Laserfiche WebLink
Emission Test Report <br /> EMC WA-2-05 <br /> Section 3 <br /> Revision: 0 <br /> Date: September 30.1999 <br /> Page 4 of 33 <br /> sample bottle which already contained the inlet back-half QA rinses. A new sample bottle <br /> was used to collect the remaining PCDD&MF front-half rinses of the inlet tram. This <br /> resulted in partial collection of inlet and outlet train QA rinses and a third sample <br /> containing some rinses from each train. <br /> The final QA toluene soak (3rd of 3) from the Run 4, PCDDIPCDF outlet train was <br /> inadvertently placed in the corresponding recovery rinse sample bottle instead. This would <br /> not affect sample results, but would lengthen sample concentration time during analysis <br /> and could potentially result in a lower QA rinse result. <br /> 3.3.2 Analytical <br /> Samples were analyzed according to the Site Specific Test Plan and Quality Assurance <br /> Project Plan with no problems or changes. <br /> 3.4 Summary of Test Results <br /> Testing was performed to gather emissions data from a crematory to assist in <br /> developing emissions standards under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. Results of testing <br /> at the Unit 4 crematory in the Woolworth Chapel at Woodlawn Cemetery are presented <br /> here. Summary test data is presented in Table 3-4 with more detailed summaries in all the <br /> following tables. The calculation of removal efficiencies are not appropriate to this test <br /> since scrubber inlet amounts are so low. <br /> 3.4.1 Modified Method 5 and Particulate Matter Results <br /> Data obtained from sampling trams are summarized in Tables 3-5 through 3-7. Each <br /> sampling train provided data on gas velocity, temperature, pressure, 02} CO„ and f x <br /> volumetric flow rates. As flagged in the tables, some trains at the scrubber inlet location . <br /> did not pass final leak check from the nozzle, but did pass from the sample transfer line. <br /> CO, and 0, results indicate some inleakage was occurring between the inlet and outlet <br /> sampling locations. This evidence of inleakage is supported by the higher dry standard <br /> volumetric gas flow rates (averages of flow rates measured by all trains at a location) <br /> measured at the outlet location. <br /> The variability in dry standard volumetric gas flow rate results is not due to equipment <br /> calibration or probe orientation with duct walls during sampling. Sampling locations were <br /> not ideal for obtaining consistent flow data. The Method 23 inlet train was nearest to the <br /> -AM%49514.0 S3.** <br />