K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 1

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

Work Order No. 12251.006.401 

Georgia Power Company 

Plant Scherer, Unit 3 

EGU ICR Test Program for 

Dioxin/Furan Organic HAPs and 

Non-Dioxin/Furan Organic HAPs 

Southern Company 

Juliette, Georgia 

12 and 13 January 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 2010 
 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 2

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. (WESTON®) 

EMISSION TESTING PRACTICE – AUBURN OPERATIONS

ACCREDITATION STIPULATION

Laboratory: Weston Solutions, Inc. 

Accreditor(s): Louisiana Environmental Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (LELAP) – Laboratory and Emission Testing Practice 

Accreditation ID: LELAP – 03024 

Scope: Dioxins/Furans Sampling 

Volatile Organic HAPs Sampling 

Semi-Volatile Organic HAPs Sampling 

Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations Sampling and Analysis 

Carbon Monoxide Sampling and Analysis 

Methane 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\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 3

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

Data Qualifiers 

The following are general reporting 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 for 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 high 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\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 4

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

SECTION 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 9

2.1 Emission Testing Results ................................................................................. 9

SECTION 3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 28

3.1 Source Description and Test Location ........................................................... 28

3.2 Pollution Control Equipment ......................................................................... 28

3.3 Sootblowing ................................................................................................... 28

3.4 Process Parameters ......................................................................................... 29

SECTION 4 QUALITY CONTROL .......................................................................................... 30

4.1 Data Collection and Reduction ...................................................................... 30

4.2 Chain-of-Custody ........................................................................................... 30

4.3 Performance Data for Volumetric Flow Measurements ................................ 30

4.4 Performance Data for Instrumental Methods ................................................. 31

4.5 Performance Data for Total Hydrocarbons .................................................... 31

4.6 Performance Data for Methane ...................................................................... 33

4.7 Performance Data for VOST Measurements ................................................. 34

4.8 Performance Data for Semi VOST Measurements ........................................ 36

4.9 Performance Data for Isokinetic Sampling Methods Dioxins/Furans 

Measurements ................................................................................................. 37

SECTION 5 SOURCE TESTING METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 38 

APPENDIX A EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX B TEST METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX C FIELD DATA – PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3

APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA

APPENDIX E QUALITY CONTROL DATA

APPENDIX F PROCESS OPERATING/PRODUCTION DATA
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 5

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1 Scope of Work Georgia Power Company, Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Juliette, Georgia ........ 6

Table 1-2 WESTON Project Team .................................................................................................. 7

Table 2-1 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Summary of Total Hydrocarbons and 

Methane Emission Results ............................................................................................ 11

Table 2-2 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Summary of Dioxins and Furans and 

PCBs Emission Results ................................................................................................. 12

Table 2-3 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Summary of Carbon Monoxide Emission Results ...................... 16

Table 2-4 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Summary of Speciated Volatile Organics Emission Results ...... 17

Table 2-5 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Summary of Semi-Volatile Organics Emission Results ............. 21

Table 2-6 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Summary of POM Emission Results .......................................... 26

Table 3-1 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Process Parameters ..................................................................... 29

Table 4-1 Performance and QC Data for Instrumental Sampling Method 10 

(Carbon Monoxide) ....................................................................................................... 31

Table 4-2 Performance and QC Data for Instrumental Sampling Method 25A 

(Total Hydrocarbons) .................................................................................................... 32

Table 4-3 Performance and QC Data for Method 18 (Methane) ................................................... 33

Table 4-4 Summary of Method 0031 Performance Criteria and Achieved Results ...................... 34

Table 4-5 Summary of Method 0010 Performance Criteria and Achieved Results ...................... 36

Table 4-6 Summary of Method 23 Performance Criteria and Achieved Results .......................... 37

Table 5-1 Source Testing Methodology ........................................................................................ 38
K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 6

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION

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 Company Services (SCS) for 

the Georgia Power Plant Company, Plant Scherer, Unit 3 located near Juliette, Georgia. The ICR 

set forth fuel sampling, emission testing, and process and pollution control data collection 

requirements. To comply with this ICR, SCS 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 achievable control technology (MACT) standards for coal- and 

oil-fired electric utility steam generating units. 

The scope of work for Unit 3 ICR is summarized in Table 1-1. Parameters within each grouping 

were measured simultaneously, where applicable. 

TABLE 1-1 

SCOPE OF WORK

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

JULIETTE, GEORGIA

Group O Parameters (Reduced) Group D Parameters 

CO (M10) 

THC (M25A) 

CH4 (M18) 

Speciated Volatile Organic HAP (M0031/SW846) 

Speciated Semi-Volatile Organic HAP and POM (M0010/SW846) 

O2/CO2 (M3A) 

Dioxins/Furans (M23)

O2/CO2 (M3A) 

Group O Sampling Notes – All parameters were sampled concurrently and met the minimum 

volume and time requirements of EPA’s ICR. 

EPA issued 114 letters dated 31 December 2009 and 8 February 2010 that included (Table 2) the 

testing requirements for selected plant units with SCS. The non-dioxin/furan organic HAP group 

was designated as either "X" with no asterisk or "X*" to include an asterisk. The footnotes 

associated with that table indicated the X* designation includes the testing requirement for carbon 

monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and total hydrocarbons (THC) only. 

At the time of this test event, without further clarification and based on early discussion with EPA 

representatives, it was WESTON and SCS’s understanding that "VOCs" of the "X*" designation 

included volatile organic sampling train (VOST) and semi-volatile organic sampling train (SVOST) 
 INTRODUCTION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 7

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

but excluded formaldehyde. Since that time, EPA posted updates in their FAQs page that clarified 

what is expected for the full VOC and reduced VOC groupings. The FAQ question number 003 last 

updated 2-15-10 and mainly question number 015 last updated 2-16-10 addressed those 

uncertainties. Those clarifications suggest that reduced VOC (X*) should exclude VOST and 

SVOST but should include formaldehyde. 

Because of this lack of clarification, Unit 3 was not tested for formaldehyde and was tested for 

VOST and SVOST unnecessarily. Those data have been reported regardless based on discussions 

with EPA officials and the source was not revisited to test for formaldehyde. Notably, Unit 4 

(Sister Unit to Unit 3) was at or below the formaldehyde DL for each test run. 

Group D Sampling Notes – All parameters were sampled concurrently and met the minimum 

volume and time requirements of EPA’s ICR. 

WESTON performed the emission testing during 12 and 13 January 2010. The project team 

included the individuals identified in Table 1-2. 

TABLE 1-2 

WESTON PROJECT TEAM

Name Project Role QSTI Credential 

Jon Howard Program Manager QSTI 1, 2, and 4 Qualified Individual 

Gregory Sims Technical Director QSTI 1, 2, and 3 Qualified Individual 

QSTI 4 Certified 

William Routhier Test Team Leader QSTI 1, 3, and 4 Qualified Individual 

Matt Dallesasse Test Team Member ---- 

Robert Griffin Test Team Member QSTI 1 Qualified Individual 

Mark Fowler Test Team Member ---- 

Kevin Rass Test Team Member ---- 

Logan Waites Test Team Member ---- 

Landie Fowler Test Team Member QSTI 1, 2, and 4 Qualified Individual 

Melanie Wright Quality Assurance Manager QSTI 1 Qualified Individual 

Natalie Vaught Report Coordinator QSTI 3 Qualified Individual 
 INTRODUCTION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 8

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

In addition to the individuals named in Table 1-2, the project team included one subcontract 

laboratory. Maxxam Analytics International Corporation (Maxxam) performed the analysis for 

polycyclic organic matter (POM), speciated volatile organic compounds (VOC), and speciated 

semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC). Maxxam holds NELAC accreditation with the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. This accreditation is found in Appendix E. 

Mr. David LeFevers and Mr. John Horishny of Georgia Power Company (GPC) coordinated the 

testing with plant operations. Mr. Wim Marchant, Mr. Gary Blackmon, and Mr. Gary Lloyd of SCS 

provided 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 Laboratory Accreditation Program (LELAP) accredits WESTON’s 

emission testing laboratory. The stipulation associated with this accrediting authority precedes the 

table of contents of this report. 
K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 9

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

SECTION 2 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

2.1 EMISSION TESTING RESULTS

Following is a description of the procedures and methods used to determine the minimum analytical 

detection limits for each test parameter. 

Derivation of Analytical Detection Limits and Their Use in Calculating Source Emission 

Concentrations and Rates 

Background

WESTON retained Maxxam for the analysis of dioxins and furans, POM, VOC, and SVOC to 

support EPA Method 23 and EPA Methods 0031 and 0010 source sampling projects, respectively. 

Maxxam performs dioxins and furans analyses in accordance with EPA Method 23. Maxxam uses 

EPA Method SW846 to support the analytical requirements of EPA Methods 0031 and 0010. 

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 matrix type containing the analyte. 

Maxxam conducts a method detection limit study each year to support EPA Methods 0010 and 0031 

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 theoretical perspective, it 

has limited use for practical applications 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. 

To conform to good laboratory practices, Maxxam and WESTON report MDLs (WESTON also 

refers to MDLs as Limits of Detection (LOD)); however, neither lab suggests that these reported 

MDLs are always appropriate for the estimation of detection limits of actual samples. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 10

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

Detection Limits for VOST and SVOST

According to Maxxam, the Reporting Detection Limit is the same as the MDL for VOST and 

SVOST. Therefore, the RDL values are presented in this report and will be reported in the ERT 

files. 

Estimated Detection Limit (EDL) for Method 23 (Dioxins, Furans, and PCBs)

Reporting limits for Method 23 are calculated on a per sample basis. The EDL is determined based 

on a constant factor of 2.5 times the signal to noise ratio as defined in Method 23/8290. This EDL 

value is generally less than the Reporting Detection Limit (RDL), that is equivalent to the lowest 

calibration standard but in certain cases it may be higher due to matrix effects. The EDL may even 

be less than the statistically derived MDL. 

Tables 2-1 through 2-5 provide detailed summaries of the emission results. Any differences 

between the calculated results presented in the appendices and the results reported in the summary 

tables are due to rounding for presentation. Any differences between the ERT and the results 

reported in the summary tables are due to ERT specific reporting requirements. Data in tables 

meets method requirements. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 11

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-1 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF TOTAL HYDROCARBONS AND METHANE

EMISSION RESULTS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average 

Test Time 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Start Time 0805 0917 0948 ---- 

 End Time 0905 1017 1223 ---- 

Stack Gas Characteristics 

 Oxygen, % 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.6 

 Moisture, % 11.9 12.1 11.6 11.9 

Volumetric Flow Ratea 

 Actual, acfm 3.05E+06 3.01E+06 3.04E+06 3.04E+06 

 Wet Standard, wscfm 2.12E+06 2.08E+06 2.12E+06 2.11E+06 

 Dry Standard, dscfm 1.87E+06 1.83E+06 1.87E+06 1.86E+06 

THC - MEASURED AS C3H8 

THC as Propaneb 

 Concentration, ppmvd @ 7% O2 <0.61 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 

 Method Detection Limit, ppmvd ---- ---- ---- 0.60c

METHANE MEASURED AS CH4

 Concentration, ppmvd @ 7% O2 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.45 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 

 Method Detection Limit, ppmvd ---- ---- ---- 0.43 

NOX - CEMS OPTION 

Nitrogen Oxides 

 Concentration, ppmvd @ 7% O2 75.7 81.7 81.4 79.6 

a

VFR measurements are from concurrent semi-VOST sampling. 

b

THC values in the table are reported per method requirements. 

c

The method detection limit is 2% of the span value. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 12

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-2 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF DIOXINS AND FURANS AND PCBS

EMISSION RESULTS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average 

Test Time 

 Date 1/13/10 1/13/10 1/14/10 --- 

 Start Time 0617 1316 0631 --- 

 End Time 1454 2144 1529 --- 

Isokinetic Sampling Rate 100 97 101 99 

Stack Gas Characteristics 

 Temperature, oF 274 282 270 275 

 Oxygen, % 5.7 5.5 5.8 5.7 

 Carbon Dioxide, % 14.1 14.4 14.0 14.2 

 Moisture, % 11 12 11 11 

 Velocity, ft/sec 91 88 88 89 

Volumetric Flow Rate 

 Actual, acfm 3.13E+06 3.01E+06 3.02E+06 3.05E+06 

 Wet Standard, wscfm 2.18E+06 2.08E+06 2.12E+06 2.13E+06 

 Dry Standard, dscfm 1.94E+06 1.83E+06 1.88E+06 1.88E+06 

DIOXINS & FURANS 

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 HpCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<2.85E-04] 9.95E-04 [<2.31E-04] <5.04E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<2.62E-13] 9.17E-13 [<2.13E-13] <4.64E-13 

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 HpCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.42E-04] [<8.75E-04] [<1.47E-04] [<3.88E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.31E-13] [<8.06E-13] [<1.35E-13] [<3.58E-13] 

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 HpCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.73E-04] [<2.08E-04] [<1.89E-04] [<1.90E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.59E-13] [<1.91E-13] [<1.74E-13] [<1.75E-13] 

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 HxCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.83E-04] [<1.97E-04] [<1.89E-04] [<1.90E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.69E-13] [<1.81E-13] [<1.74E-13] [<1.75E-13] 

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 HxCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.63E-04] 7.77E-04 [<1.68E-04] <3.69E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.50E-13] 7.15E-13 [<1.55E-13] <3.40E-13 

1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 HxCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.73E-04] 2.19E-04 [<1.78E-04] <1.90E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.59E-13] 2.02E-13 [<1.64E-13] <1.75E-13 

1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 HxCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.42E-04] [<3.06E-04] [<1.47E-04] [<1.99E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.31E-13] [<2.82E-13] [<1.35E-13] [<1.83E-13] 

1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 HxCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.63E-04] [<1.75E-04] [<1.68E-04] [<1.69E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.50E-13] [<1.61E-13] [<1.55E-13] [<1.55E-13] 

For non-detectable concentrations, the EDL presented by the sub-contract laboratory has been applied to each sample volume 

to yield a run specific and target compound specific detection limit. 

Note all values that were less than or equal to the EDL have been denoted with brackets and a <. 

Sample results indicating measured masses above the RDL for one or more of the sample fractions (but not all fractions) have 

been presented as < and shaded. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 13

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-2 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF DIOXINS AND FURANS AND PCBS

EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average 

Test Time 

 Date 1/13/10 1/13/10 1/14/10 --- 

 Start Time 0617 1316 0631 --- 

 End Time 1454 2144 1529 --- 

1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 HxCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.83E-04] [<2.30E-04] [<1.89E-04] [<2.01E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.69E-13] [<2.12E-13] [<1.74E-13] [<1.85E-13] 

1, 2, 3, 7, 8 PeCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.73E-04] [<1.64E-04] [<1.57E-04] [<1.65E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.59E-13] [<1.51E-13] [<1.45E-13] [<1.52E-13] 

1, 2, 3, 7, 8 PeCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<2.03E-04] [<3.28E-04] [<1.89E-04] [<2.40E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.87E-13] [<3.02E-13] [<1.74E-13] [<2.21E-13] 

2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 HxCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.83E-04] 5.25E-04 2.73E-04 <3.27E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.69E-13] 4.84E-13 2.51E-13 <3.01E-13 

2, 3, 4, 7, 8 PeCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.93E-04] [<5.80E-04] 4.41E-04 <4.05E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.78E-13] [<5.34E-13] 4.06E-13 <3.73E-13 

2, 3 ,7, 8 TCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.93E-04] [<1.64E-04] [<1.57E-04] [<1.72E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.78E-13] [<1.51E-13] [<1.45E-13] [<1.58E-13] 

2, 3, 7, 8 TCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<2.85E-04] 8.09E-04 6.19E-04 <5.71E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<2.62E-13] 7.46E-13 5.70E-13 <5.26E-13 

OCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 1.03E-03 2.69E-03 7.66E-04 1.49E-03 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu 9.46E-13 2.48E-12 7.06E-13 1.38E-12 

OCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 4.37E-04 [<6.45E-04] 3.67E-04 <4.83E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu 4.03E-13 [<5.94E-13] 3.38E-13 <4.45E-13 

Total HpCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 1.83E-04 1.62E-03 [<2.31E-04] <6.78E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu 1.69E-13 1.49E-12 [<2.13E-13] <6.24E-13 

Total HpCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.53E-04] [<9.74E-04] [<1.68E-04] [<4.31E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.41E-13] [<8.97E-13] [<1.55E-13] [<3.97E-13] 

For non-detectable concentrations, the EDL presented by the sub-contract laboratory has been applied to each sample volume 

to yield a run specific and target compound specific detection limit. 

Note all values that were less than or equal to the EDL have been denoted with brackets and a <. 

Sample results indicating measured masses above the RDL for one or more of the sample fractions (but not all fractions) have 

been presented as < and shaded. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 14

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-2 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF DIOXINS AND FURANS AND PCBS

EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average 

Test Time 

 Date 1/13/10 1/13/10 1/14/10 --- 

 Start Time 0617 1316 0631 --- 

 End Time 1454 2144 1529 --- 

Total HxCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.73E-04] 5.47E-04 [<1.78E-04] [<2.99E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.59E-13] 5.04E-13 [<1.64E-13] [<2.76E-13] 

Total HxCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.63E-04] 1.72E-03 2.73E-04 <7.18E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.50E-13] 1.58E-12 2.51E-13 <6.61E-13 

Total PeCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.73E-04] [<6.13E-04] [<1.57E-04] [<3.14E-04] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.59E-13] [<5.64E-13] [<1.45E-13] [<2.89E-13] 

Total PeCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<3.15E-04] [<9.85E-04] 1.11E-03 <8.04E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<2.90E-13] [<9.07E-13] 1.02E-12 <7.41E-13 

Total TCDD 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.93E-04] 4.33E-03 1.89E-04 <1.57E-03 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.78E-13] 3.99E-12 1.74E-13 <1.45E-12 

Total TCDF 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<2.85E-04] 1.06E-03 1.21E-03 <8.51E-04 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<2.62E-13] 9.77E-13 1.11E-12 <7.84E-13 

Total Dioxins and Furans 

 Concentration, ng/m3 @ 7% O2 [<3.10E-03] [<1.52E-02] [<4.65E-03] [<7.64E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<2.86E-12] [<1.40E-11] [<4.28E-12] [<7.04E-12] 

33'44'-TetraCB-(77) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<2.03E-06] [<5.80E-06] [<1.57E-06] [<3.14E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.87E-12] [<5.34E-12] [<1.45E-12] [<2.89E-12] 

344'5-TetraCB-(81) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.42E-06] [<2.19E-06] [<1.15E-06] [<1.59E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.31E-12] [<2.02E-12] [<1.06E-12] [<1.46E-12] 

233'44'-PentaCB-(105) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<4.17E-06] [<7.22E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<4.25E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.84E-12] [<6.65E-12] [<1.26E-12] [<3.92E-12] 

2344'5-PentaCB-(114) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<8.14E-07] [<1.20E-06] [<1.05E-06] [<1.02E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<7.50E-13] [<1.11E-12] [<9.67E-13] [<9.41E-13] 

For non-detectable concentrations, the EDL presented by the sub-contract laboratory has been applied to each sample volume 

to yield a run specific and target compound specific detection limit. 

Note all values that were less than or equal to the EDL have been denoted with brackets and a <. 

Sample results indicating measured masses above the RDL for one or more of the sample fractions (but not all fractions) have 

been presented as < and shaded. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 15

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-2 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF DIOXINS AND FURANS AND PCBS

EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average 

Test Time 

 Date 1/13/10 1/13/10 1/14/10 --- 

 Start Time 0617 1316 0631 --- 

 End Time 1454 2144 1529 --- 

23'44'5-PentaCB-(118) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 1.42E-05 [<1.97E-05] 8.08E-06 <1.40E-05 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu 1.31E-11 [<1.81E-11] 7.44E-12 <1.29E-11 

23'44'5'-PentaCB-(123) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<8.24E-07] [<1.20E-06] [<1.05E-06] [<1.03E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<7.59E-13] [<1.11E-12] [<9.67E-13] [<9.45E-13] 

33'44'5-PentaCB-(126) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<8.04E-07] [<1.20E-06] [<1.05E-06] [<1.02E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<7.40E-13] [<1.11E-12] [<9.67E-13] [<9.38E-13] 

HexaCB-(156)+(157) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<8.95E-07] 4.48E-06 1.57E-06 <2.32E-06 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<8.24E-13] 4.13E-12 1.45E-12 <2.14E-12 

23'44'55'-HexaCB-(167) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<8.85E-07] [<2.08E-06] [<1.15E-06] [<1.37E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<8.15E-13] [<1.91E-12] [<1.06E-12] [<1.26E-12] 

33'44'55'-HexaCB-(169) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<9.16E-07] [<2.08E-06] [<1.15E-06] [<1.38E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<8.43E-13] [<1.91E-12] [<1.06E-12] [<1.27E-12] 

233'44'55'HeptaCB-(189) 

 Concentration, ug/m3 @ 7% O2 [<1.32E-06] [<1.86E-06] [<1.47E-06] [<1.55E-06] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.22E-12] [<1.71E-12] [<1.35E-12] [<1.43E-12] 

For non-detectable concentrations, the EDL presented by the sub-contract laboratory has been applied to each sample volume 

to yield a run specific and target compound specific detection limit. 

Note all values that were less than or equal to the EDL have been denoted with brackets and a <. 

Sample results indicating measured masses above the RDL for one or more of the sample fractions (but not all fractions) have 

been presented as < and shaded. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 16

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-3 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF CARBON MONOXIDE

EMISSION RESULTS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average 

Test Time 

 Date 1/13/10 1/13/10 1/13/10 --- 

 Start Time 1245 1455 1716 --- 

 End Time 1445 1655 1916 --- 

Stack Gas Characteristics 

 Temperature, oF 274 282 282 279 

 Oxygen, % 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.5 

 Carbon Dioxide, % 14.1 14.4 14.4 14.3 

 Moisture, % 11 12 12 11 

 Velocity, ft/sec 91 88 88 89 

Volumetric Flow Rate 

 Actual, acfm 3.13E+06 3.01E+06 3.01E+06 3.05E+06 

 Wet Standard, wscfm 2.18E+06 2.08E+06 2.08E+06 2.11E+06 

 Dry Standard, dscfm 1.94E+06 1.83E+06 1.83E+06 1.87E+06 

Carbon Monoxide 

 Concentration, ppm @ 7% O2 223 95.7 87.6 135 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu 0.137 0.059 0.054 0.083 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 17

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-4 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 0953 1325 1129 ---- 

Stack Gas 

 Barometric Pressure, in Hg 29.00 29.00 29.30 29.10 

 Oxygen Concentration, % 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.6 

Analytical Data 

Freon 12 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.64] [<1.44] [<1.35] [<1.48] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.51E-06] [<1.33E-06] [<1.24E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Chloromethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <31.67 <25.38 <12.32 <23.13 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <2.92E-05 <2.34E-05 <1.14E-05 <2.13E-05 

Vinyl Chloride 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.66] [<0.68] [<0.63] [<0.66] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.06E-07] [<6.24E-07] [<5.84E-07] [<6.05E-07] 

Bromomethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <19.17 <20.19 <14.28 <17.88 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <1.77E-05 <1.86E-05 <1.31E-05 <1.65E-05 

Chloroethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.86] [<0.89] [<0.83] [<0.86] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<7.96E-07] [<8.18E-07] [<7.65E-07] [<7.93E-07] 

Freon 11 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.45] [<1.37] [<1.28] [<1.37] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.34E-06] [<1.26E-06] [<1.18E-06] [<1.26E-06] 

1,1-Dichloroethylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.91] [<4.84] [<0.88] [<2.21] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<8.42E-07] [<4.46E-06] [<8.09E-07] [<2.04E-06] 

Iodomethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.70] [<1.39] [<1.54] [<1.55] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.57E-06] [<1.28E-06] [<1.42E-06] [<1.42E-06] 

Carbon Disulfide 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <3.23 <2.98 <1.86 <2.69 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <2.97E-06 <2.75E-06 <1.71E-06 <2.48E-06 

Methylene Chloridea 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 19.00 4.27 6.81 10.03 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu 1.75E-05 3.93E-06 6.27E-06 9.24E-06 

a

MeCl2 seems to be anomalously high. This could be due to contamination from handling on the stack or lab procedures. 

Note the high blank value. 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 

Sample results indicating measured masses above the RDL for one or more of the sample fractions (but not all fractions) have 

been presented as < and shaded. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 18

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-4 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 0953 1325 1129 ---- 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.66] [<0.68] [<0.63] [<0.66] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.08E-07] [<6.24E-07] [<5.84E-07] [<6.06E-07] 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.91] [<0.94] [<0.88] [<0.91] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<8.42E-07] [<8.64E-07] [<8.09E-07] [<8.38E-07] 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.91] [<0.94] [<0.88] [<0.91] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<8.42E-07] [<8.64E-07] [<8.09E-07] [<8.38E-07] 

Chloroform 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<2.48] [<2.46] [<2.34] [<2.42] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<2.28E-06] [<2.26E-06] [<2.16E-06] [<2.23E-06] 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <10.63 <8.01 <3.76 <7.47 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <9.79E-06 <7.38E-06 <3.46E-06 <6.88E-06 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.70] [<0.72] [<0.68] [<0.70] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.47E-07] [<6.64E-07] [<6.22E-07] [<6.44E-07] 

Carbon Tetrachloride 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.19] [<1.23] [<1.15] [<1.19] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.10E-06] [<1.13E-06] [<1.06E-06] [<1.10E-06] 

Benzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <4.61 <4.41 <2.32 <3.78 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <4.24E-06 <4.06E-06 <2.14E-06 <3.48E-06 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.19] [<1.23] [<1.15] [<1.19] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.10E-06] [<1.13E-06] [<1.06E-06] [<1.10E-06] 

1,2-Dichloropropane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.70] [<0.72] [<0.68] [<0.70] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.47E-07] [<6.64E-07] [<6.22E-07] [<6.44E-07] 

Trichloroethylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.70] [<0.72] [<0.68] [<0.70] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.47E-07] [<6.64E-07] [<6.22E-07] [<6.44E-07] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 

Sample results indicating measured masses above the RDL for one or more of the sample fractions (but not all fractions) have 

been presented as < and shaded. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 19

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-4 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 0953 1325 1129 ---- 

Dibromomethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.70] [<0.72] [<0.68] [<0.70] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.47E-07] [<6.64E-07] [<6.22E-07] [<6.44E-07] 

Bromodichloromethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.66] [<0.68] [<0.63] [<0.66] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.08E-07] [<6.24E-07] [<5.84E-07] [<6.06E-07] 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.66] [<0.68] [<0.63] [<0.66] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.08E-07] [<6.24E-07] [<5.84E-07] [<6.06E-07] 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.60] [<0.61] [<0.57] [<0.59] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<5.50E-07] [<5.65E-07] [<5.29E-07] [<5.48E-07] 

Dibromochloromethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.61] [<0.63] [<0.59] [<0.61] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<5.63E-07] [<5.78E-07] [<5.41E-07] [<5.61E-07] 

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<3.59] [<3.68] [<3.45] [<3.57] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.30E-06] [<3.39E-06] [<3.17E-06] [<3.29E-06] 

Toluene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <2.76 <1.97 <1.98 <2.24 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <2.54E-06 <1.82E-06 <1.82E-06 <2.06E-06 

Ethylene Dibromide 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <2.24 <3.90 <1.50 <2.55 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <2.07E-06 <3.59E-06 <1.38E-06 <2.35E-06 

Tetrachloroethylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.19] [<1.23] [<1.15] [<1.19] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.10E-06] [<1.13E-06] [<1.06E-06] [<1.10E-06] 

Chlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.70] [<0.72] [<0.68] [<0.70] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.47E-07] [<6.64E-07] [<6.22E-07] [<6.44E-07] 

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.70] [<0.72] [<0.68] [<0.70] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.47E-07] [<6.64E-07] [<6.22E-07] [<6.44E-07] 

Ethylbenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.82] [<0.72] [<1.03] [<0.86] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<7.54E-07] [<6.64E-07] [<9.52E-07] [<7.90E-07] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 

Sample results indicating measured masses above the RDL for one or more of the sample fractions (but not all fractions) have 

been presented as < and shaded. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 20

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-4 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 0953 1325 1129 ---- 

m/p-Xylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <4.93 <3.99 <4.84 <4.59 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <4.54E-06 <3.67E-06 <4.45E-06 <4.22E-06 

Styrene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 <1.89 <1.72 <1.15 <1.59 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <1.74E-06 <1.58E-06 <1.06E-06 <1.46E-06 

o-Xylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.19] [<1.23] [<1.86] [<1.43] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.10E-06] [<1.13E-06] [<1.72E-06] [<1.31E-06] 

Bromoform 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<0.66] [<0.68] [<0.63] [<0.66] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.08E-07] [<6.24E-07] [<5.84E-07] [<6.06E-07] 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.34] [<1.37] [<1.28] [<1.33] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.23E-06] [<1.26E-06] [<1.18E-06] [<1.23E-06] 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.24] [<1.27] [<1.19] [<1.23] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.14E-06] [<1.17E-06] [<1.09E-06] [<1.13E-06] 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.19] [<1.23] [<1.15] [<1.19] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.10E-06] [<1.13E-06] [<1.06E-06] [<1.10E-06] 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.19] [<1.23] [<1.27] [<1.23] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.10E-06] [<1.13E-06] [<1.17E-06] [<1.13E-06] 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.19] [<1.23] [<1.15] [<1.19] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.10E-06] [<1.13E-06] [<1.06E-06] [<1.10E-06] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 

Sample results indicating measured masses above the RDL for one or more of the sample fractions (but not all fractions) have 

been presented as < and shaded. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 21

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-5 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 1020 1402 1220 ---- 

Stack Gas 

 Temperature, oF 270 274 275 273 

 Oxygen, % 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.6 

 Carbon Dioxide, % 14.3 14.1 14.1 14.2 

 Moisture, % 12 12 12 12 

 Velocity, ft/sec 89 88 89 88 

Volumetric Flow Rate 

 Actual, acfm 3.06E+06 3.01E+06 3.04E+06 3.04E+06 

 Wet Standard, wscfm 2.12E+06 2.08E+06 2.12E+06 2.11E+06 

 Dry Standard, dscfm 1.87E+06 1.83E+06 1.87E+06 1.86E+06 

Analytical Data 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

1-Chloronaphthalene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

1-Methylnaphthalene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.08E-02] [<1.14E-02] [<1.11E-02] [<1.11E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<9.95E-06] [<1.05E-05] [<1.02E-05] [<1.02E-05] 

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<5.40E-03] [<5.69E-03] [<5.54E-03] [<5.54E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<4.97E-06] [<5.24E-06] [<5.10E-06] [<5.10E-06] 

2,4-Dichlorophenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<5.40E-03] [<5.69E-03] [<5.54E-03] [<5.54E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<4.97E-06] [<5.24E-06] [<5.10E-06] [<5.10E-06] 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-02] [<1.90E-02] [<1.85E-02] [<1.85E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-05] [<1.75E-05] [<1.70E-05] [<1.70E-05] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 22

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-5 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 1020 1402 1220 ---- 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<3.60E-03] [<3.79E-03] [<3.69E-03] [<3.69E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.32E-06] [<3.49E-06] [<3.40E-06] [<3.40E-06] 

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<3.60E-03] [<3.79E-03] [<3.69E-03] [<3.69E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.32E-06] [<3.49E-06] [<3.40E-06] [<3.40E-06] 

2-Chloronaphthalene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<3.60E-03] [<3.79E-03] [<3.69E-03] [<3.69E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.32E-06] [<3.49E-06] [<3.40E-06] [<3.40E-06] 

2-Chlorophenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<9.00E-03] [<9.48E-03] [<9.23E-03] [<9.23E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<8.29E-06] [<8.73E-06] [<8.50E-06] [<8.50E-06] 

2-Methylnaphthalene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

2-Methylphenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.08E-02] [<1.14E-02] [<1.11E-02] [<1.11E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<9.95E-06] [<1.05E-05] [<1.02E-05] [<1.02E-05] 

2-Nitroaniline 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-02] [<1.90E-02] [<1.85E-02] [<1.85E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-05] [<1.75E-05] [<1.70E-05] [<1.70E-05] 

2-Nitrophenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<5.40E-03] [<5.69E-03] [<5.54E-03] [<5.54E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<4.97E-06] [<5.24E-06] [<5.10E-06] [<5.10E-06] 

3 & 4-Methylphenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.26E-02] [<1.33E-02] [<1.29E-02] [<1.29E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.16E-05] [<1.22E-05] [<1.19E-05] [<1.19E-05] 

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<9.00E-03] [<9.48E-03] [<9.23E-03] [<9.23E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <8.29E-06] [<8.73E-06] [<8.50E-06] [<8.50E-06] 

3-Nitroaniline 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-02] [<1.90E-02] [<1.85E-02] [<1.85E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-05] [<1.75E-05] [<1.70E-05] [<1.70E-05] 

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-02] [<1.52E-02] [<1.48E-02] [<1.48E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-05] [<1.40E-05] [<1.36E-05] [<1.36E-05] 

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<1.90E-03] [<1.85E-03] [<1.85E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<1.75E-06] [<1.70E-06] [<1.70E-06] 

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<5.40E-03] [<5.69E-03] [<5.54E-03] [<5.54E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<4.97E-06] [<5.24E-06] [<5.10E-06] [<5.10E-06] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 23

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-5 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 1020 1402 1220 ---- 

4-Chloroaniline 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-02] [<1.90E-02] [<1.85E-02] [<1.85E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-05] [<1.75E-05] [<1.70E-05] [<1.70E-05] 

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<3.60E-03] [<3.79E-03] [<3.69E-03] [<3.69E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.32E-06] [<3.49E-06] [<3.40E-06] [<3.40E-06] 

4-Nitroaniline 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-02] [<1.90E-02] [<1.85E-02] [<1.85E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-05] [<1.75E-05] [<1.70E-05] [<1.70E-05] 

4-Nitrophenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.26E-02] [<1.33E-02] [<1.29E-02] [<1.29E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.16E-05] [<1.22E-05] [<1.19E-05] [<1.19E-05] 

Aniline 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-02] [<1.90E-02] [<1.85E-02] [<1.85E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-05] [<1.75E-05] [<1.70E-05] [<1.70E-05] 

Benzidine 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-02] [<7.58E-02] [<7.38E-02] [<7.39E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-05] [<6.98E-05] [<6.80E-05] [<6.80E-05] 

Benzoic Acid 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<4.05E-02] [<4.22E-02] [<3.65E-02] [<3.97E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.73E-05] [<3.88E-05] [<3.36E-05] [<3.66E-05] 

Benzyl Alcohol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Benzyl butyl phthalate 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<2.37E-03] [<3.69E-03] [<2.62E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<2.18E-06] [<3.40E-06] [<2.41E-06] 

Biphenyl 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Bis(2-chloroethyoxy)methane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<5.40E-03] [<5.69E-03] [<5.54E-03] [<5.54E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<4.97E-06] [<5.24E-06] [<5.10E-06] [<5.10E-06] 

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<5.40E-03] [<5.69E-03] [<5.54E-03] [<5.54E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<4.97E-06] [<5.24E-06] [<5.10E-06] [<5.10E-06] 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatea 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.89E-02] [<2.94E-02] [<2.40E-02] [<2.41E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.74E-05] [<2.71E-05] [<2.21E-05] [<2.22E-05] 

a

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a compound frequently found in plastics. The presence of this compound in the samples could be an 

artifact of the lab or sampl recovery. 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 24

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-5 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 1020 1402 1220 ---- 

Carbazole 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-02] [<1.90E-02] [<1.85E-02] [<1.85E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-05] [<1.75E-05] [<1.70E-05] [<1.70E-05] 

Dibenzofuran 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-02] [<1.90E-02] [<1.85E-02] [<1.85E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-05] [<1.75E-05] [<1.70E-05] [<1.70E-05] 

Diethyl phthalate 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<6.75E-03] [<3.79E-03] [<4.15E-03] [<4.90E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.22E-06] [<3.49E-06] [<3.82E-06] [<4.51E-06] 

Dimethylphthalate 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<3.60E-03] [<3.79E-03] [<3.69E-03] [<3.69E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.32E-06] [<3.49E-06] [<3.40E-06] [<3.40E-06] 

Di-N-butyl phthalate 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<6.30E-03] [<4.74E-03] [<6.00E-03] [<5.68E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<5.80E-06] [<4.36E-06] [<5.52E-06] [<5.23E-06] 

Di-N-octyl phthalate 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<3.60E-03] [<3.79E-03] [<3.69E-03] [<3.69E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.32E-06] [<3.49E-06] [<3.40E-06] [<3.40E-06] 

Hexachlorobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Hexachlorobutadiene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Hexachloroethane 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Isophorone 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-02] [<1.52E-02] [<1.48E-02] [<1.48E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-05] [<1.40E-05] [<1.36E-05] [<1.36E-05] 

Nitrobenzene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

N-Nitrosodimethylamine 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<3.60E-02] [<3.79E-02] [<3.69E-02] [<3.69E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<3.32E-05] [<3.49E-05] [<3.40E-05] [<3.40E-05] 

N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 25

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-5 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 1020 1402 1220 ---- 

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<7.20E-03] [<7.58E-03] [<7.38E-03] [<7.39E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<6.63E-06] [<6.98E-06] [<6.80E-06] [<6.80E-06] 

Pentachlorophenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.08E-02] [<1.14E-02] [<1.11E-02] [<1.11E-02] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<9.95E-06] [<1.05E-05] [<1.02E-05] [<1.02E-05] 

Phenol 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<5.40E-03] [<5.69E-03] [<5.54E-03] [<5.54E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<4.97E-06] [<5.24E-06] [<5.10E-06] [<5.10E-06] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 26

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-6 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF POM EMISSION RESULTS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 1020 1402 1220 ---- 

Stack Gas 

 Temperature, oF 270 274 275 273 

 Oxygen, % 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.6 

 Carbon Dioxide, % 14.3 14.1 14.1 14.2 

 Moisture, % 12 12 12 12 

 Velocity, ft/sec 89 88 89 88 

Volumetric Flow Rate 

 Actual, acfm 3.06E+06 3.01E+06 3.04E+06 3.04E+06 

 Wet Standard, wscfm 2.12E+06 2.08E+06 2.12E+06 2.11E+06 

 Dry Standard, dscfm 1.87E+06 1.83E+06 1.87E+06 1.86E+06 

Analytical Data 

Acenaphthene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<1.90E-03] [<1.85E-03] [<1.85E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<1.75E-06] [<1.70E-06] [<1.70E-06] 

Acenaphthylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<1.90E-03] [<1.85E-03] [<1.85E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<1.75E-06] [<1.70E-06] [<1.70E-06] 

Anthracene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Benzo[a]anthracene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Benzo[a]pyrene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<1.90E-03] [<1.85E-03] [<1.85E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<1.75E-06] [<1.70E-06] [<1.70E-06] 

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<1.90E-03] [<1.85E-03] [<1.85E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<1.75E-06] [<1.70E-06] [<1.70E-06] 

Chrysene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Fluoranthene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 27

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

TABLE 2-6 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

SUMMARY OF POM EMISSION RESULTS

(CONTINUED) 

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/12/10 1/13/10 ---- 

 Time Started 0805 1142 0947 ---- 

 Time Finished 1020 1402 1220 ---- 

Fluorene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<1.90E-03] [<1.85E-03] [<1.85E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<1.75E-06] [<1.70E-06] [<1.70E-06] 

Naphthalene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<1.90E-03] [<1.85E-03] [<1.85E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<1.75E-06] [<1.70E-06] [<1.70E-06] 

Phenanthrene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.44E-03] [<1.52E-03] [<1.48E-03] [<1.48E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.33E-06] [<1.40E-06] [<1.36E-06] [<1.36E-06] 

Pyrene 

 Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O2 [<1.80E-03] [<1.90E-03] [<1.85E-03] [<1.85E-03] 

 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu [<1.66E-06] [<1.75E-06] [<1.70E-06] [<1.70E-06] 

Sample results indicating measured mass below the RDL for all fractions were indicated by brackets around the < RDL value. 
K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 28

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

SECTION 3 

PROCESS DESCRIPTION

3.1 SOURCE DESCRIPTION AND TEST LOCATION

Unit 3 at Plant Scherer started commercial operation in 1987. The Combustion Engineering 

tangential fired unit burns sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. 

3.2 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT

Particulate and mercury control is by a Cold-Side, Lodge-Cottrell electrostatic precipitator followed 

by a Wheelabrator Baghouse with Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) injection prior to the 

baghouse. 

At the time of the ICR test program, no additional exhaust gas controls were in operation. 

3.3 SOOTBLOWING

No sootblowing activities were conducted during any test run events. 
 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 29

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

3.4 PROCESS PARAMETERS

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

TABLE 3-1 

PLANT SCHERER, UNIT 3 

PROCESS PARAMETERS

Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean 

 Date 1/12/10 1/13/10 1/14/10 --- 

 Time Began 0743 0617 0631 --- 

 Time Ended 1402 2144 1529 --- 

Nitrogen Oxides, ppmvd 84.452 89.950 88.462 87.621 

Gross Electric Output, MW 879.932 880.053 880.136 880.040 

Station Service, MW 41.688 41.747 42.396 41.944 

Net Load, MW 838.244 838.306 837.740 838.097 

ESP, Total KW 56.671 50.488 50.518 52.559 

Main Steam Flow, Klb/hr 5,638.067 5,631.554 5,646.719 5,638.780 

Total Fuel Flow, Klb/hr 951.216 943.865 956.624 950.569 

Coal Heat Value, Btu/lb 8,617.000 8,613.000 8,568.000 8,599.333 

Total Heat Input (from Coal Feed), MMBtu/hr 8,196.631 8,129.509 8,196.359 8,174.166 

Total Heat Input (from Flow/CO2), MMBtu/hr 9,008.876 8,776.415 8,743.934 8,843.075 
K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 30

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

SECTION 4 

QUALITY CONTROL

This section provides detailed information regarding the QA/QC activities associated with stack 

sampling. 

4.1 DATA COLLECTION AND REDUCTION

Data were collected on pre-printed data sheets or electronically using validated data acquisition 

instrumentation and software. Collected data were reduced using pre-programmed calculators and 

validated spreadsheets. Data transfers were independently verified. 

Copies of field data sheets are provided in the Appendices. 

4.2 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY

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 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR VOLUMETRIC FLOW MEASUREMENTS

Volumetric flow data were obtained using certified pitot tubes and temperature measurement 

equipment. Equipment used during the test program met the requirements of EPA Method 2. 

Copies of calibration data are provided in Appendix E. 
 QUALITY CONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 31

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

4.4 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR INSTRUMENTAL METHODS

Gaseous pollutants were measured using instrumental procedures. Instruments were calibrated with 

traceability protocol gases (with uncertainly <2.0% of tag value) and copies of calibration gas 

certificates are provided in Appendix E. Table 4-1 summarizes the method performance criteria and 

achieved results for the various instrumental methods. 

TABLE 4-1 

PERFORMANCE AND QC DATA FOR INSTRUMENTAL SAMPLING METHOD 10 

(CARBON MONOXIDE) 

Criteria 

Criteria Achieved? 

(yes/no) 

CO 

Mid level gas concentration within 40-60% of the calibration span 

concentration was achieved. 

Yes (47%) 

Low level gas concentration <20% of the calibration span concentration 

was achieved. 

Yes 

Calibration error <2.0% of calibration span for all calibration gases (or less 

than 0.5 ppmv) was achieved. 

Yes 

Calibration drift <3.0% of the instrument span of low and high level 

calibration gases (or less than 0.5 ppmv) was achieved. 

Yes 

A bias of <5.0% (or 0.5 ppmv) was achieved. Yes 

System response time check during which a purge of the system >2X the 

response time at each point was performed. 

Yes 

Stratification test <5% from the mean for single point sampling or <10% 

from the mean for 3-point sampling was achieved (or <0.5 ppm difference 

from mean for 1-point sampling and <1.0 ppm difference from mean for 

3-point sampling.) 

Noa

An analyzer interference check which produced sum of responses <2.5% 

of calibration span was achieved. 

Yes 

Probe, filter, and sample line temperature were adequate to keep sample 

above the dewpoint for each run. 

Yes 

Sample flow rate for each run was within 10% of flow rate established 

during system response time check. 

Yes 

Date recording frequency represents one-minute averages. Yes 

The run average is < calibration span for each run. Yes 

All data points < calibration span during test/run. Yes 

a

Historical test data indicates this sampling location is minimally stratified. The variation in CO concentration due to 

process effects would not allow a representative stratification test. 
 QUALITY CONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 32

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

4.5 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TOTAL HYDROCARBONS

Table 4-2 summarizes the method performance criteria and achieved results for Method 25A. 

TABLE 4-2 

PERFORMANCE AND QC DATA FOR INSTRUMENTAL SAMPLING METHOD 25A 

(TOTAL HYDROCARBONS) 

Criteria 

Criteria Achieved? 

(yes/no) 

THC 

High level gas concentration within 80-90% of the span value was 

achieved. 

Yes (84%) 

Mid level gas concentration within 45-55% of the span value achieved. No (41%) 

Low level gas concentration 25-35% of the span value was achieved. No (20%) 

Zero gas with <0.1 ppmv or <0.1% of span (whichever is greater) was 

utilized. 

Yes 

Calibration error <5% of calibration span for all calibration gases was 

achieved. 

Yes 

Calibration drift <3% of the instrument span of zero and mid level 

calibration gases was achieved. 

Yes 

System Response Time Check (three times and averaged) was performed. Noa

a

Due to the very low levels found in the source gas, a response time study would not be representative as written in the 

methods. 
 QUALITY CONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 33

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

4.6 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR METHANE

Table 4-3 summarizes the method performance criteria and achieved results for Method 18. 

TABLE 4-3 

PERFORMANCE AND QC DATA FOR METHOD 18 

(METHANE) 

The instrument was calibrated with commercial cylinder gases certified by the manufacturer to 2% 

accuracy or better. 

Criteria 

Criteria Achieved? 

(yes/no) 

A three point calibration curve was utilized. Yes 

Each calibration standard was injected 3X. Yes 

The instrument response for each injection was within 5% of the mean 

response for that level. 

Noa

Calibration standards bracket the sample concentration. Yes 

Each sample was injected 3X. Yes 

The instrument response for each injection was within 5% of the mean 

response for that sample. 

Yes 

For the Tedlar bag option, a recovery study at 40-60% of the analyzed 

concentration is required, and results are used to correct data. The spike 

recovery must be between 70 and 130%. 

Nob

A mid-range calibration standard was analyzed after sample analysis, and 

the standard was within 5% of the target value (or else the calibration was 

repeated and an average of the pre- and post-calibrations was used to 

determine source data). 

No 

a

Sample concentrations are at or below the MDL. 

b

Due to negligible level methane concentrations, a bag stability study was performed in lieu of a spike recovery study. 
 QUALITY CONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 34

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

4.7 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR VOST MEASUREMENTS

Table 4-4 summarizes key method performance and quality control data for VOST measurements. 

TABLE 4-4 

SUMMARY OF METHOD 0031 

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND ACHIEVED RESULTS

Method 0031 Performance Data 

QA Specification 

Performance 

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Acceptance Criteria 

Sample Collection 

Flow Rate ~1L/Min ~1L/Min ~1L/Min 0.25 – 1 liter per minute 

Sample Time 4-20 4-20 4-20 4-20 minute sets minimum 

Holding Time to Extraction 9 days 14 days 

Holding Time to Analysis 10 days 30 days 

One field blank for every 2-hour sample 

period, one set of blank tubes for each 

site, and one set of lab blank tubes were 

analyzed. 

<mdl 

except methylene chloride 

<mdl 

Pre-test Leak Check 0.0 0.0 0.0 Required 

Post-test Leak Check 0.0 0.0 0.0 Required 

Sample Handling 

Sorbent Trap Holding Time (Before Use) 7 days 14 days 

Sample Traps Temperature Maintained 

Until Ready for Analysis <10°C <10 oC 

Gas Stream Inlet to First Sorbent Trap <20°C <20°C <20°C ≤20 oC 

Meter, Temperature, and Pump Reading 

Intervals 

<5 Min <5 Min <5 Min Every ≤5 min 

Spike Recoveries 62-129% 50-150% of spiked value 
 QUALITY CONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 35

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

Maxxam Analytics 

Summary Of VOST Processing Issues Necessitating Dilutions of the Tube Samples

The samples exhibited extremely high levels of non-target compounds, mainly siloxanes, based on 

standards calibration criteria and response factors within the GC/MS, which caused the following to 

occur within the analytical sequence(s). 

a) The last internal standard (Bromofluorbenzene) failed for many of the samples. 

b) Following completion of an analytical run, we were unable to rid the system of these nontarget analytes, thus inducing possible carryover into the subsequent analytical run(s). 

c) We dismantled the desorber, rinsed, and baked it in a lab oven. Subsequent reinstallation of 

the hardware proved that residual amounts of the non-target analyte remained. 

d) Repeated c again and finally were able to get to “clean” and ready. 

e) Often difficult to meet the tuning criteria for the method and experienced huge losses of 

sensitivity on the system up to 2/3 of standard sensitivity. 

f) Often could not get continuing calibrations to pass after running samples and it took hours of 

running calibrations to get the system to pass the continuing calibration criteria. 
 QUALITY CONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 36

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

4.8 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR SEMI VOST MEASUREMENTS

Table 4-5 summarizes key method performance and quality control data for semi-VOST 

measurements. 

TABLE 4-5 

SUMMARY OF METHOD 0010 

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND ACHIEVED RESULTS

Method 0010 Performance Data 

QA Specification 

Performance 

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Acceptance Criteria 

Sample Collection 

Isokinetic Sampling Rate, % 102 100 102 90-110% 

Sample Volume 2.5 2.4 2.5 1.7 cubic meters minimum – 

ICR requirement 

Sample Time 120 120 120 120 minutes minimum – 

ICR requirement 

Pre-test Leak Check 0.008 0.014 0.012 ≤4% of average sampling rate or 

≤0.02 cfm (whichever is less) 

Post-test Leak Check 0.005 0.010 0.007 ≤4% of average sampling rate or 

≤0.02 cfm (whichever is less) 

Field and Method Blank Analysis Performed Required 

Meter Box Calibration <5% ∆Y ≤5% 

Impinger, Organic Module, and Dry-Gas 

Meter Thermocouples 

Included in Appendix E ≤2 oC at all three check temperatures

Probe and Stack Thermocouples Included in Appendix E ≤1.5% at all three check 

temperatures 

Barometer Included in Appendix E ≤0.1 in. Hg of Hg barometer 

Balance Included in Appendix E ≤0.5% of standards 

Sample Handling 

Holding Time to Extraction 14 days 14 days 

Holding Time to Analysis 27 days 30 days 

Method Blank Performed Required 
 QUALITY CONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 37

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

4.9 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ISOKINETIC SAMPLING METHODS 

DIOXINS/FURANS MEASUREMENTS

Dioxins/furans were measured using isokinetic sampling procedures. Table 4-6 summarizes the 

method performance criteria and achieved results for the method. Additionally, 

Appendix E provides copies of stack test equipment calibration data. 

TABLE 4-6 

SUMMARY OF METHOD 23 

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND ACHIEVED RESULTS

Method 23 Performance Data 

QA Specification 

Performance 

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Acceptance Criteria 

Sample Collection 

Isokinetic Sampling Rate, % 100 102 101 90-110% 

Sampling Time 480 480 480 Minimum of 480 minutes – 

ICR requirement 

Sample Volume, scm 11.2 10.3 10.9 Minimum of 8.5 cubic meters – 

ICR requirement 

Pitot Leak Check 0.007 0.010 0.007 Stable at 3 inches for 15 seconds 

Probe/Nozzle Assembly Leak Check 0.020 cfm 

Meter Box Calibration <5% <5% 

Initial Meter Calibration Included in Appendix E 0.97 Y <Yc <1.03 Y 

Probe/Pitot Calibration Included in Appendix E ---- 

Temperature Sensor Calibrations Included in Appendix E ±3o C (5.4 oF) 

Sample Handling 

Internal Standard % Recovery 

<61% 

40-130% for tetra-, penta-, & 

hexachlorinated compounds and 

25-130% for hepta- & 

octachlorinated homologues 

Surrogate Standard % Recovery <84% 70-130% 

Toluene QA Rinse Analysis Performed Required 
K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 38

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

SECTION 5 

SOURCE TESTING METHODOLOGY

The emission testing program was conducted in accordance with the U.S. EPA Reference Methods 

summarized in Table 5-1. Method descriptions and quality assurance data are provided in the 

referenced appendices. 

TABLE 5-1 

SOURCE TESTING METHODOLOGY

Parameter 

Method 

Number 

Appendix Reference 

Data 

Qualifiers Comments

Method 

Description 

Quality 

Control 

Data 

Volumetric Flow Rate 1,2,4 B.1 E 

Gas Composition 3A B.2 E 

Nitrogen Oxides CEMS Option 

Carbon Monoxide 10 B.3 E 

Methane 18 B.4 E Integrated Tedlar 

Bag approach 

Dioxins and Furans 23 B.5 E S 

Total Hydrocarbons 25A B.6 E 

Speciated Volatile Organic Compounds M0031 B.7 E S 

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds and 

POM 

M0010 B.8 E S 

These results meet all requirements of NELAC unless otherwise specified. 

The results within this report relate only to the samples listed in the body of this report. 
K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 39

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

APPENDIX A 

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
 APPENDIX A 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 40

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Unit 3 

Meter Pressure (Pm), in. Hg 

13.6 in.H O/in.Hg

H Pm = Pb+

2

∆

 where, Pb = barometric pressure, in. Hg 

 ∆H = Pressure differential of orifice in. H2O 

Absolute Stack Gas Pressure (Ps), in. Hg 

13.6 in.H O/in.Hg

Pg Ps = Pb+

2

 where, Pb = barometric pressure, in. Hg 

 Pg = Static Pressure, in. H2O 

Standard Meter Volume (Vmstd), dscf 

Tm

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

 where, Y = meter correction factor 

 Vm = meter volume, cf or L

 Pm = meter pressure, in. Hg 

 Tm = meter temperature, o

R 

Standard Wet Volume (Vwstd), scf

Vwstd 0.04707 ft /mL x Vlc 3 =

 where, Vlc = volume of H2O collected, mL 

Standard Wet Volume (Vwstd), L

Vwstd = 1.333 L/mL x Vlc

 where, Vlc = volume of H2O collected, mL 
 APPENDIX A 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 41

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Moisture Fraction (Measured), (Bws) 

 (Vwstd +Vmstd)

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 H2O at stack gas temp., in. Hg 

 Ps = absolute stack gas pressure, in. Hg 

Moisture, % (M%) 

M% = Bws x 100 

 where, Bws = moisture fraction, measured or at saturation, 

 whichever is lowest 

Molecular Weight (DRY) (Md), lb/lb-mole 

Md = (0.44 x % CO )+(0.32 x % O )+(0.28 (100 -% CO -% O )) 2 2 2 2

Molecular Weight (WET) (Ms), lb/lb-mole 

Ms = Md (1- Bws) +18 (Bws) where, Md = molecular weight (DRY), lb/lb-mole 

 Bws = moisture fraction, dimensionless 

Average Velocity (Vs), ft/sec 

Ps x Ms

Ts x Cp x Delta P avg. x ( R)(in.H O)

(lb/lb - mole)(in.Hg)

sec

ft Vs=85.49

2 °

 where, Cp = pitot tube coefficient 

 Delta P = velocity head of stack gas, in. H2O 

 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 

Qa = 60 sec/min x Vs x As where, Vs = stack gas velocity, ft/sec 

 As = cross-sectional area of stack, ft2
 APPENDIX A 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 42

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Average Stack Gas Flow at Standard Conditions (Qs), dscfm 

Ts

Ps x Qa x (1- Bws) x in. HgR Qs 17.64 ° =

 where, Qa = average stack gas flow at stack conditions, ft3

/min 

 Bws = moisture content (dimensionless) 

 Ps = absolute stack gas pressure, in. Hg 

 Ts = absolute stack temperature, o

R 

Percent Isokinetic Sampling Rate (%I) 

Ps x Vs x An x x (1- Bws)

0.0945 (in.Hg)(min)/( R)(sec) x Ts x Vmstd % 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, ft2

 Θ = total sampling time, min 

 Bws = moisture content (dimensionless) 

Concentration Corrected for O2, Cs @ 7% O2

2

2

20.9 - measured % O

20.9 -7% O

ppm x

Emission Rate (EMR), lb/MMBtu (O2 F-factor) 

% O2 20.9 -

20.9 x MMBtu

dscf x F factor,

ppm

lb/scfM EMR = conc. dry x 2.59 E -09

 where, NOx conc. dry = measured NOx conc., dry ppm 

 1.194 E-7 lb/scf/ppm = constant (see below for calculation) 

 F factor = defined by client or CFR, scf/MMBtu 

 Bws = moisture fraction, dimensionless 

 M = molecular weight of NOx (46.01 lb/lb-mole) 
 APPENDIX A 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 43

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Dioxin Concentration, ng/dscm 

Total TCDD = Mass,ng ÷Vmstd,dscm

Dioxin Concentration Corrected to 7% O2, ng/dscm @ 7% O2

( )( )

( ) % O2 21-

conc. ng/dscm x 21 -7 Total TCDD = 

Speciated Volatile Organic Compounds

Concentration (conc.), ppm (μL/L) 

 x sample vol.(L)

g - mole

g mol. wt

g - mole

L mass g x 24.04

conc. = 

μ

μ

μ

μ μ

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

Concentration (conc.), μg/dscm 

 sample vol.,dscm

mass g

conc. = μ

Concentration at 7% O2

20.9 - actual % O

20.9 -7% O

conc. @7% O = conc., g/dscm x 

2

2

2 ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

μ
K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 44

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version 

APPENDIX B 

TEST METHODOLOGY

B.1 VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

B.2 GAS COMPOSITION

B.3 CARBON MONOXIDE

B.4 METHANE

B.5 DIOXINS AND FURANS

B.6 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS

B.7 SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

B.8 SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 45

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

B.1 VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE

Mass emission rates are calculated by multiplying measured target analyte concentrations by 

calculated volumetric flow rates. Volumetric flow rates are calculated using measurement data 

obtained by EPA Reference Methods 1-4. 

The ductwork is measured at the sample location to the nearest 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 recommended 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 inclined manometer at each traverse point using either a 

standard “P” type or an “S” type pitot tube. The stack pressure is calculated from the measured 

static pressure of the stack and the ambient barometric pressure. The static pressure is measured by 

using the static side of the pitot tube, and the barometric pressure is measured using a calibrated 

aneroid barometer. Magnahelic® gauges with scales of 0 to 5 and 0 to 25 inches of water or an 

inclined manometer with a scale of 0 to 10 inches of water is used for velocity pressure 

measurements. Manometer selection is determined by the velocity pressure of the gas stream. A 

manometer with a 0 to 0.25 inch scale may be used when the velocity pressure of the gas stream is 

less than 0.25 inches of water. By convention, any measured velocity pressures of less than 

0.005 inches of water are recorded and reported as less than 0.005 inches of water. The stack 

temperature is measured with a calibrated thermocouple and pyrometer. 

For low velocity pressure measurements (less than 0.005 inches of water) a hot wire anemometer may 

be used to measure the velocity of the gas stream. The indicated velocity is used without correction 

when the gas stream is ambient air with a moisture content of less than 65%. The indicated velocity is 

corrected in accordance with procedures specified by the manufacturer when the moisture content 

exceeds 65% or when the dry gas fraction is something other than ambient air. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 46

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Moisture Content

The composition of the gas stream is measured in accordance with EPA Reference Method 3 using 

The moisture content of the gas stream is determined 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 impingers of the sampling train is 

measured and used to calculate the moisture content of the gas stream. 

• For sources with temperatures 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 than 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 determinations, the lowest moisture value is used for 

volumetric flow calculations. 

The molecular weight of the gas stream is calculated 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 measured velocity, stack and barometric pressures. 

Standard conditions are 68 °F and 29.92 inches of mercury and 0% moisture. 

Data Acquisition and Reporting

Data are recorded at the time of collection on preprinted data sheets. Calculations are performed 

(where possible) with preprogrammed calculators or spreadsheet software. 

Quality Control

Quality control procedures for volumetric flow measurements involve leak checks of pitot tubes, 

pitot tube lines and manometers; periodic analysis of ambient air and duplicate analysis of source 

gas samples with the Fyrite analyzer; triplicate analysis with the Orsat analyzer; and periodic 

calibration checks of thermocouples and pyrometers. 

Data transfers are minimized. Data sheets are checked for completeness and accuracy. 

Calculations are verified by a second person. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 47

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

B.2 GAS COMPOSITION (INSTRUMENTAL) 

Oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) testing is conducted in accordance with EPA Reference 

Method 3A. 

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

Figure B-1 illustrates the sampling system. The sample is withdrawn continuously from the source 

through a heated probe, filter, and sample line to a sample conditioner which removes moisture from 

the gas stream. The sample is then transported to an O2 analyzer and a CO2 analyzer. 

Sample Analysis

The O2 analyzer uses an electrochemical cell or paramagnetic detector and the CO2 analyzer uses a 

non-dispersive infra-red (NDIR) detector to produce an electrical signal which is linearly proportional 

to the O2 and CO2 concentration, respectively. 

Data Acquisition and Reduction

Data is acquired electronically using a computer and software designed by WESTON for EPA 

Reference Method 3A analysis. This system generates a calibration curve, converts electronic signals 

into concentrations, and provides one-minute averages during the sample run and an average 

concentration over the duration of the sample run. 

Quality Control

At the time of analysis, O2 and CO2 in nitrogen calibration gases certified 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 calibration gases are introduced directly to the 

analyzer to generate the calibration curve. A zero gas and an upscale calibration gas is introduced at 

the probe and recovered through the sampling and analytical system. A bias correction factor is 

calculated using the ratio of the concentration measured from the sampling system and concentration 

measured directly at the analyzer. Sample run averages are corrected for system bias results. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 48

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Figure B-1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 49

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

B.3 CARBON MONOXIDE

Carbon monoxide testing is conducted in accordance with EPA Reference Method 10. 

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

Figure B-1 illustrates the sampling system. Sampling is performed by extraction of an integrated stack 

gas sample collected in a Tedlar® bag, or by continuous sample extraction and analysis. For both 

sampling procedures the sample is withdrawn from the stack, through a conditioning system for 

moisture removal, using a leak-tight sample pump. The dry gas sample is then collected at the outlet of 

the sample pump using a Tedlar® bag or transported through sample lines to the analyzer for 

continuous on-line monitoring. 

Sample Analysis

The CO Non-Dispersive Infrared (NDIR) analyzer uses gas filter correlation spectroscopy to measure 

the amount of CO present in the sample. Infrared radiation is chopped and passed through an 

alternating CO and N2 correlation filter wheel and the sample stream. Carbon monoxide in the sample 

absorbs the infrared radiation, leaving the remaining radiation to be measured by a detector producing a 

linear output signal. 

Data Acquisition and Reduction

Data are acquired electronically using an IBM compatible computer and software designed by 

WESTON for EPA Reference Method 10 analysis or alternatively the analyzer analog signal is 

recorded using a strip-chart recorder. 

For data collection using a computer and acquisition interface, the software generates a calibration 

curve and continuous calculation of sample concentration. All subsequent calculation procedures 

required for compliance with EPA Reference Method 10 are performed electronically. 

Quality Control

At the time of analysis, certified CO in nitrogen calibration gases are used to calibrate the analyzer. 

Calibration is performed in accordance with EPA Reference Method 10. 

A CO2 interference response study was performed by the manufacturer of the analyzer. The data from 

this study are on file at WESTON. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 50

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

B.4 METHANE

EPA Method 18 outlines three different sampling approaches with gas chromatography as the 

analytical method. The three approaches include direct interface, adsorption media, or whole gas 

sample collection utilizing flexible Tedlar® bag enclosures. The GC conditions are not defined as 

the number of compounds and compound mixtures requires selective GC conditions. 

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

Sample collection using a Tedlar® enclosure allows collection of an integrated sample over an 

extended testing period. The nature of the gas stream and the target compounds should be 

thoroughly understood before using this approach. Whole gas sample collection from stacks at (or 

close to) ambient conditions, or target compounds which are gases at normal temperature and 

pressure yield the most reliable results for this sampling procedure. 

The sampling equipment consists of an inert sample delivery system at or above the temperature of 

the stack gas. The equipment should include a probe, filter, and sample line connecting the probe 

and filter to the sample pump. The exhaust of the sample pump is connected directly to a Tedlar®

bag enclosure. The enclosure should be large enough to allow collection of an adequate volume of 

gas (>1 liter recommended). 

For sample collection of target compounds which are gases at normal temperatures and pressures, 

such as methane, and are present in sources at elevated temperatures and moisture levels, the 

approach can be used if modified. The moisture and condensable organic compounds are 

selectively removed by placing a chilled knockout prior to the sample pump and Tedlar® enclosure. 

This dry, conditioned sample can then be introduced to the analytical system; however, the target 

compound concentration measured should be corrected for the concentration of organic species 

removed. The concentration is also representative of the sample under dry conditions. In general, 

samples collected in the Tedlar® bag enclosures should be maintained in a light free, temperature 

controlled environment. Sample analysis should occur within 24 hours. 

A schematic representation of a Tedlar® bag sample collection set-up is shown in Figure B-2. 

Sample Analysis

For the analysis of gaseous samples, the chromatography conditions required to resolve and 

quantify the target compounds are developed prior to sample collection. 

The analytical system is comprised of three main components, sample introduction system, 

chromatograph with selected columns and detector, and the data collection system with report 

generator. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 51

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Fi

gure B-2 Inte

grated Sam

plin

g Train 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 52

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

The sample injection system uses a heated rotary valve with Teflon® sample loop. The certified 

calibration gas mixtures and samples are introduced to the chromatograph using the same injector. 

The GC uses capillary columns which are commercially available and chosen to resolve the target 

compounds within a reasonable time frame, 5 - 45 minutes. 

Detection and relative intensity of calibration gas or sample gas matrices is performed by the GC 

detector. The most common GC detector, the flame ionization detector (FID), measures a change in 

potential across an enclosed flame. The difference in potential is directly proportional to the 

concentration present. Calibration curves for the target compounds are prepared at a minimum of 

three concentration levels, and bracket the concentration range of the samples. 

The identity of target compounds is determined by comparison of the sample gas retention times 

compared to the retention times of calibration gas mixtures. The concentration of the target 

compounds is determined from comparison of the intensity of the sample peaks compared to the 

intensity of the calibration peaks. 

Commercially available calibration gas mixtures are obtained which meet the method criteria of 

1-2% accuracy. 

For high concentration sources, where commercially available gas standards are not available, 

calibration gas mixtures are prepared by injection of a known mass of the target compound into a 

known volume of air or nitrogen. 

Data Acquisition and Reduction

The output from the GC/FID system is collected using a commercially available data acquisition 

interface and software. The system generates the calibration curves and produces a report and 

chromatogram at the conclusion of each analysis. 

Quality Control

Quality controls for the direct interface and integrated glass or Tedlar® enclosure system include a 

leak check of the entire sampling system and target compound recovery checks. 

For the Tedlar® enclosure recovery study, one of the samples collected is chosen for spiking with a 

known mass of target compounds (liquid or gaseous form). The spiked mass/concentration should 

be at 40-60% of the measured sample concentration for each target compound. An acceptable spike 

recovery is between 70% and 130% of the spiked concentration. The sample concentrations are 

corrected for the measured recovery values. 

When available, audit materials are analyzed and must agree to within 10% of the audit material 

concentration to be considered acceptable. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 53

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

B.5 DIOXINS/FURANS

The modified EPA Reference Method 5 (MM5) train is described in EPA Reference Method 23. 

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

The modified Method 5 Sampling Train is shown in Figure B-3. The impinger train is assembled in 

the sample recovery area. The pre-cleaned impingers are assembled with the first impinger being an 

empty knockout impinger with a short stem. The purpose of this impinger is to collect the majority of 

the condensate which forms in the condenser coil and XAD resin module. The next two impingers are 

standard type Greenberg-Smith impingers, each containing 100 mL of HPLC grade water. The fourth 

impinger is empty and the fifth impinger is charged with approximately 700 grams of indicating silica 

gel. The glass fiber filter is placed in a filter holder and connected to the condenser coil and XAD 

resin module. The train components are then transferred to the sampling location and assembled 

completely. 

After the sampling train is assembled and all components are heated appropriately, a leak check is 

performed. During sampling, the temperature of the sorbent module resin is not to exceed 70 °F. The 

probe temperature is maintained above 212 °F; the filter temperature is controlled at 248 °F + 25 °F, 

and the outlet of the silica gel impinger is maintained at less than 68 °F during operation. 

The sampling train is leak-checked at the beginning and end of the run and each port change. An 

acceptable leak rate is less than 0.02 acfm at the highest vacuum measured plus one inch of Hg or less 

than 1.5% of the sampling rate. 

After a successful pre-test leak check, the train assembly is placed in the stack and operated along each 

of the traverse points for each of the two horizontal traverses. Sampling is performed for a total of 

three hours using a sampling rate between 0.5 and 0.75 scfm to collect a total sample volume of at least 

106 dscf. Sampling train data are recorded on standard data forms. 

The MM5 sampling trains are recovered following the scheme presented in Figure B-4. Liquid 

samples are placed in pre-cleaned amber glass sample containers with Teflon® liners. The filters are 

placed in pre-cleaned glass petri dishes or amber glass sample containers. The sample containers for 

the train fractions are listed in Table B-1. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 54

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Figure B-3 Modified EPA Method Sampling Train for Dioxins, Furans, and Semi-Volatile Organics 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 55

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

NOZZLE, PROBE LINER,

AND FRONT HALF OF

FILTER HOLDER

FILTER BACK HALF OF FILTER

HOLDER AND CONDENSER

REMOVE AND PLACE IN

GLASS PETRI DISH.

SEAL PETRI DISH.

(FIL)

XAD SORBENT TRAP IMPINGER CONTENTS IMPINGER RINSE

CAP ENDS OF SORBENT

TRAP AND STORE ON ICE

FOR TRANSPORT TO

LABORATORY.

(XAD)

MEASURE AND RECORD

CONTENTS VOLUME OF

ALL LIQUID CAUGHT IN

IMPINGERS. SEAL IN

SAMPLE BOTTLE AND 

MARK LIQUID LEVEL.

(IMPCON)

RINSE IMPINGERS 3X

 WITH MEOH/MECL2. 

SEAL. RINSE AS SAMPLE

BOTTLE AND MARK 

LIQUID LEVEL.

(IMPR)

TOLUENE RINSE SILICA GEL

(MOISTURE CATCH)

RINSE ALL TRAIN

COMPONENTS WITH

TOLUENE FOR PCDD/PCDF

ANALYSIS.

(TDL)

WEIGH AND RECORD

WEIGHT. INDICATE

REGENERATION 

REQUIRED.

RINSE 3X WITH 

ACETONE/MECL2.

SEAL. RINSE IN 

SAMPLE BOTTLE

AND MARK LIQUID

LEVEL. (BHR

RINSE UNTIL CLEAN (3X)

WITH ACETONE/MECL2.

SEAL. RINSE IN SAMPLE

BOTTLE AND MARK

LIQUID LEVEL.

(FHR)

FIGURE B-4 SAMPLE RECOVERY PROCEDURES FOR MM5 SAMPLING TRAINS
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 56

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

TABLE B-1 

EPA METHOD 0010/23 SAMPLE FRACTIONS

Container Code Fraction 

1 FHR Methanol/methylene chloride rinse of nozzle, probe, and 

front half of filter holder. 

2 FIL Glass fiber filter. 

3 BHR Solvent rinses of back half of filter holder, filter support, 

condenser coil, and connecting glassware. 

4 XAD XAD sorbent module. 

5 IMP CON Impinger’s contents. 

6 IMPR Solvent rinse of impingers and connecting glassware. 

7 Tol Rinse of all train components with toluene for 

PCDD/PCDF analysis. 

Reagent blank samples are collected as follows: 

Reagent Amount Fraction Blank Trains 

Trip 

Blanks 

Methanol

Blank 

HPLC Water 300 mL IMP CON 1/source 1/trip 

Methanol/Methylene FHR, BHR 

Chloride 200 mL IMPR 1/source 1/trip 

Toluene 200 mL Tol 1/source 1/trip 

XAD Sorbent Modulea N/A ---- 1/source 1/trip 

Glass Fiber Filter N/A ---- 1/source 1/trip 1 

a

XAD sorbent module is randomly selected from the on-site XAD modules used for the test program. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 57

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Sample Analysis

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

The MM5 semi-volatile samples are analyzed according to SW-846 Method 8270 and EPA Reference 

Method 23. The methanol/methylene chloride front half (FH) probe rinse is concentrated to about 

2 mL using a Kuderna-Danish (KD) apparatus and then combined with the filter in a soxhlet apparatus. 

A set of 8 Base/Neutral/Acid (BNA) surrogates along with the above labeled standards are spiked into 

the soxhlet at 100 mg levels. The combined filter and FH rinses are then soxhlet extracted with 

methylene chloride for 16 hours (Fraction A). 

The methanol/methylene chloride back half rinses (BHR) are concentrated to about 2 mL using a KD 

apparatus and then combined with the XAD resin in a soxhlet apparatus. The eight BNA surrogates 

along with the labeled standards are spiked into the soxhlet and the combined XAD and BHR are 

soxhlet extracted with methylene chloride for 16 hours (Fraction B). 

The impinger water is spiked with the eight BNA surrogates and labeled standards at 100 mg levels 

and then liquid-liquid extracted with methylene chloride (Fraction C). 

Each extract is dried over sodium sulfate, concentrated to a volume of 5 mL and cleaned using gel 

permeation chromatography (GPC). 

Dioxins and Furans

Extracts are concentrated to approximately 1-5 mL. Internal standards are added to the sample. A 2 μl 

1 aliquot is injected into the GC. The organic compounds are separated by gas chromatography and 

detected by a high resolution mass spectrometer. 

Data Acquisition and Reduction

Data are recorded at the time of collection on preprinted data sheets. Calculations are performed 

(where possible) with preprogrammed calculators or spreadsheet software. 

Quality Control

The standard MM5 pre-cleanup requirements include several unique preparation steps which ensure 

that the sampling train components are not contaminated with organic compounds that may interfere 

with the analysis. The glassware, glass fiber filters, and XAD adsorbing resin are pre-cleaned using 

strict protocols. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 58

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

The glassware is normally cleaned as shown in Table B-2. Glassware is washed in soapy water, rinsed 

with distilled water, baked, then rinsed with acetone followed by methylene chloride. Once the 

glassware is dried, the open ends are sealed with either methylene chloride-rinsed aluminum foil or 

Teflon® tape. 

TABLE B-2 

ORGANIC GLASSWARE CLEANING PROCEDURE

(TRAIN COMPONENTS, SAMPLE CONTAINERS, AND LABORATORY GLASSWARE) 

NOTE: USE VITON GLOVES AND ADEQUATE VENTILATION WHEN RINSING 

WITH SOLVENTS 

1. Soak all glassware in hot soapy water (Alconox). 

2. Tap water rinse to remove soap. 

3. Deionized H2O rinse (X3).a

4. Bake at 450° for 2 hours.b

5. Acetone rinse (X3), (pesticide grade). 

6. Methylene chloride (X3), (pesticide grade). 

7. Cap glassware with Teflon® tape or methylene chloride rinsed aluminum foil. 

8. Mark cleaned glassware with color-coded identification sticker. 

a

(X3) = three times. 

b

Step (4) is added to the cleanup procedure to replace the dichromate soak specified in the reference method. It has 

been demonstrated that baking at 450 °F sufficiently removes organic artifacts. It is not used for probe liners and nonglass components of the train that cannot withstand 450 °F (i.e., Teflon®-coated filter screen and seals, tweezers, 

Teflon® squeeze bottles, nylon probe and nozzle brushes). 

Non-glass components (such as the Teflon® filter supports and seals, tweezers, Teflon® squeeze 

bottles, nylon nozzle, and probe brushes) are cleaned following the same procedure, except no baking 

is performed. The XAD adsorbent resin and glass fiber filters are pre-cleaned by separate procedures. 

The XAD, which is purchased in 100 gram amber glass containers, is placed in the glass modules 

under strict laboratory-controlled conditions. Each lot of XAD resin is recorded in a laboratory 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 59

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

notebook and a control sample is withdrawn for a quality assurance analysis. The laboratory archives a 

sample from each lot for analysis with the field sample as a lab blank. 

To prepare the filters, a batch of 50 filters is placed in a soxhlet extraction apparatus and extracted 

using methylene chloride for 16 hours. Afterwards, the filters are checked for holes, tears, creases, and 

discoloration. Acceptable filters are placed in pre-cleaned containers and labeled by date of extraction 

and sealed with Teflon® tape. 

The remaining equipment preparation includes routine checking and calibration of the Method 5-type 

equipment as specified in Method 0010 and 23. 

During one of the runs, an MM5 field blank train is assembled with glassware that has previously been 

used for MM5 sampling. This train is charged exactly as the other MM5 trains and left at a sampling 

location during the test run. The field blank train is recovered with the other MM5 train for that run. 

The sample train results are used to assess the level of contamination that occurs from handling, 

charging, recovering, and transporting the sampling train. 

One sample train blank is prepared for each source. One set of trip blanks are collected and archived 

for future examination, if contamination is determined. A lab method blank using the control XAD 

blank that is withheld during the XAD module preparation phase is also analyzed. 

QC guidelines for MM5 can be found in SW-846 Method 0010, "Modified Method 5 Sampling Train," 

Section 11. Additional quality control considerations are outlined in EPA Reference Method 8270 and 

23. Sampling criteria are given in EPA Reference Method 5. 

To further ensure sample integrity and stability, smoking is not allowed in or around the Laboratory 

Recovery Area, and XAD resin samples are immediately stored at or below 4 °C. 

Data transfers are minimized. Field and laboratory data sheets are checked for completeness and 

accuracy. Calculations are verified by a second person. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 60

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

B.6 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS

Total hydrocarbon (THC) concentrations are sampled using EPA Reference Method 25A and analyzed 

by WESTON on site with a flame ionization detector (FID) analyzer. It should be noted that Method 

25A determines total organics, including methane, which is not a regulated volatile organic compound 

(VOC). 

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

Figure B-5 is a schematic of the EPA Reference Method 25A sampling system. An extractive system 

is used at the sampling locations to obtain vent gas samples. Samples are withdrawn continuously at a 

single point and transported to the FID through a heated probe Teflon® filter, and heated Teflon®

sample line. All hydrocarbon measurements are made on a "hot, wet" basis. 

Sample Analysis

A continuous emission monitor is used to measure the total hydrocarbon concentration in the source 

gas. This analyzer utilizes a FID as described by EPA Reference Method 25A. The technique is not 

selective between species, and the results are reported as carbon volume equivalents of the calibration 

gas (propane in nitrogen or propane in air). 

Calibration gases are introduced directly to the analyzer to generate the calibration curve. A calibration 

gas is introduced at the probe and recovered through the sampling and analytical system. A bias 

correction factor is calculated using the ratio of the measured concentration of the bias gas and 

concentration certified by the vendor. An interference response study was performed by the 

manufacturer of the analyzer. The data from this study are on file at WESTON. 

Data Acquisition and Reduction

Data is acquired electronically using an IBM compatible computer and software designed by 

WESTON for EPA Reference Method 25A analysis. 

Quality Control

The calibration and check gases are propane, in either nitrogen or air, certified according to EPA 

Protocol-1. Following each sample run, the calibration drift of the system is checked by introducing 

the zero and one upscale gas to the system and recording the response. This difference in concentration 

must be within three percent of the full scale span value. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 61

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Figure B-5 EPA Reference Method 25A Sampling Train 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 62

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

B.7 SPECIATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Volatile organic compounds are measured using the Volatile Organic Sampling Train (VOST). 

Four runs of SW-846 Method 0030 are conducted on each stack. Analysis is performed by an 

outside laboratory using a gas chromatograph with a mass spectrophotometer (GC/MS) according to 

the procedures outlined in SW-846 Method 8240. 

VOST Sampling Equipment and Preparation

The volatile organic sampling train (VOST) of SW-846 Method 0030 is used to collect the volatile 

organic samples. The sampling equipment specifications are provided in the Method in 

Appendix A. Figure B-6 is a schematic of the Method 0030 sampling train. 

The VOST equipment, except the sorbent cartridge, is cleaned and calibrated by WESTON 

according to Method 0030. The sorbent cartridges used for sampling are prepared by an outside 

lab. This consists of first cleaning the glass tubes and metal parts with a nonionic detergent, rinsing 

in organic-free water, and drying at the specified temperatures. The Tenax sorbent is soxhlet 

extracted with methanol and dried. The Tenax and Tenax/charcoal tubes are then assembled and 

conditioned by heating to 190 °C while organic-free nitrogen is passed through them. Each pair of 

tubes are blank checked by thermal desorption and gas chromatographic techniques prior to 

sampling to ensure cleanliness. 

VOST Sampling Procedures 

The volatile organic sampling train is assembled as shown in Figure B-1. Samples are collected 

using paired Tenax and Tenax/charcoal cartridges, with each cartridge preceded by a condensing 

module. The first condenser cools the gas stream and condenses the water vapor present. The flue 

gas and condensed moisture then pass through a cartridge containing 1.5 grams of Tenax resin (60-

80 mesh). The condensate is collected in an impinger that is continually purged by the gas stream. 

The second condenser and cartridge containing Tenax/charcoal serves as a backup for low volume 

breakthrough compounds. Following the second cartridge is a silica gel drying tube for residual 

moisture removal. 

Each sample run consists of five paired tube sets. One pair is archived. The individual tube pairs 

are collected at a set sample rate for at least 20 minutes. The sample volumes for each of the five 

pairs of cartridges are approximately 20 liters. Sampling is conducted at a single point. The system 

is leak-checked by closing the valve at the inlet to the first condenser and evacuating the system at 

10 inches Hg. The system will then be isolated and the leak rate noted. The leak rate must be less 

than 1 inch Hg after one minute. The train will be returned to atmospheric pressure by purging 

through a charcoal tube. The leak checks will be conducted before and after each pair of VOST 

tubes is collected. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 63

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Figure B-6 EPA Method 0030 Volatile Organic Sampling Train (VOST) 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 64

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Gas sample temperatures are to be monitored at the outlet of the sampling probe and the inlet to the 

Tenax cartridge using thermocouples. Due to the higher boiling point of the butyl acrylate, the gas 

temperature through the probe is maintained above 145 °C to prevent the premature condensation of 

the volatile components. The temperature of the gas through the resin cartridges is maintained at 

less than 20 °C. 

VOST Sample Recovery

After recovering the sample for the VOST the system is leak-checked as required, the cartridges are 

capped and placed in original glass culture tubes with glass wool to absorb the shock. The volume 

of condensate impinger is measured in a precleaned graduated cylinder and transferred to 40 mL 

VOA vials and diluted to volume with HPLC water to decrease headspace, which reduces the 

possibility of revolatilization of the compounds. To reduce reactivity store samples at 4 °C. 

The samples collected during each VOST run consist of the three pairs of sorbent tubes (Tenax 

cartridge, Tenax/charcoal cartridge), and the condensate. One pair of Tenax and Tenax/charcoal 

cartridges serves as field blanks per day. The pair is taken to the sampling site and the end caps 

removed for the period of time required to exchange two pairs of traps on the VOST. After the 

VOST traps have been exchanged, the end caps are replaced on the field blanks, and are stored and 

analyzed with the field samples. 

A second pair of blank cartridges is included in the cartridge shipment to the test site. These trip 

blanks are treated like the other cartridges except that the end caps are not removed during storage 

at the site. These are also analyzed with the field samples. 

One pair of blank cartridges, a laboratory blank, remains stored in the laboratory. This blank is 

analyzed if the field or trip blanks show high contaminant concentrations 

VOST Sample Analysis

The volatile organic contents of each cartridge and condensate sample are thermally desorbed onto 

a gas chromatographic column (GC). The tenax “front” cartridge is analyzed separately from the 

tenax/charcoal cartridge; likewise the condensate fractions are also analyzed separately. Prior to 

sample recovery, the contents of the sorbent cartridges are spiked with a deuterated standard as well 

as other unlabeled internal standards that are similar to the analytical characteristics of the 

compounds of interest. Following spiking, the solvent cartridge contents are thermally desorbed 

using an inert gas which is then bubbled through organic-free water. The desorbed components 

pass into the bottom of the water column where they are purged from the water, and collected on an 

adsorbent trap. After completion of the desorption, the compounds are described from the 

adsorbent trap onto a gas chromatographic column. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 65

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

For the condensate sample, the sample fraction is spiked with the same internal standards indicated 

above. Afterward, an inert gas is bubbled through the solution at ambient temperature and the 

volatile compounds are transferred from the aqueous phase to the vapor phase. The vapor is swept 

through a sorbent column where the volatile compounds are trapped. Upon completion of purging, 

the sorbent column is heated and backflushed with inert gas to desorb the components onto a gas 

chromatographic column. 

The volatile organic CAA and the 8240 target compounds of interest are analyzed following the 

procedures specified in EPA Reference Methods 5041 (mod) for the analysis of the media and 

8260C mod for the analysis of the condensate of the SW-846 guidance manual. Library 

identifications for the non-target compounds are performed using both the CAA and 8240 (NBS) 

libraries. 

Following the procedures outlined in Method 8240, the volatile compounds are directed into the 

GC/MS system. The volatile compounds are separated by temperature programmed gas 

chromatography and detected by low-resolution mass spectrometry. The concentrations of the 

volatile compounds of interest are calculated using the labeled and unlabeled internal standard 

technique. 

Volatile Sample Semi-Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis is performed in one of four ways by GC/MS using extracted ion current 

profile (EICP) areas: 

For compounds where standards and labeled analogs are available, the GC/MS system is calibrated 

and the compound concentration is determined using an isotope dilution technique. 

For compounds where authentic standards but no labeled compounds are available, the GC/MS 

system is calibrated and the compound concentration is determined using an internal standard 

technique. 

For compounds where standards are not available, compound concentrations are determined using 

known response factors. 

For compounds for which neither standards nor known response factors are available, compound 

concentrations are determined using the sum of the EICP areas relative to the sum of the EICP areas 

of the internal standard. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 66

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Volatile Analysis Quality Control

The major QC procedures contained within the method will include GC/MS tuning, calibrations 

system performance checks and analysis of specific QC check samples. During actual sample 

measurements, several field blanks, trip blanks and a laboratory method blank are analyzed with the 

field samples. The quality of the analysis is assured through reproducible calibration and testing of 

the purge and trap and GC/MS systems. 

Spiked cartridges are transported to the field, and returned to the laboratory and analyzed to 

determine analyte recovery from the sorbents. 

VOST Sampling QC Procedures

Quality Control procedures for VOST sampling are designed to ensure the collection of high quality 

gas stream concentrations and emission data without interference of contaminants. Gas stream 

concentrations of each analyte are determined by dividing the mass of each analyte collected by the 

standardized gas volume collected. 

VOST sampling QC procedures include: 

• Use of precleaned glassware. 

• Sampling train composed of glass and/or Teflon. 

• Sorbent traps are prepared and stored in a manner to prevent contamination. 

• Recovery procedures are completed in a clean environment. 

• Five samples are collected per run with four samples analyzed and one archived to ensure 

adequate analysis. 

• Samples are stored and shipped at reduced temperature (~4 °C). 

• At least one field and one trip blank are obtained and analyzed. 

Data Reduction, Validation, And Reporting

Data quality audits are conducted using data quality indicators which require the detailed review of: 

(1) the recording and transfer of raw data; (2) data calculations; (3) the documentation of 

procedures; and (4) the selection of appropriate data quality indicators. 

Some of the data quality indicators to be used for data validation are: 

• Comparison of the relative concentrations of the emissions at the different sampling locations. 

• Comparison of the results for a particular parameter with those from each condition (i.e., are 

the concentrations similar and do they show the same relationship for a material balance). 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 67

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

• All data and/or calculations for flow rates, moisture content, and isokinetic rates made using a 

computer software program are validated by an independent check. All calculations are spot 

checked for accuracy and completeness. 

In general, all measurement data is validated based on the following criteria: 

• Process conditions during sampling or testing, 

• Acceptable sample collection procedures, 

• Consistency with expected other results, and 

• Adherence to prescribed QC procedures. 

Any suspect data is flagged and identified according to the specific deviation from prescribed 

criteria and its potential effect on the data quality. Upon completion of testing, the field coordinator 

is responsible for preparation of a data summary including calculation results and raw data sheets. 

The test report includes QA/QC summaries reporting the QC data collected and the results of any 

audits. The outside laboratory reports its QA/QC results in the analytical report. All QA/QC results 

are reviewed internally by WESTON before the data are released; any data that fail to meet the 

program’s QA requirements are noted. 

B.8 SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND POM 

The modified EPA Reference Method 5 (MM5) train is described in EPA Reference Method 23 and 

EPA Method 0010. Semivolatile organic compound analysis is conducted according to EPA 

SW-846 EPA 8270D mod (M00100). 

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

The modified Method 5 Sampling Train is shown in Figure B-7. The impinger train is assembled in 

the sample recovery area. The pre-cleaned impingers are assembled with the first impinger being an 

empty knockout impinger with a short stem. The purpose of this impinger is to collect the majority of 

the condensate which forms in the condenser coil and XAD resin module. The next two impingers are 

standard type Greenberg-Smith impingers, each containing 100 mL of HPLC grade water. The fourth 

impinger is empty and the fifth impinger is charged with approximately 700 grams of indicating silica 

gel. The glass fiber filter is placed in a filter holder and connected to the condenser coil and XAD 

resin module. The train components are then transferred to the sampling location and assembled 

completely. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 68

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Figure B-7 Modified EPA Method Sampling Train for Semivolatile Organics 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 69

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

After the sampling train is assembled and all components are heated appropriately, a leak check is 

performed. During sampling, the temperature of the sorbent module resin is not to exceed 70 °F. The 

probe temperature is maintained above 212 °F; the filter temperature is controlled at 248 °F + 25 °F, 

and the outlet of the silica gel impinger is maintained at less than 68 °F during operation. 

The sampling train is leak-checked at the beginning and end of the run and each port change. An 

acceptable leak rate is less than 0.02 acfm at the highest vacuum measured plus one inch of Hg or less 

than 1.5% of the sampling rate. 

After a successful pre-test leak check, the train assembly is placed in the stack and operated along each 

of the traverse points for each of the two horizontal traverses. Sampling is performed for a total of 

two hours using a sampling rate between 0.5 and 0.75 scfm to collect a total sample volume of at least 

60 dscf. Sampling train data are recorded on standard data forms. 

The MM5 sampling trains are recovered following the scheme presented in Figure B-8. Liquid 

samples are placed in pre-cleaned amber glass sample containers with Teflon® liners. The filters are 

placed in pre-cleaned glass petri dishes or amber glass sample containers. The sample containers for 

the train fractions are listed in Table B-3. 

Laboratory Sample Analysis

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

The MM5 semi-volatile samples are analyzed according to SW-846 Method 8270D (mod)(M00100). 

The methanol/methylene chloride front half (FH) probe rinse is concentrated to about 2 mL using a 

Kuderna-Danish (KD) apparatus and then combined with the filter in a soxhlet apparatus. A set of 8 

Base/Neutral/Acid (BNA) surrogates along with the above labeled standards is spiked into the soxhlet 

at 100 mg levels. The combined filter and FH rinses are then soxhlet extracted with methylene 

chloride for 16 hours (Fraction A). 

The acetone/methylene chloride back half rinses (BHR) are concentrated to about 2 mL using a KD 

apparatus and then combined with the XAD resin in a soxhlet apparatus. The eight BNA surrogates 

along with the labeled standards are spiked into the soxhlet and the combined XAD and BHR are 

soxhlet extracted with methylene chloride for 16 hours (Fraction B). 

The impinger water is spiked with the eight BNA surrogates and labeled standards at 100 mg levels 

and then liquid-liquid extracted with methylene chloride (Fraction C). 

Each extract is dried over sodium sulfate, concentrated to a volume of 5 mL and cleaned using gel 

permeation chromatography (GPC). 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 70

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

NOZZLE, PROBE LINER,

AND FRONT HALF OF

FILTER HOLDER

FILTER BACK HALF OF FILTER

HOLDER AND CONDENSER

REMOVE AND PLACE IN

GLASS PETRI DISH.

SEAL PETRI DISH.

(FIL)

XAD SORBENT TRAP IMPINGER CONTENTS IMPINGER RINSE

CAP ENDS OF SORBENT

TRAP AND STORE ON ICE

FOR TRANSPORT TO

LABORATORY.

(XAD)

MEASURE AND RECORD

CONTENTS VOLUME OF

ALL LIQUID CAUGHT IN

IMPINGERS. SEAL IN

SAMPLE BOTTLE AND 

MARK LIQUID LEVEL.

(IMPCON)

RINSE IMPINGERS 3X

 WITH MEOH/MECL2. 

SEAL. RINSE AS SAMPLE

BOTTLE AND MARK 

LIQUID LEVEL.

(IMPR)

TOLUENE RINSE SILICA GEL

(MOISTURE CATCH)

RINSE ALL TRAIN

COMPONENTS WITH

TOLUENE FOR PCDD/PCDF

ANALYSIS.

(TDL)

WEIGH AND RECORD

WEIGHT. INDICATE

REGENERATION 

REQUIRED.

RINSE 3X WITH 

ACETONE/MECL2.

SEAL. RINSE IN 

SAMPLE BOTTLE

AND MARK LIQUID

LEVEL. (BHR

RINSE UNTIL CLEAN (3X)

WITH ACETONE/MECL2.

SEAL. RINSE IN SAMPLE

BOTTLE AND MARK

LIQUID LEVEL.

(FHR)

FIGURE B-8 SAMPLE RECOVERY PROCEDURES FOR MM5 SAMPLING TRAINS
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 71

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

TABLE B-3 

EPA METHOD 0010 SAMPLE FRACTIONS

Container Code Fraction 

1 FHR Methanol/MeCl2 rinse of nozzle, probe, and front 

half of filter holder. 

2 FIL Glass fiber filter. 

3 BHR Solvent rinses of back half of filter holder, filter 

support, condenser coil, and connecting glassware.

4 XAD XAD sorbent module. 

5 IMP CON Impingers contents. 

6 IMPR Solvent rinse of impingers and connecting 

glassware. 

Reagent blank samples are collected as follows: 

Reagent Amount Fraction Blank Trains 

Trip 

Blanks 

Methanol

Blank 

HPLC Water 300 mL IMP CON 1/source 1/trip 

Methanol/Methylene FHR, BHR 

Chloride 200 mL IMPR 1/source 1/trip 

XAD Sorbent Modulea N/A ---- 1/source 1/trip 

Glass Fiber Filter N/A ---- 1/source 1/trip 1 

a

XAD sorbent module is randomly selected from the on-site XAD modules used for the test program. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 72

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

Data Acquisition and Reduction

Data will be recorded at the time of collection on preprinted data sheets. Calculations will be 

performed (where possible) with preprogrammed calculators or spreadsheet software. 

Quality Control

The standard MM5 pre-cleanup requirements include several unique preparation steps which ensure 

that the sampling train components are not contaminated with organic compounds that may interfere 

with the analysis. The glassware, glass fiber filters, and XAD adsorbing resin are pre-cleaned using 

strict protocols. 

The glassware is normally cleaned as shown in Table B-4. Glassware is washed in soapy water, rinsed 

with distilled water, baked and then rinsed with acetone followed by methylene chloride. Once the 

glassware is dried, the open ends will be sealed with either methylene chloride-rinsed aluminum foil or 

Teflon® tape. 

Non-glass components (such as the Teflon® filter supports and seals, tweezers, Teflon® squeeze 

bottles, nylon nozzle, and probe brushes) are cleaned following the same procedure, except that no 

baking is performed. 

The XAD adsorbent resin and glass fiber filters are pre-cleaned by separate procedures. The XAD, 

which is purchased in 100 gram amber glass containers, is placed in the glass modules under strict 

laboratory-controlled conditions. Each lot of XAD resin is recorded in a laboratory notebook and a 

control sample is withdrawn for a quality assurance analysis. The laboratory archives a sample from 

each lot for analysis with the field sample as a lab blank. 

To prepare the filters, a batch of 50 filters are placed in a soxhlet extraction apparatus and extracted 

using methylene chloride for 16 hours. Afterwards, the filters are checked for holes, tears, creases, and 

discoloration. Acceptable filters are placed in pre-cleaned containers and labeled by date of extraction 

and sealed with Teflon® tape. 

The remaining equipment preparation includes routine checking and calibration of the Method 5-type 

equipment as specified in Method 0010. 

During one of the runs, an MM5 field blank train is assembled with glassware that has previously been 

use for MM5 sampling. This train is charged exactly as the other MM5 trains and left at a sampling 

location during the test run. The field blank train is then recovered with the other MM5 train for that 

run. The sample train results are used to assess the level of contamination that occurs from handling, 

charging, recovering, and transporting the sampling train. 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 73

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

TABLE B-4 

ORGANIC GLASSWARE CLEANING PROCEDURE

(TRAIN COMPONENTS, SAMPLE CONTAINERS, AND LABORATORY GLASSWARE) 

NOTE: USE VITON GLOVES AND ADEQUATE VENTILATION WHEN RINSING 

WITH SOLVENTS 

1. Soak all glassware in hot soapy water (Alconox). 

2. Tap water rinse to remove soap. 

3. Deionized H2O rinse (X3).a

4. Bake at 450° for 2 hours.b

5. Methanol rinse (X3), (pesticide grade). 

6. Methylene chloride (X3), (pesticide grade). 

7. Cap glassware with Teflon® tape or methylene chloride rinsed aluminum foil. 

8. Mark cleaned glassware with color-coded identification sticker. 

a

(X3) = three times. 

b

Step (4) is added to the cleanup procedure to replace the dichromate soak specified in the reference method. It has 

been demonstrated that baking at 450 °F sufficiently removes organic artifacts. It is not used for probe liners and nonglass components of the train that cannot withstand 450 °F (i.e., Teflon®-coated filter screen and seals, tweezers, 

Teflon® squeeze bottles, nylon probe and nozzle brushes). 
 APPENDIX B 

K:\12251_SO CO\006 PLANT SCHERER\401\REPORT\UNIT 3\SC PLANT SCHERER MAR 2010 EGU ICR TEST PROGRAM UNIT 3 RPT.DOC 74

2 July 2010 7:30 a.m. Version

One sample train blank is prepared for each source. One set of trip blanks are collected and archived 

for future examination, if contamination is determined. A lab method blank using the control XAD 

blank that is withheld during the XAD module preparation phase is also analyzed. 

QC guidelines for MM5 can be found in SW-846 Method 0010, "Modified Method 5 Sampling Train," 

Section 11. Additional quality control considerations are outlined in EPA Reference Method 8270D 

mod (M00100). Sampling criteria are given in EPA Reference Method 5. 

To further ensure sample integrity and stability, smoking is not allowed in or around the Laboratory 

Recovery Area, and XAD resin samples are immediately stored at or below 4 °C. 

Data transfers are minimized. Field and laboratory data sheets are checked for completeness and 

accuracy. Calculations are verified by a second person.