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 2010K:\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 

## W ESTON 

## S OLUTIONS 

## , I NC


## . (WESTON ® 

## ) E MISSION 

## T ESTING 

## P RACTICE



## – A UBURN 

## O PERATIONS 

## A CCREDITATION 

## S TIPULATION



### Laboratory: Weston Solutions, Inc.

Accreditor(s): Louisiana Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (LELAP) – Laboratory and Emission Testing Practice

Accreditation ID: LELAP – 03024

Scope: Dioxins/Furans Sampling Volatile Organic HAPs Sampling Semi-Volatile Organic HAPs Sampling Total Hydrocarbon Concentrati ons 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 391-3-26-01K:\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 report ing notes that are applicable to all WESTON reports, unless otherwise noted.

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

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

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

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

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

approved procedures.

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

considered valid.

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

• BDL denotes values that were below the limit of detection of the analyzer and 2% of the

span gas was used to calculate an emission rate.

• DF denotes a dilution factor

.

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

laboratory

.

• S denotes analysis that has been subcontracted.K:\12251_SO CO\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 

# T ABLE 

# O F 

# C ONTENTS

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 TEST ING 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

## T ABLE OF 

## C ONTENTS

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 Geor gia Power Company, Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Juliette, Georgia ........ 6 Table 1-2 WESTON Project Team ................................................................................................ .. 7 Table 2-1 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Su mmary of Total Hydrocarbons and Methane Emission Results ............................................................................................ 11 Table 2-2 Plant Scherer, Unit 3 Su mmary 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 Su mmary of POM Emission Results .......................................... 26 Table 3-1 Plant Scherer, Un it 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 fo r Instrumental Sampling Method 25A (Total Hydrocarbons) .................................................................................................... 32 Table 4-3 Performance and QC Da ta for Method 18 (Methane) ................................................... 33 Table 4-4 Summary of Met hod 0031 Performance Criteria and Achieved Results ...................... 34 Table 4-5 Summary of Met hod 0010 Performance Criteria and Achieved Results ...................... 36 Table 4-6 Summary of Me thod 23 Performance Criteria and Achieved Results .......................... 37 Table 5-1 Source Testing Methodology ........................................................................................ 38K:\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 

# S ECTION 

# 1 I NTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, issued an information collection request (ICR) to Southern Company Services (SCS) for the Georgia Power Plant Company, Plant Scherer, Unit 3 located ne ar Juliette, Georgia. The ICR set forth fuel sampling, emission testing, and pr ocess and pollution control data collection requirements. To comply with this ICR, SCS retained Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON ® 

### ) to conduct hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emission te sting. EPA will use the data collected during this program to develop maximum achievable c ontrol technology (MACT) st andards 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.



## T ABLE 

## 1-1 S COPE OF 

## W ORK 

## G EORGIA 

## P OWER 

## C OMPANY 

## , P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 J ULIETTE 

## , G EORGIA


### Group O Parameters (Reduced) Group D Parameters
CO (M10) THC (M25A)

CH 4 

### (M18) Speciated Volatile Organic HAP (M0031/SW846) Speciated Semi-Volatile Organ ic HAP and POM (M0010/SW846)
O 2 

### /CO 2 

### (M3A) Dioxins/Furans (M23)
O 2 

### /CO 2 

### (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 in cluded (Table 2) the testing requirements for selected plant units wi th 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* de signation includes the testi ng 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 unders tanding that "VOCs" of the "X*" designation included volatile organic sampling train (VOST) and semi-volatile organic sampling train (SVOST)

## I NTRODUCTION

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 th at time, EPA posted updates in th eir 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 clarifica tions suggest that reduced VOC (X*) should exclude VOST and SVOST but should include formaldehyde.

Because of this lack of clarif ication, 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 sour ce was not revisited to test fo r formaldehyde. Notably, Unit 4 (Sister Unit to Unit 3) was at or belo w 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 duri ng 12 and 13 January 2010. The project team included the individuals id entified in Table 1-2.



## T ABLE 

## 1-2 WESTON P ROJECT 

## T EAM


### Name Project Role QSTI Credential Jon Howard Program Manager QSTI 1, 2, and 4 Qualified Individual Gregory Sims Technical Director QS TI 1, 2, and 3 Qualified Individual QSTI 4 Certified
William Routhier Test Team Leader QSTI 1, 3, and 4 Qualified Individual

Matt Dallesasse Test Team Member ----
Robert Griffin Test Team Memb er 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 Coordinato r QSTI 3 Qualified Individual

## I NTRODUCTION

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 in cluded one subcontract laboratory. Maxxam Analytics Inte rnational Corporation (Maxxam) performed the analysis for polycyclic organic matter (POM), speciated vola tile organic compounds (VOC), and speciated semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC). Maxxam holds NELAC accreditation with the New Jersey Department of Environm ental Protection. This accredita tion is found in Appendix E.

Mr. David LeFevers and Mr. J ohn 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 te st program. A representative of the Georgia Department of Environmental Protection (GEPD) was not present during testing.

The Louisiana Environmental La boratory Accreditation Program (LELAP) accredits WESTON’s emission testing laboratory. The stipulation associat ed with this accrediting authority precedes the table of contents of this report.K:\12251_SO CO\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 

# S ECTION 

# 2 R ESULTS AND 

# D ISCUSSION



## 2.1 E MISSION 

## T ESTING 

## R ESULTS

Following is a description of the procedures and methods used to determine the minimum analytical detection limits for each test parameter.

Derivation of Analytical Dete ction Limits and Their Use in Calculating Source Emission Concentrations and Rates

Background

WESTON retained Maxxam for the analysis of dioxins and furans, PO M, 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 ma trix type contai ning the analyte.

Maxxam conducts a method detection limit study each year to support EPA Methods 0010 and 0031 analytical work in accordance with the procedur es set forth in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 136.

In summary, this approach involves multiple analyses of prepared samples at or near the expected lower range of the analytical method. While the MDL has value from a theo retical perspective, it has limited use for practical applicat ions because analytes of interest are almost always present in a matrix that differs significantly from that of the prepared samples used to conduct the MDL study.

To conform to good laboratory practices, Maxx am 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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 no ise 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 statis tically derived MDL.

Tables 2-1 through 2-5 provide de tailed summaries of the emission results. Any differences between the calculated results presented in the a ppendices and the results re ported in the summary tables are due to rounding for presentation. A ny differences between th e ERT and the results reported in the summary tables are due to ERT sp ecific reporting requirements. Data in tables meets method requirements.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-1 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## T OTAL 

## H YDROCARBONS AND 

## M ETHANE 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS

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 Rate a 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 C 3 H 8 THC as Propane b

Concentration, ppmvd @ 7% O 2 <0.61 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Method Detection Limit, ppmvd ---- ---- ---- 0.60 c METHANE MEASURED AS CH 4

Concentration, ppmvd @ 7% O 2 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 NO X - CEMS OPTION Nitrogen Oxides Concentration, ppmvd @ 7% 

### O 2 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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-2 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## D IOXINS AND 

## F URANS AND 

## PCB S 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS

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, o F 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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-2 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## D IOXINS AND 

## F URANS AND 

## PCB S 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-2 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## D IOXINS AND 

## F URANS AND 

## PCB S 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-2 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## D IOXINS AND 

## F URANS AND 

## PCB S 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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/m 3 @ 7% O 2 [<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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-3 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## C ARBON 

## M ONOXIDE 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS

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, o F 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% 

### O 2 223 95.7 87.6 135 Emission Factor, lb/MMBtu 0.137 0.059 0.054 0.083

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-4 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S PECIATED 

## V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 <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% O 2 [<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% O 2 <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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 <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 Chloride a Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O 2 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 MeCl 2 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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-4 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S PECIATED 

## V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 <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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 <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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-4 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S PECIATED 

## V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 <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% O 2 <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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-4 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S PECIATED 

## V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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% O 2 <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% O 2 <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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-5 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S EMI 

## -V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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 be low the RDL for all fractions were indica ted by brackets around the < RDL value.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-5 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S EMI 

## -V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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 be low the RDL for all fractions were indica ted by brackets around the < RDL value.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-5 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S EMI 

## -V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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)phthalate a Concentration, ug/dscm @ 7% O 2 [<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 freque ntly found in plastics. The presence of this compound in the samples could be a n artifact of the lab or sampl recovery. Sample results indicating measured mass be low the RDL for all fractions were indica ted by brackets around the < RDL value.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-5 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S EMI 

## -V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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 be low the RDL for all fractions were indica ted by brackets around the < RDL value.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-5 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## S EMI 

## -V OLATILE 

## O RGANICS 

## E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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 be low the RDL for all fractions were indica ted by brackets around the < RDL value.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-6 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## POM E MISSION 

## R ESULTS

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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 be low the RDL for all fractions were indica ted by brackets around the < RDL value.

## R ESULTS AND 

## D ISCUSSION

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 

## T ABLE 

## 2-6 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3 S UMMARY OF 

## POM E MISSION 

## R ESULTS 

## (C ONTINUED 

## )

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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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% O 2 [<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 be low the RDL for all fractions were indica ted 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 

# S ECTION 

# 3 P ROCESS 

# D ESCRIPTION



## 3.1 S OURCE 

## D ESCRIPTION AND 

## T EST 

## L OCATION

Unit 3 at Plant Scherer started commercial op eration in 1987. The Combustion Engineering tangential fired unit burns sub- bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.



## 3.2 P OLLUTION 

## C ONTROL 

## E QUIPMENT

Particulate and mercury control is by a Cold-Side, Lodge-Cottrell electrosta tic precipitator followed by a Wheelabrator Baghouse with Powdered Activ ated Carbon (PAC) injection prior to the baghouse.

At the time of the ICR test program, no additi onal exhaust gas contro ls were in operation.



## 3.3 S OOTBLOWING

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

## P ROCESS 

## D ESCRIPTION

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 P ROCESS 

## P ARAMETERS

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



## T ABLE 

## 3-1 P LANT 

## S CHERER 

## , U NIT 

## 3

P ROCESS 

## P ARAMETERS

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/CO 2 ), MMBtu/hr 9,008.876 8,776.415 8,743.934 8,843.075K:\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 

# S ECTION 

# 4 Q UALITY 

# C ONTROL

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



## 4.1 D ATA 

## C OLLECTION AND 

## R EDUCTION

Data were collected on pre-printed data sheets or electronically using validated data acquisition instrumentation and software. Collected data we re reduced using pre-pr ogrammed calculators and validated spreadsheets. Data transfers were independently verified.

Copies of field data sheets are provided in the Appendices.



## 4.2 C HAIN


## - OF 

## -C USTODY

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



## 4.3 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## V OLUMETRIC 

## F LOW 

## M EASUREMENTS

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

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

K:\12251_SO CO\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 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## I NSTRUMENTAL 

## M ETHODS
Gaseous pollutants were measured using instrumental procedures. Instrument s were calibrated with traceability protocol ga ses (with uncertainly < 2.0% of tag value) and c opies of calibration gas certificates are provided in Appendi x E. Table 4-1 summarizes the method performance criteria and achieved results for the vari ous instrumental methods.



## T ABLE 

## 4-1 P ERFORMANCE AND 

## QC D ATA FOR 

## I NSTRUMENTAL 

## S AMPLING 

## M ETHOD 

## 10 (C ARBON 

## M ONOXIDE 

## )

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) wa s 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 si ngle point sampling or < 10% from the mean for 3-point sampling was achieved (or < 0.5 ppm difference from mean for 1-po int sampling and < 1.0 ppm difference from mean for 3-point sampling.) No a



### An analyzer interference check wh ich produced sum of responses < 2.5% of calibration span was achieved. Yes

Probe, filter, and sample line temperature were ade quate to keep sample above the dewpoint for each run. Yes

Sample flow rate for eac h 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 mini mally stratified. The variation in CO concentration due to process effects would not allow a representative stratification test.

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

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 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## T OTAL 

## H YDROCARBONS
Table 4-2 summarizes the method performance cr iteria and achieved results for Method 25A.



## T ABLE 

## 4-2 P ERFORMANCE AND 

## QC D ATA FOR 

## I NSTRUMENTAL 

## S AMPLING 

## M ETHOD 

## 25A (T OTAL 

## H YDROCARBONS 

## )

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 th e 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 instru ment span of zero and mid level calibration gases was achieved. Yes

System Response Time Check (three times and averaged) was performed. No a

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.

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

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 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## M ETHANE
Table 4-3 summarizes the method performance cr iteria and achieved results for Method 18.



## T ABLE 

## 4-3 P ERFORMANCE AND 

## QC D ATA FOR 

## M ETHOD 

## 18 (M ETHANE 

## )

The instrument was calibrated with commercial cyli nder gases certif ied 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 inje ction was within 5% of the mean response for that level. No a



### Calibration standards bracket th e sample concentration. Yes Each sample was injected 3X. Yes The instrument response for each inje ction 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%. No b



### A mid-range calibration standard was an alyzed 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.

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

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 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## VOST M EASUREMENTS

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



## T ABLE 

## 4-4 S UMMARY OF 

## M ETHOD 

## 0031 P ERFORMANCE 

## C RITERIA AND 

## A CHIEVED 

## R ESULTS

Method 0031 Performance Data

QA Specification Performance Acceptance Criteria Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 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

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

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 Necessi tating 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 (Bromofluorbe nzene) 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 carryove r 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 amount s 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.

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

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 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## S EMI 

## VOST M EASUREMENTS

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



## T ABLE 

## 4-5 S UMMARY OF 

## M ETHOD 

## 0010 P ERFORMANCE 

## C RITERIA AND 

## A CHIEVED 

## R ESULTS

Method 0010 Performance Data

QA Specification Performance Acceptance Criteria Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 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

## Q UALITY 

## C ONTROL

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 P ERFORMANCE 

## D ATA FOR 

## I SOKINETIC 

## S AMPLING 

## M ETHODS 

## D IOXINS 

## /F URANS 

## M EASUREMENTS

Dioxins/furans were measured us ing 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.



## T ABLE 

## 4-6 S UMMARY OF 

## M ETHOD 

## 23 P ERFORMANCE 

## C RITERIA AND 

## A CHIEVED 

## R ESULTS

Method 23 Performance Data

QA Specification Performance Acceptance Criteria Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 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 RequiredK:\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 

# S ECTION 

# 5 S OURCE 

# T ESTING 

# M ETHODOLOGY

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



## T ABLE 

## 5-1 S OURCE 

## T ESTING 

## M ETHODOLOGY

Parameter Method Number Appendix Reference

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 ot herwise specified.

The results within this report re late only to the sa mples 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 

# A PPENDIX 

# A E XAMPLE 

# C ALCULATIONS

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 

## E XAMPLE 

## C ALCULATIONS

Unit 3

Meter Pressure (Pm), in. Hg

Hg O/in. H in. 13.6 H + Pb = Pm
2 ∆

where, Pb = barometric pressure, in. Hg ∆ H = Pressure differential of orifice in. H 2 O

Absolute Stack Gas Pressure (Ps), in. Hg

Hg O/in. H in. 13.6 Pg + Pb = Ps
2

where, Pb = barometric pressure, in. Hg Pg = Static Pressure, in. H 2 O

Standard Meter Volume (Vmstd), dscf

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

=

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

Standard Wet Volu me (Vwstd), scf

Vlc x /mL ft 0.04707 Vwstd 3

=

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

Standard Wet Vo lume (Vwstd), L

Vlc x L/mL 1.333 Vwstd =

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

## A PPENDIX 

## A

K:\12251_SO CO\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)

Vmstd) + (Vwstd Vwstd

= Bws

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

Moisture Fraction (at saturation), (Bws)

Ps Vp

= Bws

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

Moisture, % (M%)

100 x Bws = % M

where, Bws = moisture frac tion, measured or at saturation, whichever is lowest

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

)) O %

- CO %

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

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

(Bws) 18 + Bws)

- (1 Md = Ms where, Md = molecular weight (DRY), lb/lb-mole Bws = moisture fraction, dimensionless

Average Velocity (Vs), ft/sec

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

- (lb/lb

sec ft 85.49 = Vs
2 °

where, Cp = pitot tube coefficient Delta P = velocity head of stack gas, in. H 2 O Ts = absolute stack temperature, o R Ps = absolute stack gas pressure, in. Hg Ms = molecular weight of stack gas, lb/lb-mole

Average Stack Gas Flow at Stack Conditions (Qa), acfm

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

## A PPENDIX 

## A

K:\12251_SO CO\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 St andard Conditions (Qs), dscfm

Ts Ps x Bws)

- (1 x Qa x Hg in. R 17.64 Qs °

=

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

Percent Isokinetic Sampling Rate (%I)

Bws)

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

= I % Θ °

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

Concentration Corrected for O 2 , Cs @ 7% O 2

2 2 O % measured

- 20.9 O 7%

- 20.9 x ppm

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

2 O %

- 20.9 20.9 x MMBtu

dscf factor, F x ppm lb/scfM 09

- E 2.59 x dry conc. = EMR

where, NO x conc. dry = measured NO x 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 NO x (46.01 lb/lb-mole)

## A PPENDIX 

## 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

dscm Vmstd, ng Mass, = TCDD Total ÷

Dioxin Concentration Corrected to 7% O 2 , ng/dscm @ 7% O 2 

### ( )( )

( ) 2 O %

- 21 7

- 21 x ng/dscm conc.

= TCDD Total

Speciated Volatile Organic Compounds

Concentration (conc.), ppm ( μ L/L)

(L) vol. sample x mole

- g g wt mol. mole

- g L 24.04 x g mass

= conc.

μ μ μ μ μ

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

Concentration (conc.), μ g/dscm

dscm vol., sample g mass

= conc. μ

Concentration at 7% 

### O 2

O % actual

- 20.9 O 7%

- 20.9 x g/dscm conc., = O 7% @ conc.
2 2 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ μK:\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 

# A PPENDIX 

# B T EST 

# M ETHODOLOGY

B.1 V OLUMETRIC 

### F LOW 

### R ATE



### B.2 G AS 

### C OMPOSITION



### B.3 C ARBON 

### M ONOXIDE



### B.4 M ETHANE



### B.5 D IOXINS AND 

### F URANS



### B.6 T OTAL 

### H YDROCARBONS



### B.7 S PECIATED 

### V OLATILE 

### O RGANIC 

### C OMPOUNDS



### B.8 S EMI 

### -V OLATILE 

### O RGANIC 

### C OMPOUNDS

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 V OLUMETRIC 

## F LOW 

## R ATE

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

The ductwork is measured at the sa mple location to the ne arest 0.25 inch using a steel tape measure. Traverse points are selected in accordance with EPA Reference Method 1 on the basis of ductwork dimensions, geometry, and upstream and downstream disturbances. When a sample location does not meet EPA Reference Method 1 criteria, the maximum recommende d number of traverse points is used.

Gas Velocity

The velocity of the gas stream is measured in accordance with EPA Reference Method 2 by reading the instantaneous velocity pressure with an inclin ed manometer at each traverse point using either a standard “P” type or an “S” type pitot tube. Th e stack pressure is calcul ated from the measured static pressure of the stack and the ambient barometr ic 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 a nd 0 to 25 inches of water or an inclined manometer with a scale of 0 to 10 in ches 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 scal e may be used when the velocity pressure of the gas stream is less than 0.25 inches of water. By convention, any measured ve locity pressures of less than 0.005 inches of water are recorded and reported as less than 0.005 in ches of water. The stack temperature is measured with a ca librated 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 pro cedures specified by the manufact urer when the moisture content exceeds 65% or when the dry gas fraction is something other than ambient air.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 dete rmined using one of the following procedures:

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

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

• For sources with a temperature of less th an 212 °F, wet bulb/dry bulb temperature measurements may be made, and the moisture content calculated using vapor pressure tables.

When multiple methods are used for moisture determ inations, the lowest moisture value is used for volumetric flow calculations.

The molecular weight of the gas stream is cal culated using the measured moisture, oxygen, and carbon dioxide concentrations. The balance of the gas stream is assumed to be nitrogen. The volumetric flow is then calculated at stack and standard conditions using the calculated molecular weight, the measured stack temperature, and measur ed velocity, stack and ba rometric pressures. Standard conditions are 68 °F and 29.92 in ches of mercury and 0% moisture.

Data Acquisition and Reporting

Data are recorded at the time of collection on prep rinted data sheets. Ca lculations are performed (where possible) with preprogrammed calculators or spreadsheet software.

Quality Control

Quality control procedures for volumetric flow m easurements involve leak checks of pitot tubes, pitot tube lines and manometers; periodic analysis of ambient air and duplic ate 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 verifi ed by a second person.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 G AS 

## C OMPOSITION 

## (I NSTRUMENTAL 

## )

Oxygen (O 2 

### ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) testing is conducted in accordance with EPA Reference Method 3A.

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

Figure B-1 illustrates the sampling system. The sa mple is withdrawn contin uously from the source through a heated probe, filter, and sample line to a sample conditi oner which removes moisture from the gas stream. The sample is then tr ansported to an O 2 

### analyzer and a CO 2 

### analyzer.

Sample Analysis

The O 2 

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

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

### and CO 2 

### concentration, respectively.

Data Acquisitio n and Reduction

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

Quality Control

At the time of analysis, O 2 

### and CO 2 

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

## A PPENDIX 

## B

K:\12251_SO CO\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. VersionFigure B-1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 C ARBON 

## M ONOXIDE

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. Th e 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) an alyzer uses gas filter correla tion spectroscopy to measure the amount of CO present in th e sample. Infrared radiation is chopped and passed through an alternating CO and N 2 

### correlation filter wheel and the sample stream. Carb on monoxide in the sample absorbs the infrared radiation, leav ing the remaining radiation to be measured by a detector producing a linear output signal.

Data Acquisitio n and Reduction

Data are acquired electronically using an IBM co mpatible computer and software designed by WESTON for EPA Reference Method 10 analysis or alternatively th e 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 concen tration. All subsequent calculation procedures required for compliance with EPA Referenc e Method 10 are perfo rmed 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 EP A Reference Method 10.

A CO 2 

### interference response study was performed by th e manufacturer of the analyzer. The data from this study are on file at WESTON.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 M ETHANE

EPA Method 18 outlines three different sampling approaches with gas chromatography as the analytical method. The three approaches include direct interface, adsorpti on media, or whole gas sample collection utilizing flexible Tedlar ® 

### bag enclosures. The GC c onditions are not defined as the number of compounds and compound mixtur es 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 na ture of the gas stream and the target compounds should be thoroughly understood before using th is 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 re sults 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 pr obe, 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 e nough to allow collection of an adequate volume of gas (>1 liter recommended).

For sample collection of target compounds which ar e 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 mo isture 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 correct ed for the concentrati on 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 maintain ed in a light free, temperature controlled environment. Sample anal ysis should occu r 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 chro matography conditions re quired to resolve and quantify the target compounds are deve loped 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 collecti on system with report generator.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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. VersionFigure B-2 Integrated SamplingTrain

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 sample s are introduced to the chromatograph using the same injector. The GC uses capillary columns which are commercia lly available and chosen to resolve the target compounds within a reasonable ti me frame, 5 - 45 minutes.

Detection and relative intensity of calibration gas or sample gas ma trices 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 differen ce in potential is directly proportional to the concentration present. Calibrati on curves for the target compounds are prepared at a minimum of three concentration levels, and bracket th e 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 in tensity of the sample peaks compared to the intensity of the calibration peaks.

Commercially available calibrati on gas mixtures are obtained whic h meet the method criteria of 1-2% accuracy.

For high concentration sources, where commercially available gas standard s are not available, calibration gas mixtures are prep ared by injection of a known mass of the ta rget 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 sample s collected is chosen for spiking with a known mass of target compounds (li quid 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 samp le 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.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 D IOXINS 

## /F URANS

The modified EPA Reference Method 5 (MM5) tr ain is described in EP A Reference Method 23.

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

The modified Method 5 Samp ling Train is shown in Figure B-3. The impinger train is assembled in the sample recovery area . The pre-cleaned impingers are assemb led 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 form s in the condenser coil and XAD resin module. The next two impingers are standard type Greenberg-Smith impingers, each contai ning 100 mL of HPLC gr ade water. The fourth impinger is empty and the fifth impinger is charge d with approximately 700 grams of indicating silica gel. The glass fiber filter is placed in a filter ho lder and connected to the condenser coil and XAD resin module. The train componen ts are then transferred to th e sampling location and assembled completely.

After the sampling train is assembled and all components are h eated appropriately, a leak check is performed. During sampling, the te mperature of the sorbent module resi n is not to exceed 70 °F. The probe temperature is maintained above 212 °F; th e filter temperature is co ntrolled 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 on e inch of Hg or less than 1.5% of the sampling rate.

After a successful pre-test leak check, the train asse mbly is placed in the stac k and operated along each of the traverse points fo r each of the two horizontal traverses. Sampling is performed for a total of three hours using a sampling rate betw een 0.5 and 0.75 scfm to collect a total sample volume of at least 106 dscf. Sampling train data are re corded on standa rd data forms.

The MM5 sampling trains are recovered following th e 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.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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. VersionFigure B-3 Modified EPA Method Sampling Trainfor Dioxins, Furans, andSemi-Volatile Organics

## A PPENDIX 

## 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/MECL 2 . 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/MECL 2 . SEAL. RINSE IN SAMPLE BOTTLE AND MARK LIQUID LEVEL. (BHR RINSE UNTIL CLEAN (3X) WITH ACETONE/MECL 2 . SEAL. RINSE IN SAMPLE

BOTTLE AND MARK LIQUID LEVEL. (FHR)



## F IGURE 

## B-4 S AMPLE 

## R ECOVERY 

## P ROCEDURES FOR 

## MM5 S AMPLING 

## T RAINS

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 

## T ABLE 

## B-1 EPA M ETHOD 

## 0010/23 S AMPLE 

## F RACTIONS



### 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 CO N 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 Module a 

### 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.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 Organ ic Compounds

The MM5 semi-volatile samples ar e 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. Th e 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 sp iked with the eight BNA surrogates and labeled stan dards at 100 mg levels and then liquid-liquid extracted with methylene chloride (Fraction C).

Each extract is dried over sodium sulfate, concentrated to a volum e of 5 mL and cleaned using gel permeation chromatography (GPC).

Dioxins and Furans

Extracts are concentrated to approximately 1-5 mL. In ternal 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 reso lution mass spectrometer.

Data Acquisitio n and Reduction

Data are recorded at the time of collection on preprinted data sheet s. Calculations are performed (where possible) with preprogrammed calculators or spreadsheet software.

Quality Control

The standard MM5 pre-cleanup requirements include several unique prepara tion steps which ensure that the sampling train components are not contaminated with organi c compounds that may interfere with the analysis. The glassware, glass fiber filters, and XAD adso rbing resin are pre-cleaned using strict protocols.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 aceton e followed by methylen e chloride. Once the glassware is dried, the open ends are sealed with either methylene chloride-rinsed aluminum foil or Teflon ® 

### tape.



## T ABLE 

## B-2 O RGANIC 

## G LASSWARE 

## C LEANING 

## P ROCEDURE 

## (T RAIN 

## C OMPONENTS 

## , S AMPLE 

## C ONTAINERS 

## , AND 

## L ABORATORY 

## G LASSWARE 

## )

NOTE: USE VITON GLOV ES 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 H 2 

### O 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 chlori de rinsed aluminum foil.

8. Mark cleaned glassware with co lor-coded identifi cation sticker.

a (X3) = three times.

b Step (4) is added to the cleanup procedure to replace the di chromate soak specified in the reference method. It hasbeen 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 br ushes) are cleaned following the same procedure, except no baking is performed. The XAD adso rbent resin and glass fibe r filters are pre- cleaned by separa te procedures.

The XAD, which is purchased in 100 gram amber gl ass containers, is placed in the glass modules under strict laboratory-controlled co nditions. Each lot of XAD resi n is recorded in a laboratory

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 qua lity 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 soxhle t extraction apparatus and extracted using methylene chloride fo r 16 hours. Afterwards, the filters ar e checked for holes, tears, creases, and discoloration. Acceptable filters are placed in pre-cl eaned containers and labeled by date of extraction and sealed with Teflon ® 

### tape.
The remaining equipment preparation includes rout ine checking and calibration of the Method 5-type equipment as specified in Method 0 010 and 23.

During one of the runs, an MM5 fiel d blank train is assembled with gl assware 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 co ntamination that occu rs from handling, charging, recovering, and transporting the sampling train.

One sample train blank is prepared for each source. One se t of trip blanks are collected and archived for future examination, if contamination is dete rmined. A lab method blank using the control XAD blank that is withhe ld during the XAD module preparat ion phase is also analyzed.

QC guidelines for MM5 can be foun d in SW-846 Method 0 010, "Modified Method 5 Sampling Train," Section 11. Add itional quality control consid erations are outline d in EPA Referen ce Method 8270 and 23. Sampling criteria are give n in EPA Reference Method 5.

To further ensure sample integr ity and stability, smoking is not allo wed in or around the Laboratory Recovery Area, and XAD resin samples are immediatel y stored at or below 4 °C.

Data transfers are minimized. Field and laborato ry data sheets are checke d for completeness and accuracy. Calculations are ve rified by a second person.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 T OTAL 

## H YDROCARBONS

Total hydrocarbon (THC) concentrat ions are sampled using EPA Refe rence Method 25A and analyzed by WESTON on site with a fl ame ionization detector (FID) analyzer. It should be noted that Method 25A determines total organics, in cluding methane, which is not a re gulated volatile organic compound (VOC).

Sampling Equipment and Procedures

Figure B-5 is a schematic of th e EPA Reference Method 25A samplin g 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 measuremen ts 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 anal yzer to generate the calib ration curve. A calibration gas is introduced at the probe an d recovered through the sampling an d analytical system. A bias correction factor is calculated us ing the ratio of the measured c oncentration of the bias gas and concentration certified by the ve ndor. An interference respon se study was performed by the manufacturer of the analyzer. The data from this study are on file at WESTON.

Data Acquisitio n and Reduction

Data is acquired electronically using an IBM compatible computer a nd software designed by WESTON for EPA Reference Method 25A analysis.

Quality Control

The calibration and check gases are pr opane, in either nitrogen or air, certified according to EPA Protocol-1. Following each sample run, the calibra tion 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 thre e percent of the full scale span value.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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. VersionFigure B-5 EPA Reference Method 25A Sampling Train

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 S PECIATED 

## V OLATILE 

## O RGANIC 

## C OMPOUNDS

Volatile organic compounds are measured usi ng 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 spectr ophotometer (GC/MS) according to the procedures outlined in SW-846 Method 8240.

VOST Sampling Equipment and Preparation
The volatile organic sampling trai n (VOST) of SW-846 Method 0030 is used to collect the volatile organic samples. The sampling equipment sp ecifications 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 cart ridge, 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 tube s and metal parts with a n onionic detergent, rinsing in organic-free water, and drying at the specified temperatures. The Tenax sorbent is soxhlet extracted with methanol and dried. The Tenax a nd 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 sampli ng train is assembled as shown in Figure B-1. Samples are collected using paired Tenax and Tenax/charcoal cartridge s, 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 car tridge containing 1.5 grams of Tenax resin (60- 80 mesh). The condensate is collected in an impi nger that is continually purged by the gas stream.
The second condenser and cartridge containing Tena x/charcoal serves as a backup for low volume breakthrough compounds. Following the second cartr idge is a silica gel dryi ng tube for residual moisture removal.
Each sample run consists of five paired tube sets. One pair is ar chived. The individual tube pairs are collected at a set sample rate for at least 20 minutes. The sample volu mes for each of the five pairs of cartridges are approximately 20 liters. Samp ling is conducted at a single point. The system is leak-checked by closing the valv e at the inlet to the first condenser and evacu ating the system at 10 inches Hg. The system will then be isolated and the leak rate note d. 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.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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. VersionFigure B-6 EPA Method 0030 VolatileOrganic Sampling Train (VOST)

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 th e 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 cartri dges 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 w ith glass wool to absorb the shock. The volume of condensate impinger is measured in a preclea ned graduated cylinder a nd transferred to 40 mL VOA vials and diluted to volume with HPLC wate r to decrease headsp ace, 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 conde nsate. 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 re quired to exchange two pairs of traps on the VOST. After the VOST traps have been exchanged, the end caps are re placed on the field bla nks, 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 an alyzed with the field samples.

One pair of blank cartridges, a la boratory 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 “fr ont” cartridge is analyzed separately from the tenax/charcoal cartridge; likewise the condensate fractions are also analyzed separate ly. Prior to sample recovery, the contents of the sorbent cartridge s are spiked with a deuter ated standard as well as other unlabeled internal standards that are si milar to the analytical characteristics of the compounds of interest. Following spiking, the solv ent cartridge contents are thermally desorbed using an inert gas which is then bubbled throu gh 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 deso rption, the compounds are described from the adsorbent trap onto a gas chromatographic column.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 pha se to the vapor phase. The vapor is swept through a sorbent column where the volatile compounds are trappe d. 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 com pounds of interest are analyzed following the procedures specified in EPA Re ference Methods 5041 (mod) for th e analysis of the media and 8260C mod for the analysis of the condensat e of the SW-846 guidance manual. Library identifications for the non-ta rget compounds are performed us ing 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 ma ss spectrometry. The concentrations of the volatile compounds of inte rest are calculated using the labele d and unlabeled internal standard technique.

Volatile Sample Semi-Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis is performed in one of f our 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 determin ed using an isotope dilution technique.

For compounds where authentic standards but no labeled compounds are available, the GC/MS system is calibrated and the co mpound 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.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 th e 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 me thod blank are analyzed with the field samples. The quality of the analysis is a ssured through reproducible cal ibration 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 de signed to ensure the collection of high quality gas stream concentrations and em ission data without interference of contaminants. Gas stream concentrations of each analyte are determined by di viding 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 prev ent contamination.

• Recovery procedures are completed in a clean environment.

• Five samples are collected per run with four sample s analyzed and one ar chived to ensure adequate analysis.

• Samples are stored and shipped at reduced temper ature (~4 °C).

• At least one field and one trip blank are obtained and analyzed.

Data Reduction, Validation, And Reporting

Data quality audits are conducted us ing data quality indicators whic h require the deta iled 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 diff erent sampling locations.

• Comparison of the results for a particular para meter with those from each condition (i.e., are the concentrations sim ilar and do they show the same re lationship for a material balance).

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 fl ow rates, moisture co ntent, 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 va lidated based on the following criteria:

• Process conditions during sampling or testing,

• Acceptable sample collection procedures,

• Consistency with expect ed other results, and

• Adherence to prescribed QC procedures.

Any suspect data is flagged and identified accord ing to the specific deviation from prescribed criteria and its potential effect on the data quality. Upon comple tion 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 reporti ng the QC data collected and the results of any audits. The outside laboratory re ports its QA/QC results in the anal ytical 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 S EMI 

## -V OLATILE 

## O RGANIC 

## C OMPOUNDS AND 

## POM

The modified EPA Reference Method 5 (MM5) trai n 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 Samp ling Train is shown in Figure B-7. The impinger train is assembled in the sample recovery area . The pre-cleaned impingers are assemb led 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 form s in the condenser coil and XAD resin module. The next two impingers are standard type Greenberg-Smith impingers, each contai ning 100 mL of HPLC gr ade water. The fourth impinger is empty and the fifth impinger is charged with approximately 700 gr ams of indicating silica gel. The glass fiber filter is pl aced in a filter holder and connected to the condenser coil and XAD resin module. The train componen ts are then transferred to th e sampling location and assembled completely.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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. VersionFigure B-7 Modified EPA Method Sampling Train for Semivolatile Organics

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 h eated appropriately, a leak check is performed. During sampling, the te mperature of the sorbent module resi n is not to exceed 70 °F. The probe temperature is maintained above 212 °F; th e filter temperature is co ntrolled 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 on e inch of Hg or less than 1.5% of the sampling rate.

After a successful pre-test leak check, the train asse mbly is placed in the stac k and operated along each of the traverse points fo r 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 sc fm to collect a total sa mple volume of at least 60 dscf. Sampling train data are re corded on standa rd data forms.

The MM5 sampling trains are reco vered 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 Organ ic Compounds

The MM5 semi-volatile samples ar e analyzed according to SW-846 Method 8270D (mod)(M00100). The methanol/methylene chloride front half (FH) pr obe rinse is concentrated to about 2 mL using a Kuderna-Danish (KD) appara tus and then combined with the filter in a soxhlet apparatus. A set of 8 Base/Neutral/Acid (BNA) surrogates along with the ab ove 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 (B HR) 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 sp iked with the eight BNA surrogates and labeled stan dards at 100 mg levels and then liquid-liquid extracted with methylene chloride (Fraction C).

Each extract is dried over sodium sulfate, concentrated to a volum e of 5 mL and cleaned using gel permeation chromatography (GPC).

## A PPENDIX 

## 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/MECL 2 . 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/MECL 2 . SEAL. RINSE IN SAMPLE BOTTLE AND MARK LIQUID LEVEL. (BHR RINSE UNTIL CLEAN (3X) WITH ACETONE/MECL 2 . SEAL. RINSE IN SAMPLE

BOTTLE AND MARK LIQUID LEVEL. (FHR)



## F IGURE 

## B-8 S AMPLE 

## R ECOVERY 

## P ROCEDURES FOR 

## MM5 S AMPLING 

## T RAINS

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 

## T ABLE 

## B-3 EPA M ETHOD 

## 0010 S AMPLE 

## F RACTIONS



### Container Code Fraction

1 FHR Methanol/MeCl 2 

### 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 CO N 1/source 1/trip Methanol/Methylene FHR, BHR Chloride 200 mL IMPR 1/source 1/trip

XAD Sorbent Module a 

### 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.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 Acquisitio n and Reduction

Data will be recorded at the time of collection on preprinted data sheets. Calculations will be performed (where possible) with preprogram med calculators or spreadsheet software.

Quality Control

The standard MM5 pre-cleanup requirements include several unique prepara tion steps which ensure that the sampling train components are not contaminated with organi c compounds that may interfere with the analysis. The glassware, glass fiber filters, and XAD adso rbing 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 chlo ride. Once the glassware is dried, the op en ends will be sealed wi th either methylene chlori de-rinsed alum inum foil or Teflon ® 

### tape.
Non-glass components (such as the Teflon ® 

### filter supports and seals, tweezers, Teflon ® 

### squeeze bottles, nylon nozzle, and probe br ushes) are cleaned following the sa me procedure, ex cept 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 containe rs, 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 la boratory 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, te ars, creases, and discoloration. Acceptable filters are placed in pre-cl eaned containers and labeled by date of extraction and sealed with Teflon ® 

### tape.
The remaining equipment preparation includes rout ine checking and calibration of the Method 5-type equipment as specified in Method 0010.

During one of the runs, an MM5 fiel d blank train is assembled with gl assware 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 fi eld blank train is then recovered with the other MM5 train for that run. The sample train results are used to assess th e level of contamination that occurs from handling, charging, recovering, and transporting the sampling train.

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 

## T ABLE 

## B-4 O RGANIC 

## G LASSWARE 

## C LEANING 

## P ROCEDURE 

## (T RAIN 

## C OMPONENTS 

## , S AMPLE 

## C ONTAINERS 

## , AND 

## L ABORATORY 

## G LASSWARE 

## )

NOTE: USE VITON GLOV ES 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 H 2 

### O rinse (X3). a



### 4. Bake at 450° for 2 hours. b



### 5. Methanol rinse (X3), (pesticide grade).

6. Methylene chloride (X 3), (pesticide grade).

7. Cap glassware with Teflon ® 

### tape or methylene chloride rinsed aluminum foil.

8. Mark cleaned glassware with co lor-coded identification sticker.

a (X3) = three times.

b Step (4) is added to the cleanup procedure to replace the di chromate soak specified in the reference method. It hasbeen 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).

## A PPENDIX 

## 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 se t of trip blanks are collected and archived for future examination, if contamination is dete rmined. A lab method blank using the control XAD blank that is withhe ld during the XAD module preparat ion phase is also analyzed.

QC guidelines for MM5 can be foun d in SW-846 Method 0 010, "Modified Method 5 Sampling Train," Section 11. Additi onal quality control considerations are outlined in EPA Refe rence Method 8270D mod (M00100). Sampling criteria are given in EPA Reference Method 5.

To further ensure sample integr ity and stability, smoking is not allo wed in or around the Laboratory Recovery Area, and XAD resin samples are immediatel y stored at or below 4 °C.

Data transfers are minimized. Field and laborato ry data sheets are checked for completeness and accuracy. Calculations are ve rified by a second person.