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: Protoc ol 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-110-013 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 N 2 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-310-013 - 1 - 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Air Sampling Associates, Inc. of Lewisvill e, 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 Envi ronmental 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 in cluded carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), methane (CH 4 ), formaldehyde (CH 2 0), oxygen (O 2 ), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). The moisture content of the sta ck gas was also determined. The testing
was conducted on March 31 and April 1, 2010.

The sampling team consisted of Mr. Bill Hefl ey, Mr. Patrick Selakovich, and Mr. John Johnston. Mr. Hefley, a Qualified Source Te sting Individual (QSTI) , was the test team
leader.

The sampling followed the procedures set fo rth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (40CFR 60), Appendix A, Test Met hods 1, 3A, 10, and 25A; and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulation s, 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, CH 4 , CH 2 0, O 2 , and
CO 2 . The test runs were conducted simult aneously. 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), cadmium10-013 - 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, O 2 , and CO 2 analyzers. Sampling system bias was checked before and after each test run for the CO, O 2 , and CO 2 reference method analyzers. Calibration drift tests were performed at the completion of each run on the reference method CO, THC,
O 2 , and CO 2 analyzers.

Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTI R) Spectroscopy was used to measure CH 4 and CH 2 0. Prior to testing, the FTIR instrum ent was checked for cell leakage, system leakage, ambient background effects, and oper ating pathlength. A nalyte spiking was also performed prior to testing, using co mpounds 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% O 2 . The average emissions of THC for t he three test runs was 0.24 ppm - dry corrected to 7% O 2 . The average emissions of CH 4 for the three test runs was 0.16 ppm - dry corrected to 7% O 2 . The average emissions of CH 2 O for the three test runs was 0.03 ppm - dry corrected to 7% O 2
.

_______________________ _____________ Billy J. Mullins, Jr. P.E., Q.E.P., D.E.E., QSTI10-013 - 3 - 

## SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The results of the tests ar e 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% O 2 127.99
THC - ppm dry @ 7% O 2 0.27

CH 4 - ppm dry @ 7% O 2 0.09

CH 2 O - ppm dry @ 7% O 2 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 B WS 16.82 16.61 17.01 16.81 O 2 % Vol. DRY 6.30 6.30 6.20 6.27 CO 2 % Vol. DRY 13.57 13.48 13.60 13.55 CO ppm DRY 139.58 117.54 147.19 134.77 CO / O 2 ppm @ 7% O2 132.89 111.90 139.18 127.99

THC ppm DRY 0.48 0.12 0.20 0.27 THC / O 2 ppm @ 7% O2 0.46 0.11 0.23 0.27 CH 4 ppm DRY 0.02 0.11 0.17 0.10 CH 4 / O 2 ppm @7% O2 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.09

CH 2 O ppm DRY 0.12 0.04 0.03 0.06 CH 2 O / O 2 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 Received10-013 - 6 - 

## DISCUSSION OF SAMPLING RESULTS

Carbon Monoxide

The three test runs for CO appeared to be accurate repr esentations 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 va riations greater than 0.57% compared to the allowed 2.0% calibration error. The calibration dr ift 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 te sts were valid with no bias results greater than 0.19% compared to the a llowed 5.0% system bias.

The concentrations (ppm - dry) of CO for the three test runs sh owed 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 va riations greater than 2.05% compared to the allowed 5.0% calibration error. The calibration dr ift 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 r uns 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 O 2 appeared to be accurate repres entations 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 O 2 analyzer was valid with no variations greater than 0.22% compared to the allowed 2.0% calibration error. The calibrati on drift tests performed at the completion of
each run were stable with no va riations greater than 0.34% compared to the allowed 3.0% calibration drift. The bias tests were va lid with no bias results greater than 1.16% compared to the allowed 5.0% system bias.

The concentrations (% Vol. - dry) of O 2 for the three test runs showed a range of -1.06% to +0.53% variation from the me an value of 6.27% Vol. - dry O 2 . The concentrations (% Vol. - dry) were adjusted using equation 7E-5 (40CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 7E).

Carbon Dioxide

The three test runs for CO 2 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 2 analyzer was valid with no variations greater than 1. 50% compared to the allowed 2.0% calibration error. The calibration dr ift 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 te sts were valid with no bias results greater than 1.55% compared to the a llowed 5.0% system bias.

The concentrations (% Vol. - dry) of CO 2 for the three test runs showed a range of - 0.52% to +0.37% variation from t he mean value of 13.55% Vol. - dry CO 2 . The concentrations (% Vol. - dry) were adjus ted using equation 7E-5 (40CFR60, Appendix A, Method 7E).10-013 - 8 - Formaldehyde, Methane, and Moisture

A leak check was performed on bo th 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 t he cell outlet was perfo rmed by connecting a 0 to 25 liters per minute (lpm) rotameter to t he outlet of the cell. The inlet to the probe was closed off, a vacuum of 26 inches me rcury was pulled until the rotameter float
reached zero and maintained a vacuum for two mi nutes. 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 (SF 6 ) 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 sec onds) while the cell is purged with N 2 (Noise Equivalent Absorbance). The short integration time assures that there are no changes in the sample or system purge during measurements. The absorbanc e spectrum, which results from using one of the single beams as background to the other, contains predominantly system noise since the spec tral 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 refe rence spectra of water vapor. The two spectra are expanded and then s uperimposed on a magnified wave number axis. They were visually inspected to determine that t he shift in line position is less than 15% relative to the reference spectrum. An y 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 sp ectrum 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 ther e 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 CO 2 band centers) lines up with the zero after detector
cut-off. The instrument har dware has a linearization circuit built into the detector preamplifier. This was adjust ed 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 ce ll pressure possible and refilled with dry nitrogen gas several times until a visible ins pection of the single beam indicated no visible contaminants. A new backgrou nd spectrum was then collected. This background (Figure 3) is referred to as I o . A unique file nam e 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 N 2 

### Versus Sample10-013 - 13 - 

## DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATION

The sampling ports on the LCRA, FPP3 Stack are approximately 453 feet above the ground. The sampling ports ar e located 277 feet (10.45 st ack diameters) downstream from the inlet to the stack and 80 feet (3. 02 stack diameters) upstr eam from the outlet to
the stack.10-013 - 14 - 

## SAMPLING LOCATION

Figure 5: FPP3 Stack

318"277'

Not to Scale80'453'10-013 - 15 - 

## SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

The sampling followed the procedures set fort h 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 a ccording to EPA Method 10. A Thermo Electron Model 48C carbon monoxide analyze r (serial no. 05082109 49) was used to
monitor the concentrations of carbon monoxi de 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 syst em, and a Teflon sample line. Calibration gases for the bias and drift checks were in troduced at the outlet of the heated stainless steel probe, upstream of the moisture remo val 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 the10-013 - 16 - sampling probe at fifteen inches of mercury va cuum prior to and at the conclusion of testing.

Total Hydrocarbons

Total hydrocarbon sampling was performed acco rding to EPA Method 25A. A California Analytical model HD300F tota l hydrocarbon analyzer (seria l no. R02059) was used to
monitor the concentrations of volatile organic compounds during each run. The reference method analyzer was operated at a r ange of 0 to 1,000 ppm. A multi-point calibration was performed on the reference method analyzer prio r to testing. After each run, the zero and calibration drift of the re ference 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 eac h of the three traver se points for a total sampling time of 120 minutes. The refer ence 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 analyze r was operated at a range of 0 to 25%. A multi-point calibration was pe rformed 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 consis ted 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 c hecks were introduced at the outlet of the heated stainless steel probe, up stream 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 an alyzer sampling system was leak-checked at the end of the sampling probe at fifteen inches of mercur y vacuum prior to and at the conclusion of testing.

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide sampling was performed ac cording to EPA Method 3A. A Servomex
model 1440D carbon dioxide analyzer (serial no. 1415D/3279) was used to monitor the
concentrations of carbon diox ide during each run. The re ference method analyzer was10-013 - 18 - operated at a range of 0 to 20 %. A multi-point calibr ation was performed on the reference method analyzer prior to testing. A fter 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 syst em, and a Teflon sample line. Calibration gases for the bias and drift checks were in troduced at the outlet of the heated stainless steel probe, upstream of the moisture remo val 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 va cuum 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-infr ared spectral region, from about 400 to
4500 cm -1 (25 to 2.5 μ m). This method was used to determine the concentrations of formaldehyde and methanol (methane). Moisture was also determined by the FTIR. Spectra of samples were collect ed using a measured background or I o 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 c ontrol and monitor the temperature of the transport lines that were connected to the in strument. The exhaus t from the FTIR was connected to a sample pump to pull the ga s sample through the entire system. The pressure and temperature of the instrument were automatic ally 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 wh ich modulates the IR signal, a heated sample cell of known pathl ength through which the gas samp le was passed, an infrared detector for sensitive detection of the infrared energy passed by the cell, and miscellaneous optical elements (flat and focusing mirrors) t hat transfer the infrared radiation between system components. The nomin al 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 in strument instability; and, 3) cross-interference wh ich 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 over comes harsh environmental effects like large temperature swings or vibrat ion from heavy machinery. Th e dynamic alignment allows the FTIR to operate in environments that ma y cause severe problems for other FTIRs.

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

10-013 - 20 - O 2 Heated Stainless Steel Probe Heated Teflon Sample Lines Calibration Valve

Sample Pump Chilled Teflon Coil Condenser

ExhaustTeflon Sample LineCalibration Line

Sample Manifold

CO 2 CO Combustion Fuel and A ir THC FTIR

EPA Protocol Gases10-013 - 21 - 

## TEST NARRATIVE

Personnel from Air Sampling Associates, In c. arrived at the Lower Colorado River Authority, Fayette Power Project, locat ed 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 supplie d to the sampling trailer and the sampling equipment was moved onto the stack. Prelim inary measurements were made to ensure the sampling equipment was operating proper ly. The sampling equipment was secured for the night and personnel depar ted 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 conti nued 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 Colo rado River Authority, Fayette Power Project, Unit No. 3 Stack, located near La Grange, Te xas, 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 Ca libration Gas Certifications Appendix E: Unit Operational Data Appendix F: Analytical Data Appendix G: Chain of Custodies Appendix H: Resumes of Test Personnel10-013 A-1 

## Appendix A:

Location of Traverse Points10-013 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 di ameters) upstream from the outlet to the stack. The locations of the analyzer trav erse 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. 3 Pt. 210-013 B-1 

## Appendix B:
Example Calculations

### Effluent Gas Concentration Corrected to Oxygen Concentration

2 d adj %O -20.9 7.0 -20.9 

### C C =

Where: = Pollutant concentration corrected 7 percent O 2 , ppm adj C

= Pollutant concentration measured dry basis, ppm d C

= Measured O 2 concentration dry basis, percent

2 %O

* 29.92” Hg, 68° F (760 mm Hg, 20° C)

10-013 B-210-013 B-3 

### Equation 7E-5: Effluent Gas Concentration



# ( )

om ma o Avg gas 

### C-C C C - C C =

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

= Average gas concentration indi cated by gas analyzer – dry basis (ppm) Avg C

= Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses for the zero gas (ppm) o C

= Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses for the upscale calibration gas (ppm) m C

= Actual concentration of th e upscale calibration gas (ppm) ma C10-013 C-1 

## Appendix C:
Reference Method Analyzers Data