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

-------