&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 83-CDR-4
February 1984
Air
Emission Test
Report
(Perlite)
W. R. Grace and
Company
Irondale, Alabama
-------
NSPS DEVELOPMENT
PARTICULATE AND PARTICLE SIZING EMISSIONS TESTING
PERLITE EXPANSION FURNACE
W. R. GRACE AND COMPANY
IRONDALE, ALABAMA
FEBRUARY 1, 1984
Compiled by:
Entropy
Post Office Box 12291
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709
68-02-3852
Work Assignment No. 2
EMB Project No. 81 REG 8
Task Manager
Dennis Holzschuh
Emission Measurement Branch
Emissions Standards and Engineering Division
Research Triangle Park, N. C., 27711
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS '
OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N. C., 27711
-------
REPORT.CERTIFICATION
The sampling and analysis performed for this report was carried out
under my direction and supervision.
Date April 25. 1984
Signature
Frank Jl./Phoenix.
I have reviewed all testing details and results in this test report
and hereby certify that the test report is authentic and accurate.
Date April 25. 1984
Signature
D. James Grove, P.E.
-------
DISCLAIMER
Although the research described in this report has been funded wholly or
in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through
Contract 68-02-3852 to Entropy, it has not been subject to the Agency's peer
and administrative review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the
views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Scope of the Project 1-1
1.3 W. R. Grace Source Testing Program 1-1
1.3.1 Source Applicability 1-2
1.3.2 Outline of Testing Program 1-2
1.4 Report Organization 1-3
2. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2-1
2 .1 Summary 2-1
2.2 Discussion 2-1
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION : 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Pollutant/Sampling Points 3-1
3.3 Process Description 3-3
3.3.1 General 3-3
3.3.2 Control Equipment 3-8
3.4 Process Conditions During Testing 3-8
3.5 Discussion 3-9
4. SAMPLING LOCATIONS 4-1
4.1 Suitability of Sampling Sites 4-1
4.2 Perlite Expansion Furnace Inlet (Sample Location A) 4-1
4.3 Ore Feed Belt (Observation Location A) 4-1
4.4 Cyclones Product Outlet (Sample Location B) 4-1
4.5 Baghouse Exhaust Stacks (Sample Locations C and C') 4-1
4.6 Baghouse Exhaust Stacks (Sample Locations D and D') 4-2
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 5-1
5.1 Sampling Objectives 5-1
5.2 Particulate Emissions Testing 5-1
5.3 Trace Metals Analysis 5-1
(continued next page)
-------
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
5.4 Sieve and Moisture Content Analysis 5-1
5.5 Plume Opacity 5-1
5.6 Fugitive Emissions 5-1
5.7 Particle Size Testing 5-1
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Sampling Train Components 6-1
6.3 Preseparator and Cascade Impactors .. 6-1
6.4 Sample Collection Substrates 6-2
6.5 Substrate Weighting 6-2
6.6 Sample Analysis 6-2
6.7 EPA Method 3 6-2
6.8 EPA Method 7 6-2
7. APPENDICES
7.1 Test Results and Example Calculations
7.1.1 Participate Test Results, Baghouse West Stack & Example
Calculations for Run 1
7.1.2 Particulate Test Results, Baghouse East Stack
7.1.3 Particle Sizing Test Results, Baghouse West Stack
7.2 Field Data
7.2.1 Particulate Field Data, Baghouse West Stack
7.2.2 Particulate Field Data, Baghouse East Stack
7.2.3 Particle Sizing Field Data, Baghouse West Stack
7.2.4 Reactivity Field Data, Baghouse East Stack
7.2.5 Visible Emissions, Method 9
7.2.6 Fugitive Emissions, Method 22
7.3 Sampling and Analytical Procedures
7.4 Feed and Product Analytical Data
7.5 Entropy Test Participants
7.6 Calibration Data
-------
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title
1-1 Testing Log 1-2
2-1 Baghouse Total Emission Rates and Concentrations 2-2
and Visible Emissions Summary
2-2 Particulate Tests Summary Baghouse West Stack 2-3
2-3 Particulate Tests Summary Baghouse East Stack 2-4
3-1 Emission Tests Conducted At W.R. Grace 3-2
3-2 Data For Perlite Expansion Furnace 3-5
3-3 Feed and Product Specifications For Grefco NA 79 3-6
3-4 Data For Perlite Corporation Baghouse 3-7
-------
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
3-1 Perlite Expansion System Diagram 3-4
4-1 Perlite Expansion Process Sampling and 4-2
Observation Locations
4-2 Baghouse Exhaust Stack With Sampling Port 4-3
and Point Locations (Sampling Location C)
-------
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background. The Emission Measurement Branch of the U.S. EPA
(EPA EMB) is directing a project designed to generate support data for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for calciners and dryers in the mineral
industries. Emission standards for the various industries will be developed
based upon process-related emission factors determined from the testing of
controlled sources.
1.2 Scope of the Project. The U.S. EPA EMB is responsible for
coordinating the efforts of Entropy and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to
achieve the goals of the testing program. Entropy has been retained under
EMB Contract No. 68-02-3852, Work Assignment No. 2 to conduct testing
programs at designated industrial facilities. Entropy is to perform emission
measurements at the recommended sampling locations, obtain process feed and
product samples, and, in conjunction with Research Triangle Institute (RTI),
conduct sample analyses. MRI will monitor process and operating conditions
in order to designate suitable testing conditions for the respective
processes and to provide a record of process and operational data during the
testing.
1.3 W. R. Grace Source Testing Program. The present report covers
stationary source sampling performed at the W.R. Grace & Company
manufacturing plant in Irondale, Alabama on February 1, 1984 to characterize
emissions from the perlite expansion pollution control equipment. Clarence
Duckworth of W. R. Grace and Company and Frank Clay of EPA EMB were present
to coordinate the testing. Amy J. Kowalski and Butch Smith of MRI monitored
the plant process and recorded operational data during the testing.
1.3.1 Source Applicability. W. R. Grace and Company operates a high
temperature perlite expansion furnace. This furnace has the capability of
processing NA-79 crushed perlite which has a density of about sixty pounds
per cubic foot (60 Ibs/fty). Emissions from the perlite expansion system
are controlled by a baghouse, which represents the best available control
technology (BACT).
-------
1-2
1.3.2 Outline of Testing Program. Three sets of EPA Method 5 runs were
performed concurrently at the baghouse east and west stacks to determine the
particulate emissions from the perlite expansion process. The impinger
reagents from one Method 5 run at each location were analyzed for trace
metals. Concurrent with two sets of the Method 5 runs, Method 9 opacity
readings were taken at the baghouse east and west stacks, and Method 22
readings for fugitive emissions were taken at the ore feed belt. One
particle sizing run was done at the baghouse west stack, while a simultaneous
reactivity run* was performed as a control measure at the baghouse east
stack. Feed and product samples were taken for moisture content and sieve
analysis. Table 1-1 presents a test log which summarizes the test dates,
sampling locations, run or sample numbers, and the types of testing
performed.
TABLE 1-1
TESTING LOG OF 2/1/84
Sampling Location
Baghouse West Stack
Sampling Objective
particulate
trace metals
particle size
opacity
fugitive emissions
sieving & moisture
sieving & moisture
particulate
trace metals
reactivity
opacity
* A reactivity run is a simultaneous duplicate run using a filter prior to
the impactor stages to collect all the particulate in the gas stream. The
purpose of the run is to determine if gases in the stack effluent are
reacting with the impactor stages and creating a high bias on the weights of
the normal particle size run. No weight gain on the impactor stages of the
reactivity run indicates no reactivity bias on the normal particle size run.
Ore Feed Belt
Furnace Inlet Feed
Cyclones Product Outlet
Baghouse East Stack
Method
5
5
impactor
9
22
grab sample
grab sample
5
5
impactor
9
Run Numbers
1,2,3
2
SI
1 & 2
1 & 2
1,2,3
1,2,3
4,5,6
5
Rl
4 & 5
-------
1-3
1.4 Report Organization. Immediately following is the "Summary of
Results" section. Appendix 7.1 presents the complete results of each run;
field data can be found in Appendix 7.2. The source and the process are
described in the "Process Description and Operation" section. The next
section, "Sampling Locations" provides a comprehensive description and
illustration for each location; "Sampling and Analytical Procedures" fellows,
describing the sampling strategy used. Descriptions of the equipment and
procedures can be found in Appendix 7.3, while Appendix 7.4 presents
analytical documentation. The final section, "Quality Assurance," notes the
procedures used to ensure the integrity of the sampling program; Appendix 7.6
provides pertinent calibration data. Appendix 7.5 contains a listing of the
Entropy test participants and their roles in the testing program.
-------
2-1
2. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
2.1 Summary. Table 2-1 presents the total baghouse emission rates and
concentrations and visible emissions summary for the particulate testing
performed at the baghouse west and east stacks. A run-by-run summary of the
particulate results for the west and east baghouse stacks is presented in
Tables 2-2 and 2-3, respectively. Detailed results for the testing program
appear in Appendix 7.1.
2.2 Discussion of Results. Particle sizing Run SI data indicate a mass
median diameter of approximately 4 microns; however, due to the low
concentrations, the catches on some stages are extremely low so, caution
should be used in interpreting the particle sizing data. The results appear
in Appendix 7.1.3. Due to process upsets, the particle sizing testing
scheduled for February 2 was not completed; limited data from the aborted
runs show the mass median diameter to be consistant with Run SI.
Only the first set of two-hour visible and fugitive emissions runs was
completed. The second set of readings was interrupted after one hour due to
the onset of darkness; the scheduled third set was not performed.
Visible emissions plume opacity was negligible except during the
cleaning cycles. Fugitive emissions were observed only when the conveyer
belt was operating.
-------
TABLE 2-1
BAGHOUSE TOTAL EMISSION RATES & CONCENTRATIONS
2-2
Emission Rates, Ib/hr:
Baghouse West Stack
Baghouse East Stack
Sum Total
Emission Rates, kg/hr:
Baghouse West Stack
Baghouse East Stack
Sum Total
Air Flow Rates. SCFM:
Baghouse West Stack
Baghouse East Stack
Sum Total
Concentration, Gn/DSCF;
Baghouse West Stack
Baghouse East Stack
Weighted Average*
Concentration, mg/DSCM;
Baghouse West Stack
Baghouse East Stack
Weighted Average**
Average Opacity, Percent:
Baghouse West Stack
Baghouse East Stack
Fugitive Emissions:
Observation Time, rain.
Duration of Emissions, min.
— Run Numbers
1&4 2&5 3&6
0.256
0.321
0.577
0.116
0.146
0.262
2,702
1,986
4,688
0.0110
0.0189
0.0144
25.280
43.142
32.948
0.16
0.14
95.00
10.60
0.298
0.338
0.636
0.135
0.153
0.288
2,601
1,986
4,587-
0.0134
0.0198
0.0162
30.598
45.409
37.067
0.04
0.35
45.00
35.63
0.239
0.338
0.577
0.108
0.153
0.261
2,607
1,997
4,604
0.0105
0.0198
0.0146
23.944
45.225
33.406
Average
0.264
0.332
0.596
0.120
0.151
0.271
2,637
1,990
4,627
0.0116
0.0195
0.0150
26.607
44.592
34.550
* Weighted Gn/DSCF =
Ib/hr (7000)
SCFM (60)
453,592
** Weighted mg/DSCM = * Weighted Gn/DSCF
7000 (0.02832)
-------
TABLE 2-2
PARTICULATE TESTS SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Expansion Furnace Baghouse West Stack
2-3
1
Run Date
Test Train Parameters:
Volume of Dry Gas
Sampled, SCF*
Percent Isokinetic
Stack Parameters:
Temperature, Deg. F
Air Flow Rates
SCFM*. Dry
ACFM, Wet
Method 5 Test Results:
Catch, Milligrams
Concentration,
Grains Per DSCF*
Milligrams Per DSCM
Emission Rate,
Pounds Per Hour
Kilograms Per Hour
02/01/84 02/01/84
90.792
99.1
370
2,702
4,525
65.0
0.0110
25.280
0.256
0.116
89.090
101.0
383
2,601
4,463
77.2
0.0134
30.598
0.298
0.135
02/01/84
90.990
100.5
378
2,670
4,568
61.7
0.0105
23.944
0.239
0.108
* 68 Deg. F. - 29.92 in. Hg.
-------
TABLE 2-3
PARTICIPATE TESTS SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Expansion Furnace Baghouse East Stack
2-4
Run Date
Test Train Parameters;
Volume of Dry Gas
Sampled, SCF*
Percent Isokinetic
Stack Parameters:
Temperature, Deg. F
Air Flow Rates
SCFM*. Dry
ACFM, Wet
Method 5 Test Results:
Catch, Milligrams
Concentration,
Grains Per DSCF*
Milligrams Per DSCM
Emission Rate,
Pounds Per Hour
Kilograms Per Hour
02/01/84 02/01/84 02/01/84
106.647
104.6
371
1,986
3,346
130.3
0.0189
43.142
0.321
0.146
108.400
106.3
376
1,986
3,380
139.4
0.0198
45.409
0.338
0.153
107.826
105.2
372
1,997
3,389
138.1
0.0198
45.225
0.338
0.153
* 68 Deg. F. - 29.92 in. Hg.
-------
3-1
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
3.1 Introduction. Source emission tests were conducted on the perlite
expansion furnace at the W. R. Grace & Co. (Grace) plant in Irondale, Alabama
from January 30 through February 2, 1984. Mr. Frank Clay of EPA/EMB was
present during the testing to observe emission testing procedures. The tests
were conducted by an eight-person test crew headed by Mr. Frank Phoenix of
Entropy. The process was monitored by Stacy Smith and Amy Kowalski
from MRI. Mr. Clarence Duckworth of Grace coordinated the testing with plant
personnel and provided process information.
3.2 Pollutants/Sampling Points. The primary objectives of the emission
test were to obtain the following data for the outlet of the perlite
expansion furnace baghouse: (1) particulate matter (PM) concentrations, (2)
PM mass emission rates, and (3) particle size distributions (PS) for the PM.
Visible emission (VE) observations were made at the two outlet stacks
simultaneously with the emission testing. VE measurements were also made of
the process fugitive emissions at the expansion furnace feed inlet. The feed
inlet consists of a covered belt conveyer which dumps into a bucket
elevator. No VE measurements were taken on the product outlet because the
system was totally enclosed with no visible leaks. Grab samples of the feed
and product material and of the baghouse fines were taken for particle size
sieve and moisture content analyses. Table 1 presents the tests conducted at
this facility.
-------
3-2
TABLE 3-1. EMISSION TESTS CONDUCTED AT W. R. GRACE & CO.'
Sampling point
Furnace feed inlet
Furnace product
outlet
Test type
Visible emissions
Moisture content
Particle size sieve
Moisture content
Particle size sieve
Test No. of
method(s) samples/run
EPA-9,22
ASTM D2216
ASTM D422
ASTM D2216
ASTM D422
1
1
1
1
1
Baghouse outlet
stacks (2)
Particle concentration
Particle size
Visible emissions
EPA-5 1
EPA draft method 1
EPA-9 1
EPA Method 5 tests consisted of three runs, all on February 1, 1984.
Particle size testing consisted of one run also on February 1, 1984.
Additional particle size runs were not possible because of fan malfunc-
tions. Simultaneous particle size and particulate testing was not
feasible because of the small stack diameter.
-------
3-3
3.3 Process Description
3.3.1 General. Grace expands one size of perlite ore, for horticultural
uses, in its Perlite Corporation Model VS-450 vertical expansion furnace.
During emission testing, Grefco NA 79 ore was processed. The pre-sized
perlite concentrate is fed into the 0.7-m (28-in.) -diameter stainless steel
furnace through a surge preheater at a rate of about 0.91 mg/h (1 ton/h).
Four variable speed screw feeders on the side of the furnace inject the
perlite 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6ft) above the natural gas-fired combustion
burner. The fuel usage rate for this furnace is 198 to 227 m3/h (7,000 to
8,000 ft3/h).
The perlite is expanded 4 to 20 times its original volume in the hot
zone of the furnace at temperatures of 982 degrees to 1093 degrees Celsius
(1800 to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit). The four baghouse exhaust fans convey the
expanded perlite particles through 30.5-cm (1-ft) -diameter circular ductwork
to a 1.75-m (69-in.) -diameter product collection cyclone. The collected
perlite falls through a cooler/classifier unit prior to bagging. The air
stream from the product cyclone and cooler/classifier cyclone passes through
a four-compartment Perlite Corporation baghouse prior to being emitted to the
atmosphere. Figure 1 shows an expansion furnace with the Perlite Corporation
cyclone and baghouse that is similiar to the system used at Grace. The
controlled expansion temperature of the furnace, as indicated by the control
panel monitor, ranges from 799 to 832 degrees Celsius (1470 to 1530 degrees
Fahrenheit). The furnace has a retention time of two to three seconds.
Table 2 presents the design and operating parameters for the furnace.
Table 3 presents the specifications for the feed and product material
provided by Mr. Frederick Eaton of Grace.
-------
3-4
Figure 3-1. Perlite expansion system
W. R. Grace & Co.
-------
3-5
TABLE 3-2. DATA FOR PERLITE EXPANSION
FURNACE AT W. R. GRACE & CO., IRONDALE, ALABAMA
Manufacturer
Model
Date of installation
Design production rate, Mg/h (ton/h)
Actual production rate, Mg/h (ton/h)
Hours of operation
hours/day
days/week
Retention time, s
Maximum gas temperature, °C (°F)
Fuel used
Fuel usage rate, mVh (ft3/h)
Feed moisture content, %
Feed particle size
Feed density, kg/m3 (lb/ft3)
Product moisture content, %
Product density, kg/m3 (lb/ft3)
Perlite Corporation
VS-450
1977
1.09 (1.20)
See Confidential
Addendum Item No. 2
8-16
5
2-3
982-1093 (1800-2000)
Natural gas
See Confidential
Addendum Item No. 3
2-5
90 percent £20 mesh
881+ (55+)
0
64-112 (4-7)
-------
3-6
TABLE 3-3. FEED AND PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS FOR GREFCO NA79 PERLITE3
Mesh size
+4
+8
+12
+16
+20
+50
+100
Cumulative
Raw ore
0
20
60
85
90
—
—
percent retained
Expanded
product
--
50% minimum
—
—
90% minimum
—
96% minimum
aTelecons. A. J. Kowalski, MRI, with Mr. Frederick
Eaton, W. R. Grace & Co. on February 1 and April 4,
b!984.
W. R. Grace & Co. quality control purchase
specifications.
-------
3-7
TABLE 3-4. DATA FOR PERLITE CORPORATION BAGHQUSE
W. R. GRACE & COMPANY, IRONDALE, ALABAMA3
Manufacturer
Bag material
Air-to-cloth ratio
Inlet temp., °C (°F)
Actual gas flow rate, m3/s (acfm)
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)
Number of stacks
Stack height (from roof), m (ft)
Stack diameter, m (ft)
Number of compartments
Design outlet grain loading, g/dsm3
(gr/dscf)
Design efficiency
Perlite Corporation
Glass graphite
2.6:1
232-243 (450-470)
170 @ 177°C (6,000 @ 350°F)'
1.5 (6)
2
11.3 (27)
0.4 (1.25)
4
1.8 xlO-5 (0.01)
>99%
Telecon, 6/7/83 with Mohammed Huda, Jefferson County Dept. of Health,
.Birmingham, Ala., and Section 114 response.
Stack temperature.
-------
3-8
3.3.2 Control Equipment. Particulate emissions from the perlite
expansion furnace are controlled by a baghouse. Data for the baghouse are
shown in Table 4. The baghouse was manufactured by the Perlite Corporation.
It has four compartments and is equipped with 100 glass graphite bags. The
design air-to-cloth ratio is 2.6:1. The temperature of the inlet gas is 232
to 243 degrees Celsius (450 to 470 degrees Fahrenheit). The collected
material from the baghouse is bagged separately and landfilled. The baghouse
is equipped with four fans, one on each compartment. The baghouse is cleaned
by compartment when the respective fan is shut off for a few seconds. The
cleaning cycle is set on seven minutes per compartment.
3.4 Process Conditions During Testing. All processes were operating
normally during the emission testing. The furnace operation is monitored
from a control panel that contains gauges for the furnace outlet temperature,
the baghouse internal temperature, and the ore feeder speed. To achieve the
required amount of exfoliation for final product quality, the hot section of
the furnace must be 982 to 1093 degrees Celsius (1800 to 2000 degrees
Fahrenheit). This corresponds to a furnace control temperature of
approximately 816 degrees Celsius (1500 degrees Fahrenheit) according to Mr.
Duckworth. Throughout the testing the furnace control temperature was 799 to
832 degrees Celsius (1470 to 1530 degrees Fahrenheit) indicating normal
furnace operation.
The design capacity of the vertical expansion furnace is 1.09 mg/h (1.2
ton/h). The normal actual production rate is 0.9 mg/h (1 ton/h). Natural
gas with a heating value of 1,000 Btu/ft3 was used to fire the furnace
during the testing. The gas firing system was operating normally during the
test.
Additional information about the process operation during testing is
provided in a Confidential Addendum to this report.
-------
3-9
35 Discussion. Due to the small diameter of the baghouse outlet
stacks [0.4 m (1.25 ft)}, simultaneous particle size and Method 5 testing was
not possible. In addition, two of the four baghouse fans malfunctioned on
three separate occasions. None of the malfunctions affected any of the
testing runs. As a result of these breakdowns, however, Method 5 Run No. 3
was performed at night, and VE readings could not be taken. Also, only one
2-hour particle size run was completed due to the fan breakdowns.
Additional particle size testing was scheduled on Thursday.
February 2, 1984, to complete the testing requirements. Originally, the
three particle size runs were to be performed in only one stack. Due to time
constraints, EMB personnel approved simultaneous particle size testing using
both stacks. After approximately one hour of testing, the third fan
malfunction occurred, and testing was suspended. Because acceptable Method 5
runs had already been obtained and because the outlet particle size data
could not be obtained concurrently and were not critical to the calciners and
dryers project, it was decided that the testing would be terminated without
the final two particle size runs.
Confidential Attachment
-------
4-1
4. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
4.1 Suitability of Sampling Sites. The primary goal of the testing
program was to characterize emissions from the perlite expansion pollution
control equipment. Additionally, physical properties of the process feed
stock and the product were investigated. Sampling sites appropriate to these
objectives were approved prior to testing. Each sampling location is
discussed individually, and the position of each site within the system is
illustrated in Figure 4-1.
4.2 Perlite Expansion Furnace Inlet (Sampling Location A). Grab
samples of the feed to the expansion furnace were collected for sieve
analysis and moisture content determination. Samples were taken during each
set of simultaneous Method 5 runs.
4.3 Ore Feed Belt (Observation Location E). Fugitive emissions were
determined at the ore feed belt according to EPA Reference Method 22.
4.4 Cyclones Product Outlet (Sampling Location B). Grab samples of
product from the cyclones product outlet were collected for sieve analysis
and moisture content determination. Samples were taken during each set of
simultaneous Method 5 runs.
4.5 Baghouse Exhaust Stacks (Sampling Locations C and C'). Measures of
particulate emissions were made at the identical baghouse east and west
stacks. A determination of particle size distribution was made only at the
baghouse west stack, while a reactivity particle size run was conducted for
reference at the baghouse east stack. Figure 4-2 illustrates the dimensions
and sampling points which are typical for both stacks.
Both stacks are vertical with inside diameters of 15 inches. Each stack
has two sampling ports spaced 90° apart and located 12 inches (0.8 stack
diameters) upstream from the stack outlet and 60 inches (4 stack diameters)
downstream from the nearest flow disturbance. In accordance with EPA
Method 1 (promulgated on September 30, 1983), 24 sampling points were used,
-------
OBSERVATION
LOCATION E
PERLITE
EXPANSION
FURNACE
PRIMARY
CYCLONE
F.D. FAN
r
COOLER
CLASSIFIER
SECONDARY
CYCLONE
>B
TO BAGGERS
. »- PRODUCT FLOW
— •*- AIR FLOW
<8> GRAB SAMPLES
OBSERVATION
LOCATION D. D1
BAGHOUSE
COMPARTMENT
BAGHOUSE
COMPARTMENT
BAGHOUSE
COMPARTMENT
BAGHOUSE
COMPARTMENT
1
2
3
4
STACK
C'
A,B
C
C'
D,D'
E
ASTM METHOD
METHOD 5, IMPACTOR
METHOD 5
METHOD 9
METHOD 22
^IGURE 4-1. PERLITE EXPANSION PROCESS SAMPLING LOCATIONS
W. R. GRACE, IRONDALE, ALABAMA
I
ro
-------
4-3
M
AXES: 2
POINTS/AXIS: 12
TOTAL POINTS: 24
12"
60"
15"
A ;..B
6
SECTION M-M
2 SAMPLING PORTS
15" DIA.
NOTE: EAST AND WEST
BAGHOUSE STACKS
ARE IDENTICAL
FROM
FAN
FROM
FAN
FIGURE .'4-2. EAST OR WEST BAGHOUSE OUTLET STACK DIMENSIONS WITH
'•SAMPLING PORT AND POINT" LOCATIONS
-------
4-4
i.e., 12 sampling points on each of two traverse axes {labeled A and B).
Each point was sampled for five minutes resulting in a net test time of 120
minutes.
Particle size determination at the baghouse west stack was performed
using the four-point scheme recommended by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (IERL). For the particle size testing the stack cross
section was divided into four equal areas, i.e., two traverse axes with two
sample points per axis. The centroid of each equal area was sampled for 30
minutes resulting in a net sample time of 120 minutes.
4.6 Baghouse Exhaust Stacks (Observation Locations D and D1). Plume
opacity observations for both baghouse exhaust stacks were performed
according to procedures outlined in EPA Reference Method 9.
-------
5-1
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
5.1 Sampling Objectives. This section describes the sampling and
analytical procedures which were employed at the W. R. Grace plant in order
to gather data concerning emissions from the perlite expansion pollution
control equipment and to investigate physical properties of the process feed
stock and the product. The sampling program included outlet tests for
particulate emissions, plume opacity, and, at the baghouse west stack only,
particle size distribution.
5.2 Particulate Emissions Testing. Particulate emissions sampling
conformed to the standards and procedures set forth by EPA Reference
Methods 1-5 and described in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix 7.3.
5.3 Trace Metals Analysis. For one run at each location, the Method 5
particulate catch and the distilled water reagent from the impingers were
analyzed for trace metals by using atomic absorption or inductively coupled
Plasma Spectroraetry. These metals are zinc, nickel, iron, manganese,
vanadium, calcium, silicon, aluminum, magnesium, fluorine, beryllium,
uranium, lead, and mercury.
5.4 Sieve Analysis and Moisture Content. Sieve analysis and moisture
content determinations were performed on all feed and product samples. ASTM
Method D 2216 was used to analyze the samples for moisture content, while
ASTM Method D 422 was used for sieve analysis.
5.5 Plume Opacity. Visible emissions observations were performed in
accordance with EPA Reference Method 9 as described in 40 CFR Part 60.
5.6 Fugitive Emissions. Fugitive emissions were determined in
accordance with EPA Reference Method 22 as described in 40 CFR Part 60.
5.7 Particle Size Tests. Particle size determinations were made using
a right angle inlet preseparator, followed by an Andersen Mark III cascade
impactor. The test procedures were based upon the publication, "Procedures
for Cascade Irapactor Calibration and Operation in Process Streams - Revised
1979," developed by the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL)
and Southern Research Institute.
-------
6-1
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE
6.1 Introduction. The goal of quality assurance for the project was to
ensure the accuracy of all data collected. The procedures used are contained
in Entropy's "Quality Assurance Program Plan," which was approved by the U.S.
EPA EMB in the contract agreement governing the project.
In order to ensure continuity among field testing personnel, daily
meetings were held before each day of the field testing. At the meetings,
results from the testing conducted on the previous day were reviewed.
Responsibilities were clearly delineated for each member of the testing team,
and questions were addressed and resolved immediately. In situations where
more than one person was performing similar activities, consistency was
ensured through communication at the meetings.
In addition to the general quality assurance measures, specific quality
assurance activities were conducted for several of the individual test
methods performed.
6.2 Sampling Train Components. Entropy's sampling equipment, including
nozzles, pitot tubes, dry gas meters, orifices, and thermocouples, was
uniquely identified and calibrated in accordance with documented procedures
and acceptance criteria prior to and at the completion of the field testing
program. All sampling equipment was manufactured by Nutech Corporation,
Andersen 2000 or by Entropy. Calibration data for the sampling equipment are
contained in Appendix 7.6.
6.3 Preseparator and Cascade Impactors. All internal components and
surfaces of the impactors were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath to ensure that
all surface impurities were removed, and visual inspections for cleanliness
were made prior to shipment to the field. After each sample recovery, the
preseparator, the impactor body, and the plates were rinsed with acetone to
ensure that all organic residuals and/or particulate matter were removed.
-------
6-2
6.4 Sample Collection Substrates. Schleicker & Schuell #30 glass fiber
sample collection substrates were used for particle size testing. To prevent
contamination of the substrate surface, all filters were handled with
laboratory tweezers. This procedure was used during impactor assembly,
sample recovery, and weighing of the substrates.
6.5 Substrate Weighing. An analytical balance capable of weighing to
the nearest 0.01 milligram (mg) was used. To ensure that no weight bias was
produced from the preparation, transportation, recovery, or weighing
procedures, two control samples were obtained during the test program. A
reactivity run was performed to ensure that the flue gases did not interact
with the substrate to produce extraneous results. For the reactivity run, a
solid filter was placed in the front section of the impactor, and the
impactor was introduced into the stack, and a sample was pulled through the
head using the parameters outlined for a normal particle sizing run. The
average difference between the pre- and post-test weights, as shown in
Appendix 7.6., was 0.08 milligrams, based upon weight differences ranging
from 0.01 to 0.19 milligrams. A blank run was also performed to demonstrate
that the impactor could be assembled and disassembled without affecting the
weight of the substrate. The average difference between the pre- and
post-assembly weights was 0.03 milligrams, based upon a difference ranging
from 0.0 to 0.03 milligrams.
6.6 Sample Analysis. In order to reduce the probability of errors or
inconsistent results, one member of the field crew had sole responsibility
for the sample analysis procedure. Sample analysis was performed in a room
dedicated exclusively to filter weighing.
6.7 EPA Method 3. All Method 3 analyses were performed in triplicate.
Each analyzer was checked for leaks prior to any analysis as specified in the
method. Samples were analyzed within four hours of collection.
6.8 EPA Method 9. The visible emissions observers held current
certifications issued within the last 6 months. Documentation verifying the
observer's certifications are provided in Appendix 7 .2.4.
------- |