IBM 300mm Fab Stack Test Report 

Mar 15, 2012 

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Summary of the Test Program ............................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Key Personnel...................................................................................................................................... 3 

1.3 Organization of this Report.................................................................................................................. 3 

2.0 Plant and Sampling Location Description ................................................................................................ 4 

2.1 Process Equipment............................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2 Control Equipment............................................................................................................................... 8 

2.3 Stack Sampling Locations ................................................................................................................. 10 

3.0 Summary and Discussion of Results ...................................................................................................... 10 

3.1 Objectives and Test Matrix................................................................................................................ 10 

3.2 Pre-Test Evaluation of the FTIR Performance .................................................................................. 11 

3.3 FTIR Field Spiking & Detection Limit Determination...................................................................... 13 

3.4 Acid Stack FTIR Validation Results.................................................................................................. 15 

3.5 Base Stack FTIR Validation Results.................................................................................................. 18 

3.6 FGHG and N2O Emissions................................................................................................................ 19 

4.0 Sampling and Analytical Procedures...................................................................................................... 22 

4.1 Analytical Test Methods.................................................................................................................... 22 

4.1.1 Summary of the FTIR Analytical Method ................................................................................. 22 

4.1.2 FTIR Stack Sampling and Analysis Apparatus......................................................................... 23 

4.2 Stack Flow Measurement Method ..................................................................................................... 24 

4.3 Gas Usage Measurement Method ...................................................................................................... 24 

5.0 QA/QC Activities ................................................................................................................................... 25 

5.1 EPA Method 320 Deviations ............................................................................................................. 25 

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Summary of the Test Program 

This report describes the results of emission stack testing conducted at IBM’s 300mm 

semiconductor manufacturing facility in Hopewell Junction, New York, in October 2011. 

International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) is collaborating with the Semiconductor 

Industry Association (“SIA”), SEMATECH/ISMI, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (“EPA”) to develop a stack emissions test and measurement protocol for process green 

house gases that are subject of the Mandatory Reporting Rule, Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 98. The 

purpose of the testing described here is to further the development of a method to estimate the 

emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“FGHG”) and N2O from the stacks of semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities (“fabs”), which can be included as an option for satisfying the reporting 

requirement under a revised Subpart I to 40 CFR Part 98. 

IBM has coordinated the emissions measurement activities with the EPA Climate Change 

Division, the EPA OAQPS, Matheson Inc., Columbia Analytical, and Sanborn Head Engineering. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 1 of 25 
FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy) testing was performed by Matheson. Gas usage 

data were collected by Sanborn Head Engineering and IBM personnel. Stack flow and moisture 

measurements were performed by personnel from Columbia Analytical and IBM. Kirsten Cappel 

from the EPA and Deborah Harris, of ICF, an EPA contractor, observed the testing. During the 

testing, a teleconference was conducted to describe the test activities to Deborah Ottinger of the 

EPA Climate Change Division, and to Drs. Ray Merrill and Dennis Mikel of the EPA Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). 

This document is patterned after EPA GD-043 guidance for reporting the results of stack testing. 

The principal goals of this work have been to develop, validate, and report the results from an 

enhanced FTIR measurement method that was setup to quantify greenhouse gas emissions at lowppbv to ppmv concentration levels from semiconductor fab stacks. Pursuant to those goals, IBM 

has: 

1. Measured the emissions of designated fluorinated greenhouse gases (FGHGs) and N2O 

in the Acid and Base emission stacks at the IBM 300mm fab using EPA FTIR Method 

320; 

2. Contemporaneously measured the flow rate, temperature and moisture content of the 

stack emissions using EPA Methods 1, 2 and 3; 

3. Collected process gas usage data during the sampling period to relate the activity and 

emissions on the day of the testing to the emissions. 

The Acid and Base exhaust gas stack systems were measured at IBM’s B323 300mm wafer size 

production Fab, in Hopewell Junction, New York. The acid and base gas exhaust systems collect 

abated exhaust gas from CVD chamber clean, and plasma etch processes, along with the exhaust 

from other semiconductor processing tools (equipment). Every FGHG using manufacturing tool 

at IBM’s 300mm Fab is abated with a point of use (POU) abatement system, that is designed 

specifically for fluorinated gas abatement. The POU abatement units consist of a high 

temperature thermal abatement module and a wet scrubber module. Additionally, both the acid 

and base gas exhaust systems are fitted with a “house” wet scrubber system which scrubs acid 

and base components from the exhaust systems, respectively. 

In total, three emission points were measured; two acid exhaust stacks that are manifolded 

together, and a base exhaust stack; all of which are located on IBM’s building B323 Fab. The 

measured emissions points constitute all of the acid and base gas exhausts from the B323 Fab, 

and are estimated to represent greater than 70 % of the process FGHG and N2O emissions from 

the B323 Fab. An additional 11 stacks on B323 are connected to what is referred to the “general” 

exhaust system, which was not sampled during this test program. Due to the fact that; a) only a 

portion of the B323 Fab GHG emissions were sampled during the test; and b) the gas usage was 

not apportioned to a specific stack system, emissions factors could not be calculated for this test. 

Details regarding the emission points, including both schematic and mechanical drawings, are 

described in the appendix. 

Table 1-1 lists the key analytes for which reporting under Subpart I of the MRR is required, and 

which are used at IBM’s 300mm fab. These analytes are the subject of this test report, and with 

the exception of N2O, are referred to collectively throughout this report as FGHG. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 2 of 25 
Table 1-1. FGHGs Tested in the IBM 300MM Fab Exhaust Stack. 

Formula Name CAS # 

CF4 Carbon Tetrafluoride/Perfluoromethane 75-73-0 

CHF3 Trifluoromethane 75-46-7 

NF3 Nitrogen trifluoride 7783-54-2 

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride 2551-62-4 

N2O Nitrous oxide 10024-97-2 

c-C4F8 Octafluorocyclobutane 115-25-3 

C2F6 Hexafluoroethane/ Perfluoroethane 76-16-4 

The IBM 300mm fab is located in Hopewell Junction, New York, and is representative of an 

advanced logic manufacturing and development facility. The testing was conducted from October 

3 through October 6, 2011. 

1.2 Key Personnel 

The key personnel who were involved in conducting and observing the test program, along with 

their contact information are listed in Figure 1-1. 

Figure 1-1. Personnel Involved in the IBM 300mm Fab Stack Testing for FGHG. 

Organization Name email phone Org Name email phone

IBM 300mm Env 

Eng Bruce Tripp SIA David Isaacs

IBM 

Microelectonics David Speed ISMI Laurie Beu

EPA Branch Name email phone EPA 

Branch Name email phone

Climate Change 

Division Kirsten Cappel OAQPS Ray Merril

Climate Change 

Division Debbie Ottinger OAQPS Dennis Mikel

ICF Consultant 

to EPA Deborah Harris

Name email phone Name email phone Name email phone

Applied 

Technology Field 

Manager

Dan Davia Proj Dir Claire Lund, 

PE Proj Lead Jeff Stringer

VP David Shea, 

PE Proj Lead Lisa Schafer

EPA CLIMATE CHANGE DIVISION EPA OAQPS

IBM TRADE ORGANIZATIONS

MATHESON SANBORN, HEAD ENGINEERING COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL

1.3 Organization of this Report 

This report follows the format recommended by EPA GD 043. 

 Section 2 of the report provides background information on the facility, its manufacturing 

processes, and exhaust stack systems. 

 Section 3 describes the results of the testing. 

 Section 4 describes the methods used to perform the testing. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 3 of 25 
 Section 5 notes some specific QC/QA observations. 

2.0 Plant and Sampling Location Description 

2.1 Process Equipment 

IBM’s 300mm fab uses the subject FGHGs in two basic types of wafer fabrication equipment, 

known as “tools”: 

 CVD tools; and 

 Plasma etch tools. 

The FGHGs that are fed to these tools, undergo chemical decomposition twice; first, within the 

manufacturing tool itself, and second, within POU thermal abatement equipment. The POU 

abatement systems are installed in-line with the tool, and specifically designed to abate the 

emissions of the subject FGHGs. All of IBM’s 300mm manufacturing tools that use FGHG are 

equipped with POU FGHG abatement. 

The extent of decomposition that a particular gas undergoes is related to the bond strengths of the 

component molecules, the aggressiveness of the plasma reaction chamber conditions within the 

manufacturing tools, and the abatement system Destruction-Removal Efficiency (“DRE”). In the 

plasma tools, the extent of decomposition ranges from a high of approximately 95 % for NF3 that 

is used in “remote chamber CVD plasma clean processes”, to a low of about 10 % in certain CF4

in plasma etch processes. 

The plasma etch and CVD chamber clean processes are conducted as batch operations that 

typically occur over a few minute duration, and which are generally run in rapid succession on a 

large number of tools. The manufacture of a single wafer may require more than100 individual 

plasma etch operations, and a typical fab manufactures several hundred to several thousand 

wafers per day. For example, IBM’s 300mm fab has nearly 200 plasma tools, which are operated 

24 hours per day over a 7 day work week to produce on the order of 500 wafers per day. 

Although the individual plasma etch and chamber clean operations are conducted as batch 

processes, they run concurrently, in rapid succession on a large number of tools which exhaust 

through a relatively small number of stacks. 

The exhaust gas from CVD and plasma etch tools is routed to a POU thermal abatement/wet 

scrubber device as illustrated schematically in Figure 2-1. In the POU device, the tool exhaust 

components undergo thermal decomposition, resulting in the conversion of FGHGs, and the 

production of inorganic acids, including hydrofluoric acid. A typical POU device is also equipped 

with an onboard wet scrubber downstream of the thermal abatement chamber, within which the 

acids are removed. The subject FGHGs are highly volatile, non-soluble gasses that are unaffected 

by the wet scrubber. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 4 of 25 
Figure 2-1. Typical Interconnections between Fab Gas Supply1

, FGHG-using Tool, and 

Abatement Unit. 

The treated exhaust gas from the POU devices is routed to a house exhaust system, which 

depending upon the particular exhaust system, may be connected to an acid scrubber, a base 

scrubber, or a general exhaust system which does not contain a scrubber. Figure 2-2 illustrates 

schematically, the routing of plasma tools through an exhaust stack system. 

The B323 acid exhaust system consists of 5 conventional acid scrubbers, which utilize a caustic 

scrubber liquor (NaOH) and are manifolded into two stacks. The plasma manufacturing tools 

that feed into the B323 exhaust system are listed in Table 2-1. A schematic drawing of the 

B323A acid stack is shown in Figure 2-3, where it can be noted that the stacks have a slight 

asymmetric orientation, such that there is a higher flow rate through Acid stack B. Detailed 

drawings regarding the B323 Acid exhaust stack sample points are provided in the appendix. 

 

1

 In many fabs, including IBM’s 300mm fab, the gas may be supplied from a very large container (in some 

cases a tube trailer) and distributed by manifolds to tools throughout the fab. Figure 2-1 illustrates the feed 

gas supplied from a local gas cabinet. However, this is only one of the manners in which gases are supplied 

within IBM’s 300mm fab. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 5 of 25 
Figure 2-2. Conceptual Illustration of the Relation between the Manufacturing Tools and 

the B323 Acid Exhaust System. 

CFM LOADS

Acid Stack A = 60,083

Acid Stack B = 63,036

Input Scrub A = 25,307

Input Scrub B = 24,355

Input Scrub C = 26,997

Input Scrub D = 27,824

Input Scrub E = 24,058

Acid

Scrub 

B

Acid

Scrub 

C

Acid

Scrub 

D

Acid

Scrub 

E

Acid

Scrub 

A

Acid Stack B

Sample location

Acid Stack A

Sample location

ABCDE

• Natural gas

• Oxygen gas

Fgas ... N

Fgas 2

Wafers

POU 

Emission 

control 

device

Plasma 

Etch or 

CVD tool

Fgas 1

• Natural gas

• Oxygen gas

Fgas ... N

Fgas 2

Wafers

POU 

Emission 

control 

device

Plasma 

Etch or 

CVD tool

Fgas 1

D.E. Speed

Exhaust manifold system collects the individual 

tool exhausts from throughout the Fab

Table 2-1 summarizes the principal characteristics of the exhaust systems in the three buildings at 

IBM’s 300mm fab where FGHGs and N2O are used. There are nearly 200 FGHG using tools and 

14 sample points; with a few stacks having almost negligible Fgas use. 

Table 2-1. IBM EFK Fab Building Exhaust System Characteristics. 

Building System # 

stacks

# 

sample 

points

tot flow 

(cfm)

B323 Acid 2 2 128,047

B323 Base 1 1 50,069

B323 General 7 7 297,255

B323A Acid 2 1 52,011

B323A Base 3 1 20,032

B320 200mm C4 Acid 1 1 32,944

B320 300mm C4 Acid 1 1 43,607

Totals: 14 619,420

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 6 of 25 
Figure 2-3. B323 Acid Exhaust Schematic (see Appendix 2 for detail drawing) 

Acid

Scrub 

B

Acid

Scrub 

C

Acid

Scrub 

D

Acid

Scrub 

E

Acid

Scrub 

A

Acid Stack A

Sample extraction point

Acid Stack B

Sample extraction point

MFG Floor and Subfab Laterals

A

ABCDE

B/323 Acid Exhaust

Acid

Scrub 

B

Acid

Scrub 

C

Acid

Scrub 

D

Acid

Scrub 

E

Acid

Scrub 

A

Acid Stack A

Sample extraction point

Acid Stack B

Sample extraction point

MFG Floor and Subfab Laterals

A

ABCDE

B/323 Acid Exhaust

The B323 base exhaust system consists of four conventional base scrubbers, which utilize an 

acidic (H2SO4) scrubber liquor and are connected by manifold into a single stack. A summary of 

the manufacturing tools that are connected to the B323 base exhaust system is listed in Table 2-1. 

A schematic drawing of the B323 base stack is shown in Figure 2-4. Detailed drawings regarding 

the B323 base exhaust stack sample points are provided in the Appendix. 

Figure 2-4. B323 Base Exhaust Schematic (see Appendix 2 for detailed drawing) 

Base

Scrub 

B

Base

Scrub 

C

Base

Scrub 

D

Base

Scrub 

A

Base Stack 

Sample location

Sampling locations for 

each Scrub Input

CFM LOADS

Base Output Stack = 48,663

Input Scrub A = 12,906

Input Scrub B = 13,058

Input Scrub C = 12,741

Input Scrub D = 14,240

A

ABCD

MFG Floor and Subfab Laterals

B/323 Base Exhaust

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 7 of 25 
Figure 2-5 illustrates the B323 General exhaust system, which was not monitored during this test. 

Figure 2-5. B323 General Exhaust Schematic. 

EF1A EF1B EF1C EF1D EF1E EF1F EF1G

MFG Floor and Subfab Laterals

B/323 General Exhaust

All sampling ports are on the output of each fan

CFM LOADS

General EF1A = 36,602

General EF1B = 33,428

General EF1C = 36,350

General EF1D = 44,449

General EF1 E = 43,775

General EF1F = 40,128

General EF1G = 44,078

2.2 Control Equipment 

The emissions from individual FGHG using process tools are routed through a POU abatement 

device as described above, and then combined into an exhaust manifold system. Depending upon 

the characteristics of the process emissions, the exhaust gas may then be routed through an acid , 

a base scrubber, or the general exhaust system. Due to the fact that the POU abatement devices 

have integral wet scrubber systems that remove acid gas products, there is latitude to route them 

somewhat arbitrarily to any of these exhaust systems. Consequently, the exhaust from FGHG 

using tools have been routed to all three types of exhaust systems in B323 (acid, base, and 

general). As noted earlier, on the order of 70 % of the FGHG and N2O exhaust from B323 is 

routed thru the 2 acid and 1 base exhaust stacks that were tested during this program. 

All of the IBM 300mm manufacturing tools that use FGHGs are equipped with POU abatement 

that has been specifically designed to thermally decompose FGHG, and are installed with a 

design interlock2

 such that a tool can not operate unless the abatement system is operating. A 

failure in the abatement system results in an immediate purge and shut down of all the FGHG 

tools, except for five particular tools. For those five individual tools, if there is a failure in the 

POU, the tool remains operative until the processing of the particular wafer set is completed 

(typically on the order of minutes), and then the tool is prevented from processing additional 

wafers3

. Since all FGHG using tools have abatement, and the tools can not operate unless its 

 

2

 The incorporation of an interlock that prevents process tools from operating unless the associated POU 

abatement system is operating was a design “groundrule” decision that was made at the time that IBM’s 

300mm Fab was designed, and may be unique to IBM’s 300mm fabs. 

3

 These 5 particular tools operate in this manner for safety reasons. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 8 of 25 
POU abatement system is operating, the POU abatement systems at IBM’s 300mm fab effectively 

have 100 % uptime. 

All of the POU abatement systems are manufactured by Edwards and are designed to treat the 

FGHGs in two stages (e.g., Stage 1 burner and Stage 2 counter current packed column). A 

variety of different Edwards POU abatement model types are currently being used at the facility, 

but all of the POU can be categorized according to whether they abate using a “High Fire” mode, 

or not. In High Fire mode, oxygen is injected and the POU abatement process unit is optimized in 

a way that provides a very high level of DRE for fluorinated gases. 

IBM’s 300mm plasma etch tools are all configured with the “High Fire” POU abatement 

capability. The Edwards POU model names used in the etch POU abatement fleet include; 

Thermal Processing Units (TPU), Kronis TPU, Atlas TPU, and Zenith TPU. 

IBM’s 300mm CVD and Furnace tools only use NF3 which is largely destroyed by the plasma 

condition within these tools. More than half of the CVD tools use a remote plasma chamber clean 

process, within which the NF3 destruction is on the order of 95 % or greater. The POU abatement 

devices for CVD and Furnaces typically do not have High Fire capability and the DRE of these 

units is generally greater than 70% (of the residual NF3 from the process). The Edwards POU 

abatement unit model names installed on CVD and furnaces include; Thermal Conditioning 

Systems (TCS), TPU (without High Fire capability), Kronis TCS, and Atlas TCS. 

The B/323 Acid Exhaust System consists of five counter current Ceilcote scrubbers with pH and 

conductivity control. The scrubber systems add sodium hydroxide when pH drops below the setpoint. The scrubbers automatically “blow down” (i.e., send some scrubber liquid to waste, and 

replace it with fresh water) when the conductivity reaches the set-point. Acids treated in the (acid) 

scrubbers include HCL, HF, HBr, Cl2, HNO3, H2SO4, and H3PO4. 

The B/323 Base Exhaust System consists of four counter current Ceilcote scrubbers with pH and 

conductivity control. The scrubber systems add sulfuric acid when the pH rises above the setpoint. The scrubbers automatically blow down when the conductivity reaches the set-point. 

Ammonia and ammonium hydroxide are the most common chemicals treated in the base exhaust 

scrubbers. 

Table 2-2 lists the concentrations of principal inorganic constituents within IBM’s acid scrubber 

stack emissions. The scrubbers are expected to have negligible impact on the targeted FGHG 

analytes for the aforementioned reasons (e.g., non-polar, highly volatile). Likewise, based upon 

the very low measured concentrations of these constituents within stack exhaust, the constituents 

are not anticipated to have a material impact on the sample collection, storage, or analysis. 

Table 2-2. B323 Acid Scrubber Inorganic Concentrations. 

Stack A Stack B Stack A Stack B Stack A Stack B Stack A Stack B Stack A Stack B Stack A Stack B Stack A Stack B Stack A Stack B Stack A Stack B

429 345 501 438 186 160 432 352 178 159 131 131 356 311 37 280 69 147

B/323 Acid Scrubber - Average 2008 thru 2010 measured concentrations (ug/m3)

HNO3 Output H3PO4 Output HF OutPut HCL Output HBr Output Br2 Output Cl2 Output NH3 Output H2SO4 Output

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 9 of 25 
2.3 Stack Sampling Locations 

The sample locations were described qualitatively in Section 2. The Appendix contains detailed 

diagrams and other pertinent information regarding the sampling locations. The stack sampling 

locations meet EPA Method 1 sample point criteria. 

3.0 Summary and Discussion of Results 

3.1 Objectives and Test Matrix 

The purpose of the testing described in this report is to further the development of a method for 

measuring the emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases (FGHGs) and N2O from the stacks of 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities (Fabs), which can be included as an option for satisfying 

the reporting requirement under a revised Subpart I to 40 CFR Part 98. 

Specific objectives of the testing were to: 

 Perform FTIR method validation using EPA Method 320 

 Establish the FTIR Field detection limits 

 Measure the Fgas and N2O concentrations at the B323 Acid and Base stacks using FTIR 

 Measure the stack flow rates at the B323 Acid and Base stacks during the FTIR testing 

 Measure the average gas usage rate for the corresponding test periods 

 Estimate emissions based upon the measures stack flow rates and concentrations. 

Table 3-1 summarizes the test plan in the form of a “test matrix”. The schedule over which the 

onsite testing was conducted is summarized in Figure 3-2. 

Table 3-1. Test Matrix for Oct 3 – 7, 2011 Stack Testing at IBM 300mm Fab. 

Sampling 

Location No. of Runs Sample/Type Pollutant Sampling Method Sampling 

Org

Sample 

Time 

(min)

Analytical method Analytical 

Laboratory

B323 Acid 

Sample Point A 1 Fgas, N2O, and moisture Extractive FTIR Matheson 1000+ Extractive FTIR via EPA Method 320 Matheson

B323 Acid 

Sample Point B 1 Fgas, N2O, and moisture Extractive FTIR Matheson 1000+ Extractive FTIR via EPA Method 320 Matheson

B323 Base 

Sample Point 1 Fgas, N2O, and moisture Extractive FTIR Matheson 1000+ Extractive FTIR via EPA Method 320 Matheson

B323 Acid 

Sample Point A

2 (begin and end 

of each FTIR test)

Stack velocity and Flow 

rate EPA Methods 1 or 1A Columbia 

Analytical NA NA NA

B323 Acid 

Sample Point B

2 (begin and end 

of each FTIR test)

Stack velocity and Flow 

rate EPA Methods 1 or 1A Columbia 

Analytical NA NA NA

B323 Base 

Sample Point

2 (begin and end 

of each FTIR test)

Stack velocity and Flow 

rate EPA Methods 1 or 1A Columbia 

Analytical NA NA NA

Gas supply to 

B323 

Througout 

duration of FTIR 

Runs

Gas usage

Gas pressure or weight change 

and/or flow depending upon the best 

available method for a given gas

Sanborn 

Head 

Engineerig 

NA NA NA

Gas Supply to 

B323 Acid Stack 

Sample Point B

Througout 

duration of FTIR 

Runs

Gas usage

Gas pressure or weight change 

and/or flow depending upon the best 

available method for a given gas

Sanborn 

Head 

Engineerig 

NA NA NA

Gas supply to 

B323 Base stack 

Sample Point

Througout 

duration of FTIR 

Runs

Gas usage

Gas pressure or weight change 

and/or flow depending upon the best 

available method for a given gas

Sanborn 

Head 

Engineerig 

NA NA NA

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 10 of 25 
Figure 3-2. Test Schedule 

The stack tests were performed over continuous periods with specific start and stop times as listed 

in Table 3-2. 

Table 3-2. Test Start and Stop Times. 

Test duration

B323 Stack Start Stop (hrs)

Acid B 10/3/2011 22:01 10/4/2011 15:03 17.03

Acid A 10/4/2011 19:43 10/5/2011 13:55 18.20

Base 10/5/2011 16:08 10/6/2011 10:32 18.40

FTIR Testing Start/Stop Times:

3.2 Pre-Test Evaluation of the FTIR Performance 

The FTIR testing was performed by personnel from Matheson, using an FTIR that was rented 

from IMACC. Prior to bringing the FTIR to the IBM New York site, Matheson set-up and 

evaluated the performance of the FTIR system at their facility in Colorado. 

The pre-test evaluations involved analyte spiking at concentrations near those anticipated within 

the IBM EFK facility stacks, but used ambient laboratory air at the Matheson facility in Colorado. 

With reference to Figure 4-1; the gas spiking was conducted with the use of a mass flow 

controller (MFC-1) to mix a specified flow rate, QMFC-1, of a NIST traceable multicomponent gas 

standard, with known concentration levels, Cstd, into the ambient sample air stream. The 

combined flow was directed through a gas dryer such that the total flow, QMFM, entering the 

FTIR could be measured using the mass flow meter (MFM). The cell pressure was 

maintained at 600 +/- 20 Torr and the sweep side of the dryer was maintained at < -17 in Hg 

by adjusting the needle valve V7. The expected spike concentration, Cs, for a given analyte, 

excluding contribution from its native concentration in the sample stream was then calculated 

according to equation (3.2-1) 

Raw Spike Conc =    

    000,1 1     ppmvC sccmQ

Q sccm ppbvC std

MFM

MFC

s (3.2-1) 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 11 of 25 
The results of the pretest spiking evaluation are reported in Table 3-3; which lists the relative 

standard deviation for both unspiked and spiked values, bias, and correction factor; which have 

been identified by EPA Method 301 (section 6.3) as the key data quality indicators (DQI) for the 

method. 

It can be noted that the unspiked concentrations values for SF6, N2O, and CHF3 all contain one or 

more negative concentration values. Although the relative standard deviation (RSD) values for 

some of the unspiked concentration values are relatively large, the EPA Method 301 DQIs were 

all met; and the relative standard deviations for the spiked concentration values are all well within 

acceptable parameters. Overall, the pre-test evaluation results demonstrate that the analytical 

method has high precision for the spiked analytes. 

Statistically significant bias levels did exist for several of the components. Although we do not 

know the true cause for the small but statistically significant bias, it is conceivable that it is the 

result of a difference between the gas standards that were used to build the instrument calibrations 

and the separate set of gas standards tht were used for the spiking exercise4

. However, the biases 

found in the pre-test evaluation were not applied to the final data. At the time of the field testing, 

the spiking procedure was repeated and only those biases that were established as significant 

during the on-site field testing were applied to the final reported concentration values that were 

used for Fab emissions determinations. 

 

 

4

 We have no evidence of this, but it is not an uncommon experience. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 12 of 25 
Table 3-3. Results of the Pre-test Spiking Evaluations Conducted at the Matheson Facility. 

Note: Columns containing spiked values are titled “S” and columns of un-spiked values are titled “US”. The key data 

quality indicators (DQI) are highlighted in green. The yellow cells indicate that the bias level was statistically 

significant. 

3.3 FTIR Field Spiking & Detection Limit Determination 

Following the pre-test evaluations at the Matheson facility in Colorado, the Matheson team 

brought the FTIR system to IBM’s East Fishkill NY facility and assembled it on the roof of 

building 323. As indicated in Table 3-2, the FTIR was first connected to Acid Stack B, then 

Acid Stack A, and finally the Base stack. 

During operation, the cell and extraction line temperatures were PID controlled at 30o C, or 

above the dew point of water vapor at 1 atm assuming saturation in air. During the stack 

sampling the FTIR was configured to scan for 7.50 minutes (535 co-added scans) in order to 

generate each data point. Continuous sampling and analysis were used on all stacks tested in 

this study. 

The spectral resolution used in IMACC’s analytical method was held proprietary by IMACC 

and is not addressed in this report. However, the same spectral resolution was used for all 

calibration spectra, backgrounds, and measured sample spectra. A new background was 

collected in nitrogen prior to stack sampling with the instrument configured to scan for 7.14 

minutes (500 co-added scans) in producing each data point. Backgrounds were collected 

only after purging the cell with > 10 cell volumes of nitrogen, and the optical bench was 

continually purged also with nitrogen. Scanning durations for both stack sampling and 

background collection were sufficient to exceed the data spacing requirement for individual 

samples stipulated by Method 320. Pressure decay testing from 1000 +/- 10 Torr was used to 

test the apparatus for leaks prior to beginning sampling, and a leak rate of 1.76 ml/min was 

observed over a 20 minute period assuming a fixed volume of 12 liters. Sample flows were 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 13 of 25 
continually extracted from the Acid B stack and passed through the particle filter, dryer, 

MFM, the FTIR, and finally the pump with continuous data collection ongoing. Adjustment 

of valve-7 (Figure 4-2) was used to produce stable cell pressures at 610 +/- 20 Torr, which 

resulted in a dryer-shell pressure below -18 in Hg and a sample flow rate of 14.0 SLPM. 

The Acid Stack B sampling period spanned 17 hours. The source of house supplied nitrogen 

gas (N2) was depleted sometime after the first hour of sampling, so the majority of the data 

collected on the Acid B stack was done with the optics bench full of ambient air rather than 

N2. This had little or no effect on the data as the sample gas contained relatively high levels 

of these same atmospheric gases. The nitrogen gas supply was replenished after sampling the 

Acid Stack B and it remained available for the duration of the testing. 

 

Acid Stack A was sampled using the identical system configuration and procedure as 

described above for Acid Stack B. Average flows were 13.5 SLPM during the 18.2 hours of 

sampling conducted on Acid Stack A. 

 

Sampling of the Base Stack was also accomplished using the same procedure as for the Acid 

stacks, but with a slightly different instrumental configuration for stack sampling. The scan 

durations were shortened to 5.0 minutes (321 co-added scans) due to the high flow rate 

achieved through the system. The independent sample criteria stipulated by Method 320 of 5 

cell volumes between data point was not sacrificed in shortening scan durations. The average 

sample flow rate observed during testing of the Base stack was 13.4 SLPM and sampling 

spanned 18.4 hours. 

Table 3-4 lists the concentrations of the standard gas and the final diluted values of the field 

spikes. It was impractical to spike all analytes of interest during this study so analyte 

surrogates were used as allowed by Method 320. In particular, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was 

used as a surrogate for c-C4F8 based on the similarity in absorptivity of these two species. 

Table 3-4. Gas Standards and Final Diluted Spike Concentrations. 

The detection limits (DL) for the EFTIR were measured on the system as it was installed in 

the field. DLs were statistically determined by calculating two times the standard deviation 

(~ 95% confidence level) of 12 air blanks continuously collected on ambient air samples 

drawn from the roof that were maintained at test flows, pressures, and temperatures over a 1 

hour period. The same analytical method and instrumental configuration, as used in sampling 

all stacks, was used in collecting the blanks for determining the DLs , and a background 

spectrum in nitrogen was used.

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 14 of 25 
Table 3-5 lists the values determined for the field detection limits. These values are 

commensurate with previously determined detection limits reported by IMACC. The DL for N2O 

is 1,716 ppbv, which is substantially higher than for the fluorinated gases. Fortunately, the 

measured stack concentrations for N2O were also significantly higher than stack concentrations 

measured for the fluorinated gases, and so the relatively high DL for N2O does not negate the use 

of stack data for N2O. Also, we note that the ambient atmospheric concentrations of N2O are on 

the order of 320 ppbv, and therefore it is appropriate that the DL for N2O be higher than for the 

FGHGs. 

Table 3-5. Field Detection Limits. 

3.4 Acid Stack FTIR Validation Results 

The method validation was conducted per the procedures in EPA Method 320, Section 13. 

Two NIST traceable gas standards were employed, each with a reported ≤ +/- 5% accuracy. 

One standard comprised a multicomponent fluorinated gas standard, and the other contained 

only N2O. The concentration of each constituent in the standard, along with the respective 

diluted spiked concentration value, is listed in Table 3-4. Due to scheduling constraints, only 

a single spiked concentration level was employed in the validations. The fluorinated gas 

standard was used in the validation conducted at Acid Stack B stack; and the N2O standard 

was used for the validation conducted at the Base Stack 

Stack flows were drawn through the sampling system while a controlled flow of the 

appropriate gas standard was spiked into the sample flow via valve V-6. The spiking was 

conducted using alternating replicate pairs of unspiked and then spiked samples. In order to 

ensure sample independence, at least 10 cell volumes of the appropriate sample stream 

(spiked vs. unspiked) were passed through the FTIR between data points. The final spiked 

concentration delivered to the FTIR was calculated based on the total and spiked flow rates, 

and the concentration of the gas standard, as described previously relative to equation 3.2-1. 

The concentrations of the spikes were targeted largely on the basis of the expected CF4 

concentration levels in the stacks. 

Table 3-6 lists the results of the sample spiking into Acid Stack B, along with the values of 

the key data quality indicators. Note that the cells in this table are color coded as follows: 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 15 of 25 
 green cells indicate satisfactory achievement of the validation criteria 

 yellow cells indicate that a bias correction was warranted, and employed

 red cells indicate a species that has failed one of the method validation requirements

It can be noted that the unspiked NF3 method validation data contain a mix of negative and 

positive concentration values, and that the relative standard deviation for the unspiked NF3 data is 

135.8 %, which is high, and fails the Method 301 data quality thresholds. However, the average 

recover of the corresponding spiked levels of NF3 is 95%, and the relative standard deviation of 

the spiked NF3 is 13.7 %. Thus, whereas NF3 fails the Method 301 data quality objectives 

because of variability in the low unspiked levels; the spiked concentration values are well 

behaved. 

The root cause of the negative values determined for the unspiked NF3 concentrations is 

unknown; however, we believe that refinement of the spectral region used to quantify NF3

may reduce or remove the cause of the negative returns seen for this species. 

CHF3 likewise failed the Method 301 validation criteria because of variability in the low 

level of unspiked concentrations (RSD = 52.5 %) and not because of the spike performance. 

The average recovery of the CHF3 spikes is 95.6 %, and the relative standard deviation of the 

spiked CHF3 levels is only 1.82 %. 

The other spiked analytes in Acid Stack B: CF4, SF6, and C2F6 all pass the method validation 

criteria. C2F6 does have a significant low bias, but it falls within the acceptable range (0.7 ≤

CF≤ 1.3) for application of a bias correction factor. Accordingly, a bias correction factor of 

1.19 as indicated in Table 3-6 have been applied to the field data collected at both the Acid 

and Base stacks. 

c-C4F8 absorbs in a similar spectral region and with similar intensity as NF3 , and therefore 

NF3 was used as a surrogate for c-C4F8

The team believes that there are a number of relatively simple options for achieving 

successful validations for all of the components in the stacks. These might include the use of 

spikes at multiple concentration values, utilizing spectrally generated backgrounds and/or 

simple tuning of instrument parameters based upon the results reported here. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 16 of 25 
Table 3-6. Method 320 Validation Data for FGHGs at Acid Stack B ( Table 5) 

Figure 3-3. Mean and Standard Deviation for the Native and Spiked Analytes in the 

Acid Stack A Validation. 

Method 320 validation - IBM Acid Stack

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

CF4 NF3 SF6 C2F6 CHF3

ppbv

Native mean Native SDd Spiked mean Spiked Sdd

Time-concentration plots from the FGHG validation test results are shown in Figure 3-4. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 17 of 25 
Figure 3-4. Temporal Concentration Plot of Spiked and Unspiked Replicate Pairs for Gases 

Spiked into the Acid Stack B during the Method Validating Procedure.

3.5 Base Stack FTIR Validation Results 

The method validation at the B323 Base stack was conducted with N2O, only. The results of 

this validation are listed in Table 3-7, along with the statistical analysis per Section 6.3 of 

Method 301. A plot of the time –concentration data associated with the N2O validation test 

are shown in Figure 3-5. All DQIs were satisfied. 

Table 3-7. Results of N2O validation at the B323 Base stack. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 18 of 25 
Figure 3-5. Temporal Concentration Plot of Spiked and Unspiked Replicate Pairs for N2O Spiked 

into the B323 Base Stack. 

 

 

 Overall, the validation results show that the FTIR method is an effective means of measuring 

FGHGs and N2O in semiconductor Fab process stacks. We believe that the minor validation 

issues that were experienced for a few of the species should be readily correctable in future 

testing, and that there are no technical barriers to achieving full validation for all analytes. 

Potential adjustments to the method might include the use of multiple calibrations to alleviate 

any non-linearity that could be due to Beer’s Law deviations or detector response; and/or a 

modification of the signal averaging period. The enhancements that IMACC made to the 

FTIR instrument for the purpose of FGHG stack testing were primarily aimed at increasing 

the sensitivity at very low concentrations. The very low detection limit that were achieved for 

the FGHGs arguably represent an over-achievement relative to the DL that are necessary to 

measure relevant CO2e emission levels from semiconductor fab stacks. 

3.6 FGHG and N2O Emissions 

The measured FGHG and N2O concentrations measured during the B323 Acid Stack A test are 

illustrated in Figure 3-6. The average concentration and stack flow rate values are listed in Table 

3-8, expressed as mass emissions and as CO2e emissions rates. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 19 of 25 
Figure 3-6. Measured Acid Stack A Concentration Data Summary. 

Table 3-8. Calculated Average Emissions from the B323 Acid Stack A

B323 Acid Stack A units CF4 NF3 SF6 N2O cC4F8 C2F6 CHF3

MW (g/g-mole) 88.00 71.00 146.06 44.00 200.02 138.01 70.01

(ug/m3) per ppb (ug/m3)/ppbv 3.60 2.90 5.97 1.80 8.18 5.64 2.86

GWP (g CO2e/g) 7,390 17,200 22,800 310 10,300 12,200 14,800

Avg Conc (ppbv) ppbv 88.49 7.75 18.71 2,712.09 5.57 3.50 3.52

Conc (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 318.47 22.50 111.76 4,879.05 45.56 19.74 10.09

Avg Stack flow (cfm) 59,075 59,075 59,075 59,075 59,075 59,075 59,075

Stack flow (m3/hr) 100,370 100,370 100,370 100,370 100,370 100,370 100,370

Mass emissions (kg/hr) 0.0320 0.0023 0.0112 0.4897 0.0046 0.0020 0.0010

Mass emissions (kg/day) 0.7672 0.0542 0.2692 11.7530 0.1098 0.0476 0.0243

Mass emissions (kg/yr) 280.0 19.8 98.3 4,289.8 40.1 17.4 8.9

CO2e emissions (met ton CO2e/yr) 2,069.3 340.3 2,240.5 1,329.9 412.6 211.8 131.3

The measured FGHG and N2O concentrations measured during the B323 Acid Stack B test are 

illustrated in Figure 3-7. The average concentration and stack flow rate values are listed in Table 

3-9, expressed as mass emissions and as CO2e emissions rates. It can be noted that although the 

B323 Acid Stacks A and B are manifolded together, they have different flow rates and 

concentration values, indicating an uneven split of the mass discharge between the two stacks; 

and which is consistent with their asymmetry relative to the scrubbers. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 20 of 25 
Figure 3-7. Measured Acid Stack B Concentration Data Summary.

Table 3-9. Calculated Average Emissions from the B323 Acid Stack B. B323 Acid Stack B units CF4 NF3 SF6 N2O cC4F8 C2F6 CHF3

MW (g/g-mole) 88.00 71.00 146.06 44.00 200.02 138.01 70.01

(ug/m3) per ppb (ug/m3)/ppbv 3.60 2.90 5.97 1.80 8.18 5.64 2.86

GWP (g CO2e/g) 7,390 17,200 22,800 310 10,300 12,200 14,800

Avg Conc (ppbv) ppbv 217.25 27.70 17.61 2,891.38 6.40 4.46 10.58

Conc (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 781.87 80.43 105.20 5,201.59 52.39 25.17 30.29

Avg Stack flow (cfm) 68,972 68,972 68,972 68,972 68,972 68,972 68,972

Stack flow (m3/hr) 117,185 117,185 117,185 117,185 117,185 117,185 117,185

Mass emissions (kg/hr) 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.61 0.01 0.00 0.00

Mass emissions (kg/day) 2.20 0.23 0.30 14.63 0.15 0.07 0.09

Mass emissions (kg/yr) 802.62 82.57 107.99 5,339.64 53.78 25.83 31.10

CO2e emissions (met ton CO2e/yr) 5,931.34 1,420.20 2,462.16 1,655.29 553.96 315.17 460.26

The measured FGHG and N2O concentrations measured during the B323 Base Stack test are 

illustrated in Figure 3-8. The average concentration and stack flow rate values are listed in Table 

3-10, and expressed as mass emissions and as CO2e emissions rates. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 21 of 25 
Figure 3-8. Measured Base Stack Concentration Data Summary. 

Table 3-10. Calculated Average Emissions from the B323 Base Stack

B323 Base Stack units CF4 NF3 SF6 N2O cC4F8 C2F6 CHF3

MW (g/g-mole) 88.00 71.00 146.06 44.00 200.02 138.01 70.01

(ug/m3) per ppb (ug/m3)/ppbv 3.60 2.90 5.97 1.80 8.18 5.64 2.86

GWP (g CO2e/g) 7,390 17,200 22,800 310 10,300 12,200 14,800

Avg Conc (ppbv) ppbv 100.25 25.79 1.16 7,465.93 3.61 7.04 1.64

Conc (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 360.79 74.89 6.93 13,431.21 29.52 39.71 4.70

Avg Stack flow (cfm) 50,069 50,069 50,069 50,069 50,069 50,069 50,069

Stack flow (m3/hr) 85,068 85,068 85,068 85,068 85,068 85,068 85,068

Mass emissions (kg/hr) 0.0307 0.0064 0.0006 1.1426 0.0025 0.0034 0.0004

Mass emissions (kg/day) 0.7366 0.1529 0.0141 27.4217 0.0603 0.0811 0.0096

Mass emissions (kg/yr) 268.9 55.8 5.2 10,008.9 22.0 29.6 3.5

CO2e emissions (met ton CO2e/yr) 1,986.9 959.9 117.7 3,102.8 226.6 361.0 51.8

4.0 Sampling and Analytical Procedures 

4.1 Analytical Test Methods 

4.1.1 Summary of the FTIR Analytical Method 

The FTIR testing was performed by scientists from the Matheson Advanced Technology Center, 

under contract to IBM, and using a Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) instrument system that 

Matheson rented from IMACC (Industrial Monitoring and Controls Corporation). IMACC refers 

to their FTIR system as an Enhanced Fourier Transform Infrared (EFTIR) to signify the 

modifications they have made to enhance the sensitivity to compounds that appear in the IR 

spectral window from ~ 700 to 1,500 cm-1. IMACC had previously used EPA Method 320 to 

validate the FTIR instrument for FGHGs and N2O at another semiconductor manufacturing 

facility. In addition to the FTIR instrument itself; the analytical methods, calibration spectra, and 

calibrations used in the prior work, were provided by IMACC to Matheson, under a nondisclosure agreement. Accordingly, some aspects of the FTIR instrument system design and 

signal processing were not available to the Matheson team for adjustment or optimization. 

Specific enhancements that were made to the IMACC FTIR system for the purpose of FGHG 

testing include5

: 

 

5 Per discussion with Dr. Curt Laush, IMACC. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 22 of 25 
 A high temperature infrared source that operates several hundred degrees higher than a 

conventional globar blackbody source. This provides more energy in the mid-IR region, 

and helps increases the signal to noise ratio. 

 A custom IR detector with a more sensitive response and a lower dark current in the 

spectral regions where the majority of the FGHGs absorb. 

 Use of spectral regions that are optimized specifically for the FGHGs. 

 A multi-pass cell with an IR path length of 69 meters and an internal volume of 11 liters. 

Under Beer’s Law, the intensity of absorption is proportional to the product of the 

concentration and path length. Thus, increasing the path length provides a means of 

compensating for lower concentrations. 

 Operation of the interferometer at customized scanning parameters to achieve a higher 

signal to noise ratio. 

 Water (interferent) removal from the stack samples using a Nafion dryer. 

4.1.2 FTIR Stack Sampling and Analysis Apparatus 

The sampling and analysis apparatus for the FTIR system was designed to meet the equipment 

criteria detailed in section 6.0 of Method 320; and is illustrated schematically in Figure 4-1. 

The principal components of the sampling system, as illustrated in the figure, are: a sample probe, 

particle filter (>99% efficiency above 0.1 micron), heated 50’ stainless steel sample extraction 

line, stainless steel gas distribution and dilution manifold, calibrated mass flow controllers (MFC), 

a mass flow meter (MFM) for flow control and measurement, a Nafion dryer for water vapor 

control. The sample probe was fabricated to extend into the emission duct by 1/3 of the duct 

diameter and was curved in the direction of flow to reduce particulate ingress into the sample 

stream. 

The dryer consists of a bundle of Nafion hollow fiber tubes contained within a stainless steel 

housing. It is operated by sending the pre-analysis sample stream through the inside of the tubes 

(tube side) at the cell pressure and by flowing the post-analysis sample stream over the outside of 

the tubes (shell side) under a vacuum of -15 to -20 in Hg. Water permeates from the tube side to 

the shell side thus lowering the moisture concentration in the pre-analysis sample. The 

instrument supplier reported that the dryer does not remove FGHGs or N2O from air-based 

sample streams, which is consistent with information regarding Nafion dryers as reported in 

Miller6

 et al (2008). 

 

6 Miller, B., R. Weiss, P. Salameh, T. Tanhua, B. Greally, J. Muhle, and P. Simmonds (2008). Medusa: A sample 

preconcentration and GC/MS detector system for insitu measurements of atmospheric trace halocarbons, hydrocarbons, 

and sulfur compounds. Analytical Chemistry. Vol. 80. p.1536-1545.

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 23 of 25 
Figure 4-1. Stack Sampling Train. 

4.2 Stack Flow Measurement Method 

The stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rates were determined at the beginning and 

end of each stack test period using EPA Method 2. The detailed results of the stack flow 

measurements are provided as attachments. 

4.3 Gas Usage Measurement Method 

The gas usage rates were determined during the test period by either cylinder pressure or weight 

measurements, depending upon whether the gas was stored in a pressurized or liquefied gas form, 

respectively. The characteristics of each gas monitored during the B323 test are listed in Table 4-

1. 

Two of the gases, CF4 and NF3 behave as non-ideal gases, and it is necessary to use an equation 

of state relation to determine the gas density from the measured gas pressure and temperature in a 

manner that accounts for the non-ideal behavior (compressibility). The Redlich-Kwong-Soave 

equation of state method was used in this work. 

N2O is supplied from a large tube trailer located outside B323, and is not equipped with a scale. 

Accordingly, N2O usage rates were determined as an average value, from the time record of 

cylinder changes. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 24 of 25 
Table 4-1. Summary of Gas Usage Measurements. 

GHG Storage 

Form

Method of gas 

usage 

measurement

Monitored 

during test 

?

Avg gas 

usage 

(lb/day)

Mass of GHG 

per cylinder (lbs)

Fraction of 

cylinder used 

per hour

Number of 

cylinders 

supplying the area

Areas Supplied 

by the Cylinders

CF4 gas

Pressure - Gas 

Law Y 26.2 675 0.00162 2 Y-cylinders B323 Acid and General Stacks

CHF3 Liquid Weight - Cylinder 

scale Y 3.7 813 0.00019 2 Y-cylinders B323

NF3 Gas Pressure - Gas 

Law Y 221.2 1,200 0.00768 2 cylinders per trailer B323 & B323A

SF6 Liquid Weight - Cylinder 

scale Y 7.3 100 0.00304 6 cylinders B323

N2O Liquid Cylinder change 

rate N 195.2 3,000 0.00271 7 cylinders per trailer B323 & B323A

C4F8 Liquid Weight - Cylinder 

scale Y 2.6 600 0.00018 2 Y-cylinders B323

5.0 QA/QC Activities 

5.1 EPA Method 320 Deviations 

No major procedural deviations from those stipulated by Method 320 and/or 301 were used. 

One deviation was made in the materials used in validating the method. Method 320 

stipulates the use of NIST traceable gas standards with an analytical accuracy of +/- 2%, but 

such standards are not attainable at low concentrations. A certified gas mixture having the 

lowest possible accuracy of +/- 5% was therefore used. 

 

One deviation was also made in calculating the bias for the method validation data. Method 

320 suggests the bias be calculated according to equation 7 which reads: 

 

B = Sm – CS (1) 

 

Where Sm is the measured mean concentration of the spiked analyte and CS is the expected 

concentration (i.e., calculated concentration) of the spiked analyte. This equation does not 

factor in any measured concentration that is native to the stack effluent. Therefore, equation 

301-14 from Method 301 was substituted in calculating the bias. This equation does factor in 

any native concentrations measure in the stack and read as follows: 

 

B = Sm – Mm – CS (2) 

 

The new term Mm is the mean of the unspiked value, or the native analyte concentration. 

 IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 25 of 25 
METHOD 2 - DETERMINATION OF STACK GAS VELOCITY AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date 10/5/2011 1220

Sampling Location Bldg. 323 Acid Scrubber Output "A" Project #

Operator Columbia Analytical Serv # of Ports Used 2

Stack Type Circular Pitot Identification

Pitot Leak Check PreTest PostTest Pitot Coefficient (Cp) 0.84

Stack Dimensions Velocity Traverse Data

Diameter or Length of Stack (D) 66.00 in Run Number V1

Width of Stack (W) in Run Time 60.00

Area of Stack (As) 23.76 ft2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local

Point Head Temp Velocity

Pressures (p) (ts) (vs)l

Barometric Pressure (Pb) 30.20 in Hg in H2O o

F ft/sec

Static Pressure (Pstatic) 0.33 in H2O 1 0.27 66 29.0

Absolute Stack Pressure (Ps) 30.22 in Hg 2 0.39 66 34.9

3 0.44 66 37.0

Stack Gas Composition 4 0.50 66 39.5

Composition Data: Actual Estimated 5 0.50 66 39.5

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%CO2) 1.0 % 6 0.55 66 41.4

Oxygen Concentration (%O2) 21.0 % 7 0.73 66 47.7

Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 0.0 % 8 0.70 66 46.7

Nitrogen Concentration (%N2) 78.0 % 9 0.73 66 47.7

Stack Moisture Content (Bws) 1.800 10 0.83 66 50.9

Stack Dry Molecular Weight (Md) 29.00 lb/lb-mole 11 0.80 66 49.9

Stack Wet Molecular Weight (Ms) 28.80 lb/lb-mole 12 0.63 66 44.3

12 0.60 66 43.2

Results 11 0.70 66 46.7

Avg Stack Gas Velocity (vs) 42.1 ft/sec 10 0.70 66 46.7

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 3585281 dscf/hr 9 0.77 66 49.0

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 59755 dscf/min 8 0.75 66 48.3

Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Qaw) 60009 ascf/min 7 0.75 66 48.3

6 0.57 66 42.1

Stack Cross Section Schematic 5 0.48 66 38.7

4 0.43 66 36.6

3 0.40 66 35.3

2 0.40 66 35.3

1 0.32 66 31.6

(p)1/2

avg

1 0.75 66 1

 Average of the square roots of p

 where (p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2)

Formulas Used

As = DW/Ku for Rectangular Stacks Ts(avg) = 1

/nts + Tu

As = ((D/2)2)/Ku for Circular Stacks where Tu = 273 oK for metric units

 where Ku = 1 for metric units where Tu = 460 o

R for English units

 where Ku = 144 (in2

/ft2) for English units vs = KpCp(p)1/2

avg (Ts(avg)/(PsMs))1/2

Ps = Pbar + Pstatic/13.6 where Kp = 34.97 for metric units

%N2 = 100 - %CO2 - %O2 - %CO where Kp = 85.49 for English units

Md = .44(%CO2) + .32(%O2 ) + .28(%N2 + %CO) Qsd = 3600(1 - Bws)vsAs(Tstd/Ts(avg))(Ps/Pstd)

Ms = Md(1 - Bws) + 18Bws where Tstd = 293 o

K, Pstd = 760 mm Hg, for metric units

(p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2) where Tstd = 528 o

R, Pstd = 29.92 in Hg, for English units

323 Acid Output A 100511 Pre Flows.xls - M2 Page 1 Printed 11/16/2011

V1.15
METHOD 2 - DETERMINATION OF STACK GAS VELOCITY AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date 10/5/2011 1315

Sampling Location Bldg. 323 Acid Scrubber Output "A" Project #

Operator Columbia Analytical Serv # of Ports Used 2

Stack Type Circular Pitot Identification

Pitot Leak Check PreTest PostTest Pitot Coefficient (Cp) 0.84

Stack Dimensions Velocity Traverse Data

Diameter or Length of Stack (D) 66.00 in Run Number V1

Width of Stack (W) in Run Time 60.00

Area of Stack (As) 23.76 ft2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local

Point Head Temp Velocity

Pressures (p) (ts) (vs)l

Barometric Pressure (Pb) 30.20 in Hg in H2O o

F ft/sec

Static Pressure (Pstatic) 0.35 in H2O 1 0.37 66 34.0

Absolute Stack Pressure (Ps) 30.23 in Hg 2 0.33 66 32.1

3 0.35 66 33.0

Stack Gas Composition 4 0.40 66 35.3

Composition Data: Actual Estimated 5 0.47 66 38.3

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%CO2) 1.0 % 6 0.55 66 41.4

Oxygen Concentration (%O2) 21.0 % 7 0.75 66 48.3

Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 0.0 % 8 0.70 66 46.7

Nitrogen Concentration (%N2) 78.0 % 9 0.75 67 48.4

Stack Moisture Content (Bws) 1.800 10 0.75 67 48.4

Stack Dry Molecular Weight (Md) 29.00 lb/lb-mole 11 0.53 67 40.7

Stack Wet Molecular Weight (Ms) 28.80 lb/lb-mole 12 0.60 67 43.3

12 0.55 67 41.4

Results 11 0.67 67 45.7

Avg Stack Gas Velocity (vs) 41.2 ft/sec 10 0.70 67 46.7

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 3503674 dscf/hr 9 0.75 67 48.4

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 58395 dscf/min 8 0.73 67 47.7

Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Qaw) 58715 ascf/min 7 0.75 67 48.4

6 0.60 67 43.3

Stack Cross Section Schematic 5 0.55 67 41.4

4 0.43 67 36.6

3 0.40 67 35.3

2 0.35 67 33.1

1 0.30 67 30.6

(p)1/2

avg

1 0.74 67 1

 Average of the square roots of p

 where (p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2)

Formulas Used

As = DW/Ku for Rectangular Stacks Ts(avg) = 1

/nts + Tu

As = ((D/2)2)/Ku for Circular Stacks where Tu = 273 oK for metric units

 where Ku = 1 for metric units where Tu = 460 o

R for English units

 where Ku = 144 (in2

/ft2) for English units vs = KpCp(p)1/2

avg (Ts(avg)/(PsMs))1/2

Ps = Pbar + Pstatic/13.6 where Kp = 34.97 for metric units

%N2 = 100 - %CO2 - %O2 - %CO where Kp = 85.49 for English units

Md = .44(%CO2) + .32(%O2 ) + .28(%N2 + %CO) Qsd = 3600(1 - Bws)vsAs(Tstd/Ts(avg))(Ps/Pstd)

Ms = Md(1 - Bws) + 18Bws where Tstd = 293 o

K, Pstd = 760 mm Hg, for metric units

(p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2) where Tstd = 528 o

R, Pstd = 29.92 in Hg, for English units

323 Acid Output A 100511 Post Flows.xls - M2 Page 1 Printed 11/16/2011

V1.15
METHOD 2 - DETERMINATION OF STACK GAS VELOCITY AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date 10/4/2011 0830

Sampling Location Bldg. 323 Acid Scrubber Output "B" Project # Pre Stack Flows 

Operator Columbia Analytical Serv # of Ports Used 2

Stack Type Circular Pitot Identification

Pitot Leak Check PreTest PostTest Pitot Coefficient (Cp) 0.84

Stack Dimensions Velocity Traverse Data

Diameter or Length of Stack (D) 66.00 in Run Number V1

Width of Stack (W) in Run Time 60.00

Area of Stack (As) 23.76 ft2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local

Point Head Temp Velocity

Pressures (p) (ts) (vs)l

Barometric Pressure (Pb) 30.20 in Hg in H2O o

F ft/sec

Static Pressure (Pstatic) 0.29 in H2O 1 0.55 68 41.5

Absolute Stack Pressure (Ps) 30.22 in Hg 2 0.75 68 48.4

3 0.76 68 48.8

Stack Gas Composition 4 0.77 68 49.1

Composition Data: Actual Estimated 5 0.78 68 49.4

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%CO2) 1.0 % 6 0.76 68 48.8

Oxygen Concentration (%O2) 21.0 % 7 0.77 68 49.1

Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 0.0 % 8 0.78 68 49.4

Nitrogen Concentration (%N2) 78.0 % 9 0.76 68 48.8

Stack Moisture Content (Bws) 1.800 10 0.76 68 48.8

Stack Dry Molecular Weight (Md) 29.00 lb/lb-mole 11 0.77 68 49.1

Stack Wet Molecular Weight (Ms) 28.80 lb/lb-mole 12 0.79 68 49.7

12 0.78 68 49.4

Results 11 0.78 68 49.4

Avg Stack Gas Velocity (vs) 48.5 ft/sec 10 0.77 68 49.1

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 4112730 dscf/hr 9 0.78 68 49.4

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 68545 dscf/min 8 0.77 68 49.1

Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Qaw) 69106 ascf/min 7 0.78 68 49.4

6 0.76 68 48.8

Stack Cross Section Schematic 5 0.78 68 49.4

4 0.77 68 49.1

3 0.74 68 48.1

2 0.76 68 48.8

1 0.59 68 43.0

(p)1/2

avg

1 0.87 68 1

 Average of the square roots of p

 where (p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2)

Formulas Used

As = DW/Ku for Rectangular Stacks Ts(avg) = 1

/nts + Tu

As = ((D/2)2)/Ku for Circular Stacks where Tu = 273 oK for metric units

 where Ku = 1 for metric units where Tu = 460 o

R for English units

 where Ku = 144 (in2

/ft2) for English units vs = KpCp(p)1/2

avg (Ts(avg)/(PsMs))1/2

Ps = Pbar + Pstatic/13.6 where Kp = 34.97 for metric units

%N2 = 100 - %CO2 - %O2 - %CO where Kp = 85.49 for English units

Md = .44(%CO2) + .32(%O2 ) + .28(%N2 + %CO) Qsd = 3600(1 - Bws)vsAs(Tstd/Ts(avg))(Ps/Pstd)

Ms = Md(1 - Bws) + 18Bws where Tstd = 293 o

K, Pstd = 760 mm Hg, for metric units

(p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2) where Tstd = 528 o

R, Pstd = 29.92 in Hg, for English units

323 Acid Output B 100511 Pre Flows.xls - M2 Page 1 Printed 11/16/2011

V1.15
METHOD 2 - DETERMINATION OF STACK GAS VELOCITY AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date 10/4/2011 1500

Sampling Location Bldg. 323 Acid Scrubber Output "B" Project # Post Stack Flows 

Operator Columbia Analytical Serv # of Ports Used 2

Stack Type Circular Pitot Identification

Pitot Leak Check PreTest PostTest Pitot Coefficient (Cp) 0.84

Stack Dimensions Velocity Traverse Data

Diameter or Length of Stack (D) 66.00 in Run Number V1

Width of Stack (W) in Run Time 60.00

Area of Stack (As) 23.76 ft2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local

Point Head Temp Velocity

Pressures (p) (ts) (vs)l

Barometric Pressure (Pb) 30.20 in Hg in H2O o

F ft/sec

Static Pressure (Pstatic) 0.28 in H2O 1 0.61 67 43.6

Absolute Stack Pressure (Ps) 30.22 in Hg 2 0.75 67 48.4

3 0.79 67 49.7

Stack Gas Composition 4 0.79 67 49.7

Composition Data: Actual Estimated 5 0.77 67 49.0

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%CO2) 1.0 % 6 0.77 67 49.0

Oxygen Concentration (%O2) 21.0 % 7 0.78 67 49.3

Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 0.0 % 8 0.76 67 48.7

Nitrogen Concentration (%N2) 78.0 % 9 0.78 67 49.3

Stack Moisture Content (Bws) 1.800 10 0.79 67 49.7

Stack Dry Molecular Weight (Md) 29.00 lb/lb-mole 11 0.79 67 49.7

Stack Wet Molecular Weight (Ms) 28.80 lb/lb-mole 12 0.79 67 49.7

12 0.78 67 49.3

Results 11 0.78 67 49.3

Avg Stack Gas Velocity (vs) 48.7 ft/sec 10 0.77 67 49.0

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 4138296 dscf/hr 9 0.76 67 48.7

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 68972 dscf/min 8 0.78 67 49.3

Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Qaw) 69405 ascf/min 7 0.75 67 48.4

6 0.74 67 48.1

Stack Cross Section Schematic 5 0.76 67 48.7

4 0.77 67 49.0

3 0.78 67 49.3

2 0.78 67 49.3

1 0.62 67 44.0

(p)1/2

avg

1 0.87 67 1

 Average of the square roots of p

 where (p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2)

Formulas Used

As = DW/Ku for Rectangular Stacks Ts(avg) = 1

/nts + Tu

As = ((D/2)2)/Ku for Circular Stacks where Tu = 273 oK for metric units

 where Ku = 1 for metric units where Tu = 460 o

R for English units

 where Ku = 144 (in2

/ft2) for English units vs = KpCp(p)1/2

avg (Ts(avg)/(PsMs))1/2

Ps = Pbar + Pstatic/13.6 where Kp = 34.97 for metric units

%N2 = 100 - %CO2 - %O2 - %CO where Kp = 85.49 for English units

Md = .44(%CO2) + .32(%O2 ) + .28(%N2 + %CO) Qsd = 3600(1 - Bws)vsAs(Tstd/Ts(avg))(Ps/Pstd)

Ms = Md(1 - Bws) + 18Bws where Tstd = 293 o

K, Pstd = 760 mm Hg, for metric units

(p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2) where Tstd = 528 o

R, Pstd = 29.92 in Hg, for English units

323 Acid Output B 100511 Post Flows.xls - M2 Page 1 Printed 11/16/2011

V1.15
METHOD 2 - DETERMINATION OF STACK GAS VELOCITY AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date 10/6/2011 0730

Sampling Location Bldg. 323 Base Scrubber Total Output Project # Pre Stack Flows

Operator Columbia Analytical # of Ports Used 2

Stack Type Circular Pitot Identification

Pitot Leak Check PreTest PostTest Pitot Coefficient (Cp) 0.84

Stack Dimensions Velocity Traverse Data

Diameter or Length of Stack (D) 65.50 in Run Number V1

Width of Stack (W) in Run Time 60.00

Area of Stack (As) 23.40 ft2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local

Point Head Temp Velocity

Pressures (p) (ts) (vs)l

Barometric Pressure (Pb) 30.50 in Hg in H2O o

F ft/sec

Static Pressure (Pstatic) 0.17 in H2O 1 0.32 63 31.3

Absolute Stack Pressure (Ps) 30.51 in Hg 2 0.38 63 34.1

3 0.41 63 35.5

Stack Gas Composition 4 0.41 63 35.5

Composition Data: Actual Estimated 5 0.43 63 36.3

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%CO2) 1.0 % 6 0.43 63 36.3

Oxygen Concentration (%O2) 21.0 % 7 0.42 63 35.9

Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 0.0 % 8 0.44 63 36.7

Nitrogen Concentration (%N2) 78.0 % 9 0.44 63 36.7

Stack Moisture Content (Bws) 1.800 10 0.45 63 37.2

Stack Dry Molecular Weight (Md) 29.00 lb/lb-mole 11 0.44 63 36.7

Stack Wet Molecular Weight (Ms) 28.80 lb/lb-mole 12 0.44 63 36.7

12 0.44 63 36.7

Results 11 0.44 63 36.7

Avg Stack Gas Velocity (vs) 36.1 ft/sec 10 0.45 63 37.2

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 3078605 dscf/hr 9 0.45 63 37.2

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 51310 dscf/min 8 0.44 63 36.7

Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Qaw) 50751 ascf/min 7 0.44 63 36.7

6 0.44 63 36.7

Stack Cross Section Schematic 5 0.43 63 36.3

4 0.43 63 36.3

3 0.42 63 35.9

2 0.43 63 36.3

1 0.41 63 35.5

(p)1/2

avg

1 0.65 63 1

 Average of the square roots of p

 where (p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2)

Formulas Used

As = DW/Ku for Rectangular Stacks Ts(avg) = 1

/nts + Tu

As = ((D/2)2)/Ku for Circular Stacks where Tu = 273 oK for metric units

 where Ku = 1 for metric units where Tu = 460 o

R for English units

 where Ku = 144 (in2

/ft2) for English units vs = KpCp(p)1/2

avg (Ts(avg)/(PsMs))1/2

Ps = Pbar + Pstatic/13.6 where Kp = 34.97 for metric units

%N2 = 100 - %CO2 - %O2 - %CO where Kp = 85.49 for English units

Md = .44(%CO2) + .32(%O2 ) + .28(%N2 + %CO) Qsd = 3600(1 - Bws)vsAs(Tstd/Ts(avg))(Ps/Pstd)

Ms = Md(1 - Bws) + 18Bws where Tstd = 293 o

K, Pstd = 760 mm Hg, for metric units

(p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2) where Tstd = 528 o

R, Pstd = 29.92 in Hg, for English units

323 Base Output 100511 Pre Flows.xls - M2 Page 1 Printed 11/16/2011

V1.15
METHOD 2 - DETERMINATION OF STACK GAS VELOCITY AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date 10/6/2011 1035

Sampling Location Bldg. 323 Base Scrubber Total Output Project # Post Stack Flows

Operator Columbia Analytical # of Ports Used 2

Stack Type Circular Pitot Identification

Pitot Leak Check PreTest PostTest Pitot Coefficient (Cp) 0.84

Stack Dimensions Velocity Traverse Data

Diameter or Length of Stack (D) 65.50 in Run Number V1

Width of Stack (W) in Run Time 60.00

Area of Stack (As) 23.40 ft2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local

Point Head Temp Velocity

Pressures (p) (ts) (vs)l

Barometric Pressure (Pb) 30.50 in Hg in H2O o

F ft/sec

Static Pressure (Pstatic) 0.17 in H2O 1 0.39 65 34.7

Absolute Stack Pressure (Ps) 30.51 in Hg 2 0.41 65 35.5

3 0.41 65 35.5

Stack Gas Composition 4 0.42 65 36.0

Composition Data: Actual Estimated 5 0.41 65 35.5

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%CO2) 1.0 % 6 0.42 64 35.9

Oxygen Concentration (%O2) 21.0 % 7 0.42 64 35.9

Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 0.0 % 8 0.44 64 36.8

Nitrogen Concentration (%N2) 78.0 % 9 0.43 64 36.4

Stack Moisture Content (Bws) 1.800 10 0.44 64 36.8

Stack Dry Molecular Weight (Md) 29.00 lb/lb-mole 11 0.44 64 36.8

Stack Wet Molecular Weight (Ms) 28.80 lb/lb-mole 12 0.41 64 35.5

12 0.41 64 35.5

Results 11 0.47 65 38.1

Avg Stack Gas Velocity (vs) 37.0 ft/sec 10 0.46 65 37.6

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 3004111 dscf/hr 9 0.44 65 36.8

Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Qsd) 50069 dscf/min 8 0.43 65 36.4

Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Qaw) 51985 ascf/min 7 0.43 65 36.4

6 0.43 64 36.4

Stack Cross Section Schematic 5 0.43 654 53.0

4 0.42 64 35.9

3 0.54 64 40.8

2 0.40 64 35.1

1 0.33 64 31.9

(p)1/2

avg

1 0.65 89 1

 Average of the square roots of p

 where (p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2)

Formulas Used

As = DW/Ku for Rectangular Stacks Ts(avg) = 1

/nts + Tu

As = ((D/2)2)/Ku for Circular Stacks where Tu = 273 oK for metric units

 where Ku = 1 for metric units where Tu = 460 o

R for English units

 where Ku = 144 (in2

/ft2) for English units vs = KpCp(p)1/2

avg (Ts(avg)/(PsMs))1/2

Ps = Pbar + Pstatic/13.6 where Kp = 34.97 for metric units

%N2 = 100 - %CO2 - %O2 - %CO where Kp = 85.49 for English units

Md = .44(%CO2) + .32(%O2 ) + .28(%N2 + %CO) Qsd = 3600(1 - Bws)vsAs(Tstd/Ts(avg))(Ps/Pstd)

Ms = Md(1 - Bws) + 18Bws where Tstd = 293 o

K, Pstd = 760 mm Hg, for metric units

(p)1/2

avg = 1

/n(p1/2) where Tstd = 528 o

R, Pstd = 29.92 in Hg, for English units

323 Base Output 100511 Post Flows.xls - M2 Page 1 Printed 11/16/2011

V1.15
Roof Level

Disturbance

148 Inch

 Stack Dia.

66 Inch

2"

Port

far wall of stack

68 Inch to

Downstream

3.75 Inch

Inside Dia.

Disturbance

198 Inch

Upstream

Building 323 Acid Stacks
METHOD 1 - SAMPLE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSES FOR CIRCULAR SOURCES

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date

Sampling Location Bldg. 323 Acid Scrubber Total Output A&B Project # Method 26A

Operator Columbia Analytical # of Ports Available 2

Stack Type Circular # of Ports Used 2

Stack Size Large Port Inside Diameter 3.75

Circular Stack or Duct Diameter

Distance to Far Wall of Stack (Lfw) 68.00 in

Distance to Near Wall of Stack (Lnw) 2.00 in

(=Lfw - Lnw) Diameter of Stack (D) 66.00 in

(=3.14(D/2/Cunits)2) Area of Stack (As) 23.76 ft2

Distance from Port to Disturbances

Distance Upstream (B) 198.00 in

(=B/D) Diameters Upstream (BD) 3.00 diameters

Distance Downstream (A) 148.00 in

 (=A/D) Diameters Downstream (AD) 2.24 diameters

Number of Traverse Points Required

Diameters to Minimum Number of1

Flow Disturbance Traverse Points

Up Down Particulate Velocity

Stream Stream Points Points

2.00-4.99 0.50-1.24 24 16

5.00-5.99 1.25-1.49 20 16

6.00-6.99 1.50-1.74 16 12

7.00-7.99 1.75-1.99 12 12

>= 8.00 >=2.00 8 or 122 8 or 122

Upstream Spec 24 16

Downstream Spec 12 12

Traverse Pts Required 24 16 1 Check Minimum Number of Points for the Upstream

 and Downstream conditions, then use the largest. Number of Traverse Points Used 2 8 for Circular Stacks 12 to 24 inches 2 Ports by 12 Across

 12 for Circular Stacks over 24 inches 24 Pts Used 24 Required

Particulate Velocity

Traverse Point Locations

Fraction Distance Distance

Traverse of from Including

Point Stack Inside Nipple

Number Diameter Wall Length

in in

1 0.021 1.39 3.39

2 0.067 4.42 6.42

3 0.118 7.79 9.79

4 0.177 11.68 13.68

5 0.250 16.50 18.50

6 0.356 23.50 25.50

7 0.644 42.50 44.50

8 0.750 49.50 51.50

9 0.823 54.32 56.32

10 0.882 58.21 60.21

11 0.933 61.58 63.58

12 0.979 64.61 66.61

Location of Traverse Points in Circular Stacks

Traverse (Fraction of Stack Diameter from Inside Wall to Traverse Point)

Point Number of Traverse Points on a Diameter

Number 2 4 6 8 10 12

1 .146 .067 .044 .032 .026 .021

2 .854 .250 .146 .105 .082 .067

3 .750 .296 .194 .146 .118

4 .933 .704 .323 .226 .177

5 .854 .677 .342 .250

6 .956 .806 .658 .356

7 .895 .774 .644

8 .968 .854 .750

9 .918 .823

10 .974 .882

11 .933

12 .979

323 Acid Total Output Stack A.xls - M1 - Circular Page 1 Printed 7/26/2011

V1.15
Roof Level

Disturbance

148 Inch

 Stack Dia.

65.5 Inch

2.5"

Port

far wall of stack

68 Inch to

Downstream

3.75 Inch

Inside Dia.

Disturbance

198 Inch

Upstream

Building 323 Base Stack
METHOD 1 - SAMPLE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSES FOR CIRCULAR SOURCES

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date

Sampling Location Bldg. 323 Base Scrubber Total Output Project #

Operator Columbia Analytical # of Ports Available 2

Stack Type Circular # of Ports Used 2

Stack Size Large Port Inside Diameter 3.75

Circular Stack or Duct Diameter

Distance to Far Wall of Stack (Lfw) 68.00 in

Distance to Near Wall of Stack (Lnw) 2.50 in

(=Lfw - Lnw) Diameter of Stack (D) 65.50 in

(=3.14(D/2/Cunits)2) Area of Stack (As) 23.40 ft2

Distance from Port to Disturbances

Distance Upstream (B) 198.00 in

(=B/D) Diameters Upstream (BD) 3.02 diameters

Distance Downstream (A) 148.00 in

 (=A/D) Diameters Downstream (AD) 2.26 diameters

Number of Traverse Points Required

Diameters to Minimum Number of1

Flow Disturbance Traverse Points

Up Down Particulate Velocity

Stream Stream Points Points

2.00-4.99 0.50-1.24 24 16

5.00-5.99 1.25-1.49 20 16

6.00-6.99 1.50-1.74 16 12

7.00-7.99 1.75-1.99 12 12

>= 8.00 >=2.00 8 or 122 8 or 122

Upstream Spec 24 16

Downstream Spec 12 12

Traverse Pts Required 24 16 1 Check Minimum Number of Points for the Upstream

 and Downstream conditions, then use the largest. Number of Traverse Points Used 2 8 for Circular Stacks 12 to 24 inches 2 Ports by 12 Across

 12 for Circular Stacks over 24 inches 24 Pts Used 24 Required

Particulate Velocity

Traverse Point Locations

Fraction Distance Distance

Traverse of from Including

Point Stack Inside Nipple

Number Diameter Wall Length

in in

1 0.021 1.4 3.9

2 0.067 4.4 6.9

3 0.118 7.7 10.2

4 0.177 11.6 14.1

5 0.250 16.4 18.9

6 0.356 23.3 25.8

7 0.644 42.2 44.7

8 0.750 49.1 51.6

9 0.823 53.9 56.4

10 0.882 57.8 60.3

11 0.933 61.1 63.6

12 0.979 64.1 66.6

Location of Traverse Points in Circular Stacks

Traverse (Fraction of Stack Diameter from Inside Wall to Traverse Point)

Point Number of Traverse Points on a Diameter

Number 2 4 6 8 10 12

1 .146 .067 .044 .032 .026 .021

2 .854 .250 .146 .105 .082 .067

3 .750 .296 .194 .146 .118

4 .933 .704 .323 .226 .177

5 .854 .677 .342 .250

6 .956 .806 .658 .356

7 .895 .774 .644

8 .968 .854 .750

9 .918 .823

10 .974 .882

11 .933

12 .979

323 Base Total Output .xls - M1 - Circular Page 1 Printed 7/26/2011

V1.15
Roof Level

Disturbance

240 Inch

 Stack Dia.

60.5 Inch

far wall of stack

60.5 Inch to

Downstream

3.5 Inch

Inside Dia.

Disturbance

108 Inch

Upstream

Building 323 

General

Exhaust

0.0" Port
METHOD 1 - SAMPLE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSES FOR CIRCULAR SOURCES

Plant Name Hudson Valley Research Park Date

Sampling Location B/323 General - EF1A - EF1G Project #

Operator Columbia Analytical # of Ports Available 2

Stack Type Circular # of Ports Used 1

Stack Size Large Port Inside Diameter 3.5

Circular Stack or Duct Diameter

Distance to Far Wall of Stack (Lfw) 60.50 in

Distance to Near Wall of Stack (Lnw) 0.00 in

(=Lfw - Lnw) Diameter of Stack (D) 60.50 in

(=3.14(D/2/Cunits)2) Area of Stack (As) 19.96 ft2

Distance from Port to Disturbances

Distance Upstream (B) 108.00 in

(=B/D) Diameters Upstream (BD) 1.79 diameters

Distance Downstream (A) 240.00 in

 (=A/D) Diameters Downstream (AD) 3.97 diameters

Number of Traverse Points Required

Diameters to Minimum Number of1

Flow Disturbance Traverse Points

Up Down Particulate Velocity

Stream Stream Points Points

2.00-4.99 0.50-1.24 24 16

5.00-5.99 1.25-1.49 20 16

6.00-6.99 1.50-1.74 16 12

7.00-7.99 1.75-1.99 12 12

>= 8.00 >=2.00 8 or 122 8 or 122

Upstream Spec 24 16

Downstream Spec 12 12

Traverse Pts Required 24 16 1 Check Minimum Number of Points for the Upstream

 and Downstream conditions, then use the largest. Number of Traverse Points Used 2 8 for Circular Stacks 12 to 24 inches 1 Ports by 12 Across

 12 for Circular Stacks over 24 inches 1 Pts Used 24 Required

Particulate Velocity

Traverse Point Locations

Fraction Distance Distance

Traverse of from Including

Point Stack Inside Nipple

Number Diameter Wall Length

in in

1 0.021 1.3 1.3

2 0.067 4.1 4.1

3 0.118 7.1 7.1

4 0.177 10.7 10.7

5 0.250 15.1 15.1

6 0.356 21.5 21.5

7 0.644 39.0 39.0

8 0.750 45.4 45.4

9 0.823 49.8 49.8

10 0.882 53.4 53.4

11 0.933 56.4 56.4

12 0.979 59.2 59.2

Location of Traverse Points in Circular Stacks

Traverse (Fraction of Stack Diameter from Inside Wall to Traverse Point)

Point Number of Traverse Points on a Diameter

Number 2 4 6 8 10 12

1 .146 .067 .044 .032 .026 .021

2 .854 .250 .146 .105 .082 .067

3 .750 .296 .194 .146 .118

4 .933 .704 .323 .226 .177

5 .854 .677 .342 .250

6 .956 .806 .658 .356

7 .895 .774 .644

8 .968 .854 .750

9 .918 .823

10 .974 .882

11 .933

12 .979

323 General EF1A.xls - M1 - Circular Page 1 Printed 7/26/2011

V1.15