STACK SAMPLING REPORT 

FOR THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST 

[OMB CONTROL NO. 2060-0631] 

ON THE 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY 

FAYETTE POWER PROJECT 

UNIT NO. 3 STACK 

[ORIS FACILITY ID CODE 6179] 

LA GRANGE, TEXAS 

PROJECT NO. 10-013 

APRIL 2010 

PREPARED FOR: 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY 

P.O. BOX 220 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767-0220 

PREPARED BY: 

AIR SAMPLING ASSOCIATES, INC. 

P.O. BOX 1175 

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS 75067 

(Total Number of Pages: 234)
 

10-013

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1

SUMMARY OF RESULTS .............................................................................................. 3

DISCUSSION OF SAMPLING RESULTS....................................................................... 6

DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATION................................................................. 13

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES.......................................................... 15

TEST NARRATIVE........................................................................................................ 21

APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A: Location of Traverse Points..................................................................A-1

Appendix B: Example Calculations...........................................................................B-1

Appendix C: Reference Method Analyzers Data ..................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Protocol 1 Calibration Gas Certifications............................................. D-1

Appendix E: Unit Operational Data...........................................................................E-1

Appendix F: Analytical Data......................................................................................F-1

Appendix G: Chain of Custodies.............................................................................. G-1

Appendix H: Resumes of Test Personnel................................................................ H-1
 

10-013

TABLES 

Table 1: Summary of Results .......................................................................................... 3 

Table 2: Summary of Stack Test Data............................................................................. 4 

Table 3: Summary of Fuel Analysis Data ........................................................................ 5 

Table 4: Location of Analyzer Traverse Points FPP3 Stack........................................A-2 

FIGURES 

Figure 1: Pre-test System Noise Evaluation Sample....................................................... 9 

Figure 2: Post-test System Noise Evaluation Sample ................................................... 10 

Figure 3: Line Shift and Resolution at 1918 cm-1 sample.............................................. 11 

Figure 4: Single Beam Comparison N2 Versus Sample ................................................ 12 

Figure 5: FPP3 Stack .................................................................................................... 14 

Figure 6: EPA Methods 3A, 10, 25A and 320 Sampling System................................... 20 

Figure 7: Location of Analyzer Traverse Points FPP3 Stack.......................................A-3 
 

10-013 - 1 - 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Air Sampling Associates, Inc. of Lewisville, Texas conducted stack testing at the 

Fayette Power Project, Unit No. 3 Stack (FPP3), located near LaGrange, Texas, for 

Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). The purpose of the stack testing was to meet 

the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Information Collection 

Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2060-0631. 

Emissions of Non-dioxin/furan organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) were measured. 

The Non-dioxin/furan organic HAPS included carbon monoxide (CO), total 

hydrocarbons (THC), methane (CH4), formaldehyde (CH20), oxygen (O2), and carbon 

dioxide (CO2). The moisture content of the stack gas was also determined. The testing 

was conducted on March 31 and April 1, 2010. 

The sampling team consisted of Mr. Bill Hefley, Mr. Patrick Selakovich, and Mr. John 

Johnston. Mr. Hefley, a Qualified Source Testing Individual (QSTI), was the test team 

leader. 

The sampling followed the procedures set forth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 60 (40CFR60), Appendix A, Test Methods 1, 3A, 10, and 25A; and 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 63 (40CFR63), Appendix A, Test 

Method 320. 

The testing was conducted during normal operation of Unit No. 3. Triplicate test runs of 

2-hour duration were performed for moisture content, CO, THC, CH4, CH20, O2, and 

CO2. The test runs were conducted simultaneously. Three traverse points were 

sampled during each test run. Each traverse point was sampled for 40 minutes. During 

each test run, a composite fuel sample was also collected and was analyzed for higher 

heating value (HHV), moisture, mercury (Hg), arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), cadmium 
 

10-013 - 2 - 

(Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), chlorine (Cl), and fluorine 

(F). 

Prior to testing, a calibration error test was performed on the reference method CO, 

THC, O2, and CO2 analyzers. Sampling system bias was checked before and after 

each test run for the CO, O2, and CO2 reference method analyzers. Calibration drift 

tests were performed at the completion of each run on the reference method CO, THC, 

O2, and CO2 analyzers. 

Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy was used to measure CH4

and CH20. Prior to testing, the FTIR instrument was checked for cell leakage, system 

leakage, ambient background effects, and operating pathlength. Analyte spiking was 

also performed prior to testing, using compounds of interest in accordance with EPA 

Method 320 spiking procedures. 

The average emissions of CO for the three test runs was 139.18 ppm - dry corrected to 

7% O2. The average emissions of THC for the three test runs was 0.24 ppm - dry 

corrected to 7% O2. The average emissions of CH4 for the three test runs was 0.16 

ppm - dry corrected to 7% O2. The average emissions of CH2O for the three test runs 

was 0.03 ppm - dry corrected to 7% O2. 

 ____________________________________

Billy J. Mullins, Jr. P.E., Q.E.P., D.E.E., QSTI
 

10-013 - 3 - 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

The results of the tests are presented in Table 1 below and Tables 2 and 3 on the 

following pages. 

Table 1: Summary of Results 

Pollutant - Units Average Emissions 

CO - ppm dry @ 7% O2 127.99 

THC - ppm dry @ 7% O2 0.27 

CH4 - ppm dry @ 7% O2 0.09 

CH2O - ppm dry @ 7% O2 0.06

 
 

SUMMARY OF SAMPLING RESULTS 

Table 2: Summary of Stack Test Data 

Test Performed For: Test Performed By:

Lower Colorado River Authority Air Sampling Associates, Inc.

Fayette Power Project Lewisville, Texas

Unit No. 3 Stack Test Trailer 2

Project No. 10-013 Bill Hefley

Date: 3/31/10

Run Number Units Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average

Date of Run 2010 31-Mar 31-Mar 31-Mar -----

Start Time 9:15 11:55 14:18 -----

Stop Time 11:15 13:55 16:18 -----

Unit Load MW 397 428 428 418

Moisture Diff BWS 16.82 16.61 17.01 16.81

O2 % Vol. DRY 6.30 6.30 6.20 6.27

CO2 % Vol. DRY 13.57 13.48 13.60 13.55

CO ppm DRY 139.58 117.54 147.19 134.77

CO / O2 ppm @ 7% O2 132.89 111.90 139.18 127.99

THC ppm DRY 0.48 0.12 0.20 0.27

THC / O2 ppm @ 7% O2 0.46 0.11 0.23 0.27

CH4 ppm DRY 0.02 0.11 0.17 0.10

CH4 / O2 ppm @7% O2 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.09

CH2O ppm DRY 0.12 0.04 0.03 0.06

CH2O / O2 ppm @ 7% O2 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.06

10-013 - 4 - 
 

10-013 - 5 - 

SUMMARY OF SAMPLING RESULTS 

Table 3: Summary of Fuel Analysis Data 

Composite Number 1 2 3 

Date 31-Mar 31-Mar 31-Mar 

Time 10:30 13:15 15:15 

Moisture - %* 30.16 33.98 32.74 

Ash - %* 5.98 5.01 5.13 

Sulfur - %* 0.40 0.32 0.34 

Nitrogen - %* 0.65 0.66 0.68 

Carbon - %* 46.91 45.19 45.52 

Hydrogen - %* 3.47 3.35 3.32 

Oxygen - %* 12.42 11.49 12.26 

Btu/lb* 8,169 7,844 7,914 

Mercury - mg/kg (dry) 0.136 0.147 0.160 

Chlorine - mg/kg (dry) 28.7 122.8 157.4 

Antimony - mg/kg* <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 

Arsenic - mg/kg* <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 

Beryllium - mg/kg* <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 

Cadmium - mg/kg* <0.03 0.03 0.03 

Chromium - mg/kg* 1.78 2.56 2.42 

Cobalt - mg/kg* 0.75 1.47 1.57 

Lead - mg/kg* 0.88 1.11 1.10 

Manganese - mg/kg* 4.01 5.71 7.08 

Nickel - mg/kg* 1.76 2.75 2.80 

Selenium - mg/kg* 0.15 0.35 <0.15 

Fluorine - mg/kg* 71.0 59.0 62.0 

* As Received 
 

10-013 - 6 - 

DISCUSSION OF SAMPLING RESULTS 

Carbon Monoxide

The three test runs for CO appeared to be accurate representations of the actual 

emissions during the tests. All leak checks performed on the reference method 

analyzer sampling system showed no leaks before or after testing. The calibration error 

test on the CO analyzer was valid with no variations greater than 0.57% compared to 

the allowed 2.0% calibration error. The calibration drift tests performed at the 

completion of each run were stable with no variations greater than 0.19% compared to 

the allowed 3.0% calibration drift. The bias tests were valid with no bias results greater 

than 0.19% compared to the allowed 5.0% system bias. 

The concentrations (ppm - dry) of CO for the three test runs showed a range of -12.78% 

to +9.22% variation from the mean value of 134.77 ppm - dry. The concentrations (ppm 

- dry) were adjusted using equation 7E-5 (40CFR60, Appendix A, Method 7E). 

Total Hydrocarbons

The three test runs for THC appeared to be accurate representations of the actual 

emissions during the tests. All leak checks performed on the reference method 

analyzer sampling system showed no leaks before or after testing. The calibration error 

test on the THC analyzer was valid with no variations greater than 2.05% compared to 

the allowed 5.0% calibration error. The calibration drift tests performed at the 

completion of each run were stable with no variations greater than 0.71% compared to 

the allowed 3.0% calibration drift. 

The concentrations (ppm - wet) of THC for the three test runs showed a range of -0.13 

ppm to +0.17 ppm variation from the mean value of 0.23 ppm - wet. 
 

10-013 - 7 - 

Oxygen

The three test runs for O2 appeared to be accurate representations of the actual 

emissions during the tests. All leak checks performed on the reference method 

analyzer sampling system showed no leaks before or after testing. The calibration error 

test on the O2 analyzer was valid with no variations greater than 0.22% compared to the 

allowed 2.0% calibration error. The calibration drift tests performed at the completion of 

each run were stable with no variations greater than 0.34% compared to the allowed 

3.0% calibration drift. The bias tests were valid with no bias results greater than 1.16% 

compared to the allowed 5.0% system bias. 

The concentrations (% Vol. - dry) of O2 for the three test runs showed a range of -1.06% 

to +0.53% variation from the mean value of 6.27% Vol. - dry O2. The concentrations (% 

Vol. - dry) were adjusted using equation 7E-5 (40CFR60, Appendix A, Method 7E). 

Carbon Dioxide

The three test runs for CO2 appeared to be accurate representations of the actual 

emissions during the tests. All leak checks performed on the reference method 

analyzer sampling system showed no leaks before or after testing. The calibration error 

test on the CO2 analyzer was valid with no variations greater than 1.50% compared to 

the allowed 2.0% calibration error. The calibration drift tests performed at the 

completion of each run were stable with no variations greater than 0.98% compared to 

the allowed 3.0% calibration drift. The bias tests were valid with no bias results greater 

than 1.55% compared to the allowed 5.0% system bias. 

The concentrations (% Vol. - dry) of CO2 for the three test runs showed a range of -

0.52% to +0.37% variation from the mean value of 13.55% Vol. - dry CO2. The 

concentrations (% Vol. - dry) were adjusted using equation 7E-5 (40CFR60, Appendix 

A, Method 7E). 
 

10-013 - 8 - 

Formaldehyde, Methane, and Moisture

A leak check was performed on both the sample system and the cell prior to any testing 

to check for cell leakage. For the vacuum test, the cell was pumped to its lowest 

obtainable pressure and sealed; the pressure rise was measured for 2 minutes. 

A system leak check from the probe tip to the cell outlet was performed by connecting a 

0 to 25 liters per minute (lpm) rotameter to the outlet of the cell. The inlet to the probe 

was closed off, a vacuum of 26 inches mercury was pulled until the rotameter float 

reached zero and maintained a vacuum for two minutes. If any leak is identified, it is 

corrected and the test is repeated. 

Nitrogen (N2) or zero air was passed through the system and the internal compartment 

to minimize ambient effects (Background). 

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) was passed through the cell and analyzed against a reference 

standard spectra using integrated areas to determine the operating pathlength of the 

FTIR unit. 

Analyte spiking was performed prior to the test runs. Spiking was performed using the 

compounds of interest in accordance with USEPA 320 for spiking procedures. 

System noise was determined by measuring two successive single beam spectra at 

minimal integration time (15 seconds) while the cell is purged with N2 (Noise Equivalent 

Absorbance). The short integration time assures that there are no changes in the 

sample or system purge during measurements. The absorbance spectrum, which 

results from using one of the single beams as background to the other, contains 

predominantly system noise since the spectral features mostly cancel each other. 

Noise is then determined by measuring the peak-to-peak and RMS absorbance at the 

wavelength regions used for target compound analysis.
 

Figure 1: Pre-test System Noise Evaluation Sample 

10-013 - 9 - 
 

Figure 2: Post-test System Noise Evaluation Sample 

A spectra was collected and compared to reference spectra of water vapor. The two 

spectra are expanded and then superimposed on a magnified wave number axis. They 

were visually inspected to determine that the shift in line position is less than 15% 

relative to the reference spectrum. Any observed shift would cause CLS analysis 

errors, and therefore need correction to continue. 

The cell was evacuated and refilled with clean ambient air containing some water vapor. 

The cell was then allowed to stabilize at a sub-atmospheric pressure, approximately 100 

Torr. During this period, an absorbance spectrum was collected and measurements of 

the resolution are taken at the 1⁄2 width and 1⁄2 maximum height of water lines in the 

region of 1918 cm-1. 

10-013 - 10 - 
 

Figure 3: Line Shift and Resolution at 1918 cm-1 sample 

Linearization was verified by ensuring there is no signal in the single beam beyond 

detector cut-off (100 cm-1 to 300 cm-1) and that the zero line in the single beam at 

opaque regions (e.g. water and CO2 band centers) lines up with the zero after detector 

cut-off. The instrument hardware has a linearization circuit built into the detector 

preamplifier. This was adjusted to provide linear response for the conditions of the test 

by following the manufacturer’s linearization procedures. 

The gas cell was evacuated to the lowest cell pressure possible and refilled with dry 

nitrogen gas several times until a visible inspection of the single beam indicated no 

visible contaminants. A new background spectrum was then collected. This 

background (Figure 3) is referred to as Io. A unique file name was assigned to the 

10-013 - 11 - 
 

10-013 - 12 - 

background spectrum for later use. Two copies of the background single-beam are 

copied to separate computer files. 

Figure 4: Single Beam Comparison N2 Versus Sample 
 

10-013 - 13 - 

DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATION 

The sampling ports on the LCRA, FPP3 Stack are approximately 453 feet above the 

ground. The sampling ports are located 277 feet (10.45 stack diameters) downstream 

from the inlet to the stack and 80 feet (3.02 stack diameters) upstream from the outlet to 

the stack. 
 

10-013 - 14 - 

SAMPLING LOCATION 

Figure 5: FPP3 Stack 

318"

277' 

Not to Scale 80' 

453' 
 

10-013 - 15 - 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

The sampling followed the procedures set forth in 40CFR60, Appendix A, Test Methods 

1, 3A, 10, and 25A; and 40CFR63, Appendix A, Test Method 320. 

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Monoxide sampling was performed according to EPA Method 10. A Thermo 

Electron Model 48C carbon monoxide analyzer (serial no. 0508210949) was used to 

monitor the concentrations of carbon monoxide during each run. The reference method 

analyzer was operated at a range of 0 to 1,000 ppm. A multi-point calibration was 

performed on the reference method analyzer prior to testing. After each run, the zero 

and calibration drift of the reference method analyzer was checked. The calibration 

gases were as follows: 

 Zero Gas 

494.0 ppm Carbon Monoxide in Nitrogen (SG901818ALB) 

933.3 ppm Carbon Monoxide in Nitrogen (CC154012) 

EPA Protocol Gas Certificates of Analysis for the calibration gases are included in 

Appendix D. 

The reference method sampling system consisted of an in-stack sintered filter, a heated 

stainless steel probe, a moisture removal system, and a Teflon sample line. Calibration 

gases for the bias and drift checks were introduced at the outlet of the heated stainless 

steel probe, upstream of the moisture removal system. Samples of 40 minute duration 

were taken at each of the three traverse points for a total sampling time of 120 minutes. 

The reference method analyzer sampling system was leak-checked at the end of the 
 

10-013 - 16 - 

sampling probe at fifteen inches of mercury vacuum prior to and at the conclusion of 

testing. 

Total Hydrocarbons

Total hydrocarbon sampling was performed according to EPA Method 25A. A California 

Analytical model HD300F total hydrocarbon analyzer (serial no. R02059) was used to 

monitor the concentrations of volatile organic compounds during each run. The 

reference method analyzer was operated at a range of 0 to 1,000 ppm. A multi-point 

calibration was performed on the reference method analyzer prior to testing. After each 

run, the zero and calibration drift of the reference method analyzer was checked. The 

calibration gases were as follows: 

 Zero Gas 

286.2 ppm Propane in Nitrogen (CC29759) 

494.4 ppm Propane in Nitrogen (CC203711) 

864.0 ppm Propane in Nitrogen (ALM019832) 

 

EPA Protocol Gas Certificates of Analysis for the calibration gases are included in 

Appendix D. 

The reference method sampling system consisted of an in-stack sintered filter, a heated 

stainless steel probe and a heated Teflon sample line. Calibration gases for the bias 

and drift checks were introduced at the outlet of the heated stainless steel probe. 

Samples of 40 minute duration were taken at each of the three traverse points for a total 

sampling time of 120 minutes. The reference method analyzer sampling system was 

leak-checked at the end of the sampling probe prior to and at the conclusion of each 

run. 
 

10-013 - 17 - 

Oxygen

Oxygen sampling was performed according to EPA Method 3A. A Servomex model 

1440D oxygen analyzer (serial no. 1420D/3279) was used to monitor the concentrations 

of oxygen during each run. The reference method analyzer was operated at a range of 

0 to 25%. A multi-point calibration was performed on the reference method analyzer 

prior to testing. After each run, the zero and calibration drift of the reference method 

analyzer was checked. The calibration gases were as follows: 

 Zero Gas 

12.01% Oxygen in Nitrogen (CC46125) 

23.20% Oxygen in Nitrogen (AAL15053) 

EPA Protocol Gas Certificates of Analysis for the calibration gases are included in 

Appendix D. 

The reference method sampling system consisted of an in-stack sintered filter, a 

heated stainless steel probe, a moisture removal system, and a Teflon sample line. 

Calibration gases for the bias and drift checks were introduced at the outlet of the 

heated stainless steel probe, upstream of the moisture removal system. Samples of 40 

minute duration were taken at each of the three traverse points for a total sampling time 

of 120 minutes. The reference method analyzer sampling system was leak-checked at 

the end of the sampling probe at fifteen inches of mercury vacuum prior to and at the 

conclusion of testing. 

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide sampling was performed according to EPA Method 3A. A Servomex 

model 1440D carbon dioxide analyzer (serial no. 1415D/3279) was used to monitor the 

concentrations of carbon dioxide during each run. The reference method analyzer was 
 

10-013 - 18 - 

operated at a range of 0 to 20%. A multi-point calibration was performed on the 

reference method analyzer prior to testing. After each run, the zero and calibration drift 

of the reference method analyzer was checked. The calibration gases were as follows: 

 Zero Gas 

10.01% Carbon Dioxide in Nitrogen (CC46125) 

17.40% Carbon Dioxide in Nitrogen (AAL15053) 

EPA Protocol Gas Certificates of Analysis for the calibration gases are included in 

Appendix D. 

The reference method sampling system consisted of an in-stack sintered filter, a heated 

stainless steel probe, a moisture removal system, and a Teflon sample line. Calibration 

gases for the bias and drift checks were introduced at the outlet of the heated stainless 

steel probe, upstream of the moisture removal system. Samples of 40 minute duration 

were taken at each of the three traverse points for a total sampling time of 120 minutes. 

The reference method analyzer sampling system was leak-checked at the end of the 

sampling probe at fifteen inches of mercury vacuum prior to and at the conclusion of 

testing. 

Formaldehyde, Methane, and Moisture

EPA Method 320 applies to the analysis of vapor phase organic or inorganic 

compounds that absorb energy in the mid-infrared spectral region, from about 400 to 

4500 cm-1 (25 to 2.5 μm). This method was used to determine the concentrations of 

formaldehyde and methanol (methane). Moisture was also determined by the FTIR. 

Spectra of samples were collected using a measured background or Io spectrum and a 

stack spectrum, not necessarily collected at the same time. These are used to generate 

the absorbance that was analyzed for gas identifications and concentrations. 

 
 

10-013 - 19 - 

A gas sample was continuously extracted from the source with an in-stack filter, probe 

and filter heated to 265 °F connected to a heated 3/8 inch O.D. Teflon® sample line. 

This line temperature was maintained at a constant temperature above 320 °F. Digital 

temperature controllers were used to control and monitor the temperature of the 

transport lines that were connected to the instrument. The exhaust from the FTIR was 

connected to a sample pump to pull the gas sample through the entire system. The 

pressure and temperature of the instrument were automatically logged into the data set 

and averaged over the same time period as the data. 

 

The FTIR system consisted of a source of infrared radiation which was an electrically 

heated ceramic element, an interferometer which modulates the IR signal, a heated 

sample cell of known pathlength through which the gas sample was passed, an infrared 

detector for sensitive detection of the infrared energy passed by the cell, and 

miscellaneous optical elements (flat and focusing mirrors) that transfer the infrared 

radiation between system components. The nominal spectral resolution of the system 

was one half wave number (0.5 cm-1). 

The FTIR has specialized analysis algorithms which correct for all possible problems in 

FTIR spectra. These include corrections for: 1) non-linearity of response with gas 

concentration; 2) spectral line-shift caused by possible vibration or instrument instability; 

and, 3) cross-interference which can produce bias on the concentrations of a weak 

absorber because of overlap by a second high concentration compound. 

The instrument also has dynamic alignment of the FTIR that aligns it thousands of times 

per second, under laser control. This overcomes harsh environmental effects like large 

temperature swings or vibration from heavy machinery. The dynamic alignment allows 

the FTIR to operate in environments that may cause severe problems for other FTIRs. 
 

Figure 6: EPA Methods 3A, 10, 25A and 320 Sampling System 

10-013 - 20 - 

 O2

Heated 

Stainless 

Steel 

Probe 

Heated 

Teflon 

Sample 

Lines 

Calibration 

Valve 

Sample 

Pump 

Chilled 

Teflon Coil 

Condenser 

Exhaust 

 Teflon Sample Line 

Calibration Line 

Sample Manifold 

CO2 CO 

Combustion 

Fuel and Air 

THC 

FTIR 

EPA 

Protocol 

Gases 
 

10-013 - 21 - 

TEST NARRATIVE 

Personnel from Air Sampling Associates, Inc. arrived at the Lower Colorado River 

Authority, Fayette Power Project, located near La Grange, Texas, at 11:30 a.m., on 

Wednesday, March 31, 2010. After gaining access to the plant and attending a brief 

safety orientation, the sampling trailer was placed into position at the base of the Unit 

No. 3 Stack. Electrical power was supplied to the sampling trailer and the sampling 

equipment was moved onto the stack. Preliminary measurements were made to ensure 

the sampling equipment was operating properly. The sampling equipment was secured 

for the night and personnel departed the plant at 7:00 p.m. 

On Thursday, April 1, 2010, personnel returned to the plant at 7:00 a.m. The reference 

method analyzers were calibrated and the sampling equipment was prepared for 

testing. The first test began at 9:15 a.m. Testing continued until the completion of the 

third test at 4:18 p.m. 

The sampling equipment was moved off the stack and loaded into the sampling trailer. 

The data and the samples were transported to Air Sampling Associates, Inc.’s office in 

Lewisville, Texas for further review and analysis. 

Operations at the Lower Colorado River Authority, Fayette Power Project, Unit No. 3 

Stack, located near La Grange, Texas, were completed at 6:30 p.m., on Thursday, April 

1, 2010. 
 

10-013 - 22 - 

APPENDICES 

 Appendix A: Location of Traverse Points 

Appendix B: Example Calculations 

 Appendix C: Reference Method Analyzers Data 

 Appendix D: Protocol 1 Calibration Gas Certifications 

Appendix E: Unit Operational Data 

 Appendix F: Analytical Data 

Appendix G: Chain of Custodies 

Appendix H: Resumes of Test Personnel 
 

10-013 A-1 

Appendix A: 

Location of Traverse Points
 

10-013 A-2 

Appendix A 

Location of Analyzer Traverse Points 

FPP3 Stack 

The sampling ports are located 277 feet (10.45 stack diameters) downstream from the 

inlet to the stack and 80 feet (3.02 stack diameters) upstream from the outlet to the 

stack. The locations of the analyzer traverse points were calculated as follows: 

Table 4: Location of Analyzer Traverse Points 

FPP3 Stack 

Port & Wall Thickness at Port A = 21 1/2 inches 

Inside Stack Diameter = 318 inches 

Point 

Number 

Percent of 

Stack Diameter 

Distance 

from Wall 

1 4.4 14" 

2 14.6 46 7/16" 

3 29.6 94 1/8" 
 

10-013 A-3 

Appendix A 

Figure 7: Location of Analyzer Traverse Points 

FPP3 Stack 

B 

A 

Not to scale. 

Pt. 1 

C 

D 

Elevator 

Pt. 2 Pt. 3
 

10-013 B-1 

Appendix B: 

Example Calculations
 

Effluent Gas Concentration Corrected to Oxygen Concentration

2

adj d

%O -20.9 

7.0 -20.9 = C C

Where: Cadj = Pollutant concentration corrected 7 percent O2, ppm 

 Cd = Pollutant concentration measured dry basis, ppm 

 %O2 = Measured O2 concentration dry basis, percent 

* 29.92” Hg, 68° F (760 mm Hg, 20° C) 

10-013 B-2 
 

10-013 B-3 

Equation 7E-5: Effluent Gas Concentration

( ) om

ma

o Avg gas C-C

C = C - C C

Where: Cgas = Effluent gas concentration – dry basis (ppm) 

 = Average gas concentration indicated by gas analyzer – dry basis 

(ppm) 

CAvg

 = Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses 

for the zero gas (ppm) 

Co

 = Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses 

for the upscale calibration gas (ppm) 

Cm

 Cma = Actual concentration of the upscale calibration gas (ppm) 
10-013 C-1 

Appendix C: 

Reference Method Analyzers Data