Laserfiche WebLink
auG-01-2001 12:19 INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 407 e86 5990 P.08i12 <br /> Test Schedule <br /> Testing began June ll and continued through Jum 17, 1999. Testing was preceded by <br /> preliminary velocity measurements. Once preliminary messuremcrrts were completed and final <br /> preparations were in progress, the site coordinator and other personnel were notified of run start <br /> times. <br /> Summary of Test Results <br /> Testing was performed to gather emissions data from a crematory to assist in developing <br /> emissions standards under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. Results of testing at the Unit 4 <br /> crematory in the Woolworth Chapel at the Woodlawn Cemetery are presented in Table 1 and in <br /> Figures 1 through 8. The calculation of removal efficiencies are not appropriate to this test since <br /> Scrubber inlet amounts are so low. <br /> Modified Method S and Particulate Matter Results <br /> Each sampling tram provided data on gas velocity, temperature, pressure. %, COQ,and <br /> volumetric flow rates. Some trains at the scrubber inlet location did not pass final leak check <br /> from the nozzle, but did pass from the sample transfer line. <br /> CO2andO Its indicate inleakage was occurring between the inlet and outlet sampling <br /> `y locations. This evider�ce o inleakage is supported by the higher dry standard volumetric gas <br /> flow rates (averages of flow rates measured by all trains at a location) measured at the outlet <br /> location. <br /> The variability in dry standard volumetric gas flow rate results in not due to equipment <br /> calibration or probe orientation with duct walls during sampling. Sampling locations were not <br /> ideal for obtaining consistent flow data. The Method 23 inlet train was nearest to the last duct <br /> bed after the secondary combustion chamber. and the Method 23 outlet tram was located nearest <br /> to the scrubber outlet. More turbulent flow expected at these locations may explain the higher <br /> flow results obtained with the Method 23 trains. Because flow was different at each of those <br /> points during the course of a run, consistent flow results could not be obtained among the trains <br /> used at the inlet or the outlet during any run. <br /> As indicated from the data, inlet and outlet concentrations for each run wore very similar <br /> regardless of condition, thereby indicating that the scrubber bad little or no effect on particulate <br /> matter removal. <br /> 6 <br />