Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HUG-01-2001 12:19 <br /> <br />INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT <br /> <br />407 886 5990 P.08/12 <br /> <br />Test Schedule <br /> <br />Testing began June II and continued through June 17, 1999. Testing was preceded by <br />preliminary velocity measurements. Once preliminary measurements were completed and final <br />preparations were in progress. the site coordinator and other personnel were notified of run start <br />times. <br /> <br />Summary of Test Results <br /> <br /> <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 I through 8.' The calculation of removal efficiencies are not appropriate to this test since <br />scrubber inlet amounts are so low. <br /> <br />Modified Method 5 and Particulate Matter Results <br /> <br />Each sampling train provided data on gas velocity, temperature, pressure, 02, CO2. and <br />volumeuic flow rates. Some trains at the scrubber inlet location did not pass final leak check <br />tram the nozzle. but did pass trom the sample transfer line. <br /> <br />C02..md..Q ults indicate e in leakage was occurring between the inlet and outlet sampling <br />locations. This eviderrce 0 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 /> <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 train 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 /> <br />As indicated &om the data, inlet and outlet concentrations for each run were very similar <br />regardless of condition., thereby indicating that the scrubber had little or no effect on particulate <br />matter removal. <br /> <br />6 <br />