United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 85-CHM-4
August 1985
Air
Neshap Screening
Study
Chromium
Emission Test
Report
Burlington
Industries
Raleigh,
North Carolina
-------
EMISSION TEST REPORT
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
ESED 85/02
by
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Post Office Box 12291
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Contract No. 68-02-3852
Work Assignment No. 18
PN: 3018
EPA Task Manager
Dan Bivins
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH
EMISSION STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING DIVISION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
October 1985
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 PROCESS OPERATION 2-1
2.1 Process Description 2-1
2.2 Air Pollution Control 2-1
2.3 Process Conditions During Testing 2-1
3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 3-1
3.1 Particulate Matter, Hexavalent Chromium, and Total Chrcmiun 3-3
3.1.1 Double Mechancial Collector Inlet at 50%
Boiler Capacity 3-4
3.1.2 Double Mechanical Collector Outlet at 50%
Boiler Capacity 3-8
3.1.3 Double Mechanical Collector Inlet at 80%
Boiler Capacity 3-9
3.1.4 Double Mechanical Collector Outlet at 80%
Boiler Capacity 3-13
3.2 Sunmary of Emissions in Units of Process Rate and
Collection Efficiency 3-15
3.2.1 Emissions at 50% Boiler Capacity 3-17
3.2.2 Emissions at 80% Boiler Capacity 3-17
3.2.3 Conclusions 3-17
3.3 Particle Size Distribution 3-18
3.3.1 Particle Size Distribution at 50% Boiler Capacity 3-18
3.3.2 Particle Size Distribution at 80% Boiler Capacity 3-21
3.3.3 Conclusions 3-21
3.4 Visible Emissions Observation Data 3-21
3.5 Svmmary of Analytical Results for Hexavalent and Total Chrcmiun 3-22
3.6 Coal Sample Analysis for F Factor Calculation 3-28
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND TEST METHODS 4-1
4.1 Double Mechanical Collector Inlet
(Sampling Locations B and C) 4-1
4.2 Double Mechanical Collector Outlet (Sampling Location F) 4-6
4.3 Coal Feed (Sampling Location A) 4-8
4.4 Primary and Secondary Multiclone Hoppers
(Sampling Locations D and E) 4-8
4.5 Bottom Ash (Sampling Location G) 4-8
4.6 Velocity and Gas Temperature 4-8
4.7 Molecular Weight 4-9
4.8 Particulate Matter 4-9
4.9 Particle Size Distribution 4-10
4.10 Hexavalent Chrcmiun Content 4-10
4.11 Total Chrcmiun Content 4-11
4.12 Visible Emissions 4-11
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 5-1
ii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDICES
A TEST RESULTS AND EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS A-1
Particulate, Hexavalent Chromium and Total Chromium A-3
Example Particulate Test Calculations A-9
Particle Size for Total Particulate, Hexavalent Chromium A-42
and Total Chromium
Summary of Hexavalent Chromium Particle Sizing A-90
Summary of Total Chromium Particle Sizing A-92
Total Chromium Analysis Calculation A-94
Explanation of Total Chromium Analysis Calculation Table A-97
B FIELD AND ANALYTICAL DATA B-1
Particulate Matter B-3
Particle Size Distribution B-49
Inlet Flow Angle Data B-74
Total Particulate Analysis B-76
Particle Size Distribution Analysis B-88
Coal Analysis B-97
Hexavalent Chromium Analysis B-99
Total Chromium Analysis B-107
C VISIBLE EMISSIONS OBSERVATION DATA C-1
D SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES D-1
Determination of Total Particulate Emissions D-3
Determination of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions D-8
Determination of Particle Size Distribution D-23
Determination of Total Chromium Content D-15
Grab Samples D-29
E CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA E-1
F MRI PROCESS DATA F-1
G TEST PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS G-1
iii
-------
FIGURES
Nunber Page
2-1 Schematic Representation of Boiler No. 4 2-3
4-1 Simplified Process Air Flow Diagram of Boiler No. 4 and Emission
Control Eqiupment at Burlington Industries Wake Finishing Plant 4-2
4-2 Double Mechanical Collector Inlet (Sampling Locations B and C) 4-4
4-3 Double Mechanical Collector Outlet (Sampling Location F) 4-7
iv
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2.1 Process Operating Conditions, Run 1a, February 12, 1985 2-4
2.2 Process Operating Conditions, Run 2a, February 13, 1985 2-5
2.3 Process Operating Conditions, Run 3a, February 14, 1985 2-6
2.4 Process Operation Conditions, Run 1b, February 15, 1985 2-7
2.5 Process Operating Conditions, Run 2b, February 18, 1985 2-8
2.6 Process Operating Conditions, Run 3b, February 19, 1985 2-9
3.1 Testing Schedule for Burlington Industries 3-2
3.2 Summary of Flue Gas Conditions for 50% Boiler Capacity 3-5
3.3 Summary of Particulate, Hexavalent Chromiun, and Total
Chromium Emissions for 50% Boiler Capacity 3-7
3.4 Summary of Flue Gas Conditions for 80% Boiler Capacity 3-10
3.5 Summary of Particulate, Hexavalent Chromiun, and Total Chromium
Emissions for 80% Boiler Capacity 3-12
3.6 Sunmary of Emission Rates in Units of Process Rate and
Efficiency 3-16
3.7 Sunmary of Particle Size Distribution at 50% Boiler Capacity 3-19
3.8 Summary of Particle Size Distribution at 80% Boiler Capacity 3-20
3.9 Summary of Visible Emissions Data for All Runs Boiler No. 4
Mechanical Collector Outlet 3-23
3.10 Summary of Analytical Results for Hexavalent and Total
Chromium at 50% Boiler Capacity ' 3-24
3.11 Summary of Analytical Results for Hexavalent and Total
Chromiun at 80% Boiler Capacity 3-26
3.12 Summary of Analytical Results for Hexavalent and Total
Chromiun Quality Assurance Samples 3-29
3.13 Coal Analysis 3-30
4.1 Sampling Plan for Burlington Industries 4-3
5.1 Field Equipment Calibration 5-2
5.2 Particle Size Blank Filter and Reactivity Filter Analysis 5-5
5.3 Audit Report Chromiun Analysis 5-6
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During the weeks of February 11 and 18, 1985, Entropy Environmentalists,
Inc. conducted an emission measurement program at Burlington Industries' Wake
Finishing Plant located in Raleigh, North Carolina. The purpose of this
program was to provide data for a screening study to determine the quantity and
form of chromium emissions associated with combustion of coal in industrial
boilers.
Comprehensive testing was conducted on a coal-fired traveling-grate
spreader stoker industrial boiler whose emissions are controlled by a double
mechanical collector (two multiclones in series). Tests were performed at both
50 percent and 80 percent of the boiler capacity.
The double mechanical collector at this plant was selected for source-
testing for the following reasons:
o Spreader stokers are typical of coal-fired industrial
boilers producing less than 250 x 10 Btu/hour. Spreader
stokers account for approximately 34 percent of bituminous coal
consumption sources (see Table 1-1). Dry-bottom pulverized
units account for approximately 49 percent of bituminous
combustion, but are more prevalent in boilers producing greater
than 250 x 106 Btu/h.
o The particulate emission control technology and its removal
efficiency are representative of those found on other coal-fired
industrial boilers producing less than 250 x 10 Btu/h.
o Inlet and outlet sampling ports are already available.
o Chromium content of coal burned at this plant is typical of
eastern U. S. coal (15-20 ppm Cr).
1-1
-------
TABLE 1.1. ESTIMATED INDUSTRIAL COAL USED BY COMBUSTION SYSTEM
Fuel used,
Fuel type PJ/yr
Coal 1,540
Bituminous 1,490
Pulverized, dry 730
Pulverized, wet 150
Cyclone 40
Spreader stokers 510
Other stokers 60
Anthracite 10
All stokers 10
Lignite 40
Spreader stokers 40
1-2
-------
Particulate concentrations and mass emission rates were measured at the
double mechanical collector inlet and outlet using U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Reference Method 5.* Total chromium concentrations and
hexavalent chromium concentrations were measured at the same locations by
further analysis of the Method 5 samples using the alternate sample preparation
and analytical procedures as described in Appendix D. Flue gas flow rates,
temperature, moisture content, and composition [oxygen (02), carbon dioxide
(CO,), and carbon monoxide (CO)] were measured in conjunction with the
particulate tests. In addition, the particle size distribution of particulate
matter entering and exiting the double mechanical collector was determined
along with hexavalent and total chromium distribution by particle size.
Visible emission observations were made on the exit stack after the collector
using EPA Reference Method 9.*
Representative samples of (1) the coal used to fire the boiler, (2)
multiclone hopper ash, and (3) bottom ash were collected during the particulate
tests for determination of hexavalent and total chromium content.
Mr. Dwight Atkinson [Midwest Research Institute (MRI)] monitored process
operation throughout the test period. Mr. Dan Bivins (EPA Task Manager) of the
Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) and Mr. Ron Myers of the Industrial Studies
Branch (ISB) observed the test program. Mr. Gene Swift, Plant Engineer, and
Mr. Glee Nowell, served as the contacts for Burlington Industries.
This report is organized into several sections addressing various aspects
of the testing program. Immediately following this introduction is the
"Process Operation" section which includes a description of the process.and
control device tested. Following this is the "Summary of Results" section
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Reference Methods 5, 9 July 1, 1981.
1-3
-------
which presents table summaries of the test data and discusses these results.
The next section, "Sampling Locations and Test Methods" describes and
illustrates the sampling locations for emissions testing and grab sampling and
then explains the sampling strategies used. The final section, "Quality
Assurance," notes the procedures used to ensure the integrity of the sampling
program. The Appendices present the complete Test Results and Example
Calculations (Appendix A); Field and Analytical Data (Appendix B); Control
Device Collection Data (Appendix C); Sampling and Analytical Procedures
(Appendix D); Calibration Data (Appendix E); MRI Process Data (Appendix F); and
Test Participants and Observers (Appendix G).
1-4
-------
2.0 PROCESS OPERATION
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Burlington Industries boiler No. 4 1s a traveling-grate,
spreader-stoker, coal-fired Industrial boiler (see Figure 2-1). The
traveling-grate stoker was manufactured by the Detroit Rotostoker Company,
and Its boiler was manufactured by the Zurn Corporation. They were both
Installed 1n 1977.
The traveling-grate boiler has a rated steam production capacity of
68,000 kilograms per hour (kg/h) (150,000 pounds per hour [lb/h]) and
typically produces 29,000 kg/h (64,000 Ib/h) of steam. It operates
24 hours per day, 5 to 6 days per week.
The traveling-grate boiler 1s fueled by coal from the Island Creek
Mine 1n Kentucky. This coal has an ash content of 5.5 to 7.5 percent.
2.2 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Exhaust gases from the traveling-grate boiler are routed through an
economizer for heat recovery prior to entering a series of two
multlclones, collectively referred to as a double mechanical collector,
for particle removal. The first and second multlclones typically operate
at pressure drops of 0.62 kllopascals (kPa) (2.5 Inches of water column
[1n. w.c.J) and 0.75 kPa (3.0 1n. w.c.), respectively. The double
mechanical collector was manufactured by Zurn Corporation.
2.3 PROCESS CONDITIONS DURING TESTING
All processes were operated normally during emission testing. The
following parameters were monitored and recorded every 15 minutes during
testing: steam flow, steam pressure, undergrate air flow return water
pressure, return water temperature, undergrate air pressure, furnace
pressure, boiler draft, air heater outdraft, outlet draft on collectors
No. 1 and No. 2, overfire air, air heater differential pressure grate
temperature, and coal consumption. Tables 2-1 through 2-6 present the
process parameters monitored and operating conditions during the tests. A
log of the actual steamflow rate (k lb/h) during each test is included in
Appendix p.
A total of six test runs were conducted, Nos. 1A, 2A, and 3A at
50 percent boiler capacity and Nos. IB, 2B, and 3B at 80 percent boiler
2-1
-------
capacity. Test run Nos. 1A, 2A, and 3A were approximately 4 hours 1n
length per run. Two Interruptions and one delay were noted during run
Nos. 1A and 3A. During run No. 1A, the use of a toaster oven by a plant
employee caused a 30 second power outage due to an overloaded circuit.
Run No. 3A was delayed for about 30 minutes due to a test equipment
leak. A 20 percent drop 1n steam flowrate was noted approximately
45 minutes after Run 3A started due to an unexpected production shutdown
1n the plant. Steam production returned to approximately 50 percent of
capacity within 15 minutes and testing was not halted.
There were no Interruptions 1n run Nos. IB, 28, and 38, which were at
80 percent capacity. These runs were each approximately 2 hours 1n
length. However, during run No. 28, initial erratic flowrate readings
caused the run to be delayed 1 hour and 20 minutes.
During all six runs, boiler No. 4 operated entirely on coal mined
from the Island Creek Mine in Kentucky.
2-2
-------
ro
CO
Economizer
Stack
f Air Heater
B and C
Primary
Multiclone
Secondary
Multiclone
Fan
Figure 2-1. Schematic representation of Boiler No. 4.
-------
TABLE 2-1. PROCESS OPERATING CONDITIONS, RUN 1A, FEBRUARY 12, 1985
Tine
09:50
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
10:55
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
ro 12:3°
i 12:45
•** 13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:18
14:35
Stean Steam
flow, pressure,
K Ib/h PSI
Under- Uider-
grate grate
air Return Return air
flow, water water pressure.
no pressure, temp.
units
PSI 'f
in. of
water
Furnace
pressure.
in. of
water
Boiler
draft.
in. of
water
Air
heater
out
draft.
in. of
water
Outlet
draft
No. 1
collector,
in. of
water
Collector
No. 1
P.
in. of
water
Outlet
draft
No. 2
collect.
in. of
water
Col lector
No. 2
P.
in. of
water
finished cleaning hoppers
82 130
80 130
86 ' 130
78 130
toaster causes
85 130
80 131
80 130
80 130
80 131
80 130
82 130
80 131
80 131
84 130
79 131
85 128
78 129
74 129
end Method 5
80 131
82
77
83
78
power loss
82
77
77
78
79
78
79
77
78
79
77
83
80
72
75
287 222
293 222
280 222
285 222
appro* inat el y
292 222
287 222
291 222
290 222
287 222
288 222
290 222
291 222
289 222
287 222
287 222
290 222
290 222
288 222
287 222
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
30 s
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
-0.03
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-6.02
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.5
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.5
-0.5
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.1
_,-!.!
-1.0
-1.2
-1.1
-1.1
-1.0
-1.0
-1.1
-1.1
-1.1
-1.0
-1.2
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.2
-3.0
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
-3.0
-2.8
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.1
-3.0
-2.6
-2.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.3
-5.0
-4.9
-4.9
-4.5
-5.0
-4.9
-4.5
-4.8
-4.2
-4.6
-4.5
-4.8
-4.6
-4.6
-4.8
-5.0
-4.2
-4.4
-4.5
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.9
1.7
2.0
1.4
.6
.7
.6
.6
.6
.8
.9
.2
1.8
2.0
Over-
fire
air.
in.
of
water
\
15
15
15
17
18
17
16
17
16
18
17
17
17
17
17
18
16
16
17
Air
heater
differ-
ential.
in. of
water
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
Grate
te«p. .
•F
300
302
303
303
318
298
305
304
305
305
305
305
305
305
310
304
305
305
305
Coal
feed
Ib/h,
xlO
13.6
13.6
16
16
16
15.2
14.4
14.4
19.2
16
-------
TABLE 2-2. PROCESS OPERATING CONDITIONS, RUN 2a, FEBRUARY 13, 1985
ro
i
en
Stean
flow.
Tine K Ib/h
Under-
grate
air
Stean flow.
pressure, no
PSI units
Return
water
pressure.
PSI
Under-
grate
Return air
water pressure.
te«p. , in. of
°F water
Furnace
pressure.
in. of
water
Boi ler
draft.
in. of
water
Air
heater
out
draft.
in. of
water
Out let
Outlet
draft Collector draft
No. 1 Ho. 1 No. 2
collector,
P. collect.
in. of in. of in. of
water water water
Col lector
No. 2
P.
in. of
water
Over- Air
fire heater
air. differ-
in, ential.
of in. of
water water
\
Coal
Grate feed
leap.. ID/h.
•F xlO
09:45 finished cleaning hoppers
10:00 79
10:15 80
10:30 84
10:45 80
11:00 82
11:15 78
11:30 80
11:45 80
12:00 80
12:15 80
12:30 80
12:45 80
13:00 80
13:15 81
13:30 80
13:45 80
14:00 80
14:15 83
14:30 75
14:45 83
129 80
130 82
' 130 85
132 80
132 85
130 80
130 80
130 80
130 80
130 80
130 80
130 80
135 79
130 79
130 79
130 80
130 80
130 82
130 78
130 80
287
286
286
275
273
272
272
265
255
255
250
250
250
250
250
245
250
250
240
240
222 .1
222 .1
222 .2
222 .0
222 .1
222 .1
222 .1
222 .1
222 .1
222 .1
222 .1
222 .1
222 .1
222 .1
222 .2
222 .1
222 .2
222 .2
222 .1
222 .1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-1.2
-1.2
- .1
- .1
- .2
- .1
- .1
- .2
- .2
- .1
- .1
- .0
- .0
- .0
- .0
- .0
- .2
- .0
- .0
- .0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.5
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
.8 -5.0
.8 -5.0
.9 -5.0
.9 -5.0
.3 -5.0
.9 -4.5
.9 -5.0
.8 -5.0
.8 -5.0
.9 -5.0
-3.0 1.9 -5.0
-3.0 2.0 -4.5
-3.0 2.0 -4.5
-3.0 2.0 -4.5
-3.0 2.0 -5.0
-2.5
-3.0
1.5 -4.5
1.8 -4.5
-3.0 2.0 -5.0
-3.0 2.0 -4.5
-3.0 2.0 -4.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
l.S
17 0.5
18 0.5
19 0.6
18 0.6
19 0.6
18 0.5
18 0.6
17 0.6
17 0.55
18 0. 55
18 0.6
18 0. 55
18 0. 55
18 0.55
18 0.60
17 0.55
17 0.6
18 0.6
17 0.55
17 0.50
305 13.6
306
309 15.2
309
311 16
310
312 13.6
310
311 16.8
312
308 14.4
311
312 15.2
310
310 16
311
312 14.4
310
311 16
311
14:45 end Method 5
15:00 80
130 80
265
222 1.1
-0.1
0.6
-1.0
-3.0 2.0 -4.5
1.5
15 0.50
310 16
-------
TABLE 2-3. PROCESS OPERATING CONDITIONS, RUN 3a, FEBRUARY 14, 1985
o>
Tine
09:45
10:00
10:15
Due to
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:05
15:10
15:15
15:25
Under-
grate
air Return
Stean Stean flow. water
flow, pressure, no pressure.
K Ib/h PSI units PSI
finished cleaning ash hoppers
79 129 80 26S
82 . 129 81 265
problem with leak will start at 10:
80 127 80 260
74 130 75 260
78 130 78 255
drastic drop in flow rate due to
70 130 73 260
83 130 82 250
80 130 81 255
80 130 80 245
77 130 80 250
82 130 80 255
81 130 80 255
82 130 81 255
82 130 82 255
80 130 78 255
80 130 82 250
78 130 80 250
83 130 85 250
81 128 80 245
77 128 77 245
80 130 80 250
end Method 5 testing
particle size sample destroyed.
83 130 82 245
test cooplete
Uhder-
grate
Return air
water pressure
tenp. , in. of
°F water
222 .0
222 .0
30
222 .0
222 .0
222 .0
shut off in lant
222 .0
222 .2
222 .2
222 .2
222 .0
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222 . 5
222
222
222
Furnace
, pressure.
in. of
water
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.05
-0.05
(niniaun at
-0.1
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
--0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
Air
heater
Boiler out
draft. draft.
In. of in. of
water water
-0.6 -1.0
-0.6 -1.0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
11:05 (65)) ste n off
-0.55 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.55 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.6 - .0
-0.55 - .0
-0.55 - .1
-0.55 - .1
-0.55 - .1
-0.55 - .1
Outlet
draft Collector
No. 1
collector,
in. of
water
-3.0
-3.2
-3.0
-2.6
-3.0
in nain plant
-2.8
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0 •
-3.X)
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
No. 1
P.
in. of
water
2.0
2.2
2.0
1.6
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
Outlet
Over-
draft Collector fire
No. 2 No. 2 air.
collect.
P. in.
in. of in. of of
water water water
-5.0 2.0 17
-5.0
-5.0 i
-4.5
-4.5
-4.2
.8 17
'.0 16
.9 15
.5 17
.4 17
-5.0 2.0 17
-5.0 2.0 17
-5.0 2.0 17
• -4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-5.0
-4.5
-4.2
-4.5
.5 16
.5 16
.5 18
.5 18
.5 18
.5 18
.5 17
.5 18
.0 18
.5 18
.2 17
.5 18
Air
heater
differ-
ential.
in. of
water
0.6
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.55
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.6
0.6
0.55
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
Grate
te.p..
•F
299
302
306
309
309
309
308
308
308
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
308
307
307
306
308
Coal
feed
Ib/h,
xlO
14.4
15.2
14.4
15.2
16
15.2
15.2
15.2
14.4
15.2
15.2
Retake- -will finish at 15:20
222 1.1
-0.05
-0.3 -1.2
-3.0
1.8
-4.5
1.5 17
0.55
309
-------
TABLE 2-4. PROCESS OPERATING CONDITIONS, RUN Ib. FEBRUARY 15. 1985
Tine
09:30
09:30
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
11:45
12:00
12:15
ro i2:2o
Under-
grate
air Return
Steaa Steaa flow, water
flow, pressure, no pressure.
K Ib/h PSI units PSI
finished cleaning ash hoppers
prelininary test beginning
128 . 130 128 230
128 130 128 230
130 130 133 230
132 130 133 228
128 130 130 228
132 130 134 225
135 130 135 222
133 130 135 222
testing cooplete "Method 5"
133 130 133 222
130 130 130 222
end of testing
Return
water
teap..
•F
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
Uhder-
grate
air
pressure.
in. of
water
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
Furnace Boi ler
pressure, draft.
in. of in. of
water water
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.07 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.07 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
Air
heater
out
draft.
in. of
water
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-7.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.2
Outlet
draft
No. 1
collector,
in. of
water
-7.0
-7.0
-6.0
-7.0
-7.0
-6.5
-7.0
-7.0
-7.0
-6.5
Collector
No. 1
P.
in. of
water
4.5
4.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.3
Outlet
draft
No. 2
collect.
In. of
water
-11
-11
-11
-11
-11
-11
-11
-11
-11
-11
Col lector
No. 2
P.
in. of
water
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
Over- Air
fire heater
air. differ-
in, ential.
of In. of
water water
25 .5
25 .5
24 .5
24 .5
24 .5
25 .5
25 .5
25 .5
25 1.5
24 1.5
Coal
Orate feed
teap. , Ib/h.
•F xlO
330 23.2
332
332 23.2
334
335 23.2
335
336 25.6
337
337 24.0
337
-------
TABLE 2-5. PROCESS OPERATING CONDITIONS, RUN 2b, FEBRUARY 18, 1985
Under-
grate
air Return Return
Stean Stean flow. water
water
flow, pressure, no pressure, teip. ,
Ti«e K Ib/h PSI units PSI
•F
Under-
grate
air
pressure.
in. of
water
Furnace
pressure.
in. of
water
Boi ler
draft.
in. of
water-
Air
heater
out
draft.
In. of
water
Outlet
draft Collector
No. 1
collector.
in. of
water
No. 1
P.
in. of
water
Outlet
draft Col lector
Ho. 2
collect.
in. of
water
No. 2
P.
in. of
water
Over-
fire
air.
in.
of
water
Air
heater
differ-
ential.
in. of
water
Grate
te»p..
•F
Coal
feed
In/h.
xlO
09:45 finished cleaning ash out of hoppers
10:00 144 130 129 230
10:15 144 ' 130 134 175
Can't start test on tine. Flowrate too
10:30 148 137 145 180
10:45 146 130 145 160
11:00 138 130 135 180
11:15 128 130 130 195
11:20 start Method 5 testing
11:30 130 130 128 195
11:45 135 130 133 185
12:00 128 130 135 195
12:15 138 130 135 190
"J° 12:25 flowrate capacity at 149
00 12:30 149 130 133 175
12:40 flowrate capacity at 118
12:45 126 130 126 205
12:50 120 127 124 195
12:50 end Method 5 testing
219
220
erratic.
219
224
221
219
221
220
221
221
218
220
222
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
-0.05
-0.1
-0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.1
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.03
0.0
-0.03
-0.05
-1.2
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-1.1
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.4
-2.3
-2.2
-2.0
-2.5
-2.5
-2.2
-2.2
-2.2
-2.0
-6.5
-7.5
-7.0
-6.5
-6.5
-6.5
-6.5
-6.5
-6.5
-6.7
-6.5
-6.5
-6.2
4.0
5.0
4.5
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.2
-12
-12
-12
-12
-12
-11
-10
-11
-11
-11
-11
-10
-10
5.5
4.5
5.0
5.5
S.S
4.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.5
3.5
3.8
23
23
22
24
23
23
22
23
24
24
22
24.5
22
1.45
1.65
1.5
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.35
320
326
331
335
338
340
339
340
340
342
343
346
346
23.2
28.8
24.8
34
25.6
20.8
20.0
-------
TABLE 2-6. PROCESS OPERATING CONDITIONS, RUN 3b. FEBRUARY 19, 1985
ro
i
UD
Tine
09:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:20
11:20
11:30
11:45
Testing
Under-
grate
air Return
Stean Stean flow, water
flow, pressure, no pressure.
K Ib/h PSI units PSI
Return
water
leap. ,
•F
Uhder-
grate
air
pressure.
in. of
water
Furnace Boiler
pressure. draft.
in. of in. of
water water
Air
heater
out
draft.
in. of
water
Outlet
draft
No. 1
collector.
in. of
water
Collector
No. 1
P.
in. of
water
Outlet
draft
No. 2
collect.
in. of
water
Col lector
No. 2
P.
in. of
water
Over- Air
fire heater
air. differ-
in, ential.
of In. of
water water
Coal
Grate feed
top. . Ib/h.
•F xUT
finished cleaning ash out of hoppers
126 130 130 230
128 • 130 127 200
126 130 129 230
130 130 131 230
129 130 128 230
128 130 128 225
stop Method 5 testing
128 130 128 220
126 130 128 210
128 130 128 220
couplete February 19, 1985
219
221
222
221
219
221
222
222
222
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.1 - .2
0.0 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .2
-0.05 - .1
-2.1
-2.0
-2.2
-2.2
-2.1
-2.2
-2.2
-2.1
-2.1
-6.2
-6.0
-6.5
-6.5
-6.5
-6.2
-6.2
-6.5
-6.5
4.1
4.0
4.3
4.3
.4
.0
.0
.1
.1
-10
-10
-10.5
-11
-10
-10.5
-10
-10
-10
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.5
3.5
4.3
3.8
3.5
3.5
22 .35
23 .35
29 .40
30 .45
21 .45
22 .45
20 .45
20 .45
21 .45
330 24.0
333
335 25.6
340
340 24.0
338
337
337 24.0
337
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Particulate matter and particle size distribution tests were conducted at
the double mechanical collector inlet (boiler outlet) and the double mechanical
collector outlet (stack exit or emissions discharge) at 50 percent and 80
percent boiler capacity. Table 3.1 summarizes the testing schedule.
In brief, the uncontrolled emissions from the boiler averaged 415 pounds
per hour of particulate matter (4.7 pounds per million Btu), 0.00024 pounds per
hour of hexavalent chromium, and 0.075 pounds per hour of total chromium at 50%
of boiler capacity. The controlled emissions averaged 30 pounds per hour of
particulate matter (0.35 pounds per million Btu), 0.00017 pounds per hour of
hexavalent chromium, and 0.01 pounds per hour of total chromium at 50% of
boiler capacity. The resulting collection efficiency of the double mechanical
collector was 92.7% for particulate matter, 25.9% for hexavalent chromium, and
86.5% for total chromium.
At 80% of boiler capacity, the uncontrolled emissions averaged 1370 pounds
per hour of particulate matter (8.9 pounds per million Btu), 0.00062 pounds per
hour of hexavalent chromium, and 0.21 pounds per hour of total chromium. The
controlled emissions averaged 64 pounds per hour of particulate matter (0.49
pounds per million Btu), 0.00062 pounds per hour of hexavalent chromium, and
0.034 pounds per hour of total chromium. The resulting collection efficiency
of the double mechanical collector was 94.5% for particulate matter, no removal
for hexavalent chromium, and 80.3% for total chromium.
Based on the coal data, the emissions from the boiler were greater than
expected, with uncontrolled emissions of 4.7 and 8.9 pounds per million Btu at
50% and 80% boiler capacity, respectively. The double mechanical collector
exhibited a typical collection efficiency for particulate matter of 93 and
95 percent at the two boiler capacities. The particle size distribution
3-1
-------
TABLE 3.1. TESTING SCHEDULE FOR BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES
U)
NJ
Date
(1985)
2/12
2/13
2/14
2/15
2/18
2/19
Sample Type
Participate
Particle size
Particle size
Participate
Particle size
Particle size
Particle size
reactivity
Participate
Particle size
Particle size
Participate
Particle size
Particle size
Participate
Particle size
Particle size
Participate
Particle size
Particle size
Mechanical Collector
Inlet - East
Run
No.
IB
SIB
28
S2B
3B
S3B
4B
S4B
5B
S5B
6B
S6B
Test Time
24 h clock
1000-1223
1323-1328
1000-1241
1319-1323:30
1250-1505
1520-1525
1030-1143
1209-1211:45
1120-1235
1247-1250:15
1000-1112
1119-1122:55
Mechanical Collector
Inlet - West
Run
No.
1C
SIC
2C
S2C
3C
S3C
4C
S4C
5C
S5C
6C
S6C
Test Time
24 h clock
1200-1409
1138-1143
1200-1409
1111-1116
1030-1243
1139-1344
1030-1140
1222-1225
1120-1228
1233-1236
1000-1108
1114-1117
Mechanical Collector
Outlet
Run
No.
IF
S1F1
S1F2
IF
S2F1
S2F2
S2FR
3F
S3F1
S3F2
4F
S4F1
S4F2
5F
S5F1
S5F2
6F
S6F1
S6F2
Test Time
24 h clock
1000-1418
1254-1318
1356-1420
1000-1415
1115-1135
1324-1344
1220-1240
1030-1451
1140-1200
1252-1312
1031-1144
1032-1052
1126-1146
1120-1228
1120-1140
1212-1232
1000-1105
1006-1026
1052-1112
-------
results were also typical for an industrial boiler and demonstrated that the
double mechanical collector collected the majority of all particles greater
than 10 ym in diameter and only about one third of the particles less than 5 Pm
in diameter. As a result of the size-specific control efficiency, the
hexavalent chromium collection efficiency was very low (less than 25 percent).
This would be expected since the majority of the hexavalent chromium was in the
particle size range of 5 vm or less. The collection efficiency and particle
size distribution for total chromium were similar to that for the particulate
matter, but showed some dependency towards the smaller particles. This
dependency is most likely due to the fact that the larger particles consist
mostly of unburned combustibles and that in all particles the total chromium to
ash ratio should remain consistent (both being noncombustible) with only the
amount of combustibles present changing. The dependency, then, has little or
nothing to do with the fact that total chromium would form in the smaller size
range. And, thus, no particle size dependency would be expected in a
pulverized coal firing situation where almost all of the combustibles would be
utilized.
In the following sections, the results addressed above and additional
results are presented and discussed in detail according to the emission type
and sampling location. The computer printouts of the emission calculations can
be found in Appendix A. The original field data sheets and the analytical data
are located in Appendix B.
3.1 PARTICULATE MATTER, HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM, AND TOTAL CHROMIUM
Particulate matter tests (EPA Method 5) along with the determination of
the associated flue gas flow rate were conducted at both the mechanical
collector outlet and inlet (boiler outlet). Due to the configuration of the
double mechanical collector inlet (boiler outlet) sampling location and the
heavy particulate emissions loading, it was decided that a separate run would
3-3
-------
be conducted at each half of the duct and then the results combined. The
particulate matter samples were initally analyzed using gravimetric techniques
to determine the mass of particulate matter. Then the samples were further
analyzed for hexavalent and total chromium. Complete descriptions of each
sampling location and the sampling and analytical procedures are given in
Chapter 4.
3.1.1 Double Mechanical Collector Inlet at 50% Boiler Capacity
The double mechanical collector inlet represents the uncontrolled
emissions from the boiler. Separate particulate matter runs were made on the
east half and west half of the duct. Two-hour inlet runs were conducted
sequentially to correspond with the one four-hour outlet test run.
Flue Gas Conditions and Isokinetic Sampling Rate - A summary of the flue
gas conditions at the boiler outlet (collector inlet) for 50% boiler capacity
is presented in Table 3.2. The volumetric flow rate conditions were
significantly different for the west and east halves of the duct. This was a
result of the flow distribution in the duct. The flow rate at the inlet, when
corrected for the dilution air drawn in at the induced draft fan, was very
consistent with the outlet flow rate. The inlet volumetric flow rate
(composite of the East and West Inlets) averaged 60,200 actual cubic meters per
hour (2,130,000 actual cubic feet per hour) with a flue gas temperature of
159°C (318°F), a moisture content of 4.9%, O2 content of 7.6%, C02
content of 11.6%, and an excess air value of 55%. The volumetric flow rate at
standard conditions averaged 38,200 dry standard cubic meters per hour
(1,340,000 dry standard cubic feet per hour). Standard conditions are 20°C
(68°F), 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg), and dry.
The average inlet and outlet standard volumetric flow rates corrected to
zero percent excess air were 865,000 and 867,000 dry standard cubic feet per
3-4
-------
TABLE 3.2. SUMM/KY OF FLUE GAS CONDITIONS F(R 50% BOILER CAPACITY
CO
en
Run
No.
Date
(1985)
Test Time
24 h clock
Vo 1 umetr I c F 1 ow R ate
Actual3
acmh
x 103
acfh
x 106
Standard15
dscmh
x 103
dscfh
x tO6
Stack
Temperature
°C
°F
Moisture
%
°2
co2
%
EA
%
Isoklnettc
%
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East (B)
IB
2B
3B
2/12
2/13
2/14
1000-1223
1000-1214
1250-1505
Average
53.2
53.3
52.0
52.8
1.88
1.88
1.84
1.87
33.5
33.2
32.9
33.2
1.18
1.17
1.16
1.17
153
162
161
159
308
324
321
318
5.9
5.7
5.1
5.6
7.2
8.2
7.5
7.6
12.0
11.5
11.5
11.7
51.0
63.1
54.0
56.0
106.4
106.5
109.8
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West (C)
1C
2C
3C
2/12
2/13
2/14
1200-1409
1200-1409
1030-1243
Average
63.8
72.1
67.1
67.7
2.25
2.55
2.37
2.39
40.6
45.5
43.1
43.1
1.43
1.61
1.52
1.52
158
159
159
159
317
319
318
318
3.8
5.0
3.9
4.2
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.5
11.9
11.5
11.2
11.5
52.0
52.8
57.4
54.1
103.0
102.2
102.7
Inlet East and West (B and C)
Average
60.2
2.13
38.2
1.34
159
318
4.9
7.6
11.6
55.0
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet (F)
IF
2F
3F
2/12
2/13
2/14
1000-1418
1000-1415
1030-1451
Average
65.2
66.1
66.3
65.9
2.30
2.33
2.34
' 2.32
42.1
42.6
43.1
42.6
1.49
1.50
1.52
1.50
145
150
150
148
293
302
302
299
5.5
5.4
5.1
5.3
8.6
9.3
9.1
9.0
10.8
10.0
9.9
10.2
67.8
77.5
74.1
73.1
100.6
100.3
100.8
Volumetric flow rate In actual cubic meters per hour (acmh) and actual cubic feet per hour (acfh) at stack conditions.
Volumetric flow rate In dry standard cubic meters per hour (dscmh) and dry standard cubic feet per hour (dscfh).
-------
hour, respectively. The comparison of -the mathematically adjusted values
indicates that the inlet flow rate measurements were very accurate (1) despite
the poor sampling location, and (2) that the difference between the inlet and
outlet flow rate is equivalent to the amount of dilution air drawn in by the
induced draft fan. The isokinetic sampling rate was within the allowable range
for all six sample runs.
Particulate Emissions - The particulate emissions from the boiler (see
Table 3.3) were fairly consistent when the east and west runs were combined to
provide a value for the four-hour run. For a run-by-run comparison of the
inlet with the outlet run, runs 1B and 1C, 2B and 2C, and 3B and 3C would be
combined to correspond to the outlet runs 1F, 2F, and 3F, respectively.
However, in this data presentation each of the three sets of runs (i.e., 1B,
2B, and 3B) were averaged and then the averages of the inlet runs were combined
to obtain an inlet value. The particulate emissions for the combined inlet
runs at 50% boiler capacity averaged 4970 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter (2.18 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 188 kilograms per hour
(415 pounds per hour). These emissions have a corresponding emission rate of
4.74 pounds per million Btu.
Hexavalent Chromium Emissions - The hexavalent chromium emissions for each
test run (see Table 3.3) were very consistent with the corresponding particu-
late run. They averaged 0.53, 0.64, 0.55, 0.58, 0.61, and 0.54 micrograms of
hexavalent chromium per gram of particulate emissions for runs 1B, 2B, 3B, 1C,
2C, and 3C, respectively. The hexavalent chromium emissions for both inlet
tests at 50% boiler capacity averaged 2.84 micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter (0.0000012 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 0.00010 kilograms per
hour (0.00024 pounds per hour).
Total Chromium Emissions - The total chromium emissions for each test run
(see Table 3.3) were fairly consistent with the corresponding particulate run.
They averaged 208, 202, 167, 190, 159, and 173 micrograms of total chromium per
3-6
-------
TABLE 3.3. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM, AND TOTAL CHROMIUM EMISSIONS
FCR 50$ BOILER CAPACITY
Run
No.
Date
(1985)
Part leu late
concentration
mg/dscm
gr/dscf
mass emissions
kg/h
Ib/h
Hexavalent Chromium
concentration
y g/dscm
gr/dscf
x 10~3
mass emissions
kg/h
Ib/h
Total Chromium
concentration
y g/dscm
gr/dscf
x 10~3
mass emissions
kg/h
Ib/h
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East (B)
IB
2B
3B
2/12
2/13
2/14
Average
5917
3937
6127
5330
2.59
1.72
2.68
2.33
198
131
201
177
437
288
444
390
3.11
2.53
3.36
3.00
0.0014
0.0011
0.0015
0.0013
0.00010
0. 00008
0.00011
0.00010
0.00023
0.00018
0.00024
0.00022
1229
795
1022
1020
0.5370
0.3471
0. 4466
0.444
0.0411
0.0263
0.0336
0.0337
0.0907
0.0581
0.0741
0.0743
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West (C)
1C
2C
3C
2/12
2/13
2/14
Average
3992
5000
4872
4620
1.74
2.19
2.13
2.02
162
227
210
200
357
501
463
440
2.30
3.06
2.65
2.67
0.0010
0.0013
0.0012
0.0012
0. 00009
0.00014
0.00011
0.00011
0.00021
0.00031
0.00025
0.00026
757
796
843
799
0. 3309
0. 3479
0.3682
0.349
0.0307
0.0362
0.0364
0.0344
0.0677
0.0798
0.0801
0.0759
u>
I
Inlet East and West (B and C)
Average
4970
2.18
188
415
2.84
0.0012
0.00010
0.00024
907
0.396
0.0340
0.0751
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet (F)
IF
2F
3F
2/12
2/13
2/14
Average
327.3
327.3
320.4
325.0
0.143
0.143
0.140
0.142
13.8
•13.9
13.8
13.8
30.4
30.7
30.4
30.5
2.93
0.98
1.70
1.87
0.0013
0. 0004
0.0007
0. 0008
0.00012
0.00004
0.00007
0.00008
0.00027
0.00009
0.00016
0.00017
148.5
98.5
81.5
109.5
0.0649
0.0430
0.0356
0.0478
0.0063
0. 0042
0. 0035
0.0047
0.0138
0.0092
0.0077
0.0102
-------
gram of particulate emissions for runs •IB, 2B, 3B, 1C, 2C, and 3C, respect-
ively. The total chromium emissions for both inlet tests at 50% boiler
capacity averaged 907 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (0.00040 grains
per dry standard cubic foot) and 0.034 kilograms per hour (0.075 pounds per
hour).
3.1.2 Double Mechanical Collector Outlet at 50% Boiler Capacity
The double mechancial collector outlet represents the controlled emissions
discharge to the atmosphere. All three runs at the outlet at 50% of boiler
capacity were conducted for four hours in an effort to obtain a quantifiable
amount of hexavalent chromium.
Flue Gas Conditions and Isokinetic Sampling Rate - A summary of flue gas
conditions at the outlet for 50% boiler capacity is presented in Table 3.2.
The volumetric flow rates for the three runs were consistent with the measured
inlet flow rate when the dilution air drawn in by the induced draft fan was
taken into consideration. The outlet volumetric flow rate averaged 65,900
actual cubic meters per hour (2,320,000 actual cubic feet per hour) with a flue
gas temperature of 148°C (299°F), a moisture content of 5.3%, an 0,
concentration of 9.0%, a CC^ concentration of 10.2%, and an excess air value
of 73.1%. The volumetric flow rate at standard conditions averaged 42,600 dry
standard cubic meters per hour (1,500,000 dry standard cubic- feet per hour).
Standard conditions are 20°C (68°F), 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg), and dry.
The isokinetic sampling rates were all well within the allowable range for
all runs.
Particulate Emissions - The particulate emissions from the control
equipment to the atmosphere were very consistent at 50% boiler capacity (see
Table 3.3). The particulate emissions averaged 325 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (0.14 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 13.8 kilograms per
3-8
-------
hour (30.5 pounds per hour) with a corresponding emission rate of 0.35 pounds
per million Btu.
Hexavalent Chromium Emissions - The hexavalent chromium emissions were not
as consistent with their corresponding particulate run (see Table 3.3). They
averaged 9.0, 3.0, and 5.3 micrograms of hexavalent chromium per gram of
particulate emissions for runs 1F, 2F, and 3F, respectively. The hexavalent
chromium emissions averaged 1.87 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
(0.0000008 grains per dry standard cubic feet) and 0.00008 kilograms per hour
(0.00017 pounds per hour).
Total Chromium Emissions - The total chromium emissions were consistent
with their corresponding particulate run (see Table 3.3). They averaged 454,
301, and 255 micrograms per gram of particulate emissions for runs 1F, 2F, and.
3F, respectively. The higher concentration of total chromium in the outlet
samples compared to the inlet samples is likely due to the higher amount of
combustible material in the inlet samples. The total chromium emissions
averaged 110 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (0.000048 grains per dry
standard cubic foot) and 0.0047 kilograms per hour (0.0102 pounds per hour).
3.1.3 Double Mechanical Collector Inlet at 80% Capacity
The test time for the inlet and outlet runs were reduced in length for the
runs at 80% of boiler capacity. The reduction in testing time was based on an
analysis of one of the 50% load emission samples and the plant's request to
reduce the testing time, since the test required that excess steam above plant
demand be vented to the atmosphere. The two inlet runs were conducted
concurrently with the corresponding outlet test run which was also shortened.
Flue Gas Conditions and Isokinetic Sampling Rate - A summary of the flue
gas conditions at the double mechanical collector inlet (boiler outlet) at 80%
of boiler capacity is presented in Table 3.4. The volumetric flow rate
conditions were slightly different on the west and east half of the duct. This
3-9
-------
TABLE 3.4. SUMM/RY OF FLUE GAS CONDITIONS FCR 80$ BOILER CAPACITY
GJ
M
O
Run
No.
Date
(1985)
Test Time
24 h clock
Volumetric Flow Rate
Actual8
acmh
x 103
acfh
x 106
Standard5
dscmh
x 103
dscfh
x 106
Stack
Temperature
°C
°F
Moisture
%
°2
co2
EA
%
1 sok I net I c
%
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East (B)
48
5B
6B
2/15
2/18
2/19
1030-1143
1120-1235
1000-1112
Average
93.8
108.6
93.1
98.5
3.31
3.84
3.29
3.48
54.3
64.1
58.4
58.9
1.92
2.26
2.06
2.08
194
194
167
185
381
382
332
365
6.3
5.9
5.2
5.8
6.7
6.3
6.8
6.6
12.4
12.7
12.0
12.4
45.7
41.8
46.5
44.7
106.1
102.0
105.0
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West (C)
4C
5C
6C
2/15
2/18
2/19
1030-1140
1120-1228
1000-1108
Average
106.7
105.5
108.2
106.8
3.77
3.72
3.82
3.77
64.2
63.8
64.6
64.2
Average
102.6
3.62
61.6
2.27
2.25
2.28
2.27
186
189
190
188
367
372
374
371
4.2
4.7
5.1
4.7
7.4
6.0
5.3
6.2
11.8
12.7
13.2
12.6
53.1
38.8
32.7
41.5
101.9
102.6
102.5
nlet East and West (B and C)
2.18
186
368
5.2
6.4
12.5
43.1
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet (F)
4F
5F
6F
2/15
2/18
2/19
1031-1144
1120-1228
1000-1105
Average
111.6
107.4
103.5
107.5
3.94
3.79
3.66
'3.80
67.1
65.3
63.1
65.2
2.37
2.31
2.23
2.30
182
183
179
181
359
361
355
358
5.6
5.9
5.7
5.7
10.2
8.8
8.4
9.1
9.4
10.5
10.3
10.1
92.5
70.4
64.3
75.7
102.0
103.1
101.5
Volumetric flow rate In actual cubic meters per hour (acmh) and actual cubic feet per hour (acfh) at stack conditions.
Volumetric flow rate In dry standard cubic meters per hour (dscmh) and dry standard cubic feet per hour (dscfh).
-------
was a result of the flow distribution in the duct. The flow rate at the inlet
for the combined runs at the east and west half were fairly consistent, and
when corrected for the dilution air drawn in at the induced draft fan, it was
consistent with the outlet flow rate. The first run, when the plant was not
operating, had an excess air value above what would be considered to be
optimum.
The inlet volumetric flow rate (composite of the east and west inlets)
averaged 102,600 actual cubic meters per hour (3,620,000 actual cubic feet per
hour) with a flue gas temperature of 186°C (368°F), a moisture content of 5.2%,
an 02 concentration of 6.4%, a CC^ concentration of 12.5%, and an excess air
value of 43.1%. The volumetric flow rate at standard conditions averaged
61,600 dry standard cubic meters per hour (2,180,000 dry standard cubic feet
per hour). Standard conditions are 20°C (68°F), 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg), and
dry. The average inlet and outlet standard volumetric flow rate and outlet
standard volumetric flow rate corrected to zero percent excess air were
1,523,000 and 1,309,000 dry standard cubic feet per hour, respectively. This
comparison of the mathematically adjusted values indicate that the inlet flow
rate measurements were fairly accurate despite the poor sampling location, and
that the difference between the inlet and outlet flow rate can be mainly
accounted for the dilution air drawn in by the induced draft fan.
The isokinetic sampling rates were within the allowable range for all
sample runs.
Particulate Emissions - The particulate emissions from the boiler were
fairly consistent for the combined inlet runs (see Table 3.5). However, the
emissions were significantly higher in the west half of the duct compared to
the east half of the duct. Also, the emissions were approximately two times as
high at 80% boiler capacity as at 50% boiler capacity. Based on the coal
analysis (see Appendix B) and the type of boiler, these results indicate that
adjustments of the overfire and underfire air would probably reduce the
emissions from the boiler.
3-11
-------
TABLE 3.5. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, HEXAVALENT OftCMIUM, AND TOTAL CWOMIUM EMISSIONS
FOR 80? BOILER CAPACITY
Run
No.
Date
(1985)
Part leu late
concentration
mg/dscm
gr/dscf
mass emissions
kg/h
Ib/h
Hexavalent Chromium
concentration
y g/dscm
gr/dscf
x 10~3
mass emissions
kg/h
Ib/h
Total Chromium
concentrat 1 on
y g/dscm
gr/dscf
x 10~3
mass emissions
kg/h
Ib/h
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East (B)
4B
5B
6B
2/15
2/18
2/19
Average
14718
12165
6882
11260
6.43
5.32
3.01
4.92
800
780
402
661
1762
1720
886
1460
3.97
2.40
3.15
3.17
0.0017
0.0011
0.0014
0.0014
0.00022
0.00015
0.00018
0.00018
0.00048
0.00034
0.00041
0.00041
1713
1786
1145
1550
0. 7485
0.7807
0. 5003
0.676
0.0930
0.1146
0.0669
0.0915
0. 2050
0.2525
0.1474
0.202
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West (C)
4C
5C
2/15
2/18
2/19
Average
7149
10237
9801
9060
3.12
4.47
4.28
3.96
459
653
634
582
1012
1439
1396
1280
6.24
5.71
5.43
5.79
0.0027
0.0025
0. 0024
0.0025
0.00040
0.00036
0. 00035
0.00037
0.00088
0.00080
0.00077
0.00082
1232
1556
1636
1470
0.5385
0.6799
0.7150
0.644
0.0791
0.0992
0.1058
0.0947
' 0. 1 744
0.2188
0.2332
0.209
Inlet East and West (B and C)
Average
10160
4.44
622
1370
4.48
0. 0020
0.00028
0.00062
1510
0.660
0.0931
0.205
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet (F)
4F
5F
6F
2/15
2/18
2/19
Average
515
411
410
445
0.225
0.180
0.179
0.195
34.5
•26.9
25.9
29.1
76.1
59.4
57.0
64.2
4.52
1.65
6.75
4.31
0.0020
0.0007
0.0029
0.0019
0.00030
0.00011
0. 00043
0.00028
0.00067
0.00024
0.00094
0.00062
219
263
235
239
0.096
0.115
0.103
0.105
0.0147
0.0172
0.0148
0.0156
0.0324
0.0378
0.0327
0.0343
-------
The particulate emissions averaged 10160 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter (4.44 grains per dry standard cubic feet) and 622 kilograms per hour
(1370 pounds per hour) with a corresponding emission rate of 8.89 pounds per
million Btu.
Hexavalent Chromium Emissions - The hexavalent chromium emissions for each
test run at 80% of boiler capacity (see Table 3.5) were not as consistent as
the 50% boiler capacity runs. The emissions averaged 0.27, 0.20, 0.46, 0.87,
0.56, and 0.55 grams of hexavalent chromium per gram of particulate emissions
for runs 4B, 5B, 6B, 4C, and 6C, respectively. The hexavalent chromium
emissions averaged 4.48 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (0.000002
grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 0.00028 kilograms per hour (0.00062
pounds per hour).
Total Chromium Emissions - The total chromium emissions for each run at
80% boiler capacity (see Table 3.5) were consistent with their corresponding
particulate run. They averaged 116, 147, 166, 172, 152, and 167 micrograms per
gram of particulate emissions for runs 4B, 5B, 6B, 4C, 5C, and 6C, respec-
tively. The concentrations were lower than the 50% boiler capacity run which
was probably a result of poor combustion, and thus, more combustible material
being present in the particulate emissions. The total chromium emissions
averaged 1510 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (0.00066 grams per dry
standard cubic foot) and 0.093 kilograms per hour (0.21 pounds per hour).
3.1.4 Double Mechanical Collector Outlet at 80% Capacity
The test time for the outlet runs was reduced based on the analysis of the
sample from the first run at 50% of boiler capacity. This reduced sampling
time still allowed collection of a quantifiable amount of hexavalent chromium,
and it reduced the amount of time the plant had to vent the excess steam not
needed for plant production.
3-13
-------
Flue Gas Conditions and Isokinetic Sampling Rate - A summary of the flue
gas conditions at the double mechnical collector outlet (emissions discharged
to the atmosphere) at the 80% boiler load is presented in Table 3.4. The flow
rates were fairly consistent, with the exception that the first run conducted
while the plant was not operating appeared to be at a rate above the optimum
excess air. The volumetric flow rate averaged 107,500 actual cubic meters per
hour (3,800,000 actual cubic feet per hour) with a flue gas temperature of
181°C (358°F), a moisture content of 5.7%, an 02 concentration of 9.1%, a
CO2 concentration of 10.1%, and excess air value of 75.7%. The volumetric
flow rate at standard conditions averaged 65,200 dry standard cubic meters per
hour (2,300,000 dry standard cubic feet per hour). Standard conditions are
20°C (68°F), 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg), and dry.
The isokinetic sampling rates were within the allowable range for all
sample runs.
Particulate Emissions - On a mass emission basis, the particulate
emissions at the double mechanical collector outlet at 80% boiler capacity (see
Table 3.5) were twice that of the emissions at 50% boiler capacity. Also, the
emissions for the first run were significantly higher than the other two runs.
This higher emission rate for the first run was likely a result of the fact
that the plant was not in operation and that too much excess air was used. The
overall higher emission concentration is probably due to improper adjustment of
the boiler overfire and underfire air. Also, the emissions measured on oneside
of the mechanical collector inlet duct were twice as high as those measured on
the other side. The particulate emissions averaged 445 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter (0.195 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 29.1
kilograms per hour (64.2 pounds per hour) with a corresponding emission rate of
0.486 pounds per million Btu.
Hexavalent Chromium Emissions - The hexavalent chromium emissions measured
were not very consistent from run to run, averaging 8.8, 4.0, and 16.5 micro-
3-14
-------
grams of hexavalent chromium per gram of particulate emissions (see Table 3.5).
These inconsistencies are due to the small amount of hexavalent chromium
actually analyzed and the resulting analytical error. The hexavalent chromiun
emissions averaged 4.3 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (0.0000019
grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 0.00028 kilograms per hour (0.00062
pounds per hour).
Total Chromiun Emissions - The total chromium emissions at the 80% boiler
capacity (see Table 3.5) were not as consistent as at the 50% boiler capacity
and were much higher in concentration. They averaged 425, 640, and 573 micro-
grams per gram of particulate emission for runs 4F, 5F, and 6F, respectively.
The concentrations were greater than the inlet runs mainly due to the greater
amount of combustible material present in the inlet samples. The reason for
the chromiun concentrations for the outlet runs at 80% boiler capacity being
greater than those at 50% boiler capacity is not known. The total chromium
emissions averaged 239 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (0.00011 grains
per dry standard cubic foot) and 0.016 kilograms per hour (0.034 pounds per
hour).
3.2 SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS IN UNITS OF PROCESS RATE AND COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
The emission rates in units of the process rate are expressed in term's of
pounds of pollutant per million Btu's of heat released and are presented in
Table 3.6. These values were determined using the F factor calculation and do
not account for unburned combustibles. No process operating parameters were
actually used to perform these calculations. To determine the collection
efficiency of the double mechanical collector, the uncontrolled and controlled
measured emissions were used. No actual measurements were made on the mass
removal rates from the double mechanical collector.
3-15
-------
TABLE 3.6. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES IN UNITS OF PRXESS RATE AND EFFICIENCY
Date
(1985)
Run Nos.
Uncontrolled Emissions
partlcul ate
lbs/l06Btu
hex av a lent
chromium
lbs/106Btu
total
chromium
lbs/106Btu
Controlled Emissions
partlcul ate
lbs/106Btu
hexavalent
chromium
lbs/106Btu
total
chrom 1 um
lbs/106Btu
Collection Efficiency
partlcul ate
%
hexavalent
chromium
%
total
chromium
%
50? Boiler Capacity
2/12
2/13
2/14
IB, 1C, IF
2B, 2C, 2F
38, 3C, 3F
Average
4.614
4.328
5.274
4.739
2.5 x 10~6
2.7 x 10~6
2.9 x 10~6
2.7 x 10~6
0.92 x 10~3
0.78 x 10~3
0.89 x 10~3
0.86 x 10"3
0.338
0.359
0.345
0.347
3.0 x 10~6
1.1 x 10~6
1.8 x 10~6
2.0 x 10~6
0.154 x 10~3
0.108 x 10~3
0.088 x 10~3
0.12 x 10~3
92.7
91.7
93.5
92.7
<0
59.3
37.9
25.9
83.3
86.2
90.1
86.5
80? Boiler Capacity
2/15
2/18
2/19
4B, 4C, 4F
5B, 5C, 5F
6B, 6C, 6F
Average
9.934
9.644
7.082
8.887
4.7 x 10~6
3.5 x 10~6
3.6 x 10~6
3.9 x 10~6
1.34 x 10~3
1.44 x 10~3
1.18 x 10~3
1.32 x 10~3
0.610
. 0.432
0.416
0.486
5.4 x 10~6
1.7 x 10~6
6.8 x 10~6
4.6 x 10~6
0.26 x 10~3
0.28 x 10~3
0.24 x 10~3
0.26 x 10~3
93.9
95.5
94.1
94.5
<0
51.4
<0
<0
80.6
80.6
79.7
80.3
CJ
I
-------
3.2.1 Emissions at 50% Boiler Capacity
The uncontrolled particulate emissions averaged 4.74 pounds per million
Btu, and the controlled emissions averaged 0.347 pounds per million Btu, with a
resulting collection efficiency of 92.7% by weight. The uncontrolled
hexavalent chromium emissions averaged 2.7 x 10 pounds per million Btu, and
— 6
the controlled emissions averaged 2.0 x 10 pounds per million Btu/ with a
resulting collection efficiency of 25.9% by weight. The uncontrolled total
chromium emissions averaged 860 x 10 pounds per million Btu, and the
controlled emissions averaged 120 x 10 pounds per million Btu, with a
resulting control efficiency of 86.5% by weight.
3.2.2 Emissions at 80% Boiler Capacity
The uncontrolled particulate emissions averaged 8.89 pounds per million
Btu and the controlled emissions averaged 0.49 pounds per million Btu, with a
«
resulting collection efficiency of 94.5% by weight. The uncontrolled
hexavalent chromium emissions averaged 3.9 x 10~6 pounds per million Btu and
the controlled emissions averaged 4.6 x 10 pounds per million Btu, with a
resulting collection efficiency of less than zero. The negative collection
efficiency is a result of the small amount of hexavalent chromium analyzed and
the resulting analytical error. The uncontrolled total chromium emissions
averaged 1320 x 10 pounds per million Btu and the controlled emissions
averaged 260 x 10~6 pounds per million Btu, with a resulting control
efficiency of 80.3% by weight.
3.2.3 Conclusions
The double mechanical collector's removal of particulate emissions was
slightly less than typical. This slightly lower collection efficiency may be
due to the poor distribution of emissions to be collected. The double
mechanical collector has a very low collection efficiency for the hexavalent
3-17
-------
chromium emissions, which is due to the fact that these emissions are mainly in
the particle size range of less than 5 Urn. The collection efficiency for total
chromium was slightly lower than that for the particulate emissions, however,
this is due mainly to the fact that the larger particles consist of a greater
percentage of combustible material.
3.3 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Six particle size runs were made at the outlet and both of the inlet
locations at each of the two boiler loads. After the initial gravimetric
determination was made, the six runs were combined at the inlet and outlet in
an effort to obtain a quantifiable amount of hexavalent chromium. Computer
printouts of the emission calculations and graphs presenting plot particle size
versus percent weight are included in Appendix A. A summary of the particle
size distributions are presented in Table 3.7 for the 50% boiler capacity runs
and in Table 3.8 for the 80% boiler capacity runs.
3.3.1 Particle Size Distribution at 50% Capacity
Emissions from the boiler were mainly composed of large particles with
only 15% of the weight in particles greater than 10 ym in diameter. The double
mechanical collector did a good job of collecting most of the particles in the
10 ym range, but only collected approximately half of the particles less than
10 ym in diameter. The emissions at the collector outlet were approximately
50% by weight less than 10 ym in diameter. Since the mechanical collector did
a relatively poor job of collecting .the smaller particles, very little of the
hexavalent chromium particles were collected, since approximately three-fourths
of all the hexavalent chromium particulate matter is less than 5 ym in
diameter. The particle size distribution results for hexavalent chromium is
not believed to be extremely accurate due to the very small amount of
hexavalent chromium being analyzed. The particle size distribution for total
3-18
-------
TABLE 3.7. SUMM/RY OF RETICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AT 50$ BOILER CAPACITY
Run
No.
Date
(1985)
Test Time
24 h clock
Partlcul ate
wt. less than size, %
1 y m | 5 ym
10 ym
Hexavalent Chromium
wt. less than size, %
1 ym
5ym
10 ym
Total Chromium
wt. less than size, %
1 ym
5 ym
10y m
I
I-"
VO
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East
SIB
S2B
S3B
2/12
2/13
2/14
1323-1328
1319-1323:30
1520-1525
Average
1.2
0.3
10
4
2
0.5
25
9
3
2
54
20
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West
SIC
S2C
S3C
2/12
2/13
2/14
1138-1 143
1111-1 116
1139-1344
Average
4.8
4.8
2.4
4
7
5
4
5
10
8
8
9
Inlet East and West
Average
4
7
15
31*
68*
79*
a
a
a
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet
S1F1
S1F2
S2F1
S2F2
S3F1
S3F2
2/12
2/12
2/13
2/13
2/14
2/14
1254-1318
1356-1420
1115-1135
1324-1344
1140-1200
1252-1312
Average
1.6
2
4.5
9
7
8
5
11
9
24
54
46
48
32
18
13
35
85
74
69
49
3*
71*
95*
25*
58*
72*
Composite.
aNo particle size distribution curves for the inlet due to a
fractions during inlet particle size testing.
lack of a significant catch in smaller
-------
TABLE 3.8. SLMM/>RY OF RETICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AT 80? BOILER CAPACITY
Run
No.
Date
(1985)
Test Time
24 h clock
Part icu late
wt. less than size, %
1 y m
5 ym | 10'ym
Hexavalent Chromium
wt. less than size, %
lym
5 ym 1 10 ym
Total Chromium
wt. less than size, %
lym | 5ymj10ym
to
o
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East
S4B
S5B
S6B
2/15
2/18
2/19
1209-1211:45
1247-1250:15
1119-1122:55
Average
0.1
0
0
0.03
0.1
0.5
0
0.2
0.1
1.3
0.4
0.6
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West
S4C
S5C
S6C
2/15
2/18
2/19
1222-1225
1233-1236
1114-1117
Average
4.5
15
5
8
16
19
10
15
18
30
24
24
Inlet East and West
Average
4
8
12
20*
60»
76»
a
a
a
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet
S4F1
S4F2
S5F1
S5F2
S6F1
S6F2
2/15
2/15
2/18
2/18
2/19
2/19
1032-1052
1126-1146
1120-1140
1212-1232
1006-1026
1052-1112
Average
8
14
10
14
12
12
12
42
50
60
60
53
55
53
70
83
84
88
75
83
81
8*
28*
38*
2*
5*
7*
Composite.
No particle size distribution curves for the Inlet due to a lack of a significant catch In smaller
fractions during Inlet particle size testing.
-------
chromium could not be determined due to the extremely high blank levels in the
large number of filters required to collect the sample. However, based on
previously discussed results, total chromium would most likely be found in
greater concentration in the smaller particles due to the greater proportion of
combustibles present in the larger particles.
3.3.2 Particle Size Distribution at 80% Boiler Capacity
The particle size distribution for the tests conducted at 80% of boiler
capacity is similar to that for the tests conducted at 50% of capacity. The
particle size results for the outlet emissions of hexavalent chromium appear to
be invalid and are therefore not used for any of the conclusions.
3.3.3 Conclusions
Based on the emissions data and particle size data, the particle size
distribution for particulate emissions appears to be typical for both
controlled and uncontrolled particulate emissions. The particle size
distribution data for hexavalent chromium includes some analytical error due to
the small amount of hexavalent chromium analyzed. However, the results clearly
show that the hexavalent chromium emissions for industrial boilers are particle
size dependent and that the majority of all hexavalent chromium emissions are
less than 5 ura in size. The total chromium particle size distribution could
not be accurately determined due to the extremely high blank levels in the
large number of filters required to collect the sample. As noted earlier, the
particle size distribution would probably be the same as that for the
particulate emissions if all combustibles were elminiated from the samples.
3.4 VISIBLE EMISSIONS OBSERVATION DATA
Visible emissions determinations were made at both boiler operating
capacities. The data sheets and calculations for each run are presented in
3-21
-------
Appendix C. A summary of the visible emissions data is presented in Table
3.9. The opacity of the visible emissions were fairly consistent for all
runs. Opacity versus mass was 0.093, 0.092, 0.091, 0.135, 0.110, and 0.109
grains per actual cubic foot compared to 14.55, 10.57, 10.35, 10.60, 8.47, and
10.54 percent opacity, respectively. Both the actual stack gas pollutant
concentration and the percent opacity were fairly constant for all runs. Some
of the variability in the visible emission data is more likely due to poor
background conditions and high winds.
After the concentration of the hexavalent chromium emissions is estab-
lished through testing with the total emissions, visible emissions would likely
be a good indicator of hexavalent chromium emissions as long as the percent
chromium in the coal remains about the same.
For facilities with efficient fuel combustion, the opacity-mass
relationship for total chromium and opacity would be the same as that for the
particulate emissions. The concentration of total chromium in the fuel would
also be included in the relationship.
3.5 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR HEXAVALENT AND TOTAL CHROMIUM
The summaries of results for the hexavalent chromium and total chromium
analyses of samples collected are presented in Table 3.10 for the 50% boiler
capacity tests and in Table 3.11 for the 80% boiler capacity tests. The
analytical data sheets are contained in Appendix B. The analytical results
shown in Tables 3.10 and 3.11 for hexavalent and total chromium are the results
obtained by the EPA tentative method for "Determination of Hexavalent Chromium
Emissions from Stationary Sources" and the "EPA Protocol for Emissions Sampling
for Both Hexavalent and Total Chromium" (see Appendix D). When for total
chromium analysis the table indicates that the sample "residue" was analyzed,
then the values presented for total chromium are a sum of (1) the hexavalent
chromium in the sample filtrate from the extraction of the sample and (2) the
3-22
-------
TABLE 3.9. SUMMARY OF VJSIBLE EMISSIONS DATA FOR ALL RUNS
BOILER NO. 4 MECHANICAL COLLECTOR OUTLET
Run No. 1 - 50% Capacity
Date
Before
2/12 During
After
Time
1000-1439
Range
5-20
Avg. % Opacity
14.55
14.55
Run No. 2 - 50% Capacity
Date
Before
2/13 During
After
Time
0930-0959
1000-1417
1418-1429
Range
10-20
5-20
5-15
Avg. % Opacity
14.77
10.57
9.79
10.57
Average
opacity
during
50% load
test runs
= 11.82
Run No. 3 - 50% Capacity
Date
Before
2/14 During
After
Time
0930-1029
1030-1521
Range
5-15
5-20
Avg. % Opacity
9.83
10.35
10.35
Run No. 4 - 80% Capacity
Date
Before
2/15 During
After
Time
0930-1029
1030-1229
Range
10-20
5-20
Avg. % Opacity
16.25
10.60
10.60
Run No. 5 - 80% Capacity
Date
Before
2/18 During
After
Time
0930-1025
1030-1253
1254-1259
Range
5-25
0-15
5-10
Avg. % Opacity
11.21
8.47
7.08
8.47
Average
opacity
during
80% load
test runs
= 9.87
Run No. 6 - 80% Capacity
Date
Before
2/19 During
After
Time
0930-0959
1000-1123
1124-1145
Range
5-20
5-20
5-10
Avg. % Opacity
11.14
10.54
7.92
10.54
3-23
-------
TABLE 3.10. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FCR HEXAVALENT AND TOTAL CHROMIUM AT 50? BOILER CAPACITY
Run
No.
Samp 1 e
Type
Samp 1 e
No.
Analyzed
Amount of
Samp 1 e
mg or ml
Hex aval en t Chromium
Results
VI9
Concentrat 1 on
yg/g
Amount of
Samp 1 e
Analyzed
Total Chromium
Results
yg
Concentration
yg/g
Samp 1 e
Prep
Method9
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East
IB
IB
2B
38
Part leu late Front Half
Implnger Contents
Part leu late Front Half
Part leu late Front Half
C-98
C-111
C-99
C-100
5,897
Total
3,890
4,380
3.1
2.5
2.4
0.53
0.1
0.64
0.55
Residue
4 of 44 ml
Residue
Residue
1224
157.9
785.0
730.6
207.7
26. 7b
201.8
166.8
2
5
2
2
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West
1C
1C
2C
3C
Part leu late Front Half
Implnger Contents
Part leu late Front Half
Part leu late Front Half
C-104
C-117
C-105
C-106
4,694
Total
6,540
6,072
2.7
4.0
3.3
0.58
<0.1
0.61
0.54
Residue
4 of 27 ml
Residue
Residue
890.2
62.2
1041
1050
189.7.
13.3b
159.2
172.9
2
5
2
2
'Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East and West Particle Sizing
S1-3
SI -3
S1-3
Particle Size, large
Particle Size, medium
Particle SI ze, smal 1
C-160
C-161
C-162
1,128
46.4
26.4
0.12
0.22
0.31
0.11
4.74
11.74
Residue
Residue
Residue
615.3
c
c
545.5
c
c
3
3
3
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet
IF
IF
2F
3F
S1-3F
S1-3F
S1-3F
Part leu late Front Half
Implnger Contents
Part leu late Front Half
Part leu late Front Half
Particle Size, large
Particle Size, medium
Particle Size, smal 1
C-92
C-123
C-93
C-94
C-154
C-155
C-156
1,462
Total
1,473
1,465
516
143
131
13.1
4.4
7.8
0.02
0.26
0.11
8.96
O.I
2.99
5.32
0.04
1.82
0.84
Residue
4 of 51ml
Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
663.7
8.2
443.2
373.3
171.2
60.7
72.7
454.0.
5.61 b
300.9
254.8
331.8
424.5
555.0
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
Grab Samples
1A
ID
IE
16
2A
2D
2E
26
3A
3D
3E
36
Coal Feed
1° Multlclone Hopper Ash
2° Multlclone Hopper Ash
Bottom Ash
Coal Feed
1 Multlclone Hopper Ash
2° Multlclone Hopper Ash
Bottom Ash
Coa 1 Feed
1 Multlclone Hopper Ash
2° Multlclone Hopper Ash
Bottom Ash
C-148
C-142
C-136
C-130
C-149
C-143
C-137
C-131
C-150
C-144
C-138
C-132
___
— • -—
_
»_
0.5
O.5
2.5
O.5
O.5
O.5
1.8
0.5
O.5
0.5
1.4
O.5
309. 8mg
151. Img
155.9mg
155.9mg
304. 6mg
168.0mg
151. 4mg
188.9mg
310.5mg
158.0mg
149.9mg
152.3mg
6.155
36.12
35.94
23.39
6.541
29.88
33.29
39.03
7.050
31.88
49.43
27.33
19.9
239.0
230.5
150.0
21.5
177.9
219.9
206.6
22.7
201.8
329.8
179.4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
aSample preparation methods are as follows:
1 = For the Method 5 filters collected at the outlet location: jjlgxavalent chromium was extracted from the filter and acetone
rinse and the filtrate from this process was analyzed for Cr • The residue from the extraction was analyzed for total
chromium. Total chromium results reported (yg) are the sum of both measurements (blank corrected).
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3.10. (continued)
2 = For -the Method 5 filters collected at the inlet locations: One weighed portion of the filter catch was taken for hexavalent
chromium analysis and another weighed portion was taken for total chromium analysis.
3 = For particle sizing: Because of the relatively small catches, sets.of equivalent Impactor stages and/or filters from 6 corres-
ponding runs (e.g.. Runs SIB, S2B, S3B, SIC, S2C, and S3C) were combined into single samples. Analysis for Cr Involved
extraction of the catch and analysis of the filtrate. All Cr results were below the detection level of the method
(Insignificant). Therefore, the total chromium results reported (yg) Include only the total chromium In the extraction residue
detected by NAA.
4 = For solid process samples: One weighed portion was taken for hexavalent chromium analysis and another weighed portion was
taken for total chromium analysis.
5 = For Implnger contents: The liquid samples were concentrated; one measured aliquot was taken for hexavalent chromium analysis
and one measured aliquot taken for total chromium analysis. Total chromium concentrations are expressed as yg Cr per g of
partlculate matter catch.
Expressed in yg Cr per g of particulate matter catch In the front half.
cSubtraction of blank value from total chromium catch for this fraction resulted In a negative number.
u>
10
Ul
-------
TABLE 3.11. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FCR HEXAVALENT AND TOTAL CWOMIUM AT 80$ BOILER CAPACITY
Run
No.
Samp 1 e
- Type
Samp 1 e
No.
Analyzed
Amount of
Samp 1 e
mg or ml
Hexavalent Chromium
Results
yg
Concentration
yg/g
Amount of
Sample
Analyzed
Total Chromium
Resu 1 ts
yg
Concentration
yg/g
Samp 1 e
Prep
Method8
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East
4B
58
6B
Partlculate Front Half
Partlculate Front Half
Partlculate Front Half
C-101
C-102
C-103
11,860
11,138
5,907
3.2
2.2
2.7
0.27
0.20
0.46
Residue
Residue
Residue
1380
1636
982.7
116.4
146.9
166.4
2
2
2
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West
4C
5C
6C
Parti cut ate Front Half
Partlculate Front Half
Partlculate Front Half
C-107
C-108
C-109
6,758
9,680
9,388
5.9
5.4
5.2
0.87
0.56
0.55
Residue
Residue
Residue
1164.8
1471.4
1567.3
172.4
152.0
167.0
2
2
2
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East and West Particle Sizing
S4-6
S4-6
S4-6
Particle Size, large '
Particle Size, medium
Particle Size, smal 1
C-163
C-164
C-165
1,371
27.7
7.6
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.13
17.69
30.26
Residue
Residue
Residue
203.7
b
b
148.6
b
b
3
3
3
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet
4F
5F
6F
S4-6F
S4-6F
S4-6F
Partlculate Front Half
Partlculate Front Half
Partlculate Front Half
Particle Size, large
Particle Size, medium
Particle Size, smal 1
C-95
C-96
C-97
C-157
C-158
C-159
603
475
450
66
220
216
5.3
1.9
7.4
0.39
0.16
0.12
8.79
4.00
16.44
5.91
0.73
0.56
Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
256.4
302.9
257.7
531.6
85.5
63.7
425.2
637.7
572.7
8054
388.6
294.9
1
1
1
3
3
3
Grab Samples
4A
4D
4E
46
5A
5D
5E
5G
6A
60
6E
6G
Coal Feed
1° Multlclone Hopper Ash
2° Multlclone Hopper Ash
Bottom Ash
Cga 1 Feed
1 Multlclone Hopper Ash
2° Multlclone Hopper Ash
Bottom Ash
Coal Feed
1° Multlclone Hopper Ash
2° Multlclone Hopper Ash
Bottom Ash
C-151
C-145
C-139
C-133
C-152
C-146
C-140
C-134
C-153
C-147
C-141
C-135
.
— .—
— -
<0.5
<0.5
1.7
<0.5
O.5
<0.5
1.1
<0.5
O.5
O.5
0.74
O.5
333. Omg
151. Img
154.8mg
163. Omg
304. 6mg
151.9mg
151.9mg
162. 5mg
306. 7mg
153.2mg
153.7mg
156.3mg
6.714
38.91
38.70
29.21
5.934
28.96
34.90
35.92
5.936
50.27
37.07
24.15
20.2
257.5
250.0
179.2
19.5
190.7
229.8
221.0
19.4
328.1
241.2
154.5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
BIank Samp Ies
Acetone 4 M-5 Filter Blank
Distilled H20 Blank
Outlet BlanR Medium, Andersen
Outlet Blank Small, Andersen
Inlet Blank Medium, Flow Sensor
Inlet Blank Small, Flow Sensor
C-110
C-129
C-166
C-167
C-168
C-169
200
<0.20
___
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
_«—
5.3
123.8
165.1
164.8
138.7
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3.11. (continued)
Sample preparation methods are as follows:
1 = For the Method 5 filters collected at the outlet location: Hexavalent chromium was extracted from the filter and acetone rinse
t£
and the filtrate from this process was analyzed for Q- . The residue from the extraction was analyzed for total chromium.
Total chromium results reported (yg) are the sum of both measurements (blank corrected).
2 = For the Method 5 filters collected at the Inlet locations: One weighed portion of the filter catch was taken for hexavalent
chromium analysis and another weighed portion was taken for total chromium analysis.
3 = For particle sizing: Because of the relatively small catches, sets of equivalent Impactor stages and/or filters from 6 corres-
ponding runs (e.g., Runs SIB, S2B, S3B, SIC, S2C, and S3C) were combined Into single samples. Analysis for Q- Involved
extraction of the catch and analysis of the filtrate. All Or results were below the detection level of the method
(Insignificant). Therefore, the total chromium results reported (yg) Include only the total chromium In the extraction residue
detected by NAA.
4 = For solid process samples: One weighed portion was taken for hexavalent chromium analysts and another weighed portion was
taken for total chromium analysis.
Subtraction of blank value from total chromium catch for this fraction resulted In a negative number.
U)
CO
-------
chromium in the residue from the extraction measured by Neutron Activation
Analysis. When the table indicates that the "total" sample was analyzed, then
the values presented for total chromium content are from the direct analysis of
the total sample for total chromium by Neutron Activation Analysis. A table
showing the total chromium calculations and references to the applicable data
forms can be found at the end of Appendix A of this report.
For this testing program, there is some sample analysis variability due to
the small amount of hexavalent chromium present. However, the average values
for the runs are believed to be representative.
One set of impinger contents (or back half particulate catch) was analyzed
for each location sampled at 50% boiler capacity. The purpose of this analysis
was to reconfirm the fact, established by the method development and evaluation
study, that a significant amount of hexavalent chromium and/or total chromium
does not pass through the front half. The analytical results for the impinger
contents for Runs 1B, 1C, and 1F show that the amount of hexavalent and total
chromium passing through the filter was negligible (see Table 3.10).
Quality assurance audit samples were analyzed for total chromium. As shown
in Table 3.12, no bias was present and the results are considered acceptable.
3.6 COAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR F FACTOR CALCULATIONS
Coal samples were taken to represent each set of test runs. A portion
ofthe coal samples were combined for the 50% boiler capacity and for the 80%
boiler capacity for a proximate and ultimate analysis. The results of these
analyses are presented in Table 3.13. They indicate that the coal was of good
quality, which is typical for use in a spreader stoker boiler. The calculated
F factor was 9750 for the coal used at 50% boiler load and 9724 for that used
at 80% boiler load.
3-28
-------
TABLE 3.12. SUMM/RY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FCR HEXAVALENT AND TOTAL CWOMIUM QUALITY ASSURANCE SABLES
U)
to
Run
No.
Samp 1 e
Type
Sample
No.
True
Value
Hexavalent Chromium
Results
yg/ml
%
Oev.
Total Chromium
Results
yg
%
Dev.
Qual Ity Assurance Samples
—
—
—
—
— ~
Qual ity Assurance
Qual Ity Assurance
Qual Ity Assurance
Qual Ity Assurance
Qual Ity Assurance
• QA-7
QA-8
QA-9
QA-10
QA-11
5 yg Cr
10 yg Cr
66.33 yg Cr
132.7 yg Cr
199 yg Cr
—
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
4.501
6.675
79.45
131.9
145.1
10.0
33.3
19.8
0.6
27.1
-------
TABLE 3.13. COAL ANALYSIS
Moisture, %
Ash, % dry basis
Volatile, % dry basis
Fixed carbon, % dry basis
Sulfur, % dry basis
Carbon, % dry basis
Hydrogen, % dry basis
Nitrogen, % dry basis
Oxygen, % dry basis
Btu/lb
Boiler Capacity
80%
6.04
5.14
37.63
57.23
0.66
78.20
5.26
1.51
9.23
13,897
50%
6.62
5.98
39.32
54.70
0.75
77.75
5.53
1.51
8.48
13,931
3-30
-------
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND TEST METHODS
This section describes the sampling locations and test methods used to
characterize emissions from Boiler No. 4 at Burlington Industries Wake
Finishing Plant in Raleigh, North Carolina. Seven sampling locations were used
in the emission testing program. At three sampling locations (two at the
boiler mechanical collector inlet and one at the collector outlet), emissions
testing was conducted for particulate matter, total chromium content,
hexavalent chromium content, particle size distribution, and chromium
distribution with respect to particle size distribution. At the collector
outlet location (boiler stack exit) visible emissions observations were
conducted to determine the opacity of emissions. At the coal hopper, two
multiclone hoppers, and bottom ash hopper, grab samples of the coal feed,
hopper ash, and bottom ash were collected for hexavalent and total chromium
analysis. The relative positions and the type of testing conducted at each
location are shown in the simplified process flow diagram (see Figure 4-1) and
accompanying Table 4.1. The subsections which follow further describe each
sampling location and applicable test methods.
4.1 DOUBLE MECHANICAL COLLECTOR INLET (SAMPLING LOCATIONS B AND C)
Particulate matter, hexavalent chromium, total chromium, particle size
distribution, and chromium distribution with respect to particle size
distribution were measured at the inlet to the double mechanical collector
controlling Boiler No. 4 as shown in Figure 4-2. Four sampling ports were
installed on opposite sides in the vertical rectangular duct (39" by 192")
along the 39 inch width. The east side of the duct is referred to as location
4-1
-------
Sampling Location F
Sampling Locations
B and C
Coal Feed
Sampling Location A
To atmoshpere
Stack
I. D. Fan
Secondary
Multiclone
Primary
Multiclone
Air
Preheater
Economizer
Boiler
No. 4
Sampling Location E
Ash
JSampling Location D
-•^-Hopper Ash
Bottom Ash
Sampling Location G
Figure 4-1. Simplified Process Air Flow Diagram of Boiler No. 4 and Emission
Control Equipment at Burlington Industries Wake Finishing Plant.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4.1. SAMPLING PLAN FOR BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES
Sample Type
P articulate matter
Hexavalent chromium
Total chromium
Particle size distribution
Hexavalent and total chromium
distribution by particle size
Stack opacity
Hexavalent chromium, total
chromium
Sampling
Locations
B, C, F
B, C, F
B, C, F
B, C, F
B, C, F
F
A, D, E, G
Number ^
of Samples
3 (50%)
3 (80%)
3 (50%)
3 (80%)
3 (50%)
3 (80%)
**
**
3 (50%)
3 (80%)
3 composite
grab (50%)
3 composite
grab (80%)
Methods
EPA Method 5
EPA 5 using Tentative
EPA Method for Hexavalent
Chromium
EPA 5 using EPA Protocol
for Total Chromium
Impactor (Andersen,
Flow Sensor)
Impactor using Tentative
EPA Method for
Hexavalent Chromium
and EPA Protocol
for Total Chromium
EPA Method 9 -
Gravimetric, Tentative
EPA Method for
Hexavalent Chromium
EPA Protocol for
Total Chromium
**
"50%" indicates at 50% boiler capacity.
"80%" indicates at 80% boiler capacity.
Sampling Locations B and C = 3 (50%) and 3 (80%),
Sampling Location F = 6 (50%) and 6 (80%).
4-3
-------
West
A
B C
C 1=
D
• 1 •
1 .
i . i .
I . I .
• i
i
• 1 .
i
1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1
1 1 1
! /
1 . .
1 1
i
— • O"
=1 D
=1 C
=1 B
ZI A
f
39"
I
8 Half Axes
3 Points/Half Axis
24 Total Points
Section S-S
39" —
o o o o
A B C D
West
Air Preheater
To
Multiclones
Side Elevation View
58"
12"
From Boiler
To Multiclones
Sampling Ports
Figure 4-2. Double Mechanical Collector Inlet (Sampling Locations B and C)
4-4
-------
B, and the west side as location C. These ports were located 12 inches (0.185
duct diameters) upstream of the entrance to the primary mechanical collector
and 10 inches (0.15 duct diameters) downstream from the air preheater. Because
of the close proximity of potential flow disturbances, this location did not
meet EPA Method 1 sampling requirements; however, there was no other location
available for inlet testing. To check for the degree of flow disturbance at
this location, the angle of flow misalignment was measured at each sampling
point using an S-type pitot and an angle indicator. The average of the angles
measured at the inlet east (C) was 13.9 degrees; at the inlet west (C), the
average was 15.4 degrees.
For the Method 5 testing (used for particulate matter, hexavalent
chromium, and total chromium determinations), a 3 x 8 sample point matrix (as
per Method 1 ) was used. As a result of the design of the inlet sampling
location, two Method 5 sample trains were run on opposite sides of the duct,
each sampling a 3 x 4 sample point matrix. At 50% boiler capacity, each of the
points was sampled for 10 minutes for a total of 120 minutes of sampling per
train; the trains were run sequentially to coincide with the 240 minutes of
sampling at the mechanical collector outlet sampling location. At.80% boiler
capacity, each of the points was sampled for 5 minutes for a total of 60
minutes of sampling per train; in this case, the trains were run simultaneously
to correspond with the 60 minutes of sampling at the outlet.
For the particle size testing (including hexavalent and total chromium
distribution by particle size), separate particle sizing trains were used to
sample both the east and west sides of the duct. Three runs each were con-
ducted at both 50% and 80% boiler capacity. The first run of each three run
series was conducted at a point of average velocity. To ensure consistent
4-5
-------
cut-sizes on the impactor plates, the second and third runs were conducted at
points having the same velocity. Runs in both series were 4 1/2 to 5 minutes
in length.
4.2 DOUBLE MECHANICAL COLLECTOR OUTLET (SAMPLING LOCATION F)
Particulate matter, hexavalent chromium, total chromium, particle size
distribution, and hexavalent and total chromium distribution with respect to
particle size were measured at the outlet to the double mechanical collector as
shown in Figure 4-3. Four sampling ports were installed 90° apart on the
59 1/4" diameter stack and were located about 49 1/2" (0.84 duct diameters)
upstream from the stack exit and 160 inches (2.7 duct diameters) downstream
from the fan exit.
For the EPA Method 5 sampling (used for particulate matter, hexavalent
chromium, and total chromium determinations), a total of 24 points, as per
Method 1, were sampled. At 50% boiler capacity, each point was sampled for
10 minutes for a total sampling time of 240 minutes. At 80% boiler capacity,
each point was sampled for 2.5 minutes for a total of 60 minutes.
For the particle size tests (including hexavalent and total chromium
distribution by particle size) six runs each were conducted at both 50% and 80%
boiler capacity. The first run of each six-run series was conducted at a
sampling point representing the average velocity in the stack. To ensure
consistent cut-sizes on the-impactor plates, the remaining five runs at that
boiler load were conducted at points having the same velocity as the first
run. The six particle size runs at 50% boiler capacity ranged from 4.5 to 5.0
minutes in duration. The six runs at 80% boiler capacity ranged from 2.. 75 to
3.25 minutes in duration.
Visible emissions observations were performed at the double mechanical
collector stack exit as specified by EPA Reference Method 9. Observations were
conducted simultaneously with the Method 5 and particle size testing when
suitable conditions existed for valid observation.
4-6
-------
N
2 Axes
12 Points/Axis
24 Total Points
59.25" DIA
CH V- 3 A
— —5.5'
D
Section R-R
59.25"
-O-
D
Sampling Port
49.5"
48"
112"
Roof Line
From Fan
Elevation View
Figure 4-3. Double Mechanical Collector Outlet (Sampling Location F)
4-7
-------
4.3 COAL FEED (SAMPLING LOCATION A)
Grab samples representative of the coal feed to the boiler were taken at
the inlet to the coal hopper two times for each day's test run series. Because
it takes approximately one hour for the coal to move from the inlet to the
hopper to the boiler, samples were taken approximately one hour before testing
was to begin (9:00 a.m.) and one hour before the last run of the day was to
end. The two grab samples for each day were combined into a single sample for
analysis of hexavalent and total chromium content.
4.4 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MDLTICLONE HOPPERS (SAMPLING LOCATIONS D AND E)
Grab samples of the flyash from (1) the primary multiclone hopper and (2)
the secondary multiclone hopper were collected two times during each day's test
run series: at the beginning of the first test run and at the end of the last
test run. The two samples for each day from each hopper were combined into
single samples for analysis of hexavalent and total chromium content.
4.5 BOTTOM ASH (SAMPLING LOCATION G)
Grab samples of the bottom ash from the boiler were collected two times
during each day's test run series, at the same time as the multiclone hopper
samples. The two bottom ash samples for each day were also combined into a.
single sample for analysis of hexavalent and total chromium content.
4.6 VELOCITY AND GAS TEMPERATURE
A type S pitot tube and an inclined draft gauge manometer or two
differential pressure gauges in-parallel were used to measure the gas velocity
pressure (AP)« Velocity pressures were measured at each sampling point across
4-8
-------
the duct to determine an average value according to the procedures outlined in
Method 2 of the Federal Register.* The temperature at each sampling point was
measured using a thermocouple and digital readout.
4.7 MOLECULAR WEIGHT
Flue gas composition was determined utilizing procedures described in
Method 3 of the Federal Register.* A bag sample was collected during each
particulate test run. The bag contents were analyzed using an Orsat Gas
Analyzer.
4.8 PARTICULATE MATTER
Method 5, as described in the Federal Register,* was used to measure
particulate grain loading at locations B, C, and F. All tests were conducted
isokinetically by traversing the cross-sectional area of the stack and
regulating the sample flow rate relative to the flue gas flow rate as measured
by the pitot tube attached to the sample probe. A sampling train consisting of
a heated, glass-lined probe, a heated 87 mm (3.4 inches) diameter glass fiber
filter (Gelman A/E), and a series of Greenburg-Smith impingers was employed for
each test. An acetone rinse of the nozzle, probe, and filter holder portions
of the sample train was made at the end of each test. The acetone rinse and
the particulate caught on the filter media were dried at room temperature,
desiccated to a constant weight, and weighed on an analytical balance. Total
filterable particulate matter was determined by adding these two values. See
Appendix D for detailed sampling procedures.
* 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Reference Methods 2, 3, and 5, July 1, 1980,
4-9
-------
4.9 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle size samples were obtained using Andersen Mark III and Flow
Sensor Cascade Impactors. These in-stack, multistage cascade impactors have a
total of eight and seven stages, respectively, followed by a back-up filter
stage and particle size cut-offs ranging nominally from 0.5 to 15 microns.The
Flow Sensor includes a built-in preimpactor stage, in addition. Substrates
were glass fiber filters, 64 mm in diameter for the Andersen impactors and 69
mm in diameter for the Flow Sensor impactors. A constant sampling rate was
maintained through the test period. Sampling rates were set for isokinetic
sampling as long as the sampling rate did not exceed the recommended flow rate
for the impactor. See Appendix D for detailed sampling procedures.
Three impactor runs each were conducted at 50% and 80% boiler capacity at
both the inlet east and the inlet west locations. Six runs each were conducted
at 50% and 80% boiler capacity at the double mechanical collector outlet. At
the locations sampled, a point of average velocity was sampled. With the
exception of selection of the sampling point locations, the procedures used
followed those recommended in the "Procedures Manual for Inhalable Particulate
Sampler Operation" developed for EPA by the Southern Research Institute.*
4.10 HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM CONTENT
Hexavalent chromium content was determined utilizing procedures described
in the tentative EPA Method "Determination of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions
from Stationary Sources" (see Appendix D). The Method 5 filter catch collected
and weighed for each Method 5 run was taken and analyzed for hexavalent
chromium content using this method. If was also used to determine the
hexavalent chromium content of representative portions the scrubber water
samples and the ESP and dust collector dust samples.
*Prepared for EPA under Contract No. 68-02-3118, November 1979.
4-10
-------
4.11 TOTAL CHROMIUM CONTENT
Total chromium content was determined using procedures described in the
"EMB Prototcol for Sample Preparation and Emission Calculation of Field Samples
for Total Chromium" in combination with Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) (see
Appendix D). Samples collected during Method 5 runs and first submitted to
analysis for hexavalent chromium were then analyzed for total chromium using
this method. The total chromium content of the scrubber water samples and the
ESP and dust collector dust samples were also determined using these procedures
using a representative portion of the sample.
4.12 VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Visible emission observations were performed by use of procedures
described in EPA Method 9.* A certified visible emission reader was utilized.
*40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Reference Method 9, July 1, 1981.
4-11
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Because the end product of testing is to produce representative emission
results, quality assurance is one of the main facets of stack sampling.
Quality assurance guidelines provide the detailed procedures and actions
necessary for defining and producing acceptable data. Two such documents were
used in this test program to ensure the collection of acceptable data and to
provide a definition of unacceptable data. These documents are: the EPA
Quality Assurance Handbook Volume III, EPA-600/4-77-027 and Entropy's "Quality
Assurance Program Plan" which has been approved by the U. S. EPA, EMB.
Relative to this test program, the following steps were taken to ensure
that the testing and analytical procedures produce quality data.
o Calibration of field sampling equipment. (Appendix E describes
calibration guidelines in more detail.)
o Checks of train configuration and on calculations.
o On-site quality assurance checks such as sampling train, pitot
tube, and Orsat line leak checks, and quality assurance checks of
all test equipment prior to use.
o Use of designated analytical equipment and sampling reagents.
Table 5.1 summarizes the on-site audit data sheets for the sampling
equipment used for particulate testing at each sampling location, including
deviation limits. In addition to the pre- and post-test calibration audits, a
field audit was performed on the meter boxes used for sampling. Entropy used
the procedures described in the December 14, 1983 Federal Register (48FR55670).
In addition, the analytical balance used for filter weighing was audited with
Class "S" weights. Appendix E includes the audit run data sheets for each dry
gas meter used for particulate testing and audit data sheets for the other
sampling equipment.
5-1
-------
TABLE 5.1. FIELD EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION
Equipment
Reference
Allowable
Error
Ac tual
Error
Within
Allowable
Limits
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet East
Meter box (N-3)
Meter box thermometer
Impinger thermometer
Stack thermometer
Orsat analyzer
Trip balance
Analytical balance
Wet test meter
ASTM-3F at ambient
temperature
ASTM-3F at ambient
temperature
ASTM-3F at stack
temperature
% 02 in ambient air
IOLM standard weight
Class "S" standard
weight
Y ^O.OSY
5°F
2°F
7°F
0.7%
0.5 grams
0.1 mg
1.007
-2°
-2°
+2°
OK
0
0
^^
^^^
^
^
Double Mechanical Collector Inlet West
Meter box (N-12)
Meter box thermometer
Impinger thermometer
Stack thermometer
Orsat analyzer
Trip balance
Analytical balance
Wet test meter
ASTM-3F at ambient
temperature
ASTM-3F at ambient
temperature
ASTM-3F at ambient
temperature
% $2 in ambient air
IOLM standard weight
Class "S" standard
weight
Y + 0.03Y
5°F
2°F
7°F
0.7%
0.5 grams
0.1 mg
0.993
+2°
+1°
-2°
OK
0
0
^
^
"^
^
(continued on next page)
5-2
-------
TABLE 5.1. FIELD EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION (continued)
Equipment
Reference
Allowable
Error
Actual
Error
Within
Allowable
Limits
Double Mechanical Collector Outlet
Meter box (N-6)
Meter box (N-7)
Meter box thermometer
Impinger thermometer
Stack thermocouple
Orsat analyzer
Trip balance
Analytical balance
Wet test meter
Wet test meter
ASTM-3F at ambient
temperature
ASTM-3F at ambient
temperature
ASTM-3F at stack
temperature
% 02 in ambient air
IOLM standard weight
Class "S" standard
weight
Y + 0.03Y
Y +_ 0.03Y
5°F
2°F
11°F
0.7%
0.5 grams
0.1 mg
1.012
0.988
-2°
0°
-5°
OK
0
0
^
-
^
^
^
^
^
^
5-3
-------
As a check on the reliability of the method used to analyze the filters
for particle size tests, sets of filters that had been preweighed in the lab
were resubmitted for replicate analysis. Table 5.2 summarizes these results.
Audit solutions prepared by the EPA were used to check the analytical
procedures of the laboratories conducting the hexavalent and total chromium
analyses. Table 5.3 presents the results of these analytical audits. The
audit tests show that the analytical techniques were good.
The sampling equipment, reagents, and analytical procedures for this test
series were in compliance with all necessary guidelines set forth for accurate
test results as described in Volume III of the Quality Assurance Handbook.
5-4
-------
TABLE 5.2. PARTICLE SIZE BLANK FILTER AND REACTIVITY FILTER ANALYSIS
Sample type
Particle size
blank run filters
B256
A256
B257
A257
B258
A258
B259
A259
SF138
Particle size
reactivity run
filters
B212
A212
B213
A213
B214
A214
B215
A215
SF128
Original tare
weight, mg
162.64
147.37
162.80
146.23
163.06
147.12
162.64
146.43
270.53
156.01
138.58
156.39
138.47
156.00
137.93
156.30
137.98
267.03
Blank weight,
mg
162.68
147.42
162.76
146.23
163.01
147.09
162.65
146.47
270.53
156.00
138.59
156.40
138.49
156.09
137.91
156.19
137.83
267.13
Net weight,
mg
+0.04
+0.05
-0.04
0.00
-0.05
-0.03
+0.01
+0.04
-0.03
-0.01
+0.01
+0.01
+0.02
+0.09
-0.02
-0.11
-0.15
+0.10
5-5
-------
TABLE 5.3. AUDIT REPORT CHROMIUM ANALYSIS
Plant:
Date samples received:
Sample analyzed by:_
Reviewed by:
Task No.: 301
Date analyzed:
Date of review:
Sample
Number
QA -7-
Qfi-3
QA- °i
Qk-td
Q*-H
ug/ml
Cr+o or Cr
5^j Cr
[o jj-q ^
(,(,.33/A$ ^
132.1-^3 C
------- |