# 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 Desc ription .................................................................................... ............ 4 2.1 Process Equipment.......................................................................................................... ..................... 4 2.2 Control Equipment............................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Stack Samp ling Locations ................................................................................................... .............. 10 3.0 Summary and Disc ussion of Results .......................................................................................... ............ 10 3.1 Objectives an d Test Matrix................................................................................................. ............... 10 3.2 Pre-Test Evaluation of the FTIR Performance ................................................................................ .. 11 3.3 FTIR Field Spiking & Det ection Limit Dete rmination...................................................................... 13 3.4 Acid Stack FTIR Validatio n Results......................................................................................... ......... 15 3.5 Base Stack FTIR Validatio n Results......................................................................................... ......... 18 3.6 FGHG and N2O Emissions..................................................................................................... ........... 19 4.0 Sampling and Anal ytical Pr ocedures......................................................................................... ............. 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 M easurement Method .............................................................................................. ....... 24 4.3 Gas Usage Meas urement Method ............................................................................................... ....... 24 5.0 QA/QC Activitie s ........................................................................................................... ........................ 25 5.1 EPA Method 320 Deviations .................................................................................................. ........... 25



## 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Summary of the Test Program

This report describes the r esults of emissi on stack testing conducted at IBM’s 300mm semiconductor manufacturing facility in Hopewell Junction, New York, in October 2011.

International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) is collabor ating 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 Repo rting 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 N 2 

## O 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 measurem ent 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) t esting was performed by Matheson. Gas usage data were collected by Sanborn Head Engineer ing and IBM personnel. Stack flow and moisture measurements were performed by personnel from Columbia Analy tical and IBM. Kirsten Cappel from the EPA and Deborah Harris, of ICF, an EPAcontractor, observed the testing. During the testing, a teleconference was conducted to describ e 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 anenhanced FTIR measurement method that was setup to quantify greenhouse gas emissions at lowppbv to ppmv concentration levels from semiconduc tor fab stacks. Pursuant to those goals, IBM has: 1. Measured the emissions of designated fluorinated greenhouse gases (FGHGs) and N 2 

## O 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 we re 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 (equipm ent). 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 we t 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 whic h are located on IBM’s building B323 Fab. The measured emissions points constitute all of th e 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 co nnected 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 samp led 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, includingboth schematic and mechanical drawings, are described in the appendix.

Table 1-1 lists the key analytes for which reportin g 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 N 2 

## O, 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 #
CF 4 

## Carbon Tetrafluoride/Perfluoromethane 75-73-0
CHF 3 

## Trifluoromethane 75-46-7
NF 3 

## Nitrogen trifluoride 7783-54-2
SF 6 

## Sulfur hexafluoride 2551-62-4
N 2 

## O Nitrous oxide 10024-97-2
c-C 4 

## F 8 

## Octafluorocyclobutane 115-25-3
C 2 

## F 6 

## 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 w ere invol ved 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.

Or g anization Name email p hone Or g Name email p hone
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 p hone Name email p hone Name email p hone
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 TRADE ORGANIZATIONS IBM

SANBORN, HEAD ENGINEERING MATHESON COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL



## 1.3 Organization of this Report

This report fo llows 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 ch emical 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 NF 3 

## that is used in “remote chamber CVD plasma clean pr ocesses”, to a low of about 10 % in certain CF 4 

## in plasma etch processes.

The plasma etch and CVD chamber clean pr ocesses 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 si ngle 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 ch amber clean operations are conducted as batch processes, they run concurrently, in rapid succes sion on a large number of tools which exhaust through a relatively small number of stacks.

The exhaust gas from CVD and plasma etch tool s 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 highl y 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 Supply 1 

## , 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 co nventional 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 hi gher 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 t ools 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 N 2 

## O 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 p oints 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 (H 2 

## SO 4 

## ) scrubber liquor and are connected by manifo ld 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 syst em, 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 em issions from individual FGHG using process tools are routed through a POU abatement device as described above, and then combined in to 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 aci d 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 typ es 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 stack s 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 therma lly decompose FGHG, and are installed with a design interlock 2 

## 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 processi ng of the particular wafer set is completed (typically on the order of minutes), and then th e tool is prevented from processing additional wafers 3 

## . 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 “groundr ule” 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 inthis 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 % upti me.
All of the POU abatement systems are manufactur ed 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 leve l of DRE for fluorinated gases.
IBM’s 300mm plasma etch tools are all configured with the “High Fire” POU abatement capability. The Edwards POU mode l 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 NF 3 

## 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 NF 3 

## from the process). The Edwards POU abatement unit model names installed on C VD 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 andconductivity 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, Cl 2 

## , HNO 3 

## , H 2 

## SO 4 

## , and H 3 

## PO 4 

## . The B/323 Base Exhaust System consists of four counter current Ceilcote scrubbers with pH andconductivity 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 c onstituents within stack e xhaust, 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 Ou tput Br2 Output Cl2 Output NH3 Output H2SO4 Output

IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 9 of 25

## 2.3 Stack Sampling Locations

The sample locations were described qualitativel y 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 N 2 

## O 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 N 2 

## O 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 measur es 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 pe riods 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 b y personnel fro m 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 spiki ng was conducted with the use of a mass flow controller (MFC-1) to mix a specified flow rate, Q MFC-1 

## , of a NIST traceable multicomponent gas standard, with known concentration levels, C std 

## , into the ambient sample air stream. 

## The combined flow was directed through a gas dryer such that the total flow, Q MFM 

## , 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, C s 

## , for a given analyte, excluding contribution from its native concentrati on in the sample stream was then calculated according to equation (3.2-1)
Raw Spike Conc = 

#         000,1 1



##     

## ppmvC sccmQ sccm Q 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 unspik ed concentrations values for SF 6 

## , N 2 

## O, and CHF 3 

## all contain one or more negative concentration values. Although th e 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 th e spiked concentration values are all well within acceptable parameters. Overall, the pre-test eval uation results demonstrate that the analytical method has high precision for the spiked analytes.

Statistically significant bias levels did exist fo r several of the components. Although we do not know the true cause for the small but statistically si gnificant bias, it is conceivable that it is the result of a difference between the gas standards thatwere used to build the instrument calibrations and the separate set of gas standards th t were used for the spiking exercise 4 

## . 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 ye llow 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 instrument al 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 (NF 3 

## ) was used as a surrogate for c-C 4 

## F 8 

## 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 detec tion limits reported by IMACC. The DL for N 2 

## O is 1,716 ppbv, which is subs tantially higher than for the fl uorinated gases. Fortunately, the measured stack concentrations for N2O were also significantly higher than stack concentrations measured for the fluorinated gases, and so the re latively 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 N 2 

## O. 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 faile d one of the method validation requirements

It can be noted that the unspiked NF 3 

## method validation data cont ain a mix of negative and positive concentration values, and that the relative standard deviation for the unspiked NF 3 

## 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 NF 3 

## is 13.7 %. Thus, whereas NF 3 

## fails the Method 301 data quality objectives because of variability in the low unspiked leve ls; the spiked concentration values are well behaved.


## The root cause of the negative values determined for the unspiked NF 3 

## concentrations is unknown; however, we believe that refinement of the spectral region used to quantify NF 3 

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

CHF 3 

## 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 CHF 3 

## spikes is 95.6 %, and the relative standard deviation of the spiked CHF 3 

## levels is only 1.82 %.
The other spiked analytes in Acid Stack B: CF 4 

## , SF 6 

## , and C 2 

## F 6 

## all pass the method validation criteria. C 2 

## F 6 

## 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-C 4 

## F 8 

## absorbs in a similar spectral region and with similar intensity as NF 3 

## , and therefore NF 3 

## was used as a surrogate for c-C 4 

## F 8 

## 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 CHF3ppbv

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 N 2 

## O, 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 N 2 

### O Spiked into the B323 Base Stack.



## Overall, the validation results show that the FTIR method is an effective means of measuring FGHGs and N 2 

## O 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 CO 2 

## e emission levels from semiconductor fab stacks.

3.6 FGHG and N2O Emissions

The measured FGHG and N 2 

## O concentrations measured during the B323 Acid Stack A test are illustrated in Figure 3-6. The average concentrati on and stack flow rate values are listed in Table 3-8, expressed as mass emissions and as CO 2 

## e 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 N 2 

## O concentrations measured during the B323 Acid Stack B test are illustrated in Figure 3-7. The average concentrati on and stack flow rate values are listed in Table 3-9, expressed as mass emissions and as CO 2 

## e 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 N 2 

## O concentrations measured during the B323 Base Stack test are illustrated in Figure 3-8. The average concentrati on and stack flow rate values are listed in Table 3-10, and expressed as mass emissions and as CO 2 

## e emissions rates.

IBM300mmStackTestOct2011ResultsDESpeedMar152012LLb.doc Page 21 of 25

## Figure 3-8. Measured Base Stack Co ncentration 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 b y 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 Fourie r Transform Infrared (EFTIR) to signify the modifications they have made to enhance the sen sitivity 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 aspect s of the FTIR instrument system design and signal processing were not available to the Math eson team for adjustment or optimization.
Specific enhancements that were made to the IMACC FTIR system for the purpose of FGHG testing include 5 

## :

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 pr ovides 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 absorp tion is proportional to the product of the concentration and path length. Thus, incr easing the path length provides a means of compensating for lower concentrations.

 Operation of the interferometer at customi zed 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 sa mpling 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 micr on), heated 50’ stainless steel sample extraction line, stainless steel gas distribution and dilution manifold, calibrate d 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 fl ow to reduce particulate ingress into the sample stream.
The dryer consists of a bundle of Nafion hollo w 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 c oncentration 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 cons istent with information regard ing Nafion dryers as reported in Miller 6 

## 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 meas urements of atmospheric trace halocarbons, hydrocarbons, and sulfur compounds. Analytic al 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 t est period by either cylinder pressure or weight measurements, depending upon whether the gas was st ored in a pressurized or liquefied gas form, respectively. The characteristics of each gas mon itored during the B323 test are listed in Table 4- 1.

Two of the gases, CF 4 

## and NF 3 

## 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 behavi or (compressibility). The Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation of state method was used in this work.

N 2 

## O is supplied from a large tube trailer located outside B323, and is not equipped with a scale. Accordingly, N 2 

## O usage rates were determined as an av erage 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

CF 4 gas Pressure - Gas Law Y 26.2 675 0.00162 2 Y-cylinders B323 Acid and General Stacks

CHF 3 Liquid Weight - Cylinder scale Y 3.7 813 0.00019 2 Y-cylinders B323

NF 3 Gas Pressure - Gas Law Y 221.2 1,200 0.00768 2 cylinders per trailer B323 & B323A

SF 6 Liquid Weight - Cylinder scale Y 7.3 100 0.00304 6 cylinders B323

N 2 O Liquid Cylinder change rate N 195.2 3,000 0.00271 7 cylinders per trailer B323 & B323A

C 4 F 8 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 = S

m 

## – C S 

## (1)

Where S m 

## is the measured mean concentration of the spiked analyte and C S 

## 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 calculati ng the bias. This equation does factor in any native concentrations measure in the stack and read as follows:

B = S

m 

## – M

m 

## – C S 

## (2)

The new term M

m 

## 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 (C p ) 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 (A s ) 

### 23.76 ft 2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local Point Head Temp Velocity Pressures (  p) (t s ) (v s ) l Barometric Pressure (P b ) 

### 30.20 in Hg in H 2 O o F ft/sec Static Pressure (P static ) 

### 0.33 in H 2 O 

### 1 0.27 66 29.0 Absolute Stack Pressure (P s ) 

### 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 (%CO 2 ) 

### 1.0 % 

### 6 0.55 66 41.4 Oxygen Concentration (%O 2 ) 

### 21.0 % 

### 7 0.73 66 47.7 Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 

### 0.0 % 

### 8 0.70 66 46.7 Nitrogen Concentration (%N 2 ) 

### 78.0 % 

### 9 0.73 66 47.7 Stack Moisture Content (B ws ) 

### 1.800 10 0.83 66 50.9 Stack Dry Molecular Weight (M d ) 

### 29.00 lb/lb-mole 

### 11 0.80 66 49.9 Stack Wet Molecular Weight (M s ) 

### 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 (v s ) 

### 42.1 ft/sec 

### 10 0.70 66 46.7 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 3585281 dscf/hr 

### 9 0.77 66 49.0 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 59755 dscf/min 

### 8 0.75 66 48.3 Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Q aw ) 

### 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
av g = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 )

Formulas Used A s = DW/K u for Rectangular Stacks T s(avg) = 1 / n  t s + T u A s = (  (D/2) 2 )/K u for Circular Stacks where T u = 273 o K for metric units where K u = 1 for metric units where T u = 460 o R for English units where K u = 144 (in 2 /ft 2 ) for English units v s = K p C p (  p) 1/2 avg (T s(avg) /(P s M s )) 1/2
P s = P bar + P static/13.6 where K p = 34.97 for metric units %N 2 = 100 - %CO 2 - %O 2 - %CO where K p = 85.49 for English units M d = .44(%CO 2 ) + .32(%O 2 ) + .28(%N 2 + %CO) Q sd = 3600(1 - B ws )v s A s (T std /T s(avg) )(P s/P std ) M s = M d (1 - B ws ) + 18B ws where T std = 293 o K, P std = 760 mm Hg, for metric units (  p) 1/2 avg = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 ) where T std = 528 o R, P std = 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 (C p ) 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 (A s ) 

### 23.76 ft 2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local Point Head Temp Velocity Pressures (  p) (t s ) (v s ) l Barometric Pressure (P b ) 

### 30.20 in Hg in H 2 O o F ft/sec Static Pressure (P static ) 

### 0.35 in H 2 O 

### 1 0.37 66 34.0 Absolute Stack Pressure (P s ) 

### 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 (%CO 2 ) 

### 1.0 % 

### 6 0.55 66 41.4 Oxygen Concentration (%O 2 ) 

### 21.0 % 

### 7 0.75 66 48.3 Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 

### 0.0 % 

### 8 0.70 66 46.7 Nitrogen Concentration (%N 2 ) 

### 78.0 % 

### 9 0.75 67 48.4 Stack Moisture Content (B ws ) 

### 1.800 10 0.75 67 48.4 Stack Dry Molecular Weight (M d ) 

### 29.00 lb/lb-mole 

### 11 0.53 67 40.7 Stack Wet Molecular Weight (M s ) 

### 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 (v s ) 

### 41.2 ft/sec 

### 10 0.70 67 46.7 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 3503674 dscf/hr 

### 9 0.75 67 48.4 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 58395 dscf/min 

### 8 0.73 67 47.7 Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Q aw ) 

### 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
av g = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 )

Formulas Used A s = DW/K u for Rectangular Stacks T s(avg) = 1 / n  t s + T u A s = (  (D/2) 2 )/K u for Circular Stacks where T u = 273 o K for metric units where K u = 1 for metric units where T u = 460 o R for English units where K u = 144 (in 2 /ft 2 ) for English units v s = K p C p (  p) 1/2 avg (T s(avg) /(P s M s )) 1/2
P s = P bar + P static/13.6 where K p = 34.97 for metric units %N 2 = 100 - %CO 2 - %O 2 - %CO where K p = 85.49 for English units M d = .44(%CO 2 ) + .32(%O 2 ) + .28(%N 2 + %CO) Q sd = 3600(1 - B ws )v s A s (T std /T s(avg) )(P s/P std ) M s = M d (1 - B ws ) + 18B ws where T std = 293 o K, P std = 760 mm Hg, for metric units (  p) 1/2 avg = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 ) where T std = 528 o R, P std = 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 (C p ) 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 (A s ) 

### 23.76 ft 2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local Point Head Temp Velocity Pressures (  p) (t s ) (v s ) l Barometric Pressure (P b ) 

### 30.20 in Hg in H 2 O o F ft/sec Static Pressure (P static ) 

### 0.29 in H 2 O 

### 1 0.55 68 41.5 Absolute Stack Pressure (P s ) 

### 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 (%CO 2 ) 

### 1.0 % 

### 6 0.76 68 48.8 Oxygen Concentration (%O 2 ) 

### 21.0 % 

### 7 0.77 68 49.1 Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 

### 0.0 % 

### 8 0.78 68 49.4 Nitrogen Concentration (%N 2 ) 

### 78.0 % 

### 9 0.76 68 48.8 Stack Moisture Content (B ws ) 

### 1.800 10 0.76 68 48.8 Stack Dry Molecular Weight (M d ) 

### 29.00 lb/lb-mole 

### 11 0.77 68 49.1 Stack Wet Molecular Weight (M s ) 

### 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 (v s ) 

### 48.5 ft/sec 

### 10 0.77 68 49.1 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 4112730 dscf/hr 

### 9 0.78 68 49.4 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 68545 dscf/min 

### 8 0.77 68 49.1 Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Q aw ) 

### 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
av g = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 )

Formulas Used A s = DW/K u for Rectangular Stacks T s(avg) = 1 / n  t s + T u A s = (  (D/2) 2 )/K u for Circular Stacks where T u = 273 o K for metric units where K u = 1 for metric units where T u = 460 o R for English units where K u = 144 (in 2 /ft 2 ) for English units v s = K p C p (  p) 1/2 avg (T s(avg) /(P s M s )) 1/2
P s = P bar + P static/13.6 where K p = 34.97 for metric units %N 2 = 100 - %CO 2 - %O 2 - %CO where K p = 85.49 for English units M d = .44(%CO 2 ) + .32(%O 2 ) + .28(%N 2 + %CO) Q sd = 3600(1 - B ws )v s A s (T std /T s(avg) )(P s/P std ) M s = M d (1 - B ws ) + 18B ws where T std = 293 o K, P std = 760 mm Hg, for metric units (  p) 1/2 avg = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 ) where T std = 528 o R, P std = 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 (C p ) 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 (A s ) 

### 23.76 ft 2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local Point Head Temp Velocity Pressures (  p) (t s ) (v s ) l Barometric Pressure (P b ) 

### 30.20 in Hg in H 2 O o F ft/sec Static Pressure (P static ) 

### 0.28 in H 2 O 

### 1 0.61 67 43.6 Absolute Stack Pressure (P s ) 

### 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 (%CO 2 ) 

### 1.0 % 

### 6 0.77 67 49.0 Oxygen Concentration (%O 2 ) 

### 21.0 % 

### 7 0.78 67 49.3 Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 

### 0.0 % 

### 8 0.76 67 48.7 Nitrogen Concentration (%N 2 ) 

### 78.0 % 

### 9 0.78 67 49.3 Stack Moisture Content (B ws ) 

### 1.800 10 0.79 67 49.7 Stack Dry Molecular Weight (M d ) 

### 29.00 lb/lb-mole 

### 11 0.79 67 49.7 Stack Wet Molecular Weight (M s ) 

### 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 (v s ) 

### 48.7 ft/sec 

### 10 0.77 67 49.0 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 4138296 dscf/hr 

### 9 0.76 67 48.7 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 68972 dscf/min 

### 8 0.78 67 49.3 Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Q aw ) 

### 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
av g = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 )

Formulas Used A s = DW/K u for Rectangular Stacks T s(avg) = 1 / n  t s + T u A s = (  (D/2) 2 )/K u for Circular Stacks where T u = 273 o K for metric units where K u = 1 for metric units where T u = 460 o R for English units where K u = 144 (in 2 /ft 2 ) for English units v s = K p C p (  p) 1/2 avg (T s(avg) /(P s M s )) 1/2
P s = P bar + P static/13.6 where K p = 34.97 for metric units %N 2 = 100 - %CO 2 - %O 2 - %CO where K p = 85.49 for English units M d = .44(%CO 2 ) + .32(%O 2 ) + .28(%N 2 + %CO) Q sd = 3600(1 - B ws )v s A s (T std /T s(avg) )(P s/P std ) M s = M d (1 - B ws ) + 18B ws where T std = 293 o K, P std = 760 mm Hg, for metric units (  p) 1/2 avg = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 ) where T std = 528 o R, P std = 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 (C p ) 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 (A s ) 

### 23.40 ft 2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local Point Head Temp Velocity Pressures (  p) (t s ) (v s ) l Barometric Pressure (P b ) 

### 30.50 in Hg in H 2 O o F ft/sec Static Pressure (P static ) 

### 0.17 in H 2 O 

### 1 0.32 63 31.3 Absolute Stack Pressure (P s ) 

### 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 (%CO 2 ) 

### 1.0 % 

### 6 0.43 63 36.3 Oxygen Concentration (%O 2 ) 

### 21.0 % 

### 7 0.42 63 35.9 Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 

### 0.0 % 

### 8 0.44 63 36.7 Nitrogen Concentration (%N 2 ) 

### 78.0 % 

### 9 0.44 63 36.7 Stack Moisture Content (B ws ) 

### 1.800 10 0.45 63 37.2 Stack Dry Molecular Weight (M d ) 

### 29.00 lb/lb-mole 

### 11 0.44 63 36.7 Stack Wet Molecular Weight (M s ) 

### 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 (v s ) 

### 36.1 ft/sec 

### 10 0.45 63 37.2 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 3078605 dscf/hr 

### 9 0.45 63 37.2 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 51310 dscf/min 

### 8 0.44 63 36.7 Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Q aw ) 

### 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
av g = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 )

Formulas Used A s = DW/K u for Rectangular Stacks T s(avg) = 1 / n  t s + T u A s = (  (D/2) 2 )/K u for Circular Stacks where T u = 273 o K for metric units where K u = 1 for metric units where T u = 460 o R for English units where K u = 144 (in 2 /ft 2 ) for English units v s = K p C p (  p) 1/2 avg (T s(avg) /(P s M s )) 1/2
P s = P bar + P static/13.6 where K p = 34.97 for metric units %N 2 = 100 - %CO 2 - %O 2 - %CO where K p = 85.49 for English units M d = .44(%CO 2 ) + .32(%O 2 ) + .28(%N 2 + %CO) Q sd = 3600(1 - B ws )v s A s (T std /T s(avg) )(P s/P std ) M s = M d (1 - B ws ) + 18B ws where T std = 293 o K, P std = 760 mm Hg, for metric units (  p) 1/2 avg = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 ) where T std = 528 o R, P std = 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 (C p ) 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 (A s ) 

### 23.40 ft 2 Traverse Velocity Stack Local Point Head Temp Velocity Pressures (  p) (t s ) (v s ) l Barometric Pressure (P b ) 

### 30.50 in Hg in H 2 O o F ft/sec Static Pressure (P static ) 

### 0.17 in H 2 O 

### 1 0.39 65 34.7 Absolute Stack Pressure (P s ) 

### 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 (%CO 2 ) 

### 1.0 % 

### 6 0.42 64 35.9 Oxygen Concentration (%O 2 ) 

### 21.0 % 

### 7 0.42 64 35.9 Carbon Monoxide Concentration (%CO) 

### 0.0 % 

### 8 0.44 64 36.8 Nitrogen Concentration (%N 2 ) 

### 78.0 % 

### 9 0.43 64 36.4 Stack Moisture Content (B ws ) 

### 1.800 10 0.44 64 36.8 Stack Dry Molecular Weight (M d ) 

### 29.00 lb/lb-mole 

### 11 0.44 64 36.8 Stack Wet Molecular Weight (M s ) 

### 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 (v s ) 

### 37.0 ft/sec 

### 10 0.46 65 37.6 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 3004111 dscf/hr 

### 9 0.44 65 36.8 Avg Stack Dry Std Flow Rate (Q sd ) 

### 50069 dscf/min 

### 8 0.43 65 36.4 Avg Stack Wet Flow Rate (Q aw ) 

### 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
av g = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 )

Formulas Used A s = DW/K u for Rectangular Stacks T s(avg) = 1 / n  t s + T u A s = (  (D/2) 2 )/K u for Circular Stacks where T u = 273 o K for metric units where K u = 1 for metric units where T u = 460 o R for English units where K u = 144 (in 2 /ft 2 ) for English units v s = K p C p (  p) 1/2 avg (T s(avg) /(P s M s )) 1/2
P s = P bar + P static/13.6 where K p = 34.97 for metric units %N 2 = 100 - %CO 2 - %O 2 - %CO where K p = 85.49 for English units M d = .44(%CO 2 ) + .32(%O 2 ) + .28(%N 2 + %CO) Q sd = 3600(1 - B ws )v s A s (T std /T s(avg) )(P s/P std ) M s = M d (1 - B ws ) + 18B ws where T std = 293 o K, P std = 760 mm Hg, for metric units (  p) 1/2 avg = 1 / n  (  p 1/2 ) where T std = 528 o R, P std = 29.92 in Hg, for English units



### 323 Base Output 100511 Post Flows.xls - M2 Page 1 Printed 11/16/2011 V1.15Roof 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 (L fw 

### ) 

### 68.00 in Distance to Near Wall of Stack (L nw 

### ) 

### 2.00 in

(=Lfw - Lnw) 

### Diameter of Stack (D) 

### 66.00 in
(=3.14(D/2/Cunits)2) 

### Area of Stack (A s 

### ) 

### 23.76 ft 2



### Distance from Port to Disturbances Distance Upstream (B) 

### 198.00 in

(=B/D) 

### Diameters Upstream (B D 

### ) 

### 3.00 diameters Distance Downstream (A) 

### 148.00 in
(=A/D) 

### Diameters Downstream (A D 

### ) 

### 2.24 diameters

Number of Traverse Points Required Diameters to Minimum Number of 1


### 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 12 2 

### 8 or 12 2 

### 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 V1.15Roof 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 (L fw 

### ) 

### 68.00 in Distance to Near Wall of Stack (L nw 

### ) 

### 2.50 in

(=Lfw - Lnw) 

### Diameter of Stack (D) 

### 65.50 in
(=3.14(D/2/Cunits)2) 

### Area of Stack (A s 

### ) 

### 23.40 ft 2



### Distance from Port to Disturbances Distance Upstream (B) 

### 198.00 in

(=B/D) 

### Diameters Upstream (B D 

### ) 

### 3.02 diameters Distance Downstream (A) 

### 148.00 in
(=A/D) 

### Diameters Downstream (A D 

### ) 

### 2.26 diameters

Number of Traverse Points Required Diameters to Minimum Number of 1


### 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 12 2 

### 8 or 12 2 

### 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 V1.15Roof 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 (L fw 

### ) 

### 60.50 in Distance to Near Wall of Stack (L nw 

### ) 

### 0.00 in

(=Lfw - Lnw) 

### Diameter of Stack (D) 

### 60.50 in
(=3.14(D/2/Cunits)2) 

### Area of Stack (A s 

### ) 

### 19.96 ft 2



### Distance from Port to Disturbances Distance Upstream (B) 

### 108.00 in

(=B/D) 

### Diameters Upstream (B D 

### ) 

### 1.79 diameters Distance Downstream (A) 

### 240.00 in
(=A/D) 

### Diameters Downstream (A D 

### ) 

### 3.97 diameters

Number of Traverse Points Required Diameters to Minimum Number of 1


### 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 12 2 

### 8 or 12 2 

### 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