, differed markedly. The average
veneer dryer exhaust concentration was 0.161 gr/DSCF (0.363 g/NM*), while
the boiler 2 outlet averaged only 0.098 gr/DSCF (0.224 g/NM3 ) for the same
three tests.
More detailed summaries of this test data are presented in Sections 2.2.1
and 2.2.2 and in Appendix A. Sample equations and calculations are presented
in Appendix B. Field data sheets appear in Appendix C. Sampling logs and
summaries are shown in Appendix D. Calibration data for the Method 5X
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-la (English Units)
SUMMARY OF METHOD SX PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE ORGANICS
COLLECTED AT THE VENEER DRYER EXHAUST AND BOILER 2 OUTLET
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Run Number
Date
Emission Point
Sample Volume (DSCF)C
Stack Gas Flow Rate (DSCFM)C
Stack Temperature (°P)
Stack Gas Moisture (% by volume)
Isokinesis (%)
Wet Fan AP (Inches HjO)
^ Average Opacity (%)
*• Production Rate (1000 ft2/hr)d
Particulate/Condensible Emiasions
g r/DSCF
pounds/hour
pounds/1000 ft2 d
1
9/21/81
Dryers Boiler 2
48.5 38.9
23,900 39,700
315 422
15.1 17.4
112 104
HA 0.73
NA 16
31.7
0.153 0.104
31.4 35.4
0.99 1.12
3
9/23/81
Dryers
46.1
25,700
320
11.7
99.6
NA
NA
0.175
37.8
1.31
Boiler 2
36.6
38,500
421
19.2
101
0.50
8
28.8
0.107
35.4
1.23
4a
9/24/81
Dryers
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Boiler 2
30.5
33,800
317
15.2
95.5
0.55
9
NA
0.127
36.9
NA
5a
9/24/81
Dryers
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Boiler 2
32.6
32,400
338
21.2
106
0.94
10
NA
0.150
41.9
NA
6
9/25/81
Dryers
41.8
23,300
322
11.2
99.7
NA
NA
0.156
31.1
1.28
Boiler 2
38.0
40,000
424
18.3
101
0.55
y
24.3
0.082
28.1
1.16
Average"
Dryers
45.9
24,300
319
12.7
104
NA
NA
0.161
3J.4
1.19
Boiler 2
37.8
39,400
422
18.3
102
O.b9
10
28.3
0.098
33.0
1.17
a Boiler background emission test
b Average does not include boiler background emission tests
c Standard Conditions are 29.92 inches Hg at 68°F
d On 3/8 inch basis, includes trim factors does not account for redry material
NA Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 2-lb (Metric Units)
SUMMARY OF METHOD 5X PARTICULATB AND CONDENSIBLE ORGANICS
COLLECTED AT THE VENEER DRYER EXHAUST AND BOILER 2 OUTLET
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Run Number
Date
Emission Point
Sample Volume (NM')C
Stack Gas Plowrate (NM'/min)
Stack Temperature (°C)
Stack Gas Moisture (t by volume)
Isokinesis (%)
Wet fan &P (mm HjO)
M Average Opacity (%)
1
01 Production Rate (1,000 mt/hr)d
Particulate/Condenslble Emissions
g/NM1
kg/hour
kg/1,000 m',
1
9/21/81
Dryers Boiler 2
1.41 1.10
677 1120
157 217
15.1 17.4
112 104
NA 18.5
NA 16
2.94
0.341 0.238
13.9 16.1
4.73 5.48
3
9/23/81
Dryers Boiler 2
1.31 1.04
728 1090
160 216
11.7 19.2
99.6 101
NA 12.7
NA 8
2.68
0.391 0.245
17.1 16.1
6.38 6.01
4a
9/24/81
Dryers
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Boiler 2
0.86
957
159
15.2
95.5
14.0
9
NA
0.291
16.7
NA
5a
9/24/81
Dryers
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Boiler 2
0.92
918
170
21.2
106
23.9
10
NA
0.343
18.9
NA
6
9/25/81
Dryers Boiler 2
1.18 1.08
660 1130
159 na
11.2 18.3
99.7 101
NA 14.0
NA 9
2.26
0.357 0.188
14.1 12.7
6.24 5.62
Average*5
Dryers Boiler 2
1.30 1.
688 1120
159 217
12.7 18.
104 102
NA 15.
NA 10
2.63
0.363 0.
15.0 14.
5.78 5.
07
3
0
224
9
69
a Boiler background emission test
b Average does not include boiler backrground emission tests
c Standard Conditions are 760 mm Hg at 20°C
d On 9.5 mm basis, includes trim factor) does not account for redry material
NA - Not Applicable
-------
sampling train is found in Appendix F. Laboratory analysis data are presenter1
in Appendix G.
2.2.1 Veneer Dryer Exhaust
A summary of Method 5X particulate and condensible organics data collected
at the veneer dryer exhaust is presented in Table 2-2. Data presented include
sample volume; stack gas flow rate, temperature, and moisture content; isoki-
nesis for each test; veneer production rate; front half (particulate) and
total (particulate plus condensible) emissions.
Tests 1, 3 and 6 were performed at the veneer dryer exhaust on September
21, 23, and 25, 1981, respectively. Measured particulate emissions ranged
from 1.60 to 3.22 Ibs/hr (0.06 to 0.13 lbs/1000 ft2 veneer), averaging 2.38
Ibs/hr (0.09 lbs/1000 ft? veneer). Total particulate/condensible emissions
ranged from 31.1 to 37.8 Ibs/hr (0.99 to 1.31 lbs/1000 ft2 veneer) for an
average of 33.4 Ibs/hr (1.19 lbs/1000 ft2 veneer). Particulate matter
collected accounted for approximately 7 percent of the total sample weight
while the remaining 93 percent of the catch was condensible organics.
Particulate grain loadings measured at the veneer dryer exhaust averaged
0.011 gr/DSCF for tests 1, 3 and 6; ranging from 0.007 to 0.016 gr/DSCF.
Total (particulate/condensible) grain loadings ranged from 0.153 to 0.175
gr/DSCF, for a three-test average of 0.161 gr/DSCF. The bulk of the total
emission concentration was accounted for by condensible organics (93 percent) .
The average stack gas temperature was 319 F with an average moisture
content of 12.7 percent. Moisture content varied from 11.1 percent to 15.1
percent over the three tests. The average stacK gas flow rate was 24,300
DSCFM and did not vary significantly among the three tests.
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF METHOD 5X PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
AT THE VENEER DRYER EXHAUST
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Run Number
Date
136 Average
9/21/81 9/23/81 9/25/81
Sample Volume (DSCF)a
StacK Gas Flowrate (DSCFM)a
Stack Temperature (°F)
StacK Gas Moisture (% by volume)
Isokinesis (%)
Production Rate (1,000 ft2/hr)b
Particulate/Condensible Emissions
Front Half (Probe and Filter)
mg
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
lbs/1,000 ft2
Total
mg
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
lbs/1000 ft?
Percent Condensible Emissions
48.5 46.1 41.8 45.9
23,900 25,700 23,300 24,300
315 320 322 319
12.7
104
28.3
15.1
112
31.7
11.7
99.6
28.8
11.2
99.7
24.3
35.6 21.7
0.011 0.007
2.32C 1.60
0.07 0.06
43.7 33.7
0.016 0.011
3.22 2.38
0.13 0.09
481 513 422 472
0.153 0.175 0.156 0.161
31.4C 37.8 31.1 33.4
0.99 1.31 1.28 1.19
92.6 95.8 89.7 92.9
a Standard Conditions are 29.92 in. Hg at 68°F
b On 3/8 inch basis, includes trim factor; does not account for redry
material
c Average of concentration and area ratio method calculations
(Refer to Table 2-4)
2-7
-------
Isokinesis averaged 104 percent for the three valid tests performed.
Isokinesis for test 1 was high at 112 percent due to a nomograph calculation
error, while tests 3 and 6 were acceptable at 100 +10 percent. Leak checks
were performed at the conclusion of each test and leak rates found acceptable
at less than 0.02 cfm.
The mass emission rate for test 1 was recalculated using the area ratio
method because of anisokinetic conditions. The results are presented in Table
2-4 and are identical to those obtained from the concentration method, which
is the normal approach. This fact is probably due to the small percentage of
particulate matter in the gas stream which would escape collection by the
sampling nozzle under anisokinetic sampling conditions. An explanation of the
area ratio method for calculating mass emission rates is presented in Section
5 of this report.
2.2.2 Boiler 2 Outlet
A summary of Method 5X particulate and condensible organics data collected
at the boiler 2 outlet is presented in Table 2-3. Data presented include
sample volume; stack gas flow rate, temperature, and moisture content;
isokinesis for each test; veneer production rate; front half (particulate) and
total (particulate plus condensible) emissions.
Five emission tests were performed at the boiler 2 outlet. Tests 1, 3 and
6 were performed concurrently with tests performed at the veneer dryer exhaust
on September 21, 23 and 25, respectively. Tests 4 and 5 were performed on
September 24 at the boiler 2 outlet to measure only boiler emissions when
veneer dryer exhaust was not used for overfire/underfire air. Tests 4 and 5
were boiler background emission tests.
2-8
-------
NJ
I
ID
TABLE 2-3
SUMMARY OF METHOD 5X PARTICULATE AND CONDENSIBLE ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
AT THE BOILER 2 OUTLET
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Run Number
Date
Sample Volume (DSCF)a
Stack Gas Flowrate (DSCFM)*
Stack Temperature (°F)
Stack Gas Moisture (% by volume)
Isokinesia (%)
Production Rate (1,000 ft*/hr)b
Particulate/Condenstble Emlsaiona
Front Half (Probe and Filter)
mg
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
lbs/1,000 ftb
Total
mg
gr/DSCF
Ibs/hr
lbs/1000 ft',
Percent Condons ible Emissions
1
9/21/81
38.9
39,700
422
17.4
104
31.7
237
0.094
32.0
1.01
262
0.104
35.4
1.12
9.60
3
9/23/81
36.6
38,500
421
19.2
101
28.8
218
0.092
30.4
1.06
255
0.107
35.4
1.23
14.1
4C
9/24/81
30.5
33,800
317
15.2
95.5
NA
208
0.106
30.6
NA
252
0.127
36.9
NA
17.1
5C
9/24/81
32.6
32,400
338
21.2
106
NA
298
0.141
39.1
NA
318
0.150
41.9
NA
6.68
6
9/25/81
38.0
40,000
424
18.3
101
24.3
190
0.077
26.4
1.09
202
0.082
28.1
1.16
6.05
Average"
(If 3, 6)
37.8
39,400
422
18.3
102
28.3
215
0.088
29.6
1.05
240
0.098
33.0
1.17
10.3
Average6
(4, 5)
9/24/81
31.6
33,100
328
18.2
101
NA£
253
0.124
34.9
NA«
285
0.139
39.4
NAf
11.4
a Standard Conditions are 29.92 in. Hg at 68°P
b On 3/8 inch basis, includes trim factor* does not account for redry material
c Boiler background emission tests
d Average does not include boiler background emission tests
6 Average of boiler background emission tests
f Boiler load increased near the end of Run 4 and maintained at increased load during Run 5
NA - Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 2-4
COMPARISON OF VENEER DRYER EXHAUST EMISSIONS
(CONCENTRATION METHOD VS. AREA RATIO METHOD)
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Run #5X-1-I
Front Half
Back Half
Total
(Isokinesis =
Concentration
Method
2.32
29.1
31.4
112%)
Pounds Per Hour
Area Ratio3
Method
2.32
29.1
31.4
Average
2.32
29.1
31.4
a Brenchley, Turley, Yarmac; Industrial Source
Sampling, Ann Arbor
Science, Publishers, Inc., 1973, pp.173-175
2-10
-------
2.2.2.1 Tests 1, 3, and 6
Measured particulate emissions for tests 1, 3 and 6 ranged from 26.4 to
32.0 Ibs/hr, averaging 29.6 Ibs/hr (1.05 lbs/1000 ft2 veneer). Total
measured emissions (particulate and condensible) ranged from 28.1 Ibs/hr for
test 6 to 35.4 Ibs/hr for both tests 1 and 3. The average total emission
rate was 33.0 Ibs/hr (1.17 lbs/1000 ft2 veneer). Particulate material
collected during these three tests accounted for approximately 90 percent of
the total emissions, while the remaining 10 percent was condensible organics.
Particulate grain loadings measured at the boiler 2 outlet averaged 0.088
gr/DSCF for these tests, ranging from 0.077 gr/DSCF during test 6 to 0.094
gr/DSCF for test 1. Total grain loadings (particulate/condensible) ranged
from 0.082 to 0.107 gr/DSCF, averaging 0.098 gr/DSCF for the three tests.
The average stack gas temperature measured during tests 1, 3 and 6 was
o
422 F and showed little variation among tests. Moisture content of the gas
stream averaged 18.3 percent for the three tests with little variation. Stack
gas flow rates averaged 39,400 DSCFM without significant variation.
Isokinesis was acceptable for all three tests at 100 ±10 percent and
averaged 102 percent. Leak rates were acceptable for tests 1 and 6 at less
than 0.02 cfm. The average leak rate for test 3 (from four leak checks) was
0.026 cfm. Additional calculations for excessive leak rate were performed,
but the sample volume and emission rate were not significantly effected.
2.2.2.2 Tests 4 and 5 - (Boiler Background Emission Tests)
The measured particulate emission rate for the boiler background emission
tests was 30.6 and 39.1 Ibs/hr for tests 4 and 5 respectively, averaging 34.9
los/hr. The total emission rates measured were 36.9 and 41.9 Ibs/hr,
averaging 39.4 Ibs/hr. Particulate collected during these tests accounted for
2-11
-------
approximately 88 percent of the total sample, while the remaining 12 percent
was condensible organics.
Particulate grain loadings averaged 0.124 gr/DSCF for the two boiler
background emission tests, ranging from 0.106 gr/DSCF for test 4 to 0.141
gr/DSCF for test 5. Total grain loadings (particulate/condensible) ranged
from 0.127 to 0.151 gr/DSCF, averaging 0.139 gr/DSCF for the two tests.
In addition to emission rates that were significantly higher than the
three tests (1, 3 and 6) discussed previously in this section (almost 20
percent higher on the average), other parameters were quite different. The
average stack temperature of 328 F was 96 F lower than tests 1, 3 and 6.
This may be due to overfire/underfire air being introduced at ambient
temperature (not preheated) into the boiler during the background emission
tests while the temperature of overfire/underfire air used during tests 1, 3
and 6 exceeded 300 F. The average stack gas flow rate (33,100 DSCFM), was
16 percent lower than the average of tests 1, 3 and 6. Moisture content of
the stack gas was measured to be 15.2 percent and 21.2 percent for tests 4 and
5, respectively, but the average is essentially the same as tests 1, 3 and 6.
Steam production from the boiler remained relatively stable for tests 1, 3, 4
and 6, but a significant increase in production occurred during test 5, due to
startup of the hardboard plant, and possibly accounting for the higher
emission rate.
Although the intent of these tests was to preclude the introduction of
veneer dryer exhaust into the boilers, it was observed through the inspection
port in the ductwork immediately in front of the boiler that some veneer dryer
exhaust was leaking through the upstream isolation damper and entering the
boilers.
2-12
-------
2.3 Method 25 - Total Organic Tests
A summary of the Method 25 total organic data (condensible and
noncondensible) collected at the veneer dryer exhaust and boiler 2 outlet is
presented in Tables 2-5a (English units), 2-5b (metric units), 2-6a (English
units) and 2-6b (metric units) amd 2-6c, respectively. These tables include
TRC and NCASI average emission data: stack gas flow rate, moisture content
and temperature; veneer drying production rate, and a summary of the total
organic emissions by concentration, mass emission rate, and emission rate per
unit production. All emissions are expressed as carbon (C..). NCASI
calculates the emission rate as Ibs/hr equivalent methane (CH.) instead of
carbon (C ). Their data in the tables have been converted to Ibs/hr C
for comparison and to present the data on a consistent basis, conforming with
Method 25.
Emission data are presented for five test series. Tests 1, 3 and 6 were
performed concurrently at the veneer dryer exhaust and the boiler 2 outlet.
Tests 4 and 5 were boiler background emission tests and were performed at the
boiler 2 outlet only. Test 2 was entirely voided because of a Method 5X
sampling problem at the boiler 2 outlet.
More detailed summaries of these test data are presented in Sections 2.3.1
and 2.3.2, and in Appendix A. Sample equations and calculations are presented
in Appendix B. Field data sheets appear in Appendix C. Sampling logs and
summaries are shown in Appendix D. Laboratory analysis data are presented in
Appendix G.
2.3.1 Veneer Dryer Exhaust
A summary of Method 25 condensible and noncondensible organics data
collected at the veneer dryer exhaust is presented in Tables 2-5a, 2-5b, and
2-7. Table 2-5 shows relevant emission data and presents total organic
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-5a (English Units)
SUMMARY OF METHOD 25 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
AT THE VENEER DRYER EXHAUST
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
10
Run Number
Date
Stack Gas Flow Rate (DSCFM)a
Stack Temperature (°F)
Stack Gas Moisture (% by volume)
Production Rate (1000 ftf/hr)b
Analysis Laboratory
Total Organic Emissions0
ppm (GL)
gr/DSCF (Cx)
Ibs/hr (Ci)
lbs/1000 ft? (OL)
1
9/21/81
23,900
315
15.1
31.7
TRC NCASI
1577 543
.344 .118
70.5 24.3
(27.7)d
2.22 .765
3
9/23/81
25,700
320
11.7
28.8
TRC NCASI
734 729
.160 .159
35.3 35.0
1.22 1.22
6
9/25/81
23,300
322
11.2
24.3
TRC NCASI
647 726
.141 .158
28.2 31.6
1.16 1.30
Average
24,300
319
12.7
28.3
TRC NCASI
986 666
.215 .145
44.8 30.3
(30.4)d
1.58 1.10
a Standard Conditions are 29.92 inches Hg at 68°F
b On 3/8 inch basis, includes trim factor; does not account for redry material
c Emissions calculated and reported as Cj_. Does not include front half results from Method 5X sample
d One data point from Test Run 1 not considered representative. Parenthetical values are approximations
based on other test runs.
-------
TABLE 2-5b (Metric Units)
SUMMARY OP METHOD 25 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
AT THE VENEER DRYER EXHAUST
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
10
I
Run Number
Date
Stack Gas Flow Rate (NM'/min)3
Stack Temperature (°C)
Stack Gas Moisture (% by volume)
Production Rate (1000 m»/hr)b
Analysis Laboratory
Total Organic Emissions0
ppm (CX)
g/NM' (CX)
kg/hr (c^
kg/1000 it? (Ci)
1
9/21/81
677
157
15.1
2.94
TRC NCASI
1577 543
.788 .270
32.0 11.0
(12.6)d
10.9 3.74
3
9/23/81
728
160
11.7
2.68
TRC NCASI
734 729
.367 .364
16.0 16.3
5.97 6.08
6
9/25/81
660
159
11.2
2.26
TRC NCASI
647 726
.323 .362
12.8 14.3
5.66 6.33
Average
688
159
12.7
2.63
TRC NCASI
986 666
.493 .332
20.3 13.9
(13.8)d
22.5 5.38
a Standard Conditions are 29.92 inches Hg at 68°F
b On 3/8 inch basis, includes trim factor; does not account for redry material
c Emissions calculated and reported as Cj_. Does not include front half results from Method 5X sample
d One data point*from Test Run 1 not considered representative. Parenthetical values are approximations
based on other test runs.
-------
TABLE 2-6a (English Units)
SUMMARY OF METHOD 25 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
AT THE BOILER 2 OUTLET
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Run Number
Date
Stack Gas Flow Rate (DSCFM)d
Stack Temperature (°F)
Stack Gas Moisture (% by volume)
Production Rate (1000 ft»/hr)e
Analysis Laboratory
Total Organic Emissions^
ppm (Cj)
gr/DSCF (Cj^
Ibs/hr (Cx)
NJ
,L lbs/1000 ft« (Ci)
CT>
1
9/21/81
39,700
422
17.4
31.7
TRC NCASI
741 23.3
.162 .005
55.0 1.73
1.74 .055
3
9/23/81
38,500
421
19.2
28.8
TRC NCASI
1175 146
.256 .032
84.6 10.5
2.94 .365
4a
9/24/81
33,800
317
15.2
NA
TRC NCASI
744 173
.162 .038
47.0 10.9
NA9 NA9
5a
9/24/81
32,400
338
21.2
NA
TRC NCASI
1425 120
.311 .026
86.3 7.23
NA9 NA9
6
9/25/81
40,000
424
18.3
24.3
TRC NCASI
755 71.1
.165 .015
56.5 5.31
2.32 .219
Average"
(1, 3, 6)
39,400
422
18.3
28.3
TRC NCASI
B90 UO.l
.194 .017
65.6 5.85
2.32 .213
Average0
(4, 5)
33,100
328
18..!
NA
TKC NCASI
JOUS 147
.236 .032
67.2 9.08
NA9 NA9
a Boiler Background Emission Test
b Average does not include boiler background emission test
c Average of boiler background emission tests
d Standard Conditions are 29.92 inches Hg at 68°F
e On 3/8 inch basis, includes trim factor) does not account for redry material
f Results not corrected for CO2 interference. See Section 5.3.2.5.
9 Boiler load increased near the end of Run 4 and maintained at increased load during Run 5
NA - Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 2-6b (Metric Units)
SUMMARY OP METHOD 25 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
AT THE BOILER 2 OUTLET
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
K)
I
Run Number
Date
1
9/21/81
3
9/23/81
4a
9/24/81
5a
9/24/81
6
9/25/81
Average0
(1. 3. 6)
Average0
(4. 5)
Stack Gas Flow Rate (NM>/min)d
Stack Temperature (°C)
Stack Gas Moisture (% by volume)
Production Rate (1000 m»/hr)e
Analysis Laboratory
Total Organic Emissions^
ppm (Ct)
g/NM> (C})
kg/hr (Cx)
kg/1,000 of
1120
217
17.4
2.94
TRC NCASI
741 23.3
.371 .011
25.0 .785
8.50 .267
1090
216
19.2
2.68
TRC NCASI
1175 146
.586 .073
38.4 4.77
14.3 1.78
957
159
15.2
NA
TRC NCASI
744 173
.371 .087
21.3 4.95
NA9 NA9
918
170
21.2
NA
TRC NCASI
1425 120
.712 .060
39.2 3.28
NA? NA9
1130 1120
218 217
18.3 18.3
2.26 2.63
TRC NCASI TRC NCASI
755 71.1 890 80.1
.378 .034 .445 .039
25.7 2.41 29.7 2.66
11.4 1.07 11.4 1.04
938
165
18.2
NA
TRC NCASI
1085 147
.541 .074
30.3 4.12
NA9 NA9
a Boiler Background Emission Test
b Average does not include boiler background emission test
c Average of boiler background emission tests
d Standard Conditions are 29.92 inches Hg at 68°P
e On 3/8 inch basis, includes trim factor; does not account for redry material
e Results not corrected for CO2 interference. See Section 5.3.2.5.
9 Boiler load increased near the end of Run 4 and maintained at increased load during Run 5
NA - Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 2-6C
SUMMARY OF METHOD 25 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
AT THE BOILER 2 OUTLET CORRECTED FOR CO2 INTERFERENCE
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON. OREGON
Run Number
Date
Production Rate (1000 ft? /hr)a
Analysis Laboratory
Total Organic Emissions
ppm (Cj )
gr/DSCF (C1)
Ib/hr (Cx)
M lb/1000 ff (Cx)
136 Average
9/21/81 9/23/81 9/25/81
31.7 28.8 24.3 28.3
TRC NCASId TRC NCASId TRC NCASId TRC NCASI
Ab Bc Ab B° Ab B° Ab Bc
725 732 9.3 1158 1166 130 738 746 55 874 881 64.8
0.158 0.160 0.002 0.252 0.254 0.028 0.161 0.163 0.012 0.191 0.192 0.014
53.8 54.3 0.69 83.3 83.9 9.36 55.2 55.7 4.11 64.3 64.6 4.77
1.70 1.71 0.022 2.89 2.90 0.32 2.27 2.29 0.17 2.27 2.30 0.17
03
aOn 3/8 inch basis, includes trim factor; does not account for redry material.
bCortected for CO2 interference using the Pollution Control Science, Inc., method. See Section 5.3.2.5.
cCorrected for CO2 interference using the NCASI method. See Section 5.3.2.5.
dNCASI corrections include a trap blank conversion of approximately 7 ppm.
-------
TABLE 2-6c (Continued)
SUMMARY OF METHOD 25 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
AT THE BOILER 2 OUTLET CORRECTED FOR C02 INTERFERENCE
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
to
I
Run Number
Date
Analysis Laboratory
Total Organic Emissions
ppm (C^)
gr/DSCF (C±)
Ib/hr (CX)
4a
9/24/81
TRC NCASId
Ab Bc
731 736 157
0.159 0.160 0.034
46.2 46.5 9.91
5a
9/24/81
TRC NCASld
Ab Bc
1392 1406 102
0.303 0.307 0.022
84.3 85.2 6.17
Average
TRC NCASI
Ab Bc
1062 1071 130
0.231 0.234 0.028
65.7 65.9 8.04
aBoiler background emission test.
bCorrected for CO2 interference using the Pollution Control Science, Inc., method. See Section 5.3.2.5.
cCorrected for CO2 interference using the NCASI method. See Section 5.3.2.5.
dNCASI corrections include a trap blank correction of approximately 7 ppm.
-------
TABLE 2-7
SUMMARY OF METHOD INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC TRAP AND TANK MEASUREMENTS
AT THE VENEER DRYER EXHAUST
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Stack Gas Condenslble Catch8'0 Non-Condensible Catch8 'D Total9 Pair3 Emission8 Relative
Run Flow Rate Sample Analysis Traps Sample Tank Catch Average Rate Standard
Number Date (DSCFM) I.D. No. Laboratory (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (Ibs/hr) Deviation (»)
1 9/21/81 23,900 I-1-25-A TRC
I-1-25-B
9211 NCASI
9212
3 9/23/81 25,700 I-3-25-A TRC
I-3-25-B
to 9231 NCASI
1
to
0 9232
6 9/25/01 23,300 I-6-25-A TRC
I-6-25-B
9251 NCASI
9252
2293d (376)
376
551
499
448
823
645
750
681
144
777
612
274
211°
17.8
18.3
n.d.
197
55.4
6.3
185
283
22.4
39.7
2567 (650)
1577(619) 70.5(27.7) 88.8(7.20)
587
569
543 24.3 6.77
517
448
734 35.3 55.1
1020
701
729 35.0 5.34
756
866
647 28.1 48.0
427
799
726 31.6 14.3
652
8 AS Cl
b See Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 for the definition of Method 25 condeneible and non-condensible catch.
c Sample Tank Leaked
d Data point not considered representative. Trap contamination is suspected, parenthetical values are approximations based on the other test runs.
n.d. - none detected
-------
emissions calculated by both TRC and NCASI as concentration, mass emission
rate, and emission rate per unit production. Table 2-7 presents a breakdown
of the total organic emissions into condensible and noncondensible organics as
analyzed by the two laboratories. In addition, individual sample train
analyses results are shown. The relative standard deviation between the
paired sample trains is also presented.
Emissions of carbon (C ) from the veneer dryer exhaust as measured by
TRC and NCASI showed good overall correlation except for test 1. The TRC
condensible trap concentration determined for one sampling train exceeded its
mate by a factor of 5. This might be because of contamination in the trap.
The precision of the test data between the sample pairs (relative standard
deviation) was considerably better for NCASI data (averaging 8.8 percent) than
for TRC data, which averaged 70 percent.
2.3.2 Boiler 2 Outlet
A summary of Method 25 condensible and noncondensible organics data
collected at the boiler 2 outlet is presented in Tables 2-6a, 2-6b, 2-6c, and
2-8. Table 2-6 shows relevant emission data and presents total organic
emissions calculated by both TRC and NCASI as concentration, mass emission
rate, and emission rate per unit production. Table 2-8 presents a breakdown
of the total organic emissions into condensible and noncondensible organics as
analyzed by the two laboratories. In addition, individual sample train
analyses results are shown. The relative standard deviation between paired
sample trains is also presented.
Emissions of carbon (C ) from boiler 2 as measured by TRC and NCASI show
poor correlation. The average emissions as calculated by TRC were 9 times
greater than those measured by NCASI. There is no readily apparent explana-
tion for this difference.
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-8
SUMMARY OF METHOD 25 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC TRAP AND TANK MEASUREMENTS
AT BOILER 2 OUTLET*
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Stack Gas
Run Plow Rate Sample
Number Date (DSCFM)9 I.D. No.
1 9/21/81 39,700 0-1-25-A
0-1-25-B
9213
9214
3 9/23/81 38,500 0-3-25-A
0-3-25-B
9233
10
K> 9234
10
4b 9/24/81 33,800 0-4-25-A
0-4-25-B
9241
9242
5b 9/24/81 32,400 0-5-25-A
0-5-25-B
9243
9244
Condensible Catch6
Analysis Traps
Laboratory (ppm)
TRC 571
510
NCASI 23.6
15.2
TRC 592
1048
NCASI 145
131
TRC 597
353
NCASI 213
132
TRC 773
897
NCASI 62.6
58.0
Non-Condenslble Catch6
Sample Tank
(ppm)
215
185
n.d.
7.7
489
221
9.3
6.2
279
263
n.d.
n.d.
730
450
44.9
73.1
Total6 Pair6 Emission6 Relative
Catch Average Rate Standard
(ppm) (ppm) (Ibs/hr) Deviation (*)
786
741 55.0 8.96
695
23.6£
23.3 1.73 2.13
22. 9£
1081
1175 84.6 11.3
1269
154
146 10.5 8.26
137
871^
744 47.0 24.3
616
213
173 10.9 33.2
132
1503
1425 86.3 7.74
1347
108
120 7.23 13.6
131
-------
TABLE 2-8 (CONT.)
SUMMARY OF METHOD 25 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ORGANIC TRAP AND TANK MEASUREMENTS
AT BOILER 2 OUTLET6
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
to
1
NJ
U)
Run
Number
6
Stack Gas
Flow Rate
Date (DSCFM)a
9/25/81 40,000
a Standard Conditions are 29
D Boiler background emission
« As Cl
a See Section 2.1.2 and 2.1.
Condensible Catch
Sample
Analysis
I.D. No. Laboratory
0-6-25A
0-6-25B
9253
9254
.92 in Hg
tests
3 foe the
TRC
NCASI
at 68°F
definition of
Traps0'0
(ppra)
379
731
29.1
62.4
Method 25 condensible
Non-Condensible Catchc'°
Sample Tank
(ppra)
209
171
n.d.
50.4
and non-condenslble catch.
Total0'0 Pair0'" Emission0'11 Relative
Catch Average Rate Standard
(ppm) (ppro) (Ibs/hr) Deviation (%)
607
755 56.5 27.7
9029
29.1*
71.1 5.31 83.5
113
Results not corrected for CO2 interference. See Section 5.3.2.5.
Results are Delow what NCASI considers their lower detection level for these samples. The lower detection limit is estimaed to be 35 ppm when
the CO2 interference is taken into consideration.
Sample tank leaked.
-------
The intralaboratory and interlaboratory comparisons of relative standard
deviations between paired samples show good correlation.
2.4 Visible Emissions
A summary of visible emission observations from the boiler 2 outlet is
presented in Table 2-9. Average opacities are presented for 6-minute time
periods during each test. No opacity data are provided for port change inter-
ruptions. The average opacity for tests 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was 10 percent,
ranging from 8 percent for tests 3 and 5 to 16 percent for test 1. These 6-
rainute average opacities are presented graphically in Figures 2-1 through 2-5.
During tests 5 and 6 opacity could not be evaluated because of excessive
cloud cover obscuring the white plume. The average opacities in these cases
were determined by averaging only the unobscured readings. Visible emission
field data sheets and the observer certification are contained in Appendix E.
2.5 Boiler 1 Flow Measurements
A summary of volumetric flow measurements taken at the boiler 1 outlet is
presented in Table 2-10. This table shows the two volumetric flow rates
measured during each test and the average of the two. In addition, the
volumetric flow rates at the boiler 2 outlet and veneer dryer exhaust
determined during the Method 5X tests are presented for comparative purposes.
Volumetric flow rates from boiler 1 measured during tests 1, 3 and 6
ranged from 38,680 to 42,370 DSCFM, averaging 38,700 DSCFM with an average
stack gas temperature of approximately 250 F. The average stack gas flow
rate from boiler 2 during these tests was 39,400 DSCFM, while the flow rate
measured at the veneer dryer exhaust averaged 24,900 DSCFM. These
measurements reveal a total system output of approximately 80,000 DSCFM, while
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-9
SUMMARY Of VISIBLE EMISSIONS
FROM BOILER 2 OUTLET
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
M
I
un
Run 1
(1644 - 1814)
9/21/81
Run 3
(1156 - 1419)
9/23/81
Six Minute Average
Time Period Opacity (%)
1642-1647
1648-1653
1700-1705
1706-1711
1712-1717
1718-1725
Port Change
Port Change
1736-1741
1742-1747
1748-1752
1800-1805
1806-1811
1812-1817
Average
14
18
12
19
19
19
11
15
15
12
18
14
16
Six Minute Average
Time Period Opacity (%)
1151-1156
1157-1202
1203-1208
1209-1214
1215-1220
1221-1226
1227-1232
Port Change
Port Change
1343-1348
1349-1354
1355-1400
1401-1406
1407-1412
1413-1418
1419-1424
Average
5
5
5
5
8
5
8
9
9
4
6
11
18
18
8
Run 4
(1313 - 1441)
9/24/81
Six Minute Average
Time Period Opacity (%)
1324-1329
1330-1335
1336-1341
1342-1347
1348-1353
Port
Port
1406-1411
1412-14-17
1418-1423
1424-1429
1430-1435
1436-1441
Average
Change
Change
6
11
17
7
10
5
5
6
7
15
5
9
Run 5
(1644 - 1812)
9/24/81
Six Minute Average
Time Period Opacity (%)
1641-1646
1647-1652
1653-1658
1659-1704
1705-1711
1712-1717
1718-1723
Port Change
Port Change
1736-1741
1742-1747
1747-1752
1753-1758
1759-1804
1805-1810
1811-1816
Average
3
a
16
a
a
a
a
a
10
Run 6
(1207 .- 1332)
9/25/81
Six Minute Average
Time Period Opacity (%)
1203-1208
1209-1214
1215-1220
1221-1226
1227-1232
1233-1238
Port Change
Port Change
1251-1256
1257-1302
1303-1308
1309-1314
1315-1320
1321-1326
Average
a
a
a
18
a
14
7
a
a
8
3
1
9
n.d. - not detectable, not used in calculation of averages
a Opacity could not be determined due to overcast sky interference.
-------
30
25
20
O.
O
LU
15
10
0
1642
TEST 1
9/21/81
PORT
CHANGE
I
I
1700 1712
1724 1736
TIME
1748
1806 1818
Figure 2-1. Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet
at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
2-26
-------
30
25
TEST 3
9/23/81
-------
30
25
o 20
LU
CJ
<
LU
h-
15
10
TEST 4- BOILER BACKGROUND
9/24/81
PORT
CHANGE
1324 1336 1348
1406
TIME
1418 1430 1442
Figure 2-3. Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet
at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
2-28
-------
30
TEST 5- BOILER BACKGROUND
9/24/81
25
o
& 20
15
i
10
10
>-
' NOT DETECTABLE
PORT
CHANGE
1641
1653
1705
1718
1736
TIME
1747
1759
1811
Figure 2-4. Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet
at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
2-29
-------
30
25
TEST 6
9/25/81
o
UJ
1
LU
>
<
s:
i
10
20
NOT DETECTABLE
15
10
PORT
CHANGE
1203
1215
1227
1239
1251
1303
1315
1327
TIME
Figure 2-5. Summary of visible emissions from Boiler 2 outlet
at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
2-30
-------
TABLE 2-10
SUMMARY OF VOLUMETRIC FLOW MEASUREMENTS AT BOILER 1 OUTLET
COMPARED TO BOILER 2 OUTLET AND VENEER DRYER EXHAUST
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
to
GO
Run
Number
1
3
4b
5b
6
Average0
U, 3, 6)
Average ^
(4, 5)
Date
9/21/81
9/23/81
9/24/81
9/24/81
9/25/81
—
9/24/81
Stack
Boiler 1
A
42,370 39,
38,680 37,
32,520 34,
40,570 40,
37,100 37,
Gas Flow
Rates (DSCFM)3
Outlet
B
340
250
070
430
030
Boiler 2
Outlet
Average
40,
38,
33,
40,
37,
38,
36,
900
000
300
500
100
700
900
39,
38,
33,
32,
40,
39,
33,
700
500
800
400
000
400
100
Veneer Dryer Exhaust
25,700
25,700
NA
NA
23,300
24,900
NA
a Standard Conditions are 29.92 in. Hg @ 68°F
b Boiler background emission test
c Average does not include boiler background emission tests
d Average of boiler background emission tests
-------
the input from the veneer dryers was only approximately 25,000 DSCFM. The
only other input to this system is a 3000 SCFM fan providing combustion air to
the wood-fired temperature booster in the boiler 1 heat exchanger system. The
remaining 50,000 DSCFM represents ambient temperature combustion air.
The measured boiler 1 volumetric flow rates for the boiler background
emission tests were 33,300 and 40,500 DSCFM for tests 4 and 5, respectively.
The stack gas temperature was measured to be 355 F during test 4. This
higher temperature was due to the shutdown of the heat exchanger in the boiler
1 exhaust system. The heat exchanger, which supplies hot air to the hardboard
plant, was back in operation for test 5 and the stack gas temperature returned
to the normal 250 F range.
No measurements of flow from the veneer dryer exhaust were made during the
boiler background emission tests. It was, however, observed that small
amounts of veneer dryer emissions did enter the boilers during these tests
even though all veneer dryer abort dampers were open.
Field data sheets for these measurements may be found in Appendix C.
Pitot tube calibration data is presented in Appendix E.
2.6 Wet Fan Operational Data
The pressure drop (AP) across the boiler 2 wet fan sump was monitored at
30-minute intervals during each boiler 2 outlet emission test. A summary of
these data is presented in Table 2-11.
AP measured across the wet fan sump ranged from 0.50 inches H 0 for
test 3 to 0.95 inches H20 for test 5. The average AP for the five tests
was 0.66 inches HO.
2-32
-------
N)
U)
TABLE 2-11
SUMMARY OF PRESSURE DROP DATA
ACROSS BOILER 2 WET FAN
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
Run 1
9/21/81
AP
Time (in. H?O)
1645
1715
1745
1815
Average
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.75
0.75
Run 3
9/23/81
AP
Time (in. H?O)
1205
1235
1315
1345
1415
Average
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.55
0.50
Run 4
9/24/81
AP
Time (in. H?O)
1320
1350
1422
1450
Average
0.60
0.60
0.55
0.40
0.55
Run 5
9/24/81
AP
Time (in. H?O)
1645
1715
1745
1815
Average
1.0
1.0
0.75
1.0
0.95
Run 6
9/25/81
AP
Time (in. H?O)
1205
1230
1305
1335
Average
0.60
0.65
0.45
0.50
0.55
-------
2.7 Summary of Fugitive Emissions
The following is a summary of fugitive emission observations provided by
RTI/DGA. The steam-heated veneer dryers all showed fugitive emissions. No
estimates were made as to their contribution to total emissions from the
dryers but they are not insignificant. Champion has a regular program of
dryer maintenance including resealing and replacing skins when the dryers are
shut down. Door seals appeared to contribute more to total fugitive emissions
than any other single source. There were significant emissions coming from
seals around the elephant ears. Leaks did materialize from the green end
veneer entrances but were not a major source of fugitive emissions.
The most noticeable change during the week was on Thursday when the abort
stacks were opened and no emissions were being incinerated in the boiler.
During the morning hours the room air was much clearer around the dryers. In
the afternoon there were noticeable fugitive emissions, but probably less than
on other test days. Number 4 dryer showed noticeably higher fugitive
emissions all week, including Thursday when fugitive emissions were noticed in
the afternoon. Dryers 3, 5 and 6 also contributed significant fugitive
emissions while dryers 1 and 2 appeared to be somewhat better sealed or dried
in such a manner that there were fewer emissions.
As for cooling sections, only dryer number 6 consistently showed organic
emissions. The roof vents did reflect the fugitive emissions that were coming
off the dryers. Fugitive emission information is included in Table 3-1.
2.8 Ambient Air Measurements
A summary of ambient temperature and relative humidity measurements by
RTI/DGA is presented along with process information in Table 3-1. Ambient
temperatures ranged from 58 to 69°F, while relative humidity ranged from 46
to 75 percent during the test program.
2-34
-------
2.9 Method 5X Clean-up Evaluation
Results of the clean-up evaluations performed on both Method 5X sampling
trains are presented in Table 2-12. Front half total residue collected was
1.3 mg and 5.7 mg for the dryer exhaust and boiler 2 sampling trains, respec-
tively. Back half total residue collected was 11.5 mg for each sampling
train. Total residue collected during the clean-up evaluation was 12.8 mg for
the veneer dryer exhaust sampling train and 17.2 mg for the boiler 2 outlet
sampling train.
The average collected residue of 15 mg indicates a lower detection limit
in the approximate range of 0.008 gr/DSCF for a Method 5X sample of 30 DSCF.
2.10 Method 25 Audit Sample Analyses
Audit sample analyses were performed by TRC and NCASI in conjunction with
the test program. Three audit sample cylinders were provided to each
laboratory by RTI. Two of the cylinders contained propylene/nitrogen mixtures
and the third contained a toluene/nitrogen mixture. The contents of each tank
were analyzed by direct injection of a sample into the TGNMO analyzer. These
samples were quantified against the NMO calibration standards.
TRC performed two additional audit sample analyses which were performed by
withdrawing samples from the toluene/nitrogen cylinder and into two Method 25
trains configured and operated in a manner indentical to those used for the
field sampling program. The samples were then analyzed using the usual Method
25 procedures involving condensible trap purge and recovery, and sample tank
analysis. NCASI performed six additional audit sample analyses by withdrawing
two samples from each cylinder into two Method 25 trains identical to those
used for the field sampling program. These samples were then analyzed using
their modified Method 25 procedures.
TRC audit sample analysis results are presented in Tables 2-13a and
2-13b. NCASI results are presented in Tables 2-14a and 2-14b.
2-35
-------
TABLE 2-12
SUMMARY OP METHOD 5X CLEAN-UP EVALUATION
CHAMPION PLYWOOD PLANT-LEBANON, OREGON
9/21/81
Sample Fraction
Front Half
Probe Wash (D. D. H20)
Probe Wash (acetone)
Front Filter
Front Half Total
Back Half
Organic Extraction
Evaporation
Acetone Rinse
Back-up filter
Back Half Total
Total Sample
Residue Weight (mg)
5X-I 5X-0
1.3 4.4
0 1.2
0 0.1
1.3 5.7
2.9 3.0
0 0
8.4 8.5
0.2 0
11.5 11.5
12.8 17.2
2-36
-------
TABLE 2-13a
TRC METHOD 25 AUDIT SAMPLE RESULTS
DIRECT INJECTION
Audit
Sample
Number
663
665
—
Organic
Compound
Propylene
Propylene
Toluene
Component
Analyzed
Cl
Cl
Cl
RTI
Result
(ppm C^)
44.4
984
3010
TRC
Result
(ppm C})
42.3
1027
2985
Error
-4.73
+4.37
-0.83
TABLE 2-13b
TRC METHOD 25 AUDIT SAMPLE RESULTS
PREPARED SAMPLING TRAINS
Train
I.D.
A
B
Organic
Compound
Toluene
Toluene
RTI
Component Result
Analyzed (ppm Ci)
G! 3010
OL 3010
TRC
Trap
(PPm Ci)
872
1190
TRC
Tank
(ppm Ci)
1521
1157
TRC
Total
(PPm Ci)
2393
2347
Error
-20.5
-22.0
2-37
-------
TABLE 2-14a
NCASI METHOD 25 AUDIT SAMPLE RESULTS
DIRECT INJECTION
Audit
Sample Organic Component
Number Compound Analyzed
664 Propylene C^
666 Propylene C^
675 Toluene Cj^
RTI
Result
(ppm C-])
60.9
1437
3409
NCASI
Result
(ppm Ci)
61.0
1383
4002
%
Error
+0.16
-3.76
+17.4
TABLE 2-14b
NCASI METHOD 25
AUDIT SAMPLE
RESULTS
PREPARED SAMPLING TRAINS
Audit RTI
Sample Organic Component Result
Number Compound Analyzed (ppm C-\ )
644 Propylene C^ 60.9
666 Propylene C^ 1437
675 Toluene C^ 3409
NCASI
Trap3
(ppm Ci )
20
41
4451
NCASI
Tank3
(ppm C-) )
52
1073
67
NCASI
Total3 %
(ppm CT ) Error
72 +18.2
1114 -22.5
4518 +32.5
3 Average concentration for two test runs
2-38
-------
2.11 Conclusions
Both the Method 5x and Method 25 test results tend to demonstrate that the
boiler used as an incinerator achieves a substantial emission reduction. The
emissions of concern for this test program were the condensibles only.
Despite a number of complicating factors such as the dryer emissions being
ducted to two boilers and the increased boiler fuel feed rate during the
boiler background tests, examination of the data clearly reveals an emission
reduction.
In order to interpret the data properly, it must be assumed that the
veneer dryer emissions are equally split between the two boilers. This is
necessary since emission data was obtained for only one boiler. The boiler
configurations were nearly identical with the exception that the test unit,
Boiler No. 1, incorporated a wastewood fired burner and heat exchanger
downstream from the boiler, prior to the spray section and induced draft fan.
The only effect that this equipment should have on the measured boiler
emissions would be to slightly increase the particulates. The measured
exhaust flowrates from both boilers were enough to allow the assumption that,
using the flowrates as a rough performance indicator, the boilers were
operating at similar conditions. Neither of these assumptions is so severe so
as to preclude general conclusions being drawn from the data.
The averaged Method 5x data is shown below in Table 2-15a. The veneer
dryer data has been divided by two in order to account for the exhaust stream
being ducted to both boilers. The condensible emissions from the veneer dryer
ducted to each boiler averaged 15.5 Ibs/hr while the condensible emissions
from the boiler, with the dryer emissions ducted to it, averaged 3.4 Ibs/hr.
This indicates a condensible emission reduction of approximately 78 percent.
2-39
-------
TABLE 2-15a
AVERAGE METHOD 5X MEASURED EMISSIONS
Veneer Dryer Only Dryer and Boiler Boiler Only
Particulate Condensible Particulate Condensible Particulate Condensible
1.19 Ibs/hr 15.5 Ibs/hr 29.6 Ibs/hr 3.4 Ibs/hr 34.8 Ibs/hr 4.5 Ibs/ht
The averaged Method 25 results, shown below in Table 2-15b, also tend to
support the conclusion of a substantial emission reduction.
TABLE 2-15b
AVERAGE METHOD 25 MEASURED EMISSIONS
Veneer Dryer Only Dryer and Boiler Boiler Only
TRC NCASI TRC NCASI TRC NCASI
15.2 Ibs/hr 15.1 Ibs/hr 65.4 Ibs/hr 5.8 Ibs/hr 66.6 Ibs/hr 9.07 Ibs/hr
Applying the same logic as used to interpret the Condensible emissions, the
NCASI data indicate that the boiler reduces total organic emissions by
approximately 67 percent. Although not as apparent in the same way, the TRC
data also tend to support the conclusion. The total emission rate of the
boiler and dryers operating separately must be higher than the boiler emission
rate when the dryers are vented into the boiler. This is clearly evident from
the data in the taole. Therefore, venting the dryers to the boiler results in
an overall emissions reduction for the plant.
A significant difference exists between total organic emissions from the
boiler as independently measured by TRC and NCASI. The reason for this is not
readily apparent. Examination of the analysis data for the individual sample
train components (the trap and tank), reveals that the TRC results are much
higher even when the tank components are ignored. Therefore, the discrepancy
2-40
-------
may be attributable to the trap samples. Based on reanalyses of the recovered
TRC trap samples by RTI, the TRC results appear to be correct. However, based
on the audit sample results, the nature of the trap samples, and the ratios of
boiler and dryer emissions alone to the combined effluent emissions, it could
probably be concluded that the NCASI data are more correct. It may also be
concluded that there might have been a real difference between the TRC and
NCASI samples at the time of analysis. It is not known, however, whether any
such difference would be attributable to contamination, sample loss, or
recovery procedures.
2-41
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONS (Provided by RTI)
This section describes the plywood manufacturing process, specifically the
veneer drying process and its emission control, a boiler incineration system.
Production and boiler monitoring by RTI as well as process operational condi-
tions during the test program are also discussed.
3.1 Process Equipment
The veneer drying operation begins after the veneer has been peeled from
the log at the lathe operation. The veneer then proceeds to the drying opera-
tion. Here, the veneer is continuously hand-fed onto the dryer feed conveyor
and into the dryer. The purpose of the operation is to thermally drive the
moisture out of the veneer in preparation for the layup and laminating opera-
tions which follow. During the drying operation, organic compounds are
steam-distilled out of the veneer. These organic compounds are the emissions
of interest.
The Champion International Lebanon plant is a large wood products complex,
plywood being one of the operations. It has a total of seven veneer dryers,
six of which are steam-heated and whose emissions are incinerated in the plant
boilers. Dryer 7 is heated by hot gases from an Advanced Combustion System
Fuel Cell and is not ducted to the boiler system. All steam-heated dryers
except number 6 are crossflow conventional dryers of 15-section length, except
for dryer number 4 which is 14 sections. Dryers 1, 2, 3 and 5 are three-zone,
five-deck models. Dryer 4 is two-zone and five-deck, while dryer 6 is a
single-zone, six-deck, longitudinal dryer. Dryer 7 dries white fir (genus
Abies) exclusively and the remaining 6 dryers dry Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga
Menziesii) the majority of times. Douglas Fir was the only species dried
during the six dryer testing program.
3-1
-------
3.2 Emission Control Equipment
Each dryer has two exhaust ducts. Atop each exhaust duct is an abort
stack for emergency use only (a source of fugitive emissions). All 12 exhaust
ducts converge to a common 48-inch inside diameter (i.d.) duct that carries
the effluent through a set of dampers to an I.D. fan. The dryer exhaust is
then forced downward in the duct through another set of dampers (fugitive
emissions were also observed here) and then fed into the two boilers as
overfire/underfire air.
The twin Combustion Engineering water tube boilers are of the dutch oven
type. Fuel includes hog fuel (bark and wood), dry trim, veneer clipping and
sanderdust from plywood veneer, plus a small amount of hardboard dry waste.
Dry fine material is added in a secondary zone. Each boiler has a capacity of
77,000 Ib/hr steam at 200 psi, and has a water-cooled grate which is cleaned
periodically. A maximum of 10 MWe is produced by steam-driven turbines, but
most of the steam is used to heat the veneer dryers and run the hardboard
plant adjacent to the plywood facility. The total steam production is about
110,000 Ib/hr of which 50,000 Ib/hr is required for the veneer dryers. The
boiler installation at this test site is not representative of a boiler at a
typical plywood plant. When tested with dryer emissions ducted into the
boiler, the excess air was over 200 percent. During the test with dryer
emissions not going into the boiler, the steam efficiency was presumably
higher than when dryer emissions were going to the boiler.
The exhaust from boiler 1 enters a wood-fired temperature booster and a
heat exchanger before going through the wet I.D. fan and up a 6-foot i.d.
stack. Combustion air for the temperature booster is provided by an I.D. fan
rated at 3000 SCFM. Heat generated from the temperature booster and boiler
combustion is reclaimed in the heat exchanger for use in the hardboard plant.
3-2
-------
An alternate emission control has been installed on boiler 1. This system
vents emissions from the heat exchanger to a Zurn dry scrubber (a multiple
cyclone unit) through an I.D. fan, and to the atmosphere through a 5-foot i.d.
stack. When the Zurn system is on line, the wet fan is shut down. A schema-
tic drawing of the veneer dryer exhaust system is presented in Figure 1-1.
The exhaust from boiler 2 is ducted to a wet I.D. fan which is more of a
spark arrester than a pollution control device. Wastewater from the wet fan
goes through a canal to a holding pond. The exhaust is then forced to the
atmosphere through a 6-foot i.d. steel stack.
3.3 Production and Control Equipment Monitoring
A summary of the production monitoring data collected by RTI is presented
in Table 3-1. Boiler operating conditions are provided in Appendix I.
3.4 Process Operating Conditions During Test Program
The operation of each dryer is set according to the size, thickness and
kind of wood being dried. The operation of the six steam-heated dryers does
vary during most shifts, though as few changes are made as possible. Redry
was handled in the morning and testing was not allowed until redry was
completed. Douglas Fir was the only species dried in the six dryers during
the emission test program.
On September 21, 22 and 23 all six dryers were being operated and only
minor upsets occurred on those days. On September 24 dryer 6 was shut down
(no monitoring of dryer that day) and dryer 5 was shut down on September 25
for cleaning and maintenance.1 Dryer production was sufficient to allow
testing on all days, including Friday the 25th.
1 At 1230 hours on September 25, TRC personnel observed that the abort
dampers from dryer 5 were open and that a blue haze was emitted.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF OPERATING CONDITIONS
I.
.
II.
III.
Production*
(ft2 per hour on
3/8" basis)
sapwood
heartwood (heart-
sap mix)
Total: Douglas
Fir Species
Redry rate
Steam Use —
Ibs per hour,
total plant
Sept. 21
7,018
24,655
31,673
9.29%
98,000-
120,000
Sept. 23
16,899
11,941
28*840
11.2%
106,000-
110,000
sudden drop
at 1:50 in
boiler 1
Sept. 24 Sept. 25
#5 not in
operation
11,943
12,333
24,276
6.9%
127,000 106,000-
135,000 110,000
IV. Temperatures,
dryer
V. Fugitives
1. Abort Stack
320-360°F
#5 green end
open, light
haze
330-355°F
#5 open, 15%
325-355°F
all closed
2. Door leaks all dryers
leaked,
especially
heavy
between 3&4
3. Above dryers blue haze
very evident
4. Cooling stacks occasional
light haze
VI. Weather 61-69°F,
46-68% rel.
humidity
overcast and
sprinkly
all dryers
mod-heavy
mod-heavy
#6 mod-heavy
58-65°F 58-66°F
60-74% rel. 55-75% rel.
humidity, humidity
sunny broken
clouds
Heavy I's
1,3,4,6
light in
morning ,
mod-heavy
in
afternoon
#1, #6 mod
60-64°F,
52-62% rel.
humidity
sunny ,
broken
clouds
*Does not include dryer #7. Production is on finished plywood basis, not actual
throughput of the dryers.
3-4
-------
It is normal for small plugups in the feeding and outloading mechanisms to
occur and this did happen during the tests. Dryers 1 and 2 also required
stops for a couple of minutes when dry end graders required pallet changes.
These stops were insufficient cause for cancelling a test.
The boiler operations were monitored each day of testing. Steam load,
N
temperatures and pressures were maintained with minor perturbations. Ten
dryer exhausts are vented to the boiler, as was the case on all testing days
with the exception of September 24 (Test Runs 4 and 5). The boiler operation
is strongly influenced by the volume of air coming from the dryers.
The Lebanon plant's boiler operators have little difficulty in maintaining
relatively steady fuel feed rates under this arrangement. On Thursday,
September 24, when ambient air was the source of oxygen, the day and evening
operators were adjusting fuel feed rates more frequently because they were not
as familiar (or had lost familiarity) with how the boilers operated with
ambient air being the air supply. However, operator variations had minor
affects on boiler performance.
More important were the sudden changes in steam production. Wednesday,
September 23, boiler 1 lost its air supply momentarily at 1:50 causing steam
production to drop to 35,000 Ibs per hour, forcing boiler 2 to increase
production to 68,000 Ibs per hour. This happened near the end of Test Run 3,
but was not felt to greatly affect the sampling on boiler 2 stack. The short
rise in steam production for boiler 2 should not have decreased its efficiency
in destroying the dryer exhausts. The following day steam production was
increased once the first background test run (Run 4) was completed. Air flow
from the start during Test Run 5, however, changed little and in fact showed a
slight decrease with the increased steam production. The reason for this is
not readily apparent from the boiler parameters. Method 5X results show a
corresponding increase in total emission with the increase in steam production
3-5
-------
and fuel rate for the background tests, not an unexpected result. The
increased stream rate and the cold ambient air used instead of hot dryer
exhaust for combustion air at least partially explains the increased emissions.
During the week of testing steam loads varied between 62 and 77 percent of
full load. Variations in steam production changed minute to minute, but the
changes were within a relatively narrow band for most of the tests (See
Appendix K for the steam production charts).
Air flow to the boilers was thought to be determined by the dryer exhausts
for tests 1, 3, and 6, but additional air was introduced to the boiler process
as shown in the higher air flow out of the boiler stacks when compared to
dryer exhaust volume. Doors that allow air under the grates provided air for
the background tests, 4 and 5, and were closed during the remaining tests,
though they still may have been a source of air. It is unclear what the
additional sources were for the air.
Production figures provided are not the actual square footage of green
veneer dried in the steam-heated dryers but rather a figure that accounts for
trim and shrinkage. A full green veneer sheet is approximately 54 inches by
101 inches and will eventually be trimmed to 48 inches by 96 inches following
shrinkage in the dryer. The amount of shrinkage depends on the original
moisture level. As is the case with all western softwoods, Douglas fir
sapwood will shrink more than heartwood. An expected shrinkage loss is 5 to 7
percent. The production figures reported are, therefore, approximately 85
percent of the actual throughput of the dryers. All veneer has been converted
to a 3/8-inch basis.
3-6
-------
Redry is typically 10 percent of the green veneer rate, but very little
(<1 percent) was processed during the testing at Lebanon. Redry contributes
nothing to total plywood production, but does add to dryer emissions and steam
demand per plywood unit produced. No redry production adjustment is required
for the Lebanon data.
3-7
-------
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS
This section presents a description of each sampling location and a
summary of the work performed at each site. Figure 4-1 presents a schematic
layout of the veneer dryer exhaust system and identifies all sampling loca-
tions.
4.1 Veneer Dryer Exhaust
The veneer dryer exhaust was sampled in the 48-inch i.d. duct, 240 inches
(5 diameters) downstream of the dampers and 72 inches (1.5 diameters) upstream
of the I.D. fan. In accordance with EPA Method 1, sampling was performed at
32 traverse points through two 4-inch sampling ports situated 90 apart and
45 above the horizontal. Figure 4-2 presents the sampling port configura-
tion and a cross section of the duct showing the exact distance of each sampl-
ing point from the duct wall.
Method 5X tests performed at this site lasted 64 minutes (2 minutes per
traverse point). Method 25 tests were 60 minutes long and were performed
concurrently with the Method 5X tests. A total of 3 valid Method 5X and 12
valid Method 25 tests were performed at this location.
4.2 Boiler 2 Outlet
The boiler 2 outlet was sampled in the elliptical steel duct, the axes of
which measured 73 inches and 70.5 inches. For calculation purposes the duct
was considered to have a 72-inch nominal diameter. Two sampling ports were
situated in the duct 90 apart, 480 inches (6.7 diameters) downstream from
the top of the wet fan and 300 inches (4 diameters) upstream from the top of
the stack. Twenty-four traverse points were sampled at this location in
accordance with Method 1. Figure 4-3 presents the sampling port configuration
4-1
-------
VENEER DRYERS 4®
\
&
\
l I
A
s
1
/
s
1,
N
r
5
1,
\
V
^
1
\
y
DAMPERS
*»
3b®— O
SANDERDUST
INJECTION
O
«> SAMPLING LOCATIONS
1. VENEER DRYER EXHAUST
2. BOILER NO.2 OUTLET
3a. BOILER NO.l OUTLET (WET FAN)
3b. BOILER NO.l OUTLET (ZURN)
4. VENEER DRYERS
5. ABORT DAMPERS
6. WET FAN LIQUOR INLET
7. WET FAN LIQUOR OUTLET
8. AP MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
DAMPERS
UNDERFIRE AIR
Figure 4-1. Veneer dryer exhaust system at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
-------
DAMPERS
FAN
"EST
CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION
(Inches from Inside of Duct)
0.75
2.4
4.1
6.0
8.1
10.6
13.6
18.0
30.0
34.4
37.4
39.9
42.0
43.9
45.6
47.2
Figure 4-2. Veneer dryer exhaust sampling location at Champion
plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
4-3
-------
— 72'< —
«^^ ^-
^r^-
O
__>^ — X^_
t
40' (#1)
2
i
3-
5' (#2)
' SAMPLING
" PORTS
35' (#1)
40' (#2)
WET FAN
SOUTH (1)
NORTH (2)
t
T
72"I.D.
CROSS
SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION
(Inches from Inside of Duct)
1.5
4.8
8.5
12.75
18.0
25.6
46.4
54.0
59.3
63.5
67.2
70.5
Figure 4-3. Boiler outlet (#1 and #2) sampling location at
Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
4-4
-------
and a cross section of the duct showing the exact distance of each sampling
point from the duct wall.
Method 5X tests performed at this location lasted 72 minutes (3 minutes
per traverse point). An integrated gas sample was taken in accordance with
Method 3 simultaneously with each Method 5X test for Orsat analysis. Method
25 tests were 60 minutes long and were performed concurrently with the Method
5X tests. In addition, visible emission observations were made during each
Method 5X test performed at this location.
Three Method 5X tests and 12 Method 25 tests were performed at this
location concurrently with similar testing performed 'at the veneer dryer
exhaust. In addition, 2 Method 5X and 8 Method 25 tests were performed at
this site as boiler background emission tests.
4.3 Boiler 1 Outlet
The boiler 1 outlet was tested only for velocity and stack gas temperature
to determine the volumetric flow rate exiting the stack. Tests were performed
in the 72-inch (nominal)* steel duct at two ports located 90 apart, 420
inches (5.8 diameters) downstream of the wet fan and 480 inches (6.6
diameters) from the top of the stack. In accordance with EPA Method 1,
measurements were made at 24 traverse points. Figure 4-3 presents the sampl-
ing port configuration and a cross section of the duct showing the exact
distance of each test point from the duct wall.
4.4 Visible Emissions Observation Locations
An overhead view of the Champion boiler house and its immediate environs
is presented in Figure 4-4. This figure also shows the two visible emission
2 This duct was also elliptical, with measured axes of 71 inches and 72
inches.
4-5
-------
cr>
N
fSTACI
2
"TSTAn
BOILER HOUSE
DRYER BUILDING
FROM VENEER DRYERS
Figure 4-4. Overhead view of visible emission observation locations at
Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
-------
observation locations used. Location X was on the bank of the log pond and
was used for morning observations. X was atop a shed roof attached to the
dryer building and was used for late morning and afternoon observations.
Both observation locations were in accordance with EPA Method 9. The
observer was at least one stack height away from the source, with the sun at
the observer's back and the plume perpendicular to the observer's line of
sight.
4.5 Wet Fan Pressure Drop Measurement Locations
Pressure drop across the boiler 2 wet fan sump was monitored at 30-minute
intervals during each Method 5X test using a U-tube water manometer. One side
of the manometer was inserted in the duct at the wet spray while the other
side was inserted into the duct after the sump just upstream from the fan.
These measurement points are shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-5.
4.6 Wet Fan Liquor Sampling Locations
Solution samples were taken from the inlet and outlet of the boiler 2 wet
fan sump at 30-minute intervals during each Method 5X test. A 100-ml sample
was taken every 30 minutes from each location and composited into two samples
for each test. The solution sampling locations are shown in Figures 4-1 and
4-5.
4.7 Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions were observed by RTI/DGA around the veneer dryers and
throughout the exhaust system leading to the boilers.
4-7
-------
(AFMJUj
WET
FAN"
00
SCRUBBER CT
WATER t
SUPPLY
SCRUBBER
WATER
DRAIN
TO ATMOSPHERE
FROM BOILER
o o o
SPRAY ^
NOZZLES p
O O O
d
TO SPRAYS
O O O O
SPRAY NOZZLES
TO SPRAYS
t4
Figure 4-5.
Wet fan solution collection points and pressure drop monitoring
points at Champion plywood plant, Lebanon, Oregon.
-------
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
This section presents descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures
employed during the emission testing conducted at the Champion plywood
facility in Lebanon, Oregon during the week of September 21, 1981. EPA
Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5X3 , 9, 22 and 25 were used to measure emissions at the
veneer dryer exhaust and from the boiler outlets. These methods are pre-
sented in greater detail in Appendix G.
5.1 EPA Reference Methods Used in This Program
The following EPA Reference Methods were used for the testing at the
Champion plywood plant. These methods were taken from CFR 40, July 1, 1980,
part 60, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources," Appendix A,
pp. 183 ff.; and Federal Register, volume 45, no. 194, Friday, October 3,
1980, pp. 65959 ff.
Method 1 - Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources
This method specifies the number and location of sampling points within a
duct, taking into account duct size and shape and local flow disturbances.
Method 2 - Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate
This method specifies the measurement of gas velocity and flow rate using
an S-type pitot tube, manometer, and temperature sensor. The physical
dimensions of the pitot tube and its spatial relationship to the tempera-
ture sensor and a sampling probe are also specified.
Method 3 - Gas Analysis for C0?, O^r Excess Air and Dry Molecular
Weight
This method specifies sampling and analytical procedures for the determi-
nation of percent C02, percent 02» and percent CO by Orsat analysis,
and for the calculation of the molecular weight of the gas stream.
3 Method 5X will be assigned a reference letter designation when the NSS
regulation is proposed in the Federal Register. This method was derived
from EPA Method 5 and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
Method 7.
5-1
-------
Method 4 - Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases
This method specifies the procedures by which the water vapor content of
a gas stream be can determined.
Method 5X - Determination of Particulate and Condensible Organic
(Provisional) Emissions from Stationary Sources in the Plywood Industry
This method, based upon EPA Method 5 and Oregon DEQ Method 7, describes
procedures for measuring emissions in the context of the following
definitions. Particulate matter is material which condenses at or above
filtration temperature and is collected by the front half of the sampling
train. Condensible organic matter is that material which remains after
extraction, filtration, and evaporation of the impinger portion of the
train.
Method 9 - Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions From Sta-
tionary Sources
This method specifies the procedures by which opacity of emissions are
measured.
Method 22 - Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material
Processing Sources
This method specifies the procedures for visual determination of the
presence and total time of occurence of fugitive process emissions.
Method 25 - Determination of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emissions
as Carbon
This method describes procedures for the sampling and analysis of gaseous
nonmethane organic emissions. An emission sample is drawn through a
condensate trap and into an evacuated tank. Trap and tank contents are
oxidized to carbon dioxide, reduced to methane, and analyzed by a flame
ionization detector.
5.2 Preliminary Measurements
Before the start of emission sampling, each location was tested according
to EPA Methods 1, 2 and 4 to determine the preliminary stack gas velocity and
moisture content within the ducts. In addition, samples were collected at
each location according to EPA Method 3 to determine concentrations of CO ,
0 and CO in the gas stream.
5-2
-------
5.3 Measurements for Particulate, Condensible and Noncondensible Emissions
5.3.1 EPA Reference Method 5X - Particulate and Condensible Organic
Compounds
This section presents a summary of procedures followed by TRC during
particulate and Condensible organic sample collection, recovery and prepara-
tion, analysis, and data reduction. Deviations from the specified method are
explained in this section. Further details of this method are presented in
Appendix G.
5.3.1.1 Method 5X - Sample Collection
The sampling train was a modified EPA Method 5X train as shown in
Figure 5-1. This train was designed and built by TRC. A slipstream was
drawn from behind the heated Method 5X filter to duplicate TRC and duplicate
NCASI Method 25 sampling trains. No vacuum grease was used in the assembly
of the Method 5X train prior to the Teflon sample line-impinger train con-
nection. This prevented contamination of the total organic compound samples
by the vacuum grease. A minimum amount of grease was used in the impinger
train. Leak checks were performed on the complete sampling train (modified
5X train attached to the four Method 25 trains) before and after each test.
Field data were recorded on standard EPA Method 5 data sheets which are
presented in Appendix C.
The Method 5X sampling train is essentially the same as that described by
EPA Method 5 with the following modifications. A flexible Teflon sample line
was used to connect the outlet of the 4-1/2 inch glass-fiber Gelman Spectro-
grade no. 64948 filter to the impinger train. Since the filter was at a
higher elevation than the impinger train, condensation in the sample line ran
into the first impinger and not back into the filter. The Method 5X impinger
train consisted of four impingers and a 2-1/2 inch glass-fiber filter. The
5-3
-------
en
I
SLIPSTREAM TO 4
METHOD 25 TRAINS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NOZZLE
PROBE
FILTER HOLDER
HEATED FILTER BOX
IMPINGER ICE BATH
UMBILICAL CORD
VACUUM GAUGE
MAIN VALVE TO PUMP
PUMP
BYPASS VALVE
DRY GAS METER
ORIFICE AND MANOMETER
PITOT TUBE AND MANOMETER
THERMOCOUPLE READOUT
FLEXIBLE TEFLON SAMPLE LINE
BACK-UP FILTER HOLDER
THERMOCOUPLES
Figure 5-1. Modified EPA participate and condensible organics sampling train.
(August 18, 1977 Federal Register)
-------
first impinger was a modified Greenburg-Smith (impingement plate removed)
charged with 100 ml of deionized distilled (D.D.) water. The second impinger
was a regular Greenburg-Smith unit also charged with 100 ml of D.O. water.
The third was another modified Greenburg-Smith and was empty. The fourth was
also a modified Greenburg-Smith type and was charged with 200 grams of silica
gel. A 2-1/2 inch glass-fiber filter (similar to the 4-1/2 inch filter) was
inserted between the third and fourth impinger to collect any organic
material condensed but not collected in the impingers.
Prior to initial field use, all glassware was washed with a chromic acid
solution and rinsed with D.D. water and acetone according to Method 5X. To
remove any residual vacuum grease Freon 113 (trichlorotrifluoroethane) was
used for a final rinse.
Sampling train operations were identical to those of EPA Method 5, with
several exceptions. In order to prevent condensation of organic materials in
the probe and on the 4-1/2 inch glass-fiber filter, the stainless steel probe
and the filter were heated to 350 +25 F. Thermocouples were inserted into
the probe and the filter outlet gas stream to ensure that proper temperatures
were maintained. These temperatures were noted on the field data sheet
during routine data recording intervals.
5.3.1.2 Method 5X - Sample Recovery and Preparation
Sample recovery was performed in a laboratory on site. This area had a
clean and wind-free environment, was well-lighted, and was suited for sample
recovery and preparation for shipment.
Sample recovery was performed in accordance with EPA Methods 5 and 5X as
presented in Appendix G. At the conclusion of each test run, separate sample
fractions were collected from each Method 5X sampling train by a three-person
clean-up crew. The liquid samples were placed in glass sample jars with
5-5
-------
Teflon-lined lids, and the filters were placed in inert petri dishes ana
sealed. The sample fractions collected were as follows:
Container 1 - 4-1/2 inch glass-fiber filter.
Container 2 - D.D. H2O wash of nozzle, probe and front half of the 4-1/2
inch filter holder.
Container 3 - Acetone wash of nozzle, probe and front half of the 4-1/2 inch
filter holder.
Container 4 - Exposed impinger solution from impingers 1, 2 and 3 and O.D.
H20 wash of impingers, connectors, Teflon sample line, back
half of 4-1/2 inch filter holder and front half of 2-1/2 inch
filter holder.
Container 5 - Acetone wash of first three impingers, connectors, Teflon
sample line, back half of 4-1/2 inch filter holder, and front
half of 2-1/2 inch filter holder.
Container 6 - 2-1/2 inch glass-fiber filter.
The probe and nozzle were brushed and rinsed three times with D.D. HO,
which was deposited in container 2. The front half of the 4-1/2 inch filter
holder was also rinsed with D.D. HO, which was deposited in container 2.
The probe, nozzle and front half of the 4-1/2 inch filter holder were brushed
and rinsed with acetone in the same manner and deposited in container 3.
The Teflon sample line was drained into the impinger train. The Teflon
sample line was not brushed because the particulate catch in the sample line
is generally considered to be insignificant. Impinger contents were weighed
to determine moisture catch and deposited in container 4. The Teflon sample
line, impingers, connectors and the back half of the 4-1/2 inch filter holder
were rinsed three times with D.D. . HO into container 4, and then rinsed
three times with acetone into container 5.
Both the probe and Teflon sample line were washed with D.D. HO after
the acetone wash to remove any acetone residue which might contaminate the
EPA Method 25 samples. These washes were discarded and the components
allowed to dry at ambient conditions before being reassembled.
5-6
-------
Both filters were removed from their holders and deposited into their
respective petri dishes, containers 1 and 6. Filter residue on the filter
holders was scraped and deposited into the same acetone rinse containers as
the front halves of their respective filter holders. The stainless steel and
glass filter frits used in the filter holders were not rinsed during sample
recovery, because any organic material collected on the frits is generally
considered to be insignificant. Glass and/or metal particles could become
detached and contaminate sample fractions.
Silica gel samples were weighed immediately at the conclusion of each
test and the weights recorded by the clean-up crew. All Method 5X samples
were packed in locked shock-proof containers and driven to the CH-MHill
laboratory in Corvalis, Oregon for analysis at the conclusion of the test
program.
5.3.1.3 Method 5X - Sample Analysis
With the exception of the silica gel samples, all sample fractions were
analyzed by CH MHill. CH MHill was chosen to perform the analytical
phase of the Method 5X sampling program because of their extensive experience
with Oregon DEQ Method 7, from which EPA Method 5X was derived. All analyses
were performed in accordance with EPA Method 5X and as approved by EPA/EMB.
The sample fractions were analyzed as follows:
Container 1 - (4-1/2 inch glass-fiber filter) - desiccate and weigh after
24 hours, then weigh to constant weight.
Container 2 - (D.D. H2O probe rinse) - evaporate, desiccate and weigh
after 24 hours.
Container 3 - (acetone probe rinse) - evaporate, desiccate and weigh after
24 hours.
Container 4 - (impinger water solution and D.D. 1^0 rinse) - extract,
desiccate and weigh.
5-7
-------
Container 5 - (impinger acetone wash) - evaporate, desiccate and weigh.
Container 6 - (2-1/2 inch glass-fiber filter) - desiccate and weigh after
24 hours, then weigh to a constant weight.
During this test program experiments were performed to determine if
filter sample loss occurred after the initial 24-hour weighing. Filter
weights were measured after 24 hours of desiccation and every 12 hours
thereafter for another 48 hours. It was discovered that sample loss occurred
following the initial weighing and continued throughout the remainder of the
72-hour period. The final version of Method 5X therefore specifies that
sample weights be measured after 24 hours of desiccation. The 24-hour
weights were used for data calculation in this test program.
Silica gel samples were weighed on site with a triple-beam balance at the
conclusion of each test by the Method 5X sample recovery crew. The weight
gain of the silica gel was determined to the nearest 0.5 gram and recorded.
All analytical data were recorded on the data sheets as presented in
Appendix H. Sample residue remaining after analysis are being retained for
at least 90 days after the end of the field program after which they will be
discarded.
5.3.1.4 Method 5X Data Reduction
All Method 5X data reduction is performed in a manner identical to
procedures described by EPA Method 5. (See Appendix G.) The only variation
from these calculations is as follows. Because of the high anisokinetic
sampling conditions during test 1 at the veneer dryer exhaust, the
particulate mass emission rate (MER) for this run was calculated by two
methods: the concentration method (by which calculations are normally done)
and the area ratio method." With the former method, the concentration of
5-8
-------
particulate matter entering the nozzle is calculated and then multiplied by
the volumetric flow rate to obtain the mass emission rate:
(m/V) x Q = MFR (Ibs/hr) (Eq. 5-1)
where m = amount of particulate sampled (Ibs)
V = volume of sampled gas (DSCF)
Q = volumetric flow rate (DSCF/hr)
If the nozzle sampling velocity is greater than the stack gas velocity
(superisokinetic sampling conditions), then the calculated mass emission rate
will be less than the true MER. This is because the heavier particles will
leave their streamlines (gas streamlines diverted into the nozzle) and will
not enter the nozzle, as they would under isokinetic conditions. Since the
volume of gas sampled is greater than what would be sampled under isokinetic
conditions, the concentration (m/V) will be less than that under isokinetic
conditions.
With the area ratio method, the mass of particulate matter collected is
divided by the sampling time and then multiplied by the ratio of the stack
area to the nozzle area to obtain the mass emission rate:
(m/t) x (As/An) = MER (Ibs/hr) (Eq. 5-2)
where m = amount of particulate sample (Ibs)
t - sampling time (hrs)
As = area of stack (ft2 )
An = area of nozzle (ft2 )
When the nozzle sampling velocity is greater than the stack gas velocity,
then the MER calculated by this method will be somewhat greater than the true
MER. The lighter particles follow the diverted streamlines into the nozzle;
the amount of particulate matter sampled in time (t) is therefore assumed to
11 Brenchley, D.F., C.D. Turley and R.F. Yarmac, Industrial Source Sampling.
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1973, p. 173 ff.
5-9
-------
be greater than what should be sampled. The volume of sampled gas is not a
factor in this calculation. The average of the two calculated MERs was used
as an estimate of the true MER.
5.3.2 EPA Reference Method 25 - Condensible and Noncondensible Organic
Compounds
This section presents a summary of procedures followed by TRC during
condensible and noncondensible organic sampling equipment preparation, sample
collection, field sample recovery, and sample analysis. The TRC Method 25
sampling train is shown in Figure 5-2. Deviations from the method are also
explained in this section. NCASI Method 25 procedures are presented in
Appendix G. Further details of Method 25 are presented in Appendix G.
5.3.2.1 Method 25 - Sampling Equipment Preparation
This procedure is based on and supplements EPA Method 25, "Determination
of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon."s
Condensate Trap
After being checked for any sign of physical damage, each trap was
interconnected to a hydrocarbon (HC)-free air cylinder, flowmeters and CO
monitor (nondispersive infrared detector (NDIR)) and inserted in the furnace
as shown in Figure 5-3. The trap was then purged with the HC-free air at a
o
100 ml/min flow rate with the furnace operating at a temperature of 600 C.
A propane torch was used to heat those portions of the trap and probe
assembly that extend outside the furnace. The purge was performed until the
CO monitor indicated a concentration of 10 ppm or less.
Federal Register, volume 45, no. 194, October 3, 1980, pp. 65959-73.
5-10
-------
SWAGELOK
CONNECTORS
CONDENSATE TRAP
VACUUM
GAUGE
FLOW
RATE
CONTROLLER
ON/OFF FLOW
VALVE
QUICK [±j
CONNECT 'D1
EVACUATED
SAMPLE
TANK
Figure 5-2. Method 25 Sampling Train
-------
Sample Tank
Each sample tank was connected to a cylinder of EC-free air, a vacuum
pump, and a mercury manometer as shown in Figure 5-4. The tank was evacuated
to 29 inches Hg vacuum after which the three-way valve was switched and the
tank pressurized to 10 in Hg with HC-free air. This cycle was repeated three
times. After the third pressurization, the tank was connected to the TGNMO
analyzer and a sample analysis was performed. If a nonmethane organic
concentration greater than 10 ppm was measured, the tank was again subjected
to the evacuation-pressurization analysis procedure until accepted. The tank
was then evacuated and pressurized to atmospheric conditions with dry nitro-
gen for shipment to the field.
Flow Control Assembly
The sampling train was assembled as shown in Figure 5-2 and leak-
checked. The probe end cap was removed and the probe connected to a flow
meter as shown. The sample flow shut-off valve was opened and the flow
control valve adjusted to achieve a flow rate of 50 +5 ml/minute. The flow
control adjustment screw was sealed after the flow rate was achieved. The
flow control valve number and calibration data were recorded on forms
presented in Appendix F.
5.3.2.2 Method 25 - Sample Collection
The sampling train was a modified EPA Method 25 apparatus. The modifica-
tion consists of placing an additional condensibles trap, immersed in a water
ice bath, ahead of the trap immersed in dry (CO ) ice. (See Figure 5-2.)
The additional trap is intended to remove the high moisture content associ-
5-12
-------
c
i 1
Lj
) FLOW
METER
HC
FREE
AIR
1
\
%
I
co2
Q ANALYZER
FLOW
METER
TPAP
1 Knr
H- FURNACE
Figure 5-3. Method 25 Trap Preparation
3-WAY
VALVE
HC
FREE
AIR
_.__ QUICK
I r*TONNECT
TANK
MERCURY MANOMETER
Figure 5-4. Method 25 Tank Purging and Evacuation
I <&•
ADJUSTMENT VALVE
~~~ ~
FLOWMETER
ON/OFF
VALVE
TRAP
FLOW CONTROL
" ASSEMBLY
PRESSURE GAUGE
QUICK CONNECT
TANK
Figure 5-5. Method 25 Flow Control Assembly Adjustment
5-13
-------
a ted with the process emission streams and prevent freezeup in the dry ice
trap which leads to premature sample flow stoppage.6
The sample tanks were shipped to the site slightly pressurized with dry
nitrogen. Immediately prior to each test, tanks were evacuated. The tank
vacuum, ambient temperature and barometric pressure were recorded on the
field sampling data sheet. (See Appendix C-2.)
Assuring that the flow shut-off valve was in the closed position, the
train was assembled as shown in Figure 5-2. The pretest leak check was then
performed. The tank vacuum as indicated by the vacuum gauge was recorded and
checked again after a minimum period of 10 minutes. If the indicated vacuum
had not changed, the portion of the sampling train behind the shut-off valve
did not leak and was considered acceptable. Assuring that the probe tip was
tightly capped, the front part of the sampling train was leak checked by
opening the flow shut-off valve. After a short period to allow pressure
stabilization (not more than 2 minutes), the gauge vacuum indicated was
noted. After a minimum period of 10 minutes, the indicated vacuum was again
noted. The leak check was considered acceptable if no visible change in
vacuum occurred. The pretest leak rate (mmHg/10 minutes) was recorded if
observed. At the completion of the leak checks, the sample flow shut-off
valve was closed.
After the leak check had been performed, the sample tank number and each
trap number of a sampling train was recorded on the field data sheet with the
respective test run number and sampling site. Two TRC and two NCASI sampling
trains were connected to each Method 5X sampling train at the insulated
outlet of their respective hotbox filters. Immediately prior to sampling,
"Method Development for the Plywood/Plywood Veneer Industry," EPA
Contract 68-02-3543, Work Assignment 1. TRC - Environmental Consultants,
Inc., August 1981.
5-14
-------
the gauge vacuum and clock time were noted. The flow shut-off valve was
opened and sampling begun. TRC gauge vacuum readings were recorded every 5
minutes during the sampling period. At the end of the sampling period, the
flow shut-off valve was closed, the time and final gauge vacuum recorded.
After the Method 5X sampling was completed, the Method 25 probe lines were
disconnected from the Method 5X interface and tightly capped.
A post-test leak check was performed prior to disassembly of the sampling
train. After assuring that the probe had been tightly capped, the flow shut-
off valve was opened and the gauge vacuum monitored for a minimum of 10
minutes. The leak check was acceptable if no visible change in tank vacuum
occurred. The post-test leak rate (mmHg/10 minutes) was recorded if
observed. At the completion of the leak check, the flow shut-off valve was
closed.
5.3.2.3 Method 25 - Field Sample Recovery
After the post-test leak check was completed, the TRC sampling train
components were disconnected. Both ends of each condensibles trap were
tightly sealed. The traps were then packed in dry ice for sample preserva-
tion and shipment to the laboratory.
5.3.2.4 Method 25 - Sample Analysis
TRC analyzed two veneer dryer exhaust sampling trains and two boiler 2
outlet sampling trains from each test. The other two dryer exhaust sampling
trains and two boiler outlet sampling trains from each test were analyzed by
NCASI. The analyses were performed in general accordance with the Method 25
as published. (See Appendix G.)
5-15
-------
TRC Analysis Equipment
The analyzer was fabricated by TRC using the following base components:
Varian Model 2800 gas chromatograph with flame ionization detector; and
Hewlett-Packard Model 3390A Reporting Integrator.
These components were interconnected to provide an analyzer scheme very
similar to that described in the method. However TRC has made some changes
which we believe improve the ease of operation without affecting analyzer
performance. Figure 5-6 depicts the analyzer schematic rendering as
assembled. A high-grade, HC-free carrier gas is used which eliminates the
necessity for the purification furnace.
A six-port valve (Carle Model 5521) was substituted for the two four-port
valves in the oxidation catalyst flow scheme. One four-port valve was used
instead of two four-port valves in the reduction catalyst flow scheme. In
effect the latter valving modification precluded hydrogen venting within the
laboratory.
The exit line from the oxidation furnace to the six-port valve was heat
traced to avoid condensation. Additionally, all four switching valves
incorporated in the analyzer were enclosed in a heated, insulated compartment
o
thermostatically controlled to maintain a constant 100 C temperature.
The separation column used was prepared by Supelco, Inc. It is a 4-1/2
foot long, 1/8-inch diameter stainless steel tube with two packed sections.
The injection side section is 3 feet long and contains 10 percent OV-101
(liquid methyl silicone) on 80/100 mesh Supelcoport. The following section
is 1-1/2 feet long packed with 60/80 mesh Poropak Q.
The reduction catalyst is a Byron Instruments unit with integral heater.
This was mounted within the Varian gas chromatograph oven to ensure constant
temperature operation.
5-16
-------
Ul
I
O MM
ri—P
-------
Although not clearly shown in Figure 5-6, a single combustion air source
services both the oxidation catalyst and the flame ionization detector.
Individual metering valves are used after the flow splitter to regulate the
supply to each device.
The condensate recovery and conditioning apparatus equipment was
assembled by TRC as shown in Figure 5-7 and is essentially the same as the
configuration detailed by the method. The NDIR incorporated was an Anarad AR
400, with a range of 10 to 10,000 ppm CO .
The TRC arrangement did not incorporate the vacuum pump in a direct link
with other equipment. Instead it was located remotely. This was done to
avoid contamination by the oil mist vented from the vacuum pump.
A tube furnace is used for volatilization of the condensate trap sample.
This provides more even, high temperature heating of the trap. A propane
torch is used to heat those parts of the trap, including the probe, which
remain outside the furnace during the sample recovery procedure. Valves A,
B, C and O in Figure 5-7 and their connecting tubing are enclosed in a
thermostatically controlled oven maintained at 180 C to prevent
condensation. An oxygen rich carrier gas passes through the condensate trap
during heating and oxidizes the organic compounds to CO and water vapor.
The flow exits the trap, passes through a water trap and NDIR, and enters the
intermediate collection vessel.
Analyzer Operating Conditions;
Gas Regulator Pressure (psig) Flow Rate (cc/min)
Helium 42 25
Air 45 30 FID
50 Oxidation Catalyst
Hydrogen 20 30
5-18
-------
CATALYST
BYPASS
HEATED
CHAMBER
I SAMPLE
CONDENSATE
TRAP
OXIDATION
CATALYST
HEATED |
CHAMBER._ J
VENT
A
1 1 V * J
NDIR
ANALYZER
„
REGULATING
VALVE
QUICK
CONNECT
w
MERCURY
MANOMETER
HoO
TRAP
INTERMEDIATE
COLLECTION
VESSEL
Figure 5-7. TRC Condensate Recovery and Conditioning Apparatus
5-19
-------
Separation column normal temperature - 0°C
Separation column backflush temperature - 100°C
Oxidation catalyst temperature - 750°C
Reduction catalyst temperature - 100°C (32 VAC)
Condensate Recovery Conditions;
Gas Regulator Pressure (psig) Flow Rate (cc/min)
Oxygen 10 150
Air 15 50
Oxidation catalyst temperature - 850°C
Details of the NCASI analyzer and procedures are presented in Appendix H.
Nonmethane Organic Analysis Procedure
The analysis was performed in accordance with the published procedure.
(See Appendix H.) However, the condensate trap carbon dioxide purge (Section
A.3.2 of the published procedure) was modified. After briefly purging the
trap according to the procedure, the valves were switched so that the trap
was bypassed. After the trap had been bypassed, the carrier gas flow
continued through the system and into the tank for approximately 5 minutes.
It was then vented to the atmosphere through the valve located downstream of
the NDIR. (See Figure 5-7.) This time period was sufficient to purge the
interconnecting tubing and NDIR cell volume. Prior to resuming flow through
the condensate trap, the valve was switched to introduce again the flow into
the sample tank. The trap was removed from the dry ice bath and allowed to
warm to room temperature (determined by touch). The trap was placed back
into the dry ice bath and the valves switched to resume carrier gas flow
through the trap after frosting appeared on external trap surfaces. The
procedure was then completed as described. This modification to the
5-20
-------
procedure is intended to assure the removal of any CO which may be trapped
within the ice crystals present in the trap.7
5.3.2.5 Method 25 - CC>2 Interference
The existence of potential carbon dioxide interference in the EPA Method
25 analysis procedure has been acknowledged. This interference is believed
attributable to the absorption of the inherent gas stream CO by water
condensed within the trap and sampling probe, and/or entrapment within ice
crystals formed inside the trap. This CO is not completely removed during
the trap purge procedure and is later released during the sample recovery
procedure. Therefore, the inherent CO, is quantified as volatile organic
material.
NCASI was the first to raise and experimentally substantiate the CO
interference issue and its impact on Method 25 derived sampling data. They
performed a laboratory study8 using a slightly modified Method 25 scheme in
conjunction with a sampling program applied to wood-residue-fired boilers.
The results indicate that the magnitude of the interference, although random,
might be significant. Based upon these findings, NCASI expressed
considerable concern regarding the method's applicability in those cases
where combustion processes are used as a direct heat source for veneer dryers
or are used as a control technique for veneer dryer emissions.
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) performed a CO interference study9
for EPA that was somewhat limited when compared to that of NCASI. Only one
CO challenge concentration, 5 percent by volume, was used with varying
"Investigation of Carbon Dioxide Interference with Method 25." EPA
Contract 68-02-2814, Work Assignment 41. Midwest Research Institute,
April 15, 1981, p. 7.
8 "A Study of Wood-Residue Fired Power Boiler Total Gaseous Nonmethane
Organic Emissions in the pacific Northwest." NCASI Air Quality
Improvement Technical Bulletin No. 109. September 1980, 19-28.
5-21
-------
sample stream moisture contents and flow rates. This study also indicated a
randomness for the interference. However, MRI concluded that much of the
CO was very likely encapsulated within the ice crystals and could be
liberated through a two-step purge procedure incorporating an intermediate
warming period. Although based on one sample run, this conclusion contra-
dicted the NCASI study conclusion that ice-encapsulated CO? could not be
removed effectively by flushing.
After reviewing the MRI findings, NCASI conducted a limited study to
evaluate the recommended two-step purge procedure. Their results indicated
that the procedure would at best reduce the interference by 50 percent.
Additionally, the amount of interference still retained its random character.
Pollution Control Science, Inc. (PCS) performed an independent evalua-
tion of the CO interference based solely upon theoretical absorption-
equilibrium chemistry.10 The results of this evaluation were not intended
as a correction but rather as an estimate of the magnitude of the problem.
Both the PCS and NCASI studies present calculation methods for estimating
the interference. The PCS equation is:
P P
CO S
Interference, ppm C.. = 2 x 1303.6
100 - P
s
where P = partial pressure CO (atmospheres)
Pg = percent water vapor
1303.6 = 1st approximation conversion factor
The NCASI equation, based upon experimental data is:
71 + [(9.8 x %CO ) - 6.2] (ml HO collected)
Interference, ppm C =
1 sample volume
5"Investigation of Carbon Dioxide Interference with Method 25". Final
Report. EPA Contract 68-02-2814, Work Assignment 41. Midwest Research
Institute, April 15, 1981.
10 "EpA Method 25 CO2 Interferences." Measurement of Volatile Organic
Compounds by EPA Method 25 Seminar. University of Dayton, September 1981.
5-22
-------
The results from this calculation showed a CO interference about twice
that calculated for the NCASI samples. The reason this equation showed a
higher CO interference when applied to the TRC data is that the NCASI
equation contains a factor for trap blanks that was developed from an average
of blanks for the NCASI system. Use of this equation with smaller sizes such
as gathered by TRC will exaggerate the blank. For comparitive purposes, TRC
used a modification of the NCASI equation:
9.8 x %CO x ml HO collected
Interference, ppm C, = : :
1 sample volume
NCASI calculated corrections for their data using their equation only.
Table 5-1 presents a summary of the calculated corrections for both the
TRC and NCASI data. The gas stream C0« and moisture contents used in the
equations for the TRC data correspond to those values obtained during the
concurrent EPA Method 5X and Method 3 tests. In order to apply the NCASI
equation to the TRC data, the milliliters of water collected in the sample
trap were calculated from the gas stream moisture content and the Method 25
sample volume employing the EPA Method 4 equation. NCASI used the actual
measured liquid volume in their sample trap and the measured CO content in
the sample tank for their calculations.
TABLE 5-1
C02 INTERFERENCE CORRECTIONS
FOR BOILER 2 OUTLET TOTAL ORGANIC MEASUREMENTS
Run Number
1
3
4
5
6
TRC
PCS Method
ppm GI
16.5
17.0
13.3
33.3
16.6
Data
Modified
NCASI Method
ppm GI
9.4
9.4
7.8
18.9
9.3
NCASI Data
ppm GI
14.0
16.5
16.5
18.5
16.5
5-23
-------
Comparison of the calculated corrections reveals very good
correlation between that obtained using the PCS equation and the NCASI data.
However, the corrections obtained applying the modified NCASI equation to the
TRC data yield results about 34 percent lower, on the average, than those
calculated by NCASI. Considering the basis used for development of the
equations, both must overestimate the actual interference because each assume
that there is no attempt to purge the CO frozen in the water ice.
5.4 CO2 and 02, CO Determination
Concentrations of CO and O were measured in accordance with
Method 3 to determine the molecular weight of the gas stream. An integrated
gas sample was taken simultaneously with the Method 5X sample through a
separate stainless-steel probe that is integral with the Method 5X probe.
The sample was drawn through the probe and a flexible sample line and air-
cooled condenser with a Metal Bellows pump at a rate of approximately 0.5
liters per minute. The sample was then pumped into a Tedlar sample bag with
an approximate volume of 1 ft? . Flow rates were recorded simultaneously
with the Method 5X data.
Immediately following completion of each Method 3 and 5X test run, the
integrated bag sample was analyzed with an Orsat analyzer manufactured by
Hayes-Republic. Concentrations of CO and 0 were determined to the
nearest 0.1 percent. Analysis was performed according to the method, using
three passes through each absorbing bubbler to ensure complete absorption.
Bach bag sample was analyzed in triplicate.
EPA Method 3 was to used to determine the molecular weight of the gas
stream at boiler outlet during each test. It was determined by a preliminary
5-24
-------
Method 3 test that an atmospheric air composition prevailed in the dryer
exhaust duct. This was expected since no combustion was talcing place in the
veneer drying process. No additional Method 3 tests were performed at this
location.
5.5 Preliminary Moisture Determination
Preliminary moisture tests were performed at the veneer dryer exhaust and
the boiler 2 outlet prior to emission testing. Testing was be performed in
accordance with EPA Method 4. Data were recorded on field moisture
determination forms as presented in Appendix C.
5.6 Preliminary Velocity Determination
Preliminary velocity measurements were made at the veneer dryer exhaust
and boiler 2 outlet prior to emission testing. EPA Methods 1 and 2 were
followed in measuring the velocity of the gas stream. Data were recorded on
the field data sheets (Traverse Point Location for Circular Ducts and Pre-
liminary Velocity Traverse, Appendix C).
5.7 Visible Emissions
Visible emission observations were conducted concurrently with the
particulate/condensible organic tests at the boiler 2 outlet to determine if
a relationship exists between measured and visible emissions. Observations
were made according to EPA Method 9. Opacity observations were recorded to
the nearest 5 percent at 15-second intervals. Opacity was interpreted as the
average of a set of 24 consecutive observations for a 6-minute period.
Opacity readings were recorded by a certified observer on the Record of
Visible Emissions form as presented in Appendix E. Summaries of visible
5-25
-------
emissions were recorded on the Summary Record of Visible Emissions form, also
presented in Appendix E.
5.8 Pressure Drop Measurements
Pressure drop (AP) across the wet sump prior to the boiler 2 wet 1.0.
fan (Figures 4-1 and 4-5) was measured to establish the unit operating
condition. A U-tube water manometer was used to measure the pressure
differential between the spray chamber and the wet 1.0. fan at 30-minute
intervals during each test.
5.9 Wet Fan Solution Samples
The boiler 2 wet fan solution samples were taken from the supply and
drain of the system concurrently with the particulate/condensible organics
tests performed at the boiler 2 outlet. These samples are being held for
possible future analysis at the direction of EPA.
A 100-ml sample was taken at the wet fan solution supply and drain
approximately every 30 minutes during the Method 5X boiler outlet tests.
These samples were taken by filling a 100-ml graduated cylinder. Sample
numbers and collection times were recorded on the Wet Fan Solution Sample
Collection form in Appendix C. The 100-ml aliguots were combined into two
composite samples for each test (one supply sample and one drain sample).
The size of the composited sample was a function of the actual duration
(including interruptions) of the Method 5X test.
The composite samples were packed in locked shock-proof containers and
driven to CH-MHill at the conclusion of the test program.
5-26
-------
5.10 Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions are emissions that are not emitted directly from a
process stack or duct. These generally include such emissions as those:
(1) escaping capture by process equipment exhaust hoods, (2) emitted during
material transfer; (3) emitted from buildings which house material processing
or handling equipment; and, (4) emitted directly from process equipment.
Guidelines from EPA Method 22, as modified by RTI, were used to determine
fugitive emissions from the veneer dryer doors, abort stacks, and dampers in
the exhaust system. The method does not require that the opacity of
emissions be determined. Instead, the method determines the amount of time
that any visible emissions occur during the observation period; that is, the
accumulated emission time.
Fugitive emissions from the veneer dryers and the exhaust system were
monitored by RTI and OGA. These observations were recorded. Abort stack
emissions were also monitored by RTI but the observations were not recorded.
5.11 Ambient Temperature and Relative Humidity
Outdoor ambient temperature and relative humidity were measured at the
beginning and end of each test period with a psychrometer provided by TRC.
These measurements were made by DGA to determine if a correlation exists
between ambient temperature and relative humidity, and the emissions from the
veneer dryers. Data were recorded on a form provided by RTI.
5-27
-------
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The TRC quality assurance program is designed to ensure that emission
measurement work is performed by qualified people using proper equipment
following written procedures in order to provide accurate, defensible data.
This program is based upon the EPA Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollu-
tion Measurement Systems, Volume III (EPA-600/4-7-027b).
At the beginning of each day, a meeting was held to orient personnel to
the activities scheduled for that day and to discuss results from the
previous day, and to determine if any special considerations were appropriate
for the day's work.
6.1 Method 5X
TRC's measurement devices, pitot tubes, dry gas meters, thermocouples,
probes and nozzles are uniquely identified and calibrated with documented
procedures and acceptance criteria before and after each field effort.
Records of all calibration data are maintained in TRC files. Samples of
these calibration forms are presented in Appendix F.
All Method 5X sampling was 100 +10 percent isokinetic, except as
mentioned in Section 2. Probe and hotbox temperatures were maintained at
350 +25 F. Deviations from these criteria at the boiler 2 outlet were
reported to the EPA/EMB task manager to decide whether a test run should be
repeated or continued.
A single clean-up evaluation test was performed on each initial set
(collector train) of glassware prior to collecting field samples. The
evaluation tests (Method 5X) were performed in the field clean-up laboratory
and were observed by the EPA task manager. Necessary changes or modifica-
tions to the clean-up procedures were specified by the EPA task manager prior
to collecting field samples. The sets of glassware, including the probes,
6-1
-------
were prepared and precleaned before conducting the clean-up evaluation
tests. The impingers were precharged as specified in the actual test pro-
gram. Afterward, the sample collectors, including probes, were cleaned and
the blank samples recovered and analyzed as specified in the actual test
program. Results are presented in Section 2 of this report.
In summary, the evaluation tests were designed to precondition the sample
collectors, to establish blank background values, and to educate the clean-up
personnel in specific sample recovery procedures.
Acetone was provided by CH MHill in glass-lined containers. Both the
acetone and D.D. water were analyzed by CH MHill prior to field use.
Residue data from this preliminary analysis was evaluated by the EPA/EMB task
manager with respect to the suitability for use during the test program.
These data are presented in Appendix H. In addition, three blank samples of
D.D. water, acetone, and both 2-1/2 inch and 4-1/2 inch filters were
collected for background analysis. All clean-up evaluation and blank samples
were analyzed in conjunction with the actual test samples.
All sample recovery was performed by a three-person clean-up crew.
Appropriate sample recovery data were recorded on the sample identification
log, sample handling log, chain-of-custody form, and analytical data forms as
presented in Appendix D.
Recovered samples were secured in padlocked, shock-proof, steel con-
tainers for storage and shipment for analysis.
All preparation and analysis of Method 5X samples were performed by
CH MHill, which has extensive experience with Oregon DEQ Method 7, from
which Method 5X derives. CH MHill adhered to the standards of quality
assurance set forth in the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
6-2
-------
Measurement Systems, Volume III (EPA-600/4-7-027b) and the Handbook for
Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories (EPA-600/4-
79-019, March 1979).
6.2 Method 25
Method 25 traps were burned out according to the method prior to testing
and spot-checked for contamination. All Method 25 tanks were flushed with
nitrogen and checked for contamination prior to field use.
Four sampling trains were used to provide a check on data precision. Two
trains were analyzed by TRC and NCASI analyzed the remaining two trains. All
tanks and traps have permanently engraved identification numbers.
Analyzers were calibrated over the specified ranges using certified
calibration gases. Certification forms are provided in Appendix F.
EPA/EMB provided three audit samples for analysis by TRC and NCASI.
These samples were analyzed using procedures described by the method.
Results are presented in Section 2.
6.3 Method 3
All Method 3 analyses were performed in triplicate, with three passes
being performed through each absorbing bubbler to ensure complete absorption.
Each analyzer was leak-checked according to the method prior to any
analysis. Samples were analyzed immediately upon completion of the sampling.
6.4 Method 9
The TRC observer had been certified within the past 6 months to perform
visible emission evaluations. Documentation verifying the observer's certi-
fication is provided in Appendix E.
6-3
------- |