pf_03315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Emission Test Report EMC W A-2-08 Section 3 Revision: 0 Date: September 30, 1999 Page 4 of 33 ] 'J 1, L, sample bottle which already contained the inlet back-half QA rinses. A new sample bottle was used to collect the remaining PCDDIPCDF front-half rinses of the inlet train. This resulted in partial collection of inlet and outlet train QA rinses and a third sample containing some rinses from each train. 3.4.1 Modified Method 5 and Particulate Matter Results I I tJ o J ] ] ;J U :,U'-' " . o o u The final QA toluene soak (3rd of 3) from the Run 4, PCDDIPCDF outlet train was inadvertently placed in the corresponding recovery rinse sample bottle instead. This would not affect sample results~ but would lengthen sample concentration time during analysis and could potentially result in a lower QA rinse result. 3.3.2 Analytical Samples were analyzed according to the Site Specific Test Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan with no problems or changes. 3.4 Summary of Test Results Testing was performed to gather emissions data from a crematory to assist in developing emissions standards under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. Results of testing at the Unit 4 crematory in the Woolworth Chapel at Woodlawn Cemetery are presented here. Summary test data is presented in Table 3-4 with more detailed summaries in all the following tables. The calculation of removal efficiencies are not appropriate to this test since scrubber inlet amounts are so low. Data obtained from sampling trains are summarized in Tables 3-5 through 3-7. Each sampling train provided data on gas velocity, temperature, pressure, O2, CO2, and volumetric flow rates. As flagged in the tables, some trains at the scrubber inlet location did not pass final leak. check from the nozzle, but did pass from the sample transfer line. CO2 and O2 results indicate some inleakage was occuning between the inlet and outlet sampling locations. This evidence of inleakage is supported by the higher dry standard volumetric gas flow rates (averages of flow rates measured by all trains at a location) measured at the outlet location. n ,'~J The variability in dry standard volumetric gas flow rate results is not due to equipment calibration or probe orientation with duct walls during sampling. Sampling locations were not ideal for obtaining consistent flow data. The Method 23 inlet train was nearest to the n L.J MRI-AED\R4951~8~3 S3.wpd