## Report on the Fuller Baghouse

Air Emissions Test Program

Conducted for Nichols Aluminum Casting

at their Facility Located in Davenport, Iowa

Report No. 3592

- Fuller

October 30, 2012

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 1



## Table o f Contents

PROJECT OVERVIEW

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 8

General

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 8

Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 17

Parameters

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 24

Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 28

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 33

Table 1

– Summary of PM, HF and HCl Results, Melter 3

................................ ................................ .. 34

Table 2

– Summary of D/F Results, Melter 3

................................ ................................ ...................... 40

Table 3

– Summary of PM, HF and HCl Results, Inlet, Melter 3 and Delaq

................................ ....... 45

Table 4

– Summary of D/F and THC Results, Inlet, Melter 3 and Delaq

................................ ............. 51

Table 5

– Summary of PM, HF and HCl Results, Exhaust, Melter 3 and Delaq

................................ .. 56

Table 6

– Summary of D/F Results, Exhaust, Melter 3 and Delaq

................................ ....................... 62

TEST PROCEDURES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 68

Method Listing

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 68

Method 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 74

Method 2

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 79

Methods 5/26A

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 88

Method 9

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 105

Method 23

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 108

Method 25A

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 118

DESCRIPTION OF PROCE SS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 125

APPENDIX

Figures

Sample Calculations

Parameters

Field Data Printouts

Field Data

Laboratory Data

Calibration Data

Process Data

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 2



## Project Overview

General

Airtech Environmental Services Inc. (Airtech) was contracted by Nichols Aluminum

Casting (Nichols) to perform an air emissions test program at their facilit y located in

Davenport, Iowa. The objective of the test program was to satisfy the requirements of 40

CFR Part 63, Subpart RRR (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Secondary Aluminum Smelters). In addition, testing was conducted to satisfy PSD

and Title V permit requirements.

Testing in this document was conducted on the process controlled by the Fuller baghouse.

The locations tested were:

• Melter 3 Outlet Duct

• Fuller Baghouse Inlet

• Fuller Baghouse Exhaust

The specific objectiv es of the test program were:

• Determine the emissions of particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl),

hydrogen fluoride (HF) and dioxins/furans (D/F) from the exhaust of the Melter 3

outlet duct during normal process conditions.

• Determine the emissions of particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl),

hydrogen fluoride (HF), dioxins/furans (D/F) and total hydrocarbons (THC) from

the inlet of the Fuller Baghouse with Melter 3 and the delaquering kiln in

operation

.

• Determine the emissions of particulat e matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl),

hydrogen fluoride (HF), dioxins/furans (D/F) and total hydrocarbons (THC) from

the exhaust of the Fuller Baghouse with Melter 3 and the delaquering kiln in

operation.

.

• Determine the opacity of emissions from the Full er Baghouse exhaust

.

All testing was performed on August 15 through August 17 , 20 12 . Coordinating the field

portion of the test program were:

Brian McCabe

- Nichols Aluminum Casting

Jeff Kaput

- Airtech Environmental Services Inc.

Kurt Wepprecht

- Airtec h Environmental Services Inc.

Methodology

The PM, HCl and HF concentrations at each test location were determined using EPA

Methods 5 and 26A in a combined sample train. A sample of the gas stream was

withdrawn isokinetically from each source through a he ated glass lined probe, heated

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 3



### Teflon fiber filter, and a dilute sulfuric acid solution. The probe wash and filter were

analyzed gravimetrically for particulate matter . The sulfuric acid solution was analyzed

for HF and HCl by ion chromatography. Analys is of the samples was performed by

Airtech Environmental Services Inc. at the Airtech laboratory located in Denver,

Colorado.

EPA Method 23 was used to determine the concentration D / F at each test location . In

Method 23, a sample of the gas stream is wit hdrawn isokinetically from the stack and D/F

in the sample gas wa s collected in a glass sample probe, on a glass fiber filter, and on a

packed adsorbent media. The D/F is then extracted from the various fractions,

concentrated and separated using high res olution gas chromatography and measured by

high resolution mass spectrometry. Analysis of the samples was performed by SGS

Analytical Perspectives located in Wilmington, North Carolina. Results were adjusted

for toxic equivalency.

EPA Method 25A was use d to determine the THC concentration at the Fuller inlet and

exhaust test location s

. In Method 25A, a sample of the gas stream was withdrawn from

the test location at a constant rate through a stainless steel probe and a Teflon heated

sample line. The ho t, wet sample gas was then vented to a heated flame ionization

analyzer (FIA). The analyzer is calibrated with EPA Protocol mixtures of propane in a

balance of nitrogen.

To convert the concentrations of the various pollutants to mass emission rates, the

volumetric gas flow rate at each test location was determined using EPA Methods 1 , 2

and 4. In addition, the opacity of the emissions at the baghouse exhaust was determined

using EPA Method 9. Opacity observations were conducted by a certified observer

s upplied by Airtech

.

Parameters

The following specific parameters were determined at each test location except where

noted:

• gas velocity

• gas temperature

• moisture content

• particulate concentration

• opacity of emissions ( exhaust only)

• dioxins/furan concentrati on

• hydrogen chloride concentration

• hydrogen fluoride concentration

• total hydrocarbon concentration ( inlet and exhaust only)

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 4



### Results

A summary of results is presented in Tables 1 through 6 on pages 5 through 1 0

.

Because all test locations emitted es sentially ambient air, the dry molecular weight of

29.00 was used in lieu of performing Method 3 as allowed by Method 2, Section 8.6.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Cathy Busse Jeff Kaput

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 5



## Summary of Results

Table 1

– Summary of PM , HF and HC l Results, Melter 3

**Test Parameters** Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date 8/15/12 8/16/12 8/17/12

Start Time 12:10 10:30 9:00

Stop Time 15:22 13:44 12:13



### Production Rate

Throughput (tons/hr) 21.48 17.62 14.03 17.71



### Gas Conditions

Te mperature ( o F) 139 134 139 137

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 94,900 95,500 94,700 95,000

Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 80,600 81,500 80,900 81,000

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 79,400 79,700 79,800 79,600

Moisture (%) 1.51 2.33 1.48 1.77



### Particulate **Results**

Concentration (grains/dscf) 0.0119 0.00729 0.0208 0.0133

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 8.08 4.98 14.2 9.09



### Hydrogen Fluoride Results

Concentration (lb/dscf) 7.03E

- 08 2.90E

- 09 4.85E

- 08 4.06E

- 08

Concentration (ppmdv) 1.35 0.0559 0.933 0.78 1

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 0.335 0.0139 0.232 0.194



### Hydrogen Chloride Results

Concentration (lb/dscf) 1.27E

- 07 2.58E

- 08 1.78E

- 07 1.10E

- 07

Concentration (ppmdv) 1.34 0.273 1.88 1.16

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 0.603 0.123 0.851 0.526

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 6



### Table 2

– Sum mary of D/F Results, Melter 3

**Test Parameters** Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date 8/15/2012 8/16/2012 8/17/2012

Start Time 12:10 10:30 9:00

Stop Time 15:22 13:44 12:13



### Production Rate

Melter Throughput (tons/hr) 21.48 17.62 14.03 17.71



### Gas Conditions

Temperature ( o F) 137 134 132 134

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 95,000 95,600 95,100 95,200

Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 80,900 81,700 82,200 81,600

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 79,400 79,900 81,100 80,100

Moisture (%) 1.91 2.18 1.39 1.82

**D/F TEQ Results** 

Concentration (ng/dscm) 0.163 0.129 0.847 0.380

Emission Rate (g/sec) 6.11E

- 09 4.87E

- 09 3.24E

- 08 1.45E

- 08

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 4.85E

- 08 3.87E

- 08 2.57E

- 07 1.15E

- 07

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 7



### Table 3

– Summary of PM, HF and HCl Results , Inlet , Melter 3 and Delaq

**Test Parameters** Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date 8/15/12 8/16/12 8/17/12

Start Time 12:10 10:30 9:00

Stop Time 15:56 13:45 12:15



### Production Rate **s**

Melter Throughput (tons/hr) 21.48 17.62 14.03 17.71

Delaq Throug hput (tons/hr) 28.95 26.67 29.27 28.30



### Gas Conditions

Temperature ( o F) 266 253 246 255

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 166,700 165,900 165,900 166,200

Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 115,500 116,900 119,100 117,200

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 113,0 00 113,500 115,900 114,100

Moisture (%) 2.20 2.96 2.74 2.63



### Particulate Results

Concentration (grains/dscf) 0.0549 0.148 0.0340 0.0790

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 53.2 144 33.8 77.1



### Hydrogen Fluoride Results

Concentration (lb/dscf) 2.21 E

- 07 1.61E

- 07 3.24E

- 07 2.35E

- 07

Concentration (ppmdv) 4.25 3.09 6.24 4.53

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 1.50 1.09 2.25 1.61



### Hydrogen Chloride Results

Concentration (lb/dscf) 6.48E

- 06 9.40E

- 06 8.87E

- 06 8.25E

- 06

Concentration (ppmdv) 68.5 99.4 93.7 87 .2

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 43.9 64.0 61.7 56.5

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 8



### Table 4

– Summary of D/F and THC Results, Inlet , Melter 3 and Delaq

**Test Parameters** Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date 8/15/2012 8/16/2012 8/17/2012

Start Time 12:10 10:30 9:00

Stop Time 15:56 13:45 12:15



### Production Rate **s**

Melter Throughput (tons/hr) 21.48 17.62 14.03 17.71

Delaq Throughput (tons/hr) 28.95 26.67 29.27 28.30



### Gas Conditions

Temperature ( o F) 275 252 246 257

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 164,800 165,700 162,900 164,400

Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 112,800 116,800 116,900 115,500

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 110,300 113,700 115,500 113,200

Moisture (%) 2.25 2.70 1.21 2.05

**D/F TEQ Results** 

Concentration (ng/dscm) 0.256 0.126 0.521 0.301

Emission Rate (g/sec) 1.33E

- 08 6.74E

- 09 2.84E

- 08 1.62E

- 08

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 1.06E

- 07 5.35E

- 08 2.26E

- 07 1.28E

- 07

**TNMHC Results**

THC Concentration, as propane (ppmwv) 5.13 3.48 6.36 4.99

THC Emission Rate, as propane (lb/hr) 3.98 2.79 5.11 3.96

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 9



### Table 5

– Su mmary of PM, HF and HCl Results, Exhaust , Melter 3 and Delaq

**Test Parameters** Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date 8/15/12 8/16/12 8/17/12

Start Time 12:10 10:30 9:00

Stop Time 15:30 13:38 12:10



### Production Rate **s**

Melter Throughput (tons/hr) 21.4 8 17.62 14.03 17.71

Delaq Throughput (tons/hr) 28.95 26.67 29.27 28.30



### Gas Conditions

Temperature ( o F) 234 220 216 223

Volumetric Flow Rate (acfm) 156,600 157,800 156,900 157,100

Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 117,100 118,900 119,900 118,600

V olumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 114,000 115,500 117,600 115,700

Moisture (%) 2.65 2.93 1.96 2.51



### Particulate Results

Concentration (grains/dscf) 0.000158 0.0000945 0.000283 0.000179

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 0.155 0.0935 0.285 0.178



### Hydrogen F **luoride Results**

Concentration (lb/dscf) 1.22E

- 07 6.87E

- 08 1.44E

- 07 1.12E

- 07

Concentration (ppmdv) 2.34 1.32 2.78 2.15

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 0.831 0.476 1.02 0.775



### Hydrogen Chloride Results

Concentration (lb/dscf) 5.49E

- 06 7.01E

- 06 3.97E

- 06 5.49E

- 06

Concentration (ppmdv) 58.0 74.1 41.9 58.0

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 37.6 48.6 28.0 38.0

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 10



### Table 6

– Summary of D/F Results, Exhaust , Melter 3 and Delaq

**Test Parameters** Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date 8/15/2012 8/16/2012 8/17/2012

Start Time 12:10 10:30 9:00

Stop Time 15:30 13:38 12:10



### Production Rate **s**

Melter Throughput (tons/hr) 21.48 17.62 14.03 17.71

Delaq Throughput (tons/hr) 28.95 26.67 29.27 28.30



### Gas Conditions

Temperature ( o F) 233 220 217 223

Volumetric Fl ow Rate (acfm) 164,600 158,400 162,400 161,800

Volumetric Flow Rate (scfm) 123,100 119,300 124,000 122,100

Volumetric Flow Rate (dscfm) 120,800 116,100 122,300 119,700

Moisture (%) 1.88 2.75 1.41 2.01

**D/F TEQ Results** 

Concentration (ng/dscm) 0.649 0.439 0.601 0.563

Emission Rate (g/sec) 3.70E

- 08 2.41E

- 08 3.47E

- 08 3.19E

- 08

Emission Rate (lb/hr) 2.94E

- 07 1.91E

- 07 2.75E

- 07 2.53E

- 07

**TNMHC Results**

THC Concentration, as propane (ppmwv) 5.14 3.70 6.46 5.10

THC Emission Rate, as propan e (lb/hr) 4.34 3.03 5.50 4.29

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 11



## Test Procedures

Method Listing

The following test methods were referenced for the test program. These methods can be

found in 40 CFR, P art 60, Appendix A.

Method 1 Sample and Velocity Traverse for Stationary Sources

Meth od 2 Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate

(Type S pitot tube)

Method 4 Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases

Method 5 Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary

Sources

Method 9 Visual Determination o f the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary

Sources

Method 23 Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo

- p

- Dioxins and

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Stationary Sources

Method 25A Determination of total gaseous organic concentration using a flame

ionizat ion analyzer

Method 26A Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from

Stationary Sources (Isokinetic Method)

Method 1

EPA Method 1 was used to determine the suitability of each test location and to

determine the sample points used for the par ticulate, D/F and volumetric flow

determinations. Each test location conformed to the minimum requirements of being

located at least two diameters downstream and at least 0.5 diameters upstream from the

nearest flow disturbance.

The Melter 3 test locatio n was a round, horizontal duct with a diameter of 55.25 inches.

Two ports were sampled with twelve sample points per port. The test location was

approximately 2.2 diameters downstream and approximately 7.7 diameters upstream from

the nearest flow disturb ances. A cross section of the sampling location is shown in

Figure 1 in the Appendix.

The Fuller Baghouse i nlet test location was a round, horizontal duct with a diameter of

72.0.0 inches. Two ports were sampled with six sample points per port. The tes t location

was approximately 8.3 diameters downstream and approximately 3.3 diameters upstream

from the nearest flow disturbances. A cross section of the sampling location is shown in

Figure 2 in the Appendix.

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 12



### The Fuller Baghouse exhaust test location was a round, vertical stack with a diameter of

72.0 inches. Two ports were sampled with twelve sample points per port. The test

location was approximately 3.5 diameters downstream and approximately 2.0 diameters

upstream from the nearest flow disturbances. A cross section of the sampling location is

shown in Figure 3 in the Appendix.

Method 2

EPA Method 2 was used to determine the gas velocity through each test location using a

Type S pitot tube and an incline plane oil manometer. The manometer was leveled and

“zeroed” prior to each test run

. The sample train was leak checked before and after each

run by pressurizing the positive side, or “high” side, of the pitot tube and creating a

deflection on the manometer of at least three inches of H 2 

### O. The leak ch eck was

considered valid if the manometer remained stable for 15 seconds. This procedure was

repeated on the negative side by generating a vacuum of at least three inches of H 2 

### O. The

velocity head pressure and gas temperature were then determined at each point specified

in Method 1. The static pressure of the duct was measured using a water filled U

- tube

manometer. In addition, the barometric pressure was measured and recorded.

The values measured in Method 2 along with the measurements made in Methods 3 and 4

were used to calculate the volumetric flow rate through each test location. The Method 2

sampling apparatus is shown in Figure s 4 and 5 as part of the Method s 5/26A and 23

sample train s

.

Method 4

The moisture content at each test location was de termined using EPA Method 4.

Sampling for moisture content was performed in conjunction with the Methods 5/26A

and 23 test runs . A known volume of sample gas was withdrawn from the source and the

moisture was condensed and measured. The dry standard vol ume of the sample gas was

then compared to the volume of moisture collected to determine the moisture content of

the sample gas. The Method 4 apparatus is shown in Figures 4 and 5 of the Appendix as

part of the Methods 5/26A and 23 sample trains.

To conde nse the water vapor the gas sample passed through a series impingers. The

impingers were charged as outlined in each individual method. In all trains, the last

impinger contained a known weight of silica gel to absorb any residual water vapor.

After th e test run the sample train was leak checked at the highest vacuum encountered

during the test run. The amount of water collected in the condenser system and the silica

gel weight gain was determined gravimetrically. The net weight gain of water was

conve rted to a volume of wet gas and then compared to the amount of dry gas sampled to

determine the moisture content. The moisture content was used for the calculation of the

volumetric flow rate.

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 13



### Methods 5/26A

A combined sample train using EPA Methods 5 and 26A was used to determine the PM,

HCl and HF concentration s at each test location. A sample of the gas stream was

withdrawn isokinetically from the stack and the particulate matter in the sample gas

stream was collected in a glass probe and on a glass fib er filter. The hydrogen chloride

was collected in impingers containing a dilute sulfuric acid solution. A diagram of the

Method 5/26A sample train is shown in Figure 4 in the Appendix.

To prevent contamination, all components of the sample train were co nstructed of glass

with no metal connections. Prior to testing the components was washed using detergent

and then rinsed with tap water, deionized water and lastly with acetone. After drying, all

components were sealed with parafilm or Teflon tape.

The sample probe that was used consisted of a glass liner and glass nozzle. Sample gas

passed through the nozzle and probe assembly and then through a glass fiber filter heated

to 248 o 

### F (+/

- 25 o 

### F). After exiting the filter, the sample gas was passed through a series of

four glass impingers. The first impinger was initially empty. The second impingers and

third impingers each contained 100 ml of 0.1 N H 2 

### SO 4 

### . The fourth impinger contained a

known weight of silica gel to absorb any remaining water vapor. The dry gas exiting the

moisture condenser system then passed through a sample pump and a dry gas meter to

measure the gas volume. After leaving the dry gas meter, the sample stream passed

through an orifice, which was used to meter the flow rate through the sample train. The

pressure drop across the orifice was measured with an incline plane oil manometer.

85mm Whatman quartz filters were used as the substrate for the particulate sampling.

The filter was loaded into a glass filter holder with a Teflon sup port screen that was

prepared in the same manner as the other components of the sample train. Prior to the

test run, the filter was desiccated for at least 24 hours and then weighed to the nearest

0.0001g until a constant weight is achieved. The weight o f the filter was considered

constant only when two consecutive weights taken at least six hours apart are within

0.0005g of each other. A detection limit of 0.0005g was used for particulate weight

determinations.

The probe was thoroughly pre

- cleaned with acetone and the probe wash saved prior to

each test run as a quality assurance check. The impingers were pre cleaned with distilled

water and loaded with the appropriate impinger contents. The sample train was leak

checked prior to the test run by cappi ng the probe tip and pulling a vacuum of at least 15

in.Hg. A leak check was considered valid if the leak rate is below four percent of the

average sample rate or approximately 0.02 cfm. When not in operation inside the stack,

the nozzle was sealed with Teflon tape.

The probe tip was then placed at each of the sample points determined in Method 1. The

velocity at the sample point was determined using Method 2 by reading the velocity

pressure from the manometer. Sample was withdrawn from the source at a rate such that

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 14



### the velocity at the opening of the nozzle matches the velocity of the stack gas at the

sample point (isokinetically). During the test run the train was moved to each of the

Method 1 sample points. The sample time at each point was calcula ted based on the

number of sample points and the maximum allowable run time. The gas velocity

pressure ( ∆ P), gas meter reading, gas meter inlet and outlet temperatures, gas meter

orifice pressure ( ∆ H) and pump vacuum was recorded for each sample point.

After the test run the train was leak checked at the highest vacuum encountered during the

test run. The probe liner and nozzle were washed with acetone and the rinse saved. The

filter was removed from the filter holder, transferred to a container and sealed. The

impinger contents were recovered and stored in HDPE sample jars. The impingers were

then rinse d three times with distilled water and the rinses added to the sample jar.

Analysis of the samples for particulate matter was performed at the Airtech laboratory

located in Elk Grove Village , Illinois. The probe rinses were transferred to a tared Teflon

beaker, evaporated to dryness under ambient temperature and pressure conditions,

desiccated for 24 hours and weighed to a constant weight. The filters were desiccated for

24 hours and weighed to a constant weight. The weight gain of the probe rinse and f ilters

yield the total weight of particulate collected. To eliminate interference in establishing a

constant weight, both the analytical balance and the desiccators were equipped with an

ion generating polonium strip designed to eliminate static electrici ty that may collect on

the samples.

Analysis of the samples for HCl and HF was performed at the Airtech laboratory located

in Denver, Colorado using ion chromatography. HCl and HF from the source was

solubilized in the acid to form chloride ions (Cl

- 

### ). The chloride ions were analyzed using

a Dionex ICS

- 90 ion chromatograph, which uses the principle of electroconductivity for

detection. The IC was equipped with a packed resin column, specific for separating

negatively charged ions (anions). The identit y of each peak was determined by

comparing the retention time of the sample peak with the retention time determined by

analyzing known standards. A minimum of four standards were used to generate a

calibration curve. Results of each compound were calcula ted by comparing the areas of

the standards to the area of the sample using linear regression analysis.

Method 9

The opacity of emissions from the Fuller exhaust test location was determined according

to Method 9. A certified observer positioned with a li ne of sight perpendicular to the

plume direction determined the opacity. The observer viewed the plume with the sun

oriented in the 140 o 

### sector of the observer’s back. A minimum distance equal to three

times the height of the stack was maintained between the observer and the smoke plume.

The observer’s line of sight did not include more than one plume.

Readings were taken at 15

- second intervals. Observations were recorded concurrently

with the particulate testing. Between readings, the observer look ed away from the plume

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 15



### to rest his eyes. Wind speed and direction were recorded as well as descriptions of the

plume.

Method 23

EPA Method 23 was used to determine the D/F concentration at each exhaust test

location. In Method 23, a sample of the gas st ream was withdrawn isokinetically from

the stack and collected in a sample probe, on a glass fiber filter, and on a packed

adsorbent media. The D/F was then extracted from the sample and separated using high

resolution gas chromatography and measured by h igh resolution mass spectrometry.

The sample probe consisted of a glass liner and glass nozzle. Sample gas passed through

the nozzle, the probe assembly and then through the glass fiber filter which was

maintained at 250 o 

### F. After exiting the filter, th e sample gas passed through a glass

coiled condenser and an adsorbent trap. The condenser and trap were cooled with a water

re

- circulation pump that was placed in an ice bath. The sample gas was then passed

through a five impinger condenser system. The first and fourth impingers remained

empty to collect the majority of the moisture and prevent excessive dilution of the

absorbing solutions. The second and third impingers contained 100 ml of HPLC water.

The fifth impinger contained a known amount of sil ica gel. After exiting the gas

condenser system, the gas stream then passed through a sample pump and into a dry gas

meter, where the gas volume was measured. After leaving the dry gas meter, the sample

stream passed through an orifice, which was used to meter the flow rate through the

sample train. The pressure drop across the orifice was measured with an incline oil

manometer. The Method 23 sampling apparatus is shown in Figure 5 of the Appendix.

Prior to the test run all glassware upstream of the ad sorbent module was washed per the

specifications found in section 3A of the “Manual of Analytical Methods for the Analysis

of Pesticides in Human and Environmental Samples.” The adsorbent used in the

adsorbent module was Amberlite XAD

- 2 resin, which was cl eaned prior to loading in a

soxhlet extractor. The adsorbent trap was loaded and capped for storage. The filters used

were cleaned in a soxhlet extractor and stored in a glass petri dish sealed with Teflon

tape.

Sample train operation followed the same procedures described in Method 5. The total

run time was 360 minutes. After sampling, the sample train was transferred to the on

- site

laboratory for recovery. The glass fiber filter was removed from the filter holder,

transferred to a container, and sea led. The adsorbent module was removed from the train,

capped, covered with foil, and placed on ice for shipment. The probe liner, nozzle, and

filter holder front half were rinsed three times with acetone followed by methylene

chloride and the rinses save d. All connections from the back half of the filter to the

adsorbent module were rinsed three times with acetone and then soaked three times with

methylene chloride for five minutes. These rinses were recovered and placed in the same

container as the fro nt half rinses. The rinses outlined above were then repeated using

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 16



### toluene and saved in a separate container. The impinger contents were recovered as

outlined in Method 4 and discarded.

Analysis of the samples was performed by SGS Analytical Perspective s located in

Wilmington, NC. Samples were analyzed for total tri

- CDD’s through octa

- CDD’s as

well as total tri

- CDF’s through octa

- CDF’s.

Method 25A

The total hydrocarbon concentration at the Fuller inlet and exhaust test location s was

determined using M ethod 25A. A sample of the gas stream was continuously withdrawn

from the test location and analyzed using a continuous gas analysis system. A diagram of

the Method 25A apparatus is shown in Figure 6 of the Appendix

.

The sample gas was withdrawn from th e test location at a constant rate through a stainless

steel probe and a Teflon sample line. The sample line was operated at a temperature of

250 o 

### F to prevent the condensation of moisture. The sample gas was vented to a J.U.M.

Engineering V.E. 7 gas ana lyzer. This analyzer uses a flame ionization detector for the

determination of total hydrocarbons. Results from this analyzer were determined on a

“wet” basis. Hydrogen was used to fuel the instrument. The flame ionization analyzer

(FIA) was calibrated with zero nitrogen and three known concentrations of propane in a

balance of nitrogen. Each calibration gas was certified according to EPA Protocol 1

procedures.

Prior to sampling, a calibration error test was performed for the FIA. The zero and high

r ange calibration gases were introduced into the sampling system prior to the filter. The

gas was drawn through the entire sampling system and the FIA was adjusted to the

appropriate values. The mid

- and low

- range gases were then introduced to the FIA and

the measured values were recorded. The measured values for each calibration gas were

then compared to the calibration gas values and the differences were less than the method

requirement of five percent of the actual value.

After each test run, the in strument drift for the FIA was determined by introducing the

zero and mid

- range calibration gases into the sampling system. The gas was drawn

through the entire sampling system. The measured responses were then compared to the

values from the previous te st run to determine the analyzer drift. For all test runs, the

analyzer drift was less than the method requirement of three percent of the span value.

### Nichols Aluminum Casting

Report No. 3592

- Fuller Page 17



## Description of Process

Nichols Aluminum operates a casting facility on JM Morris Blvd in Davenport Iowa

(Iowa Plant Number 82

- 01

- 089 ). Testing in this document was conducted on the

processes controlled by the Fuller baghouse.

The Fuller baghouse is a lime

- coated shaker type manufactured by Fuller

- Kovako (Model

6400). It controls emissions from the follow ing sources:

• Melter 3

• Delacquering kiln