K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 1

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## Work Order No. 12251.014.400



## Georgia Power Company Plant Wansley, Units 1 and 2 Carrollton, Georgia EGU ICR Test Program for Acid Gases HAPs Southern Company 22 April 2010

Prepared For 

## SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Jon Howard Natalie Vaught ICR Program Manager Report Coordinator Approved for Transmittal Approved for Transmittal

Prepared By 

## WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. 1625 Pumphrey Ave. Auburn, Alabama 36832-4303 Phone: (334) 466-5600 Fax: (334) 466-5660

2 July 2010K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 2

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## W ESTON 

## S OLUTIONS 

## , I NC


## . (WESTON ® 

## ) E MISSION 

## T ESTING 

## P RACTICE



## – A UBURN 

## O PERATIONS 

## A CCREDITATION 

## S TIPULATION



### Laboratory: Weston Solutions, Inc.
Accreditor(s): Louisiana Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (LELAP) – Laboratory and Emission Testing Practice

Accreditation ID: LELAP – 03024
Scope: Hydrogen Chloride Sampling and Analysis Hydrogen Fluoride Sampling and Analysis Hydrogen Cyanide Sampling and Analysis

Effective: LELAP – 21 December 2001
Expires: LELAP – 30 June 2010

Note: These accreditation stipulations conform to the requirements of Georgia Rule 391-3-26-01.K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 3

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## Data Qualifiers

The following are general report ing notes that are applicable to all WESTON reports, unless otherwise noted.

• NL denotes data that was not from a LELAP accredited method.

• LNL denotes lab results that are not from an accredited LELAP laboratory.

• NN denotes data that was not from a NELAP accredited method.

• NNL denotes lab results that are not from an accredited NELAP laboratory.

• ED denotes data that is not to be used fo r compliance purposes and may deviate from
approved procedures.

• Q denotes data whose QA/QC check did not fall within the specified range. This data is still

considered valid.

• A denotes data that is anomalously hi gh with no explanation for the outlier.

• BDL denotes values that were below the limit of detection of the analyzer and 2% of the
span gas was used to calculate an emission rate.

• DF denotes a dilution factor

.

• NAP denotes emission testing performed by personnel from a non-NELAC accredited
laboratory

.

• S denotes analysis that has been subcontracted.K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 4

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

# T ABLE 

# O F 

# C ONTENTS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 6

SECTION 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 8 2.1 Emission Testing Results ................................................................................. 8

SECTION 3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 11 3.1 Source Descriptions and Test Locations ........................................................ 11 3.2 Pollution Control Equipment ......................................................................... 11 3.3 Sootblowing ................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Process Parameters ......................................................................................... 12
SECTION 4 QUALITY CONTROL .......................................................................................... 14 4.1 Data Collection and Reduction ...................................................................... 14 4.2 Chain-of-Custody ........................................................................................... 14 4.3 Performance Data for Volumetric Flow Measurements ................................ 14 4.4 Unit 1 Performance Data for Isokinetic Sampling Methods Acid Gases Measurements ................................................................................................. 15 4.5 Unit 2 Performance Data for Isokinetic Sampling Methods Acid Gases Measurements ................................................................................................. 16

SECTION 5 SOURCE TEST ING METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 17

APPENDIX A EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX B TEST METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX C FIELD DATA – PLAN T WANSLEY, UNITS 1 AND 2

APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA
APPENDIX E QUALITY CONTROL DATA

APPENDIX F PROCESS OPERATING/PRODUCTION DATA

## T ABLE OF 

## C ONTENTS

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 5

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

### LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Scope of Work Georgia Power Company, Plant Wansley, Units 1 and 2 ...................... 6 Table 1-2 WESTON Project Team ................................................................................................ .. 7 Table 2-1 Plant Wansley, Unit 1 Summar y of Acid Gases Emission Results ................................. 9 Table 2-2 Plant Wansley, Unit 2 Summar y of Acid Gases Emission Results ............................... 10 Table 3-1 Plant Wansley, Unit 1 Process Parameters .................................................................... 12 Table 3-2 Plant Wansley, Unit 2 Process Parameters .................................................................... 12 Table 4-1 Unit 1 Summary of Method 26A Perf ormance Criteria and Achieved Results ............ 15 Table 4-2 Unit 2 Summary of Method 26A Perf ormance Criteria and Achieved Results ............ 16 Table 5-1 Source Testing Methodology ........................................................................................ 17K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 6

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

# S ECTION 

# 1 I NTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, issued an information collection request (ICR) to Southern Comp any Services (Southern Company) for the Georgia Power Plant Compa ny, Plant Wansley, Units 1 and 2 located near Carrollton, Georgia. The ICR set forth fuel sa mpling, emission testing, and process and pollution control data collection requirements. To comply with this ICR, Southern Company retained Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON ® 

### ) to conduct hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emission testing. EPA will use the data collected during this program to develop maximum achieva ble control technology (MACT) standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units.
The scope of work for Units 1 and 2 ICR is summarized in Table 1-1. Parameters within each grouping were measured simultaneously, where applicable.



## T ABLE 

## 1-1 S COPE OF 

## W ORK 

## G EORGIA 

## P OWER 

## C OMPANY 

## , P LANT 

## W ANSLEY 

## , U NITS 

## 1 AND 

## 2
Group A Parameters HCl, HF, and HCN (M26A)

O 2 

### /CO 2 

### (M3A Modified)

Group A Sampling Notes – All parameters were sampled c oncurrently and meet the minimum requirements of the EPA’s ICR.

## I NTRODUCTION

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 7

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

### WESTON performed the emission te sting during 22 April 2010. The project team included the individuals identified in Table 1-2.



## T ABLE 

## 1-2 WESTON P ROJECT 

## T EAM


### Name Project Role QSTI Credential Jon Howard Program Manager QSTI 1, 2, and 4 Qualified Individual Gregory Sims Technical Director QS TI 1, 2, and 3 Qualified Individual QSTI 4 Certified
Matt Dallesasse Test Team Member ---- Billy Routhier Test Team Memb er QSTI 3 Qualified Individual

Kevin Rass Test Team Member ---- Steve Daughtry Test Team Member ---- Melanie Wright Quality Assurance Manager QSTI 1 Qualified Individual Natalie Vaught Report Coordinato r QSTI 3 Qualified Individual

Ms. Christie Garrett of Georgia Power Compa ny (GPC) coordinated the testing with plant operations. Mr. Wim Marchant an d Mr. Gary Blackmon of SCS pr ovided technical assistance and oversight for the test program. A representative of the Georgia Department of Environmental Protection (GEPD) was not present during testing

The Louisiana Environmental La boratory Accreditation Program (LELAP) accredits WESTON’s emission testing laboratory. The stipulation associat ed with this accrediting authority precedes the table of contents of this report.K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 8

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

# S ECTION 

# 2 R ESULTS AND 

# D ISCUSSION



## 2.1 E MISSION 

## T ESTING 

## R ESULTS

Tables 2-1 and 2-2 provide detailed summaries of the emission results. Any differences between the calculated results presented in the appendices a nd the results reported in the summary tables are due to rounding for presentation.
Following is a description of the procedures and methods used to determine the minimum analytical detection limits for each test parameter.
Derivation of Analytical Dete ction Limits and Their Use in Calculating Source Emission Concentrations and Rates.
Method Detection Limit (MDL)

EPA defines the Method Detection Limit (MDL) as:

The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given ma trix type contai ning the analyte.

WESTON conducts a method detect ion limit study each year to support EPA Methods 26A and CTM 033 analytical work in accordance with the procedures set forth in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 136.
In summary, this approach involves multiple analyses of prepared samples at or near the expected lower range of the analytical method. While the MDL has value from a theo retical perspective, it has limited use for practical applicat ions because analytes of interest are almost always present in a matrix that differs significantly from that of the prepared samples used to conduct the MDL study.
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) for Methods 26/26A (HCl, HF, and HCN)

EPA defines the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) as:

The lowest concentration of a chemical that can be accurately and reproducibly quantitated (Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Vo lume I -- Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002, Types a nd Definitions of Detection Limits and Quantitation Limits)

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 9

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

### The LOQ is the concentration or mass that the labor atory has established as the lowest defensible level that can be reported and still be considered accurate. The LOQ must be greater than or equal to the results of the MDL.

The WESTON lab has established LOQ values of 3X the MDL for HCl, HF, and HCN.
For these three compounds WESTON calculates emi ssion test results usi ng the reported LOQ for ND samples and reports them as less than (<) values.



## T ABLE 

## 2-1 P LANT 

## W ANSLEY 

## , U NIT 

## 1 S UMMARY OF 

## A CID 

## G ASES 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS
Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Test Time Date 4/22/10 4/22/10 4/22/10 --- Start Time 0728 0859 1014 --- End Time 0838 1007 1127 --- Isokinetic Sampling Rate 112 a 111 a 107 110 Stack Gas Characteristics Temperature, o F 123 124 124 124 Oxygen, % 8.4 6.9 6.4 7.2 Carbon Dioxide, % 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.2 Moisture, % 13 13 13 13 Velocity, ft/sec 50 49 49 49 Volumetric Flow Rate Actual, acfm 2.70 E+06 2.67 E+06 2.67 E+06 2.68 E+06 Wet Standard, wscfm 2.37 E+06 2.33 E+06 2.33 E+06 2.34 E+06 Dry Standard, dscfm 2.06 E+06 2.02 E+06 2.02 E+06 2.03 E+06 ACID GASES Hydrogen Chloride Emission Rate, O 2 F-Factor, lb/MMBtu 2.29 E-04 4.37 E-04 2.24 E-04 2.97 E-04 Hydrogen Fluoride Emission Rate, O 2 F-Factor, lb/MMBtu 7.79 E-05 1.01 E-04 8.38 E-05 8.76 E-05 Hydrogen Cyanide Emission Rate, O 2 F-Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.40 E-04] [<3.10 E-04] [<3.33 E-04] [<3.27 E-04]

a The isokinetic sampling rate for Run 1 and Run 2 exceeded th e allowable percentage after the results were corrected for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) loss.
Note 1: Sample volumes were corrected to account for CO 2 loss from the gas stream due to the use of concentrated sodium hydroxide.
Note. 2: Sample results indicating measured mass below the LOQ were indicated by brackets around the < LOQ value.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 10

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## T ABLE 

## 2-2 P LANT 

## W ANSLEY 

## , U NIT 

## 2 S UMMARY OF 

## A CID 

## G ASES 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS
Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average Test Time Date 4/22/10 4/22/10 4/22/10 --- Start Time 1138 1258 1422 --- End Time 1248 1409 1528 --- Isokinetic Sampling Rate 108 110 106 108 Stack Gas Characteristics Temperature, o F 123 124 124 124 Oxygen, % 6.2 6.4 7.9 6.9 Carbon Dioxide, % 12.1 12.1 11.9 12.1 Moisture, % 13 13 13 13 Velocity, ft/sec 48 48 49 48 Volumetric Flow Rate Actual, acfm 2.61 E+06 2.64 E+06 2.65 E+06 2.63 E+06 Wet Standard, wscfm 2.28 E+06 2.30 E+06 2.32 E+06 2.30 E+06 Dry Standard, dscfm 1.98 E+06 2.00 E+06 2.01 E+06 2.00 E+06 ACID GASES Hydrogen Chloride Emission Rate, O 2 F-Factor, lb/MMBtu 2.29 E-04 2.00 E-04 2.06 E-04 2.12 E-04 Hydrogen Fluoride Emission Rate, O 2 F-Factor, lb/MMBtu 8.49 E-05 5.77 E-05 [<5.00 E-05] <6.42 E-05 Hydrogen Cyanide Emission Rate, O 2 F-Factor, lb/MMBtu [<2.93 E-04] [<3.17 E-04] [<3.34 E-04] [<3.14 E-04] Samples results indicating measured masses above the LOQ for on e or more runs (but not all runs) have been presented as < and shade.
Note 1: Sample volumes were corrected to account for CO 2 loss from the gas stream due to the use of concentrated sodium hydroxide.
Note. 2: Sample results indicating measured mass below the LOQ were indicated by brackets around the < LOQ value.K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 11

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

# S ECTION 

# 3 P ROCESS 

# D ESCRIPTION



## 3.1 S OURCE 

## D ESCRIPTIONS AND 

## T EST 

## L OCATIONS

Unit 1 at Plant Wansley is an 865 MW generating uni t which started commerci al operation in 1976. The Combustion Engineering tangential fire d unit is equipped with an SCR for NO X 

### control.
Unit 2 at Plant Wansley is an 865 MW generating uni t which started commerci al operation in 1978. The Combustion Engineering tangential fire d unit is equipped with an SCR for NO X 

### control.



## 3.2 P OLLUTION 

## C ONTROL 

## E QUIPMENT

Primary particulate control is by a Cold-Side, Res- Cott/SEI RDE electrostatic precipitator. Sulfur dioxide removal and additional PM control is performed by a Chiyoda Jet Bubbling Reactor commissioned in 2008.
Primary particulate control is by a Cold-Side, Res. -Cott. Weighted Wire elect rostatic precipitator. Sulfur dioxide removal and additional PM contro l is performed by a Chiyoda Jet Bubbling Reactor commissioned in 2009.
At the time of the ICR test program, no additi onal exhaust gas contro ls were in operation.



## 3.3 S OOTBLOWING

No sootblowing activities were con ducted during any test run events.

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 12

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## 3.4 P ROCESS 

## P ARAMETERS

Table 3-1 presents the process inform ation collected during the ICR testing.



## T ABLE 

## 3-1 P LANT 

## W ANSLEY 

## , U NIT 

## 1

P ROCESS 

## P ARAMETERS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean Date 4/22/10 4/22/10 4/22/10 --- Time Began 0728 0859 1014 --- Time Ended 0838 1007 1127 --- NO x , ppmvd 30.567 31.629 31.329 31.175 SO 2 , ppmvd 25.882 28.022 25.100 26.335 Gross Electric Output, MW 919.788 919.790 920.675 920.084 Station Service, MW 47.116 46.470 46.411 46.666 Net Load, MW 872.672 873.320 874.264 873.419 ESP, Total KW 1,026.096 1,029.107 1,014.257 1,023.153 Main Steam Flow, Klb/hr 6,378.936 6,378.293 6,384.410 6,380.546 Total Fuel Flow, Klb/hr 476.310 477.140 472.347 475.265 Coal Heat Value, Btu/lb 12,119.000 12,119.000 12,119.000 12,119.000 Total Heat Input (from Coal Feed), MMBtu/hr 5,772.395 5,782.456 5,724.375 5,759.742 Total Heat Input (from Flow/CO 2 ), MMBtu/hr a 7,883.918 7,742.852 7,648.245 7,758.338 Scrubber Parameters Slurry pH 5.238 5.176 5.276 5.230 Submergence Level, in 8.245 8.201 8.262 8.236 Differential Pressure, in H 2 O 14.646 14.582 14.556 14.595

a The Total Heat Input calculations show a significant discrepancy. The Heat Input calculated from the flow rate and carbon dioxide is correct, the reported Heat Input from the Coal Feed Rate is low due to a signal scaling issue. For emission rate calculation, the ap propriate F-Factor is used to calculate the emission rates.

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 13

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## T ABLE 

## 3-2 P LANT 

## W ANSLEY 

## , U NIT 

## 2

P ROCESS 

## P ARAMETERS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean Date 4/22/10 4/22/10 4/22/10 --- Time Began 1138 1258 1422 --- Time Ended 1248 1409 1528 --- NO x , ppmvd 31.741 32.067 32.499 32.102 SO 2 , ppmvd 23.992 18.122 16.856 19.657 Gross Electric Output, MW 922.427 922.540 926.880 923.949 Station Service, MW 46.591 46.182 46.132 46.302 Net Load, MW 875.836 876.359 880.747 877.648 ESP, Total KW 798.388 779.336 784.439 787.387 Main Steam Flow, Klb/hr 6,397.166 6,397.205 6,426.286 6,406.886 Total Fuel Flow, Klb/hr 471.066 466.257 465.620 467.648 Coal Heat Value, Btu/lb 12,106.000 12,106.000 12,106.000 12,106.000 Total Heat Input (from Coal Feed), MMBtu/hr 5,702.731 5,644.505 5,636.790 5,661.342 Total Heat Input (from Flow/CO 2 ), MMBtu/hr a 7,947.562 7,914.061 7,871.586 7,911.070 Scrubber Parameters Slurry pH 5.561 5.577 5.618 5.586 Submergence Level, in 8.067 8.176 8.044 8.095 Differential Pressure, in H 2 O 14.048 14.314 14.126 14.163

a The Total Heat Input calculations show a significant discrepancy. The Heat Input calculated from the flow rate and carbon dioxide is correct, the reported Heat Input from the Coal Feed Rate is low due to a signal scaling issue. For emission rate calculation, the ap propriate F-Factor is used to calculate the emission rates.K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 14

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

# S ECTION 

# 4 Q UALITY 

# C ONTROL

This section provides detailed information regard ing the QA/QC activities associated with stack sampling.



## 4.1 D ATA 

## C OLLECTION AND 

## R EDUCTION

Data were collected on pre-printed data sheets or electronically using validated data acquisition instrumentation and software. Collected data we re reduced using pre-pr ogrammed calculators and validated spreadsheets. Data transfers were independently verified.
Copies of field data sheets are provided in the Appendices.



## 4.2 C HAIN


## - OF 

## -C USTODY

Sample chain-of-custody was maintained from sample train recovery through analysis at the laboratory. Chain-of-custody forms accompany the analytical results provided in Appendix D.



## 4.3 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## V OLUMETRIC 

## F LOW 

## M EASUREMENTS

Volumetric flow data were obt ained using certified pitot tube s and temperature measurement equipment. Equipment used during the test pr ogram met the requirements of EPA Method 2. Copies of calibration data are provided in Appendix E.

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 15

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## 4.4 U NIT 

## 1 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## I SOKINETIC 

## S AMPLING 

## M ETHODS 

## A CID 

## G ASES 

## M EASUREMENTS
Acid gases were measured using isokinetic sampli ng procedures. Table 4-1 summarizes the method performance criteria and achieved results for the method. Additionally, Appendix E provides copies of stack test equipment calibration data.



## T ABLE 

## 4-1 U NIT 

## 1 S UMMARY OF 

## M ETHOD 

## 26A/CTM033 P ERFORMANCE 

## C RITERIA AND 

## A CHIEVED 

## R ESULTS

Method 26A Performance Data

QA Specification Performance Acceptance Criteria Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Isokinetic Sampling Rate, % a 112 111 107 90%-110% Minimum Sampling Time 60 min 60 min 60 min 60 minutes Minimum Sample Volume, M 3 0.90 0.96 0.94 ---- pH (CTM033) 13.7 13.7 13.8 >12 Duplicate Analysis (26A) <5% <5% <5% < 5% difference

a The isokinetic sampling rate for Run 1 and Run 2 exceeded th e allowable percentage after the results were corrected for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) loss.

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 16

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## 4.5 U NIT 

## 2 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## I SOKINETIC 

## S AMPLING 

## M ETHODS 

## A CID 

## G ASES 

## M EASUREMENTS
Acid gases were measured using isokinetic sampli ng procedures. Table 4-2 summarizes the method performance criteria and achieved results for the method. Additionally, Appendix E provides copies of stack test equipment calibration data.



## T ABLE 

## 4-2 U NIT 

## 2 S UMMARY OF 

## M ETHOD 

## 26A P ERFORMANCE 

## C RITERIA AND 

## A CHIEVED 

## R ESULTS

Method 26A Performance Data

QA Specification Performance Acceptance Criteria Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Isokinetic Sampling Rate, % 108 110 106 90%-110% Minimum Sampling Time 60 min 60 min 60 min 60 minutes Minimum Sample Volume, M 3 0.93 0.95 0.92 ---- pH (CTM033) 13.7 13.7 13.7 >12 Duplicate Analysis (26A) <5% <5% <5% < 5% differenceK:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 17

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

# S ECTION 

# 5 S OURCE 

# T ESTING 

# M ETHODOLOGY

The emission testing program was conducted in acco rdance with the U.S. EPA Reference Methods summarized in Table 5-1. Method descriptions and quality assurance data are provided in the referenced appendices.



## T ABLE 

## 5-1 S OURCE 

## T ESTING 

## M ETHODOLOGY

Parameter Method Number Appendix Reference

Comments Data Qualifiers Method Description Quality Control

Data Volumetric Flow Rate 1,2,4 B.1 E See Note 1 Gas Composition 3A B.2 E See Note 2 HCl, HF, and HCN 26A/CTM033 B.3 E See Note 3



### These results meet all requirements of NELAC unless otherwise specified.
The results within this report re late only to the sa mples listed in the body of this report.

Notes:

1. The source was oversaturated. Mo isture was calculated from the sa turation tables at the source temperature and pressure.

2. Modified analysis of integrated bag samples.

3. The method was modified by using 6N sodium hyd roxide to maintain a pH above 12. The sample volumes are corrected for the CO 2 

### concentration; due to the use of the strong caustic, CO 2 

### is removed from the gas stream.K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 18

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

# A PPENDIX 

# A E XAMPLE 

# C ALCULATIONS

## A PPENDIX 

## A

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 19

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## E XAMPLE 

## C ALCULATIONS

Meter Pressure (Pm), in. Hg

Hg O/in. H in. 13.6 H + Pb = Pm 2 ∆

where, Pb = barometric pressure, in. Hg ∆ H = Pressure differential of orifice in. H 2 O
Absolute Stack Gas Pressure (Ps), in. Hg

Hg O/in. H in. 13.6 Pg + Pb = Ps 2
where, Pb = barometric pressure, in. Hg Pg = Static Pressure, in. H 2 O

Standard Meter Volume (Vmstd), dscf

Tm Pm x Vm x Y x Hg R/in. 17.64 Vmstd °

=

where, Y = meter correction factor Vm = meter volume, cf or L Pm = meter pressure, in. Hg Tm = meter temperature, o R

CO 2 Volume Correction

Vmstd corrected CO % actual

- 100 CO % measured

- 100 x Vmstd

2 2
= ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

Standard Wet Volu me (Vwstd), scf

Vlc x /mL ft 0.04707 Vwstd 3

=

where, Vlc = volume of H 2 O collected, mL

Standard Wet Vo lume (Vwstd), L

Vlc x L/mL 1.333 Vwstd =
where, Vlc = volume of H 2 O collected, mL

## A PPENDIX 

## A

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANS LEY MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 20

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version Moisture Fraction (Measured), (Bws)

Vmstd) + (Vwstd Vwstd

= Bws

where, Vwstd = standard wet volume, scf or L Vmstd = standard meter volume, dscf or L

Moisture Fraction (at saturation), (Bws)

Ps Vp

= Bws

where, Vp = vapor pressure of H 2 O at stack gas temp., in. Hg Ps = absolute stack gas pressure, in. Hg

Moisture, % (M%)

100 x Bws = % M

where, Bws = moisture fraction, measur ed or at saturation, whichever is lowest
Molecular Weight (DRY) (Md), lb/lb-mole

)) O %

- CO %

- (100 (0.28 + ) O % x (0.32 + ) CO % x (0.44 = Md 2 2 2 2
Molecular Weight (WET) (Ms), lb/lb-mole

(Bws) 18 + Bws)

- (1 Md = Ms where, Md = molecular weight (DRY), lb/lb-mole Bws = moisture fraction, dimensionless
Average Velocity (Vs), ft/sec

Ms x Ps Ts x avg. P Delta x Cp x O) H R)(in. ( Hg) (in. mole)

- (lb/lb

sec ft 85.49 = Vs 2 °

where, Cp = pitot tube coefficient Delta P = velocity head of stack gas, in. H 2 O Ts = absolute stack temperature, o R Ps = absolute stack gas pressure, in. Hg Ms = molecular weight of stack gas, lb/lb-mole
Average Stack Gas Flow at Stack Conditions (Qa), acfm

As x Vs x sec/min 60 = Qa where, Vs = stack gas velocity, ft/sec As = cross-sectional area of stack, ft 2

## A PPENDIX 

## A

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANS LEY MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 21

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version Average Stack Gas Flow at St andard Conditions (Qs), dscfm

Ts Ps x Bws)

- (1 x Qa x Hg in. R 17.64 Qs °

=

where, Qa = average stack gas flow at stack conditions, ft 3 /min Bws = moisture content (dimensionless) Ps = absolute stack gas pressure, in. Hg Ts = absolute stack temperature, o R
Percent Isokinetic Sampling Rate (%I)

Bws)

- (1 x x An x Vs x Ps Vmstd x Ts x (sec) R) (min)/( Hg) (in. 0.0945

= I % Θ °

where, Ts = avg. stack temperature, o R Vmstd = standard meter volume, dscf Ps = absolute stack gas pressure, in. Hg Vs = stack gas velocity, ft/sec An = cross-sectional area of nozzle, ft 2 Θ = total sampling time, min Bws = moisture content (dimensionless)

HCl Concentration (conc.), ppm ( μ L/L)

(L) vol. sample x mole

- g g wt mol. mole

- g L 24.04 x g mass

= conc.

μ μ μ μ μ

Emission Rate (EMR), lb/MMBtu (O 2 F-Factor)

2 O %

- 20.9 20.9 x MMBtu

dscf factor, F x MW x ppm lb/scfM 09

- E 2.59 x dry conc. = EMR

where, HCl conc. dry = measured HCl conc., dry ppm F factor = defined by client or CFR, scf/MMBtu Bws = moisture fraction, dimensionless M = molecular weight of HCl (36.47 lb/lb-mole)K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 22

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

# A PPENDIX 

# B T EST 

# M ETHODOLOGY

B.1 V OLUMETRIC 

### F LOW 

### R ATE



### B.2 G AS 

### C OMPOSITION


### B.3 HCl, HF, AND 

### HCN (M26A/CTM033)

## A PPENDIX 

## B

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 23

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## B.1 V OLUMETRIC 

## F LOW 

## R ATE

Mass emission rates are calculated by multiplying measured target analyte concentrations by calculated volumetric flow rates. Volumetric fl ow rates are calculated using measurement data obtained by EPA Reference Methods 1-4.

The ductwork is measured at the sa mple location to the ne arest 0.25 inch using a steel tape measure. Traverse points are selected in accordance with EPA Reference Method 1 on the basis of ductwork dimensions, geometry, and upstream and downstream disturbances. When a sample location does not meet EPA Reference Method 1 criteria, the maximum recommende d number of traverse points is used.
Gas Velocity
The velocity of the gas stream is measured in accordance with EPA Reference Method 2 by reading the instantaneous velocity pressure with an inclin ed manometer at each trav erse point using an “S” type pitot tube. The stack pressu re was calculated from the measured static pressure of the stack and the ambient barometric pressure. The static pr essure was measured by using the static side of the pitot tube, and the barometric pressure was m easured using a calibrated aneroid barometer. An inclined manometer with a scale of 0 to 10 in ches of water was used for velocity pressure
measurements.

Moisture Content
The moisture content of the gas stream is dete rmined using one of the following procedures:

• For sources requiring testing by EPA Reference or Test Methods 5, 8, 12, 13, 17, 23, 26A, 29, 0010, or 0011, moisture is determined by EPA Reference Method 4. At the conclusion of each run the volume of condensed moisture in the impi ngers of the sampling train is measured and used to calculate the moisture content of the gas stream.

• For sources with temper atures greater than 212 °F, the approximation technique described in EPA Reference Method 4 may be used with midget impingers to condense moisture before dry gas volume measurement.

• For sources with a temperature of less th an 212 °F, wet bulb/dry bulb temperature measurements may be made, and the moisture content calculated using vapor pressure tables.
When multiple methods are used for moisture determ inations, the lowest moisture value is used for volumetric flow calculations.

## A PPENDIX 

## B

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 24

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

### The molecular weight of the gas stream is cal culated using the measured moisture, oxygen, and carbon dioxide concentrations. The balance of the gas stream is assumed to be nitrogen. The volumetric flow is then calculated at stack and standard conditions using the calculated molecular weight, the measured stack temperature, and measur ed velocity, stack and ba rometric pressures. Standard conditions are 68 °F and 29.92 in ches of mercury and 0% moisture.
Data Acquisition and Reporting
Data are recorded at the time of collection on prep rinted data sheets. Ca lculations are performed (where possible) with preprogrammed calculators or spreadsheet software.
Quality Control
Quality control procedures for volumetric flow m easurements involve leak checks of pitot tubes, pitot tube lines and manometers and periodic ca libration checks of thermocouples and pyrometers.

Data transfers are minimized. Data sheets are checked for completeness and accuracy. Calculations are verifi ed by a second person.

## A PPENDIX 

## B

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 25

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## B.2 G AS 

## C OMPOSITION 

## (I NSTRUMENTAL 

## )

Oxygen (O 2 

### ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) were collected in integrated bags and analyzed in accordance with EPA Reference Method 3A.
Sampling Equipment and Procedures
Figure B-1 illustrates the sampling system. The sa mple is withdrawn contin uously from the source through a heated probe, filter, and sample line to a sample conditi oner which removes moisture from the gas stream. The sample is then tr ansported to an O 2 

### analyzer and a CO 2 

### analyzer.
Sample Analysis

The O 2 

### analyzer uses an electrochemical cell or paramagnetic detector and the CO 2 

### analyzer uses a non-dispersive infra-red (NDIR) detect or to produce an electrical signal which is linearly proportional to the O 2 

### and CO 2 

### concentration, respectively.
Data Acquisitio n and Reduction
Data is acquired electronically using a computer and software designed by WE STON for EPA Reference Method 3A analysis. Th is system generates a calibration cu rve, converts electronic signals into concentrations, and provides one-minute av erages during the sample run and an average concentration over the du ration of the sample run.
Quality Control
At the time of analysis, O 2 

### and CO 2 

### in nitrogen calibration gases cer tified according to EPA Protocol-1, are used to calibrate the analyzer and to determine a bias correction factor for the entire system bias in accordance with EPA Reference Method 3A. The calib ration gases are introduced directly to the analyzer to generate the calibration curve. A zero ga s and an upscale calibration gas is introduced at the probe and recovered through the sampling and an alytical system. A bias correction factor is calculated using the ratio of the co ncentration measured from the sa mpling system an d concentration measured directly at the analy zer. Sample run averages are co rrected for system bias results.

## A PPENDIX 

## B

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 26

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. VersionFigure B-1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System

## A PPENDIX 

## B

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 27

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version 

## B.3 EPA M ETHOD 

## 26A/CTM-033 S AMPLING 

## T RAIN 

## (H C 

## l, HF 

## , HCN 

## )

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl ) and hydrogen cyanide emissions testing was performed isokinetically utilizi ng a sampling train that combines EPA Reference Method 26A and EPA Conditional Test Method 033 (CTM-033 Modified).
A borosilicate glass nozzle was attached directly to a heated borosilicate gla ss probe of appropriate length. The probe was c onnected to a heated borosilicate glass f ilter holder with a Teflon filter support containing a 9-cm quartz fiber filt er. The filter holder was connected to the first of seven impingers. During the effort the first impinger cont ained 50 mL of 0.1N sulfuric acid (H 2 

### SO 4 

### ). The second and third impingers each cont ained 100 mL of 0.1N H 2 

### SO 4 

### . The fourth, fi fth and sixth impingers each contained 100 mL of 6N NaOH. The seventh impinge r contained 300 grams of dry pre-weighed silica gel. The second and third impingers were standa rd Greenburg-Smith impingers. All other impingers were modified design. All impingers were maintain ed in a crushed ice bath. A gas measuring control console with a leak-free vacuum pu mp, a calibrated dry gas meter, a calibrated orifice, and inclined
manometers was co nnected to the final imping er, probe, heat ed filter holder, and pitot tube via an umbilical cord to complete the train. Figure B-2 presents a schematic of the sampling train.
Flue gas velocity was measured wi th a calibrated S-type pitot tube fastened alongside the sampling nozzle. Flue gas temperatures we re monitored with a cal ibrated direct readout digital thermometer equipped with a chromel-alumel (Type K) thermocouple positioned near the sampling nozzle. The probe, filter box, and impinge r exit gas temperatures were monitored with a calibrated direct readout digital thermometer equippe d with type K thermocouples positioned in the probe, heat ed filter box and in the gas stream after the last impinger.

## A PPENDIX 

## B

K:\12251_SO CO\014 PLANT WANSLEY\400\DELIVERABLES\SC PLANT WANSLE Y MAY 10 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT.DOC 28

2 July 2010 11:30 a.m. Version6Figure B-2 EPA Reference Method 26A/CTM-033 HCl, HF, and HCN Sampling Train