## SOURCE EMISSIONSTEST REPORT
Prepared for 

## Cargill, Inc. Kansas City, Missouri

Regarding testing of 

### Various Particulate Emission Pointsthroughoutthe Plant Located at 

### Cargill, Inc. 2306 RochesterSt Kansas City, Missouri 64120

PerformedJanuary 6through-February24, 2009 

## By

AIRSOURCETECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

### 20505W. 67TH 

### Street Shawnee, Kansas, 66218-9260 (913) 422-9001
Project 1\10. 3203

## PREFACE

This report was prepared by AirSource Technologies, Inc., and contains the results of testing that was conducted on various exhaust stacks at the Cargill, Inc. facility in Kansas City, Missouri on January 6through February 24, 2009. To the best ofour knowledge the data contained in this report isaccurate and complete. Any questions concerning this report should be directed to l"1r. Finnegan Schall, Project Manager, or Mr. George Cobb, President.

AirSourceTechnologies, Inc. Approved by:

Finnegan Schall George Cobb Project Manager President
January21, 2008

AirSource Technologies; Inc. 3203

# TABLE OFCONTENTS

SECT'ION 1 - INTRODUCTION.••....•......•••••.•....•.....•....•....••....•••..•...•••..••••..•.....•....... 1 

### 1.1 TEST SITE INFORMATION

....................................................................................

### 1 1.1.1 Description ofFacility

................................................................................

### 1 1.1.2 Location ofFacility

.................................................................................... 

### 1 1.1.3 Contact Person

.........................................................................................

### 1 1.2 PURPOSE OFTESTING

.........................................................................................

### 1 1.3 TESTING ORGANIZATION

....................................................................................

### 1 1.3.1 Company

..................................................................................................

### 1 1.3.2 Personnel

.................................................................................................

### 1 1.4 SUlvlIVlARY OFTESTING PERFORIVIED

....................................................................2 SECTION 2 - 

### SLIMMARYOF RESULTS..............•••..•••....•...................••..•.••.•......••.••.••3 

### 2.1 OPACITY OBSERVATION RESULTS

........................................................................8 2.2 POTENTIAL ERRORS IN TESTING

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

### 2.3 EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE

..........................................................................8 SECTION 3 - PROCESS DATA .............•......•.•.•....•••..••••.......••...•.....•.............•.....•....•9 

### 3.1 DESCRIPTION OFTHE TEST LOCATIONS

.............................................................

### 10 3.2 SAMPLING AND MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

.....................................................

### 10 3.2.1 Traverse Point Layout

..............................................................................

### 10 3.2.2 Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate Determination

.......................................

### 10 3.2.3 Gas MolecularWeight Determination

.........................................................

### l0 3.2.4 Moisture Content Determination

...............................................................10 3.2.5 FilterablejCondensible/Total Particulate Matter Determination

....................

### 10 3.2.6 Total PMlO Particulate Matter Determination

..............................................11 

### 3.2.7 Filterable Particulate Matter Sampling in Cyclonic Flow

...............................l1 

### 3.2.8 Deviations from Sampling Methods

...........................................................

### 12 3.3 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

.................................................................................

### 12 3.3.1 Analysis for Filterable Particulate Matter

....................................................

### 12 3.3.2 Analysis for Filterable PMlO Particulate Matter

............................................

### 12 3.3.3 Analysis forCondensible Particulate Matter

................................................

### 12 3.3.4 Deviations from Analytical Methods

...........................................................13 SECnON 4 - QUALITYASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL.

....................................14 

### 4.1 COMPLETENESS

.................................................................................................

### 14 4.2 EMISSIONS SAMPLING

........................................................................................

### 14 4.3 ANALYSIS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER

................................................................

### 14

AirSource Technologies,Inc. 3203

# APPENDICES
Appendix A Calculation Equations Appendix BCalculated Results Appendix B-1 Soybean Receiving EP 119 and EP 120 Appendix B-2 Soybean Conveying, and Jet Drying EP 03, EP 103a, and EP 103b Appendix CField Data Forms Appendix C-l Soybean Receiving EP 119 and EP 120 Appendix C-2 Soybean Conveying, and Jet Drying EP 03, EP 103a, and EP 103b Appendix C-7 Opacity Observation Field Data EP 03, EP 101, EP 102, EP 103a, EP 103b\ GravimetricAnalysis Appendix D Equipment Calibrations Appendix E-l Pre-Test Calibrations Appendix E-2 Post-Test Calibrations Appendix E Process Data

AirSource Technologies, Inc. 3203

# SECTION 1- INTRODUCTION

1.1 TESTSITE INFORMATION 1.1.1 Description ofFacility Cargill, Inc. in Kansas City, Missouri processes, produces, transports, and sells agricultural and other bulk commodities. Primarily, it is a food manufacturer, processor, and wholesaler. 

### 1.1.2 Location 

### ofFacility The facility and tested sources are located at 

### 2306 Rochester St, Kansas City, Missouri 

### 64120. 

### 1.1.3 Contact Person Mr. Thomas A. Parsons, Production Supervisor, was the Cargill projectcoordinator. 

### 1.2 PURPOSEOFTESTING Emission testing was performed on twenty exhaust stacks in the Soybean Receiving, Soybean Conveying, Pre-cleaning, Jet Drying, Soybean Preparation, Meal Processing, Pods and Hulls Processing, Meal and Hulls Load Out processes to determine particulate matter emissions under normal operating conditions as required by the Kansas City Health Department. 

### 1.3 TESTING ORGANIZATION 1.3.1 Company AirSource Technologies, Inc., located at 

### 20505 W. 

### 6th Street, Shawnee, Kansas 

### 66218 performed the testing. 

### 1.3.2 Personnel AirSource personnel who conducted thetesting were: Mr. Finnegan Schall, Project Manager Mr. Jim Surman, LaboratorySpeCialist, Ms. Joy Mccann, LaboratorySpeCialist, Mr. George Cobb, Environmental Scientist, Mr. Dan Soderberg, Environmental Scientist, Mr. Pete Liebl, Environmental SCientist, Mr. David Hotz, Environmental Technician, Mr. Todd Brandl, Environmental Technician, Mr. Carl Bender, Environmental Technician, and Mr. Robert Phillips, Environmental Technician. Mr. David Seidel of Seidel Research and Development Co. performed opacity observations atseveral sources.

3203 

### 1 AirSource Technologies, Inc.

### 1.4 SUMMARY OFTESTING PERFORMED Emissions in the Exhaust Stacks were measured for particulate matter using EPA Methods 1­ 5, 9, 17, 201A, and 202. Three test runs were performed at each source from January 6 through February 24, 2009. The following table identifies the source, emission point identification number, and the run numbersfor each location: 

### Table 1-1 Source Identificationand Run Numbers

Emission Point Description Identification Number Run Numbers
Truck Receivinq DustCollector EP 119 1111 1112, 1113

Rail Receiving Dust Collector EP 120 611,613 Elevator DustCollector EP 03 1211 1212, 1213 Jet Dryer DustCollector No. 1 EP 103 a 911,912,913 Jet Dryer Dust Collector No. 2 EP 103 b 1011 1012, 1013

AirSource Technologies, Inc. 

### 2 3203

## SECTION 2 - SUMMARYOF RESULTS

Table 2-1 Filterable Particulate TruckReceiving DustCollector EP119
Parameter Units Run 1111 Run 1112 Run 1113 Average 

### Date Run Time Period Sampling Time 

### -

- min 

### 01/28/09 1417-1505 1518-1606 96.00 01/28/09 138-1356 1404-1452 96.00 01/30/09 1106-1154 1204-1252 96.00 

### -



## -

- Gas Stream Avg. Velocity Head CLlp) in H2

### O 

### 0.314 0.405 0.467 0.396 Avg. Temperature OF 

### 45 56 33 44 Absolute Pressure in Hg 

### 29.34 29.40 29.40 29.38 Moisture Concentration %V 

### 0.75 0.75 0.60 0.70 O

2 

### Concentration, Dry %V 

### 20.90 20.90 20.90 20.90 CO2 

### Concentration, Dry %V 

### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avg. Velocity ft/rnin 

### 1,864 2,137 2,243 2,081 Flow Rate, Actual acfm 

### 25,419 29,142 30,579 28,380 Flow Rate, Wet scfm 

### 26,054 29,314 32,191 29,186 Flow Rate, Dry dscfm 

### 25,858 29,093 31,996 28,983**ParticlJlat~** 

### Matter gr/dscf Ib/hr 

### 0.000176 0.0390 0.000215 0.0535 0.000209 0.0573 0.000200 0.0499 Concentration Emission Rate SampleVolume Avg. lsokineticVariation dscf % 

### 49.528 102.1 68.226 102.6 69.490 97.4 

### -



# -

3203 

### 3 AirSource Technologies, Inc.

### Table 2-2 Filterable Particulate Rail Receiving DustCollector EP 120
Parameter Units Run 611 Run 612a 

### Run 613 Average 

### Date Run Time Period Sampling Time 

### -

- min 01/29/09 0854-1015 1025-1113 96.00 01/29/09 1125-1213 1215-1303 96.00 01/29/09 1340-1428 1438-1526 96.00 

### -



### -



## - Gas Stream Avg. Velocity Head (dP) in H2

### O 1.220 1.372 1.446 1.346 Avg. Temperature of 

### 36 37 38 37 Absolute Pressure in Hg 29.25 29.25 29.25 29.25 Moisture Concentration %V 0.55 0.63 0.63 0.60 O

2

### Concentration, Dry %V 20.90 20.90 20.90 20.90 CO2

### Concentration, Dry %V 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avg. Velocity ft/min 3,645 3,869 3,976 3,830 Flow Rate, Actual acfm 25,765 27,351 28,106 27,074 Flow Rate, Wet scfm 26,801 28,396 29,141 28,112 Flow Rate, Dry dscfm 26,654 28,216 28,958 27,942 Particulate Matter Concentration Emission Rate gr/dscf Ib/hr 0.000053 0.0122 

### --­

--­ 0.000052 0.0129 0.000053 0.0125 Sample Volume Avg. IsokineticVariation dscf % 95.299 99.7 69.107 99.8 74.038 99.8 

## -

-

a Particulate samplefilter was lost during recovery ortransfertoanalytical laboratory

AirSource Technologies, Inc 

### 4 3203

### Table2-3 Filterable Particulate Elevator DustCollector EP03
Parameter Units Run 1211 Run 1212 

### 3 Average 

### Date 

### 01/29/09 01/29/09 01/30/09 Run Time Period 

### 1351-1531 1622-1816 0758-0952 Sampling Time min 

### 100.00 100.00 100.00 Gas Stream Avg. Velocity Head CAp) in H 2

### O 

### 0.447 0.464 0.473 0.462 Avg. Temperature OF 

### 51 50 46 49 Absolute Pressure in Hg 

### 29.28 29.28 29.23 29.27 Moisture Concentration %V 

### 0.75 0.49 0.50 0.58 O

2

### Concentration, Dry %V 

### 20.90 20.90 20.90 20.90 CO2

### Concentration, Dry %V 

### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avg. Velocity ftjmin 

### 2,240 2,280 2,294 2,271 Flow Rate, Actual 

### adm 17,215 17,523 17,636 17,458 Flow Rate, Wet 

### sdm 17,397 17,739 17,964 17,700 Flow Rate, Dry dsdm 

### 17,266 17,652 17,875 17,598 Patticulate**Matt~r** 

### Concentration gr/dsd 

### 0.00105 0.000854 0.000775 0.0009 Emission Rate Ib/hr 

### 0.156 0.129 0.119 0.1346 SampleVolume dsd 

### 59.326 70.861 Avg. IsokineticVariation % 

### 99.2 99.9

AirSource Technologies, Inc. 

### 5 3203Table 2-4 Filterableand Condensable Particulate Jet Dryer DustCollector No. 1 EP 103a
Parameter Units Run 911 Run 912 Run 913 Average 

### Date Run Time Period Sampling Time 

### -



### - min 

### 01/22/09 1410-1458 1500-1548 96.00 06/30/02 1635-1723 1737-1825 96.00 01/23/09 1041-1129 1239-1227 96.00 

### -

-

- Gas Stream Avg. Velocity Head (ilp) in H2

### O 

### 0.480 0.419 0.522 0.474 Avg. Temperature of 

### 164 160 158 161 Absolute Pressure in Hg 

### 29.07 29.07 29.69 29.27 Moisture Concentration %V 

### 4.17 4.43 3.52 4.04 O

2

### Concentration, Dry %V 

### 20.90 20.90 20.90 20.90 CO2

### Concentration, Dry %V 

### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avg. Velocity ft/min 

### 2,591 2,413 2,657 2,554 Flow Rate, Actual acfm 

### 14,021 13,061 14,379 13,820 Flow Rate, Wet scfm 

### 11,527 10,797 12,193 11,506 Flow Rate, Dry dscfm 

### 11,047 10,319 11,764 11,043 PM Concentration Filterable PM gr/dscf 

### 0.000023 0.000176 0.000295 0.000165 Condensible PM gr/dscf 

### 0.000814 0.00334 0.000645 0.00160 Total PM PM Emission Rate gr/dscf 

### 0.000837 0.00352 0.000939 0.00176
Filterable PM Ib/hr 

### 0.00217 0.0156 0.0297 0.0158 Condensible PM Ib/hr 

### 0.0771 0.295 0.0650 0.1458 Total PM Ib/hr 

### 0.0793 0.311 0.0947 0.1617 Sample Volume Avg. IsokineticVariation dscf % 

### 67.411 99.3 59.189 99.6 71.427 98.8 

### -

-

AirSource Technologies, Inc. 

### 6 3203

### Table2-5 Filterableand Condensable Particulate JetDryerOust Collector No.2 EP 103b
Parameter Units Run 1011 Run 1012 Run 1013 Average 

### Date
Run Time Period Sampling Time 

### -

- min 

### 01/23/09 1418-1506 1517-1605 96.00 01/28/09 0928-1016 1029-1049 1315-1339 96.00 01/28/09 1414-1502 1517-1605 96.00 

## -

-

- Gas Stream Avg. Velocity Head**(~p)** 

### in HzO 

### 0.397 0.369 0.416 0.394 Avg. Temperature OF 

### 152 169 162 161 Absolute Pressure in Hg 

### 29.69 29.64 29.64 29.65 Moisture Concentration %V 

### 5.28 2.59 3.72 3.87 

### Oz Concentration, Dry %V 

### 20.90 20.90 20.90 20.90 

### COz Concentration, Dry %V 

### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avg. Velocity ft/min 

### 2,313 2,251 2,383 2,316 Flow Rate, Actual acfm 

### 12,518 12,184 12,897 12,533 Flow Rate, Wet scfm 

### 10,705 10,129 10,840 10,558 Flow Rate, Dry dscfm 

### 10,140 9,866 10,437 10,147 PM ConcentratiQn gr/dscf 

### 0.000070 0.000038 0.000088 0.000065 Filterable PM Condensible PM gr/dscf 

### 0.000955 0.000462 0.000473 0.000630 Total PM gr/dscf 

### 0.00103 0.000500 0.000561 0.000696 PM Emission Rate Filterable PM Ib/hr 

### 0.00611 0.00319 0.00784 0.00572 Condensible PM Ib/hr 

### 0.0830 0.0391 0.0424 0.0548 Total PM Ib/hr 

### 0.0891 0.0423 0.0502 0.0605 SampleVolume Avg. IsokineticVariation dscf % 

### 58.593 100.3 66.750 98.1 63.498 99.0 

### -

-

AirSource Technologies,Inc 

### 7 3203

### 2.1 OPACITYOBSERVATION RESULTS Mr. David Seidel of Seidel Research and Development performed three one hour opacity observations at each emission point. Observations were performed at the following locations:

• EP119 Truck Receiving DustCollector

• EP120 Rail Receiving DustCollector Elevator DustCollector • EP03
• EP103a Jet Dryer DustCollector No. 1

• EP103b Jet Dryer DustCollector No. 2 No opacity was observed atany ofthe above locations. Field data sheets can be found in Appendix C-7. 

### 2.2 POTENTIAL ERRORS INTESTING The filter for Run 612 at location EP120 (Rail Receiving Dust collector) was lost while processing the sample in the field laboratory orduring transporttotheanalytical laboratory. The other two runs passed all ofthe method criteria and demonstrate comparable results. The facility would asktowaive the third test run atthis location. There were no other apparentfactors that might have adversely affected thetest results. 

### 2.3 EVALUATION OFPERFORMANCE All locationsobserved for opacity 

### passed the visible emission limits.

AirSol.lrce**Technolog;~** Inc. 

### 8 3203

## SECTION 3 - PROCESS DATA
The process' throughput and control device pressure drops are summarized in Table 3-1 below. Process data is located in Appendix F, Process Data. Table3-1 ProcessOperating Parameters

Emission

Point Description 

### Start Time Rateof Product Processed bushels/hr Approx. Tonsof Product Processed Differential Pressure

in. H2

### O



### EP 119 Truck Receiving Dust Collector Run 1 2268.8 54.45 2.4 Run 2 2268.8 54.45 2.5 Run 3 2612.5 62.70 2.3 Average 2383.3 57.20 2.4

EP 120 Rail Receiving Dust Collector Run 1 2818.8 67.65 2.1 Run 2 2567.1 61.61 2.1 Run 3 1650.0 39.60 2.1 Average 2345.3 56.29 2.1

EP 03 Elevator Dust Collector Run 1 1711.6 41.08 1.3 Run 2 2612.5 62.70 1.3 Run 3 1787.5 42.90 1.2 Average 2037.2 48.89 1.3

EP 103 a Jet Dryer Dust Collector #1 Run 1 2543.8 61.05 3.2 Run 2 2543.8 61.05 3.4 Run 3 2062.5 49.50 2.2 Average 2383.3 57.20 2.9

EP 103 b Jet Dryer Dust Collector #2 Run 1 2062.5 49.50 1.1 Run 2 2268.8 54.45 0.0 Run**~** 

### 2268.8 54.45 0.7 Average 2200.0 52.80 0.6

AirSource Technologies, Inc. 

### 9 3203

### SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

3.1 DESCRIPTION OFTHE TEST LOCATIONS Stack dimensions including diameters, upstream and downstream distances from any flow disturbance are include with thefield data forms foreach location. 

### 3.2 SAMPLINGAND MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES 3.2.1 Traverse Point Layout Traverse point layouts were determined according to procedures in EPA Method 1 

### (40 CPR, Part 60 Appendix A-1). Actual traverse point location measurement data is in Appendix B, Calculated Results. 

### 3.2.2 Velocityand Volumetric Flow Rate Determination Gas stream velocities and volumetric flow rates were determined according 

### to procedures in EPA Method 2 (40 

### CPR, Part 60 Appendix A-1). A Type S pitot tubeprobe assembly meeting the dimensional specifications in Method 2 for a baseline pitot-tube coefficient and inclined manometer were used for measuring velocity heads and static pressure. A calibrated thermocouple and temperature meter were used for measuring gas stream temperatures. Adigital barometer calibrated against a mercury barometer was used to measure atmospheric pressure at the sampling and metering console locations. 

### 3.2.3 Gas MolecularWeight Determination The dry gas molecular weight ofambient air was used in all applicable gas stream parametercalculations. 

### 3.2.4 MoistureContent Determination Moisture (water vapor) content of the stack gas was determined according 

### to procedures in EPA Method 4 (40 

### CPR, Part 60 Appendix A-3). Moisture collected in the back half of each sampling train was determined gravimetrically from the difference between the initial and final weights ofall ofthe impingers. 

### 3.2.5 Filterable/Condensible/Total Particulate Matter Determination Particulate matter was measured according to procedures in EPA Method 5 or 17 in Appendix A-3 of 40 

### CPR, Part 60. Filterable particulate matter was extracted isokinetically from the gas stream and collected in sampling train components upstream of and on a filter. Filterable particulate matter, which includes any material that condenses at or below the filtration temperature, was determined gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined water. 316 Stainless steel or glass nozzles and glass fiber filters meeting the speCifications in EPA Method 5were used with all sampling trains. All other sample-contact surfaces in the sampling trains were borosilicate glass and Teflon®. Probe heaters and heated filter boxes were operated at 248 

### ± 25 

### OF during sampling to prevent condensation and maintain a stable temperature range for collection of filterable particulate matter. A digital barometer calibrated against a mercury barometer was used to measure atmospheric pressure atthe metering console.

AirSource Technologies,Inc. 

### 10 3203

### 3.2.6 Total PM10 

### Particulate MatterDetermination Particulate matter greaterthan an aerodynamic diameter ofnominally 10 IJm (PMlO) and less than or equal to PM10 was measured according to procedures in EPA Method 201A in Appendix Mof40 

### CFR, Part51. Condensible particulate matter less than or equal to PM10 was measured according to procedures in EPA Method 202 in Appendix Mof40 

### CPR, Part 51. Particulate matterwas extracted ata constant rate, with variations in isokinetic sampling conditions maintained within well-defined limits, from the gas stream through an in-stack sizing device (cyclone), which separated particulate matter greater than PMlO and less than or equal to PMlO, and was collected in sampling train components upstream and downstream ofand on an instack filter. 

### Ifdissolved sulfur dioxide gas was suspected to have been collected in the impingers and the pH ofthe solution in thefirst impingerwas notabove 4.5, the impinger portion ofthe sampling train was purged with nitrogen following the final leakcheck attheend 

### ofthetest run. Filterable particulate matter greaterthan PMlO and less than or equal to PMlO, which includes any material that condenses at or belowthefiltration temperature and was collected upstream ofand on the filter, was determined gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined water. CondenSible particulate matter less than or equal to PMlO, which includes any material that condenses after passing through the filter and was collected downstream of the filter, was determined gravimetricallyfollowing separation into organic and inorganic fractions by extraction with methylene chloride. 316 Stainless steel nozzles, cyclones, and in-stackfilter holders, and glass fiber filters meeting the specifications in EPA Method 17 (in Appendix A-6 of40 

### CFR, Part60) were used with all sampling trains. All other sample-contact surfaces in the sampling trains were borosilicate glass and Teflon®. Deionized ultra-filtered water was used in the impingers for collection of condensible particulate matter. The filterable particulate matter was collected atgas stream temperature. Probe heaterswere operated atatemperature higher than that of the gas stream to prevent condensation during sampling. A digital barometer calibrated against a mercury barometer was used to measure atmospheric pressure atthe metering console. 

### 3.2.7 Filterable Particulate MatterSampling in Cyclonic Flow Particulate matter was measured according to procedures in EPA Method 5, and filterable particulate matter was extracted isokinetically from the gas stream as described above. When particulate matter is measured in agas stream with cyclonic or other nonaxial flow patterns, and another sampling location cannot 

### be found or flow straightening vanes cannot be installed upstream 

### of the sampling location, modified sampling procedures in EPA EmiSSion Measurement Center Guideline DocumentGD-OOSr, revised January, 2003 are used. Before and after each test run a velocity traverse with an unobstructed Type S pitot tube was conducted to determine the yaw angle of flow at each sampling point. Sampling was conducted isokinetically ateach sampling pointwith the unobstructed sampling nozzle rotated to point intothe gas flow (i.e., parallel tothe measured yaw angle) and using the velocity head value measured in the direction of flow to determinethe isokinetic sampling rate. Each measured velocity head was corrected to an axial velocity head using the measured yaw angle. The axial velocity heads were used in determining the average axial gas stream velocity and volumetric flow rate. The average axial gas stream velocity determined from thetraverse conducted

AirSource Technologies,Inc. 

### 11 3203before sampling commenced was used for the test run. The sampling run was acceptable ifthe deviation ofthe average axial gas stream velocity determined after sampling fromthe one determined before sampling did notexceed 10 percent.


### 3.2.8 Deviationsfrom Sampling Methods There were no deviationsfromthe published sampling methods. 

### 3.3 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 3.3.1 Analysisfor Filterable Particulate Matter AirSource Technologies, Inc. performed thegravimetric analysis ofthe EPA IVlethod 5 and 17 sampling train front-half acetone rinse and dry fraction (filtered particulate matter) samples according to procedures in EPA Method S. All sampling train components upstream of the filters were brushed and rinsed with reagent grade acetone. Rinse samples were transferred to tared sO-mL beakers, evaporated to dryness at room temperature, and desiccated for 24 hours in a desiccator. Filters along with any loose material were recovered and returned to their original petri dishes thatwere also placed in adesiccatorfor 24 hours beforeweighing. Front-half rinse sample beakers and filters in petri dishes were weighed to a constant weight (i.e., <0.5 mg change or <1% of total weight less tare weight change, whichever was greater) at intervalsofsix hours or longer. Each front-half rinse sample volume was determined from the difference between the weights of the empty sample container and the same container with sample divided by the density ofacetone for blank correction determination. The analysis data are in Appendix D, Analysis Data and Reports. 

### 3.3.2 Analysisfor Filterable PM10

### Particulate Matter AirSource Technologies, Inc. performed the gravimetric analysis of the nozzle, cyclone (>PMlO and PMlO fractions) and filter holderfront-halfacetone rinses and the dry fraction (filtered particulate matter) samples according to procedures in EPA Method 201A. All nozzles, cyclones, and filter holder front halves were brushed and rinsed with reagent grade acetone. Rinse samples were transferred totared sO-mL beakers, evaporated to dryness at room temperature, and desiccated for 24 hours in a desiccator. Filters were recovered and placed in their original petri dishes and were also placed in a desiccator for 24 hours before weighing. Front-half rinse sample beakers and filters in petri dishes were weighed to a constant weight «0.5 mg or < 1 % of total weight less tare weight change, whichever is greater) at intervals of six hours or longer. The front-half rinse sample volumes were determined by weighing the sample containers before and after transfer of the samplestotheevaporation beakersfor blankcorrection determination. 

### 3.3.3 AnalysisforCondensible Particulate Matter AirSource Technologies, Inc. performed the analysis ofthe samples recovered from and the methylene chloride rinses ofthe EPA Methods 5, 17, 201A and 202 sampling train back-halves for condensible particulate matter according to procedures in EPA Method 202. The pH ofthe solution in the first impinger ofeach ofthe recovered sampling trains was greater than 4.5, and therefore, ammonium hydroxide was not added to the aqueous (inorganic fraction) samples for ammonium sulfate formation

AirSource**Technologi~** Inc. 3203 

## 12following the extractions and evaporation. Methylene chloride extractions were performed on the recovered samples to separate the organic and inorganic condensible particulate matter fractions. The methylene chloride (organic fraction) and aqueous samples were returned to their respective sample containers after extraction. Each sample volume was determined from the difference between the weights ofthe empty sample container and the same container with sample divided by the density ofwater or methylene chloride, whichever was applicable, for blank correction determination. The volume ofgas stream condensate collected in thewet impingers of each sampling train was subtracted from the volume ofthe aqueous sample from that train before blank correction determination. The methylene chloride extracts were transferred to tared 50-mL beakers and evaporated to dryness at room temperature. The aqueous samples were transferred to 600-mL beakers and evaporated on a hot plate to about 50 mLs. These aqueous samples were then transferred totared 50-mL beakers and evaporated on a hotplateto neardryness. The residual moisture that remained was evaporated at room temperature. All samples were desiccated for 24 hours and weighed to a constant weight (i.e., <0.5 mg change or <1% of total weight less tare weight change, whichever was greater) at intervals of six hours or longer. The analysis data are in Appendix D, Analysis Data and Reports. 

### 3.3.4 Deviationsfrom Analytical Methods There were no deviationsfrom the published analytical methods.

3203 

### 13 AirSollrce**Technologi~**Inc.

# SECTION 4 - QUALITYASSURANCE/QUALITYCONTROL
The 

### QNQC procedures and requirements speCified in the EPA methods and AirSource standard operating procedures were used. Those procedures include test equipment calibrations and procedural elements of the methods. Examples of those procedural elements are test equipment leak checks, proper traversing and placement of sampling probes, and verification ofthe integrity ofmeasurement systems before and aftersampling. The performance and results ofall 

### QNQC procedures were recorded on appropriate forms, data sheets, or in computerworkbooks as appropriate. An assessment of the overall quality of the data generated for this test project was conducted. The data assessment included a review ofthe sample collection and analytical data, including calibrations. The data generated for this report are traceable and ofknown and acceptable quality.


### 4.1 COMPLETENESS The filter for Run 612 at location EP120 (Rail Receiving Dust collector) was lost while processing the sample in the field laboratoryorduringtransportto the analytical laboratory. The othertwo runs passed all ofthe method criteria and demonstrate comparable results. All othersamples specified in thetest plan were collected and analyzed. 

### 4.2 EMISSIONSSAMPUNG Sample extraction during all ofthe othertest runs was within the EPA Method 201A 100 

### ± 20% isokinetic sampling criteria (for PMlO) and the EPA Methods 5 and 17 100 

### ± 10% isokinetic sampling criteria (forfilterable particulate matter). All ofthe other sampling and particle cut size criteria in EPA Method 201A were satisfied. All ofthe final sampling train leak checks were within method criteria. All test equipment requiring calibration met the method criteria forcalibrations before and afterthetesting. 

### 4.3 ANALYSIS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER All ofthe initial and final balance-check weight values for the filter and beaker weighings were within 0.2 mg ofeach other. All ofthe initial and final balance-checkweightvalues for the field impingerweighings were within 0.2 g ofeach other.

AirSource Technologies, Inc. 

### 14 3203

# APPENDIXA
CALCULATION EQUATIONS

# APPENDIX B
CALCULATED RESULTS

# Appendix8-1 Soybean Receiving


# EP 119and 

# EP 120

## Appendix B-2 Soybean Conveying, andletDrying
EP 03, EP 103a,and EP 103b

# APPENDIXC
FIELD DATAFORMS

## AppendixC-1 Soybean Receiving
EP 119and EP 120

# AppendixC-2 Soybean Conveying, andletDrying
EP 03, EP l03a,and EP l03b

# AppendixC-7 OpacityObservation Field Data


# EP03,EP 101,EP 102,EP 103a, EP 103b\

# GravimetricAnalysis

# Appendix E-l
Pre-TestCalibrations

# Appendix E-2
Post-TestCalibrations

# APPENDIX E
PROCESS DATA