METHOD 17 PARTICULATE MATTER TESTING GLASS FIBER MANUFACTURING HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE FIBER COMPANY

Transcription

1 METHOD 17 PARTICULATE MATTER TESTING GLASS FIBER MANUFACTURING HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE FIBER COMPANY Test Dates: March 7-13, 2016 Prepared for: Hollingsworth & Vose Fiber Company 1115 SE Crystal Lake Drive Corvallis, OR Prepared by: th Avenue Helena, MT Report Date: April 29, 2016

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request of Hollingsworth and Vose, Bison Engineering, Inc. performed particulate emissions testing on two sources at their glass manufacturing facility in Corvallis, Oregon. Testing was conducted at Glass Plant 2, Stack L4S1, and Glass Plant 1, Stack L3S2 (Rotary Fine and Rotary Coarse modes). Testing was performed in accordance with EPA Method 17 guidelines. Results from the March 7-13, 2016, testing project are summarized in the following report. HAV Test Report Page ii

3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ii CERTIFICATION OF REPORT INTEGRITY... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION Test Program Organization Project Personnel Bison Engineering, Inc Hollingsworth & Vose Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) EMISSION SOURCE INFORMATION Facility Description Emission Source Description EMISSIONS TEST SUMMARY Test Plan Summary of Results Field Notes TESTING PROCEDURES Sampling Site Locations QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL Documentation and Tracking Sampling Protocol Quality Assurance Instrument Calibration, Maintenance and Standards Data Acquisition, Reductions and Validation LIST OF TABLES Table 1: HAV Test Matrix... 5 Table 2: Flameblown Results M Table 3: Rotary Coarse Results M Table 4: Rotary Fine Results M Table 5: Testing Equipment Calibration and Audit Procedures Matrix HAV Test Report Page iv

5 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: METHOD 17 TEST DATA LABORATORY REPORT NOMENCLATURE & FORMULAE CALIBRATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS HAV Test Report Page v

6 1.0 INTRODUCTION Bison Engineering, Inc. (Bison) was retained by Hollingsworth and Vose (HAV) to perform informational particulate matter testing at their Corvallis, Oregon glass manufacturing plant. This report presents test results, summarizes onsite events, and gives operating conditions of the process during the test. The appendices of this report contain field data, detailed spreadsheets, production data, nomenclature and formulae, and equipment calibrations and audits. 1.2 Test Program Organization The following personnel were on-site during the emissions test or were associated with the project Bison Engineering, Inc. Chris Hiltunen, P.E., Field Services Department Manager, served as project manager for this testing campaign. The onsite testing team was led by David Blankenship, Project Scientist, and consisted of Brett Peppin, Environmental Technician; Adam Bender, Environmental Scientist; Kelly Dorsi, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist; Kellen Sullivan, Environmental Scientist; Steve Ehresman, Staff Engineer and Brittany Buchholz, Staff Engineer. The primary contact from Bison is Chris Hiltunen. Chris Hiltunen, P.E. Field Services Department Manager th Avenue, Ste. 200 Helena, Montana Office: (406) Hollingsworth & Vose Ms. Anita Ragan is the primary contact for H&V. Ms. Ragan was present onsite for the duration of the testing. Anita Ragan EHS Manager 1115 Crystal Lake Drive Corvallis, OR Office: (541) HAV Test Report Page 1

7 1.2.3 Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) Golder Associates monitored process data during all test runs. Geoff Scott is the primary contact for Golder. He or another Golder representative was onsite during all runs. Geoff Scott Senior Engineer 9 Monroe Parkway, Suite 270 Lake Oswego, OR Geoff_scott@golder.com (503) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) Although this portion of testing was for informational purposes only, Mr. Eisele was onsite for a portion of the Method 17 testing. Mike Eisele Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR Office: (503) HAV Test Report Page 2

8 2.0 EMISSION SOURCE INFORMATION 2.1 Facility Description H&V owns and operates two glass plant facilities located in Corvallis, Oregon. H&V manufactures specialty glass fiber for use in air and liquid filtration media and in batteries. Glass Plant 1 hosts the L3S1 (Rotary Coarse and Rotary Fine exhaust) and Furnace (FSS) stacks. The Flameblown stack (L4S1) is located at nearby Glass Plant 2. Emissions from these exhaust stacks are controlled by wet scrubbers. 2.2 Emission Sources Descriptions The following sections describe the two stacks tested L3S2 Glass Plant 1 (GP1) Stack Diameter: 78 inches Distance A (Method 1): 40 inches (0.5 duct diameters) Distance B (Method 1): 156 inches (2 duct diameters) Number of traverse points utilized: 24 L3S2 is the left stack in the photo below. Both Rotary Fine and Rotary Coarse processes were tested on this stack. HAV Test Report Page 3

9 2.2.2 L4S1 (Flameblown) Glass Plant 2 (GP2) Stack Diameter: 70.5 inches Distance A (Method 1): 100 inches (1.4 duct diameters) Distance B (Method 1): 300 inches (4.25 duct diameters) Number of traverse points utilized: 24 L4S1 is accessible via the rooftop of GP2. The process known as flameblown was tested on this stack. HAV Test Report Page 4

10 3.0 EMISSIONS TEST SUMMARY 3.1 Test Plan Bison performed the testing according to the following matrix. Table 1: Method 17 (M17) Test Matrix Hollingsworth & Vose Particulate Engineering Testing M17 Test Matrix Source Method Parameter Test Plan and Comments L4S1 L3S2 Method 17 Particulate Matter Three 60 min runs per source 3.2 Summary of Results The following tables present the results from this emissions testing project. HAV Test Report Page 5

11 Table 2: Flameblown Results M17 Hollingsworth & Vose Corvallis, OR Flameblown 3/7/16 3/9/16 Method 17 Total Filterable Particulate Units Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 AVG Stack Flow dscf/min 46,565 44,683 43,531 44,926 acfm 52,621 51,091 50,589 51,434 Total Particulate Mass g grains (gr) Total PM Mass Rate gr/dscf lbs/hr % Insoluble Matter % 25.5% 41.2% 30.7% 32.5% Insoluble Matter Mass Rate lbs/hr % Soluble Matter % 74.5% 58.8% 69.3% 67.5% Soluble Matter Mass Rate lbs/hr *Runs 1 and 2 were voided. Runs 3 through 5 are presented here. See section 3.3 for a discussion. HAV Test Report Page 6

12 Table 3: Rotary Coarse Results M17 Hollingsworth & Vose Corvallis, OR Rotary Coarse 3/13/16 Method 17 Total Filterable Particulate Units Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AVG Stack Flow dscf/min 20,123 20,099 20,181 20,134 acfm 21,940 22,054 22,052 22,015 Total Particulate Mass g grains (gr) Total PM Mass Rate gr/dscf Voided* Voided* lbs/hr % Insoluble Matter % % 48.3% Insoluble Matter Mass Rate lbs/hr % Soluble Matter % % 51.7% Soluble Matter Mass Rate lbs/hr *Problems were encountered with these runs. Please see Section 3.3 for further discussion. HAV Test Report Page 7

13 Table 4: Rotary Fine Results M17 Hollingsworth & Vose Corvallis, OR Rotary Fine 3/13/16 Method 17 Total Filterable Particulate Units Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AVG Stack Flow dscf/min 19,052 19,447 19,876 19,459 acfm 22,096 22,333 22,671 22,367 Total Particulate Mass g grains (gr) Total PM Mass Rate gr/dscf lbs/hr % Insoluble Matter % 39.3% 35.7% 36.7% 37.2% Insoluble Matter Mass Rate lbs/hr % Soluble Matter % 60.7% 64.3% 63.3% 62.8% Soluble Matter Mass Rate lbs/hr Plant Operations The operating parameters of the scrubbers and other processes were overseen by representatives of Golder Associates. All emissions control devices were running normally at the time of the tests. Details of plant operations, including glass production rates and natural gas firing rates, are contained in a separate report from Golder Associates. 3.3 Field Notes All testing listed in this report was performed with strict adherence to EPA Method 17 with the following exceptions. Runs 1 and 2 on Flameblown were cut short as water vapor saturated the filters causing the vacuum pressure to max-out over a short period of time. We surmised that water condensation inside the cold metal M17 filter holder may have been causing the problem. For subsequent runs the filter housing was preheated at 250 F inside a filter box for 15 mins prior to each run. This greatly increased achievable run times. Additional M17 test runs (Runs 4 and 5) were HAV Test Report Page 8

14 conducted on 3/9/16 at the Flameblown source in order to achieve three full hour-long runs on that source. For consistency, earlier shorter Flameblown runs (1 and 2), which were not preheated, are not included in the analyses presented here. M17 proved especially challenging for the 3/13/16 Rotary Coarse process testing. We are not sure what exactly went wrong but we do know it was consistent across the three hour-long M17 runs. The following observations were noted: o Filters were saturated at the end of each run making them flakey and very difficult to remove from filter housings without damage. o It was observed that the impinger water was cloudy and oily looking posttest; something not observed during earlier M5 testing. o Moisture gains for these M17 runs did not align with Method 5 test runs performed on the same source at an earlier date. Rotary Coarse Runs 1 and 2 showed no gain on the filters and therefore have not been used for mass rate calculations. Data obtained for Run 3 should be used with caution for the reasons described above. Please note that pre-weighed filters were supplied by an outside laboratory, R.J. Lee. The filters were then sent back to R.J. Lee after exposure, and they completed post-weighing and analysis. Their reports can be found in Appendix B. In general the quartz fiber filters provided by RJ Lee were non-ideal for sampling at the moisture levels found in all stacks tested at H&V. HAV Test Report Page 9

15 4.0 TESTING PROCEDURES 4.1 Test Methods and Procedures Bison testing personnel performed the following EPA methods described in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60, Appendix A. EPA Reference Method 1, "Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources." The objective of Method 1 is to determine a suitable location for testing and to determine the velocity and/or sample points for the source. The distance upstream to atmosphere from the sampling ports (Distance A) is measured and the distance downstream to the nearest disturbance from the sample points (Distance B) is measured. Distances A and B are applied to Method 1, Figure 1-1 for particulate matter (PM) sampling points or Figure 1-2 for velocity measurement points. These figures give the minimum number of sample points according to the dimensions of the source. The number of points and the stack diameter are then applied to Method 1, Table 1-2 to determine equal area measurement points within the source. The results of Method 1 sampling location and sample or velocity point measurement locations are included in a report appendix. EPA Reference Method 2, "Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type-S Pitot Tube)." The objective of Method 2 is to measure stack gas velocity, collect temperature data, and calculate a volumetric flow. Method 2 velocity measurements are performed using a Type S pitot tube. Differential pressures are measured using an inclined manometer or a digital manometer, and temperatures are measured using a k-type thermal indicator. Bison has incorporated 0.84 as the Type S pitot tube coefficient (Cp). The average velocity, temperature, static pressure, and source area are used to calculate volumetric flow within the source. The field data is recorded on field data sheets or directly entered into spreadsheets. Copies of the field data, results from the flow calculations, and calibration data are included in the report appendices. EPA Reference Method 3, "Gas analysis for the determination of dry molecular weight." The objective of Method 3 is to determine the molecular weight (MW) of the source stream and to determine oxygen (O 2 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentrations in the stack gas stream. Method 3 Section 1.3 allows the use of 29 for ambient conditions and 30 for combustion sources burning coal, oil or natural gas in lieu of performing actual measurements. EPA Reference Method 4, "Determination of Moisture Content in the Stack Gases." Concurrent with Method 5. Method 5 testing allows the option to obtain Method 4 moistures via the Method 5 sampling system sampled while maintaining an isokinetic sampling rate. The objective of Method 4 is to determine the moisture content of a gas stream. The principle of the method is to impinge a sample through chilled water and silica gel which captures any source gas moisture. The moisture is removed HAV Test Report Page 10

16 from the sample stream and the volume (or mass) of water extracted is determined. The sample volume and water volume (or mass) are used to calculate the moisture content of the stack gas. Method quality assurance is to perform a pre- and post-test dry gas meter (DGM) calibration. The DGM calibration data is included in an appendix of this report. The impinger waters are volumetrically measured on-site and the silica gels are weighed on-site. The sampling data is hand-recorded on field data sheets and then entered into spreadsheets for moisture determination calculations. Method 17, Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources. (In Stack Filtration Method, Methods 2 & 4 Inclusive), The objective of Method 17 is to determine the filterable particulate matter (PM) from a source. Method 17 is an isokinetic sampling method (i.e., the velocity of sample stream entering the nozzle is approximately equal to the velocity of the approaching sample stream) for determination of PM. The exhaust gas stream is sampled along a cross-section of the stack and PM is captured within the nozzle and filter assembly with a 0.3 micron pore size glass fiber filter. The filter is maintained at stack temperature followed by probe and impingers maintained at a temperature below 68 F. Bison uses a Method 17 sampling train with a stainless steel filter assembly and nozzle to gather the particulate sample. Method 17 incorporates Method 2 "velocity measurements" and Method 4 "moisture measurements." Field data, spreadsheet calculations, example calculations, and pitot tube, probe alignment and thermal indicator calibrations are included in a report appendix. Method 17 is very much like Method 5 with the exception of using an in-stack filter rather than a heated filter following the probe. This allows the use of a flexible probe (the filter assembly/nozzle is connected to the condenser glassware by the flex line) in hard to sample situations. HAV Test Report Page 11

17 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 5.1 Documentation and Tracking Bison uses a project number for document control and tracking for all projects. Each project that Bison works on is assigned a project number. All documentation pertaining to that project is filed in the same place under that project number. This assures all pertinent information can be found easily at a later date. The tracking number for this project is HAV Bison's testing project leader signs an Emission Source Test Certification to document and authenticate that the testing was performed according to the methods and applicable requirements. 5.2 Sampling Protocol Bison's test, laboratory, reporting, and quality assurance procedures conform to the requirements specified in the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Vol. III, Stationary Source Specific Methods, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in August, 1977, as revised and amended (cat. #EPA-600/ b). The individual test methods specify handling procedures for physical samples (liquids, traps, etc.). Bison follows the procedures outlined in the appropriate methods as described in EPA 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A and Appendix B. 5.3 Quality Assurance Bison s quality assurance program is designed to ensure that all source testing methods are followed and are performed by competent, experienced personnel. Bison s equipment is properly calibrated and maintained in good working order. Procedures for sample collection, recovery, and analysis are performed according to applicable EPA methods. Bison's practices conform to the procedures in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 3, EPA-600/ , 1977, as amended. Bison personnel calibrate equipment and instruments using standards when applicable or per the procedures of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Bison s equipment is manufactured to meet all applicable EPA criteria and parameters. Bison defines a calibration as the procedure of changing a measurement system or device to match a constant or standard measurement system or device; an audit checks the variance between the value and a standard or a pre-calibration. HAV Test Report Page 12

18 Emission testing quality assurance checks and quality controls (QA/QC) require three steps: before, during, and after field testing. Before QA/QC procedures are performed in Bison s lab, during QA/QC checks are recorded on the field data sheets, and after QA/QC procedures are performed at Bison s lab. These data can be found in the appendices. The following table describes Bison s QA/QC, calibration and audit procedures and schedule. Table 5: Testing Equipment Calibration and Audit Procedures Matrix Parameter or Unit Isolated Type S pitot tubes Temperature gauges Schedule and Requirement Method Reference Report Location Calibration prior to initial field use. Method 2, 10.1 Report appendix Re-examined after each field use. Method 2, Report appendix Audited on-site and/or after each field use. Method 2, Report appendix Barometer Calibrated against Hg barometer. Method 2, 10.4 Metering system Log maintained at Bison office Calibration prior to use. Method 5, Report appendix Calibration after use. Method 5, Report appendix and report table Balance Audit weights before/after each use - Report appendix 5.4 Instrument Calibration, Maintenance and Standards Bison uses a field barometric pressure gauge that is calibrated prior to each field deployment against a mercury-in-glass standard barometer. Temperature calibrations are performed using a mercury-in-glass NIST-traceable thermometer. 5.5 Data Acquisition, Reductions and Validation Test data such as velocities, temperatures and isokinetic sampling are hand-recorded on field datasheets. The data is then entered into computer spreadsheets where QC/QA and emission calculations are performed according to the methods. An appendix of this report contains nomenclature and formulae for reference. All raw field data is supplied in an appendix to this report. The appendices also contain some example calculations; additional examples will be supplied upon request. HAV Test Report Page 13

19 APPENDIX A: METHOD 17 PM DATA

20 Bison Engineering Method17 PM Test COMPANY Hollingsworth & Vose FACILITY Glass Point 2 LOCATION SOURCE Corvallis, OR Flameblown DATE 3/7/16

21 Client Facility Location Source Flameblown Test date 3/7/2016 3/9/2016 3/9/2016 Start time 20:47 15:13 18:07 End Time 21:51 16:21 19:13 Test run THREE FOUR FIVE Preliminary info Barometric pressure [Bp] "Hg Stack Diameter inch Stack exit area sqft Meter box ID Meter box, Yi Meter box delta, H@ Pitot tube coefficient, Cp Test Information Nozzle size [nz] inch Filter number Sample points Point duration min Test duration min AVERAGE Isokinetics [i] % Sample volume, eq 4.3 dscf Avgerage delta P H 2 O Average sqrt delta P H 2 O Average meter box delta H H 2 O Average meter temp [Tm] deg F Leak check volume dscfm Stack Information AVERAGE Avg stack temp [Ts] deg F Actual stack flow acfm 52,621 51,091 50,589 51,434 Actual stack velocity [Vs] ft/sec Standard stack flow dscfm 46,565 44,683 43,531 44,926 Measured stack moisture [bws], eq 4.4 % v/v Wet standard cfm wscfm 49,440 47,728 47,127 48,098 Measured static pressure H 2 O Stack pressure [ps] Hg Oxygen content %O Carbon dioxide content %CO Lab Information Hollingsworth & Vose Glass Point 2 Corvallis, OR Wet (Actual) Molecular Weight, M s lb/lb.mole Dry Molecular Weight, M d lb/lb.mole AVERAGE Impinger H 2 O Gain mls Impinger H 2 O volume [Vwc(STD)], eq 4.1 scf Silica Gel H 2 O Gain grams (g) Silica Gel volume [V sg (STD)], eq 4.2 scf Particulate Matter less blank (PM) g PM less BLANK grains (gr) Emissions AVERAGE Method 17 Particulate Matter [PM] gr/dscf Measured Bws PM mass rate lbs/hr % Insoluble Matter % 25.5% 41.2% 30.7% 32.5% Insoluble Particulate Mass Rate lbs/hr

22 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: KLS Spreadsheet data checked by: KJD Hollingsworth & Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 8 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (P s ) Glass Point 2 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 75 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2 O, (Bws) * Corvallis, OR Port Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) SOURCE Meter Box No. 9 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Flameblown Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 102 Avg sqrt Delta P Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) /7/2016 Stack Temp, F 102 Static Pres 1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.33 O Impinger H 2 O Gain (g) 58 THREE Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2 O Gain (g) 14.9 START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp :47 / 21:51 EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume

23 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: KLS Spreadsheet data checked by: KJD Hollingsworth & Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 7 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (Ps) Glass Point 2 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 70 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2 O, (Bws) * Corvallis, OR Port 0 Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) SOURCE Meter Box No. 9 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Flameblown Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 105 Avg sqrt Delta P Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) /9/2016 Stack Temp, F 102 Static Pres 1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.30 O Impinger H 2 O Gain (g) 62 FOUR Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2 O Gain (g) 11.9 START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp :13 / 16:21 EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume

24 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: KLS Spreadsheet data checked by: KJD Hollingsworth & Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 7 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (Ps) Glass Point 2 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 70 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2 O, (Bws) * Corvallis, OR Port 0 Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) SOURCE Meter Box No. 9 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Flameblown Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 107 Avg sqrt Delta P Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) /9/2016 Stack Temp, F 103 Static Pres 1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.29 O Impinger H 2 O Gain (g) 74 FIVE Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2 O Gain (g) 13.8 START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp :07 / 19:13 EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume

25 BEAKER/FILTER TARES, FINAL WEIGHTS and GAINS BISON ENGINEERING LABORATORY RECORD CLIENT Test Date: Hollingsworth & Vose 3/7/2016 Glass Point 2 Flameblown DATA ENTRY CELLS CALCULATED CELL CONTENT Sample Lab Lab Weight Gains Blanks Test Run Sample Description Volume Avg TARE Avg FINAL Net Gains Gains per (mls, #) grams grams grams grams volumes Final Lab Results cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank THREE CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-58 = 58 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 14.9 grams cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank FOUR CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-62 = 62 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 11.9 grams cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank FIVE CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-74 = 74 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 13.8 grams Acetone Blank vol - = Blank Gain Percent residue 0 % Report all weights to g. Record sample volumes in colum 4. "Constant weight" means </= g difference between 2 weighings at least 6 hours apart OR 2 </= 1% of the average total weight less average tare weight. Acetone Blank must be no greater than percent residue M5-3.2, negative blank gains, within the tolorance of the scale, shall be counted as zero gain.

26 Bison Engineering Method 17 Spreadsheet PM Test COMPANY FACILITY LOCATION SOURCE Hollingsworth and Vose GP1 Corvallis, OR Rotary Coarse DATE 3/13/16

27 Client Facility Location Source Rotary Coarse Test date 3/13/2016 3/13/2016 3/13/2016 Start time 8:20 9:54 11:22 End time 9:26 10:57 12:26 Test run One Two Three Preliminary info Barometric pressure [Bp] "Hg Stack Diameter inch Stack exit area sqft Meter box ID Meter box, Yi Meter box delta, H@ Pitot tube coefficient, Cp Test Information Nozzle size [nz] inch Filter number Sample points Point duration min Test duration min AVERAGE Isokinetics [i] % Sample volume, eq 4.3 dscf Avgerage delta P H 2 O Average sqrt delta P H 2 O Average meter box delta H H 2 O Average meter temp [Tm] deg F Leak check volume dscfm Stack Information AVERAGE Avg stack temp [Ts] deg F Actual stack flow acfm 21,940 22,054 22,052 22,015 Actual stack velocity [Vs] ft/sec Standard stack flow dscfm 20,123 20,099 20,181 20,134 Measured stack moisture [bws], eq 4.4 % v/v Wet standard cfm wscfm 20,416 20,528 20,547 20,497 Dry standard stack flow dscfm 20,123 20,100 20,180 20,134 Measured static pressure H 2 O Stack pressure [ps] Hg Oxygen content %O Carbon dioxide content %CO Lab Information Hollingsworth and Vose GP1 Corvallis, OR Wet (Actual) Molecular Weight, M s lb/lb.mole Dry Molecular Weight, M d lb/lb.mole AVERAGE Impinger H 2 O Gain mls Impinger H 2 O volume [Vwc(STD)], eq 4.1 scf Silica Gel H 2 O Gain grams (g) Silica Gel volume [V sg (STD)], eq 4.2 scf Particulate Matter less blank (PM) g PM less BLANK grains (gr) Emissions AVERAGE Method 17 Particulate Matter [PM] gr/dscf Measured Bws PM mass rate lbs/hr % Insoluble Matter % 48.3% 48.3% Insoluble Particulate Mass Rate lbs/hr % Soluble Matter % 51.7% 51.7% Soluble Matter Mass Rate lbs/hr

28 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: Spreadsheet data checked by: Hollingsworth and Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 7 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (P s) GP1 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 65 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2O, (Bws) * Corvallis, OR Port Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) 97.6 C A L C U L A T I O N S SOURCE Meter Box No. 8 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Total water gain 14.9 grams Rotary Coarse Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 112 Avg sqrt Delta P Meter Temp, R 525 Tr Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Nozzle area (ft^) Narea 3/13/2016 Stack Temp, F 100 Static Pres 0.1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Stack Temp, R(Ts) 560 Ts Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.03 O 2 20 Impinger H 2O Gain (g) 6.0 Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Ms One Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2O Gain (g) 8.9 Dry mol. wt. (Md) Md START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp 0.84 Stack vol. (std-dry) Vs(std) 8:20 / 9:26 T E S T M E T E R EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K POINT Calc SQRT Volume Volume Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D NUMBER cu. ft. Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm K dp std per min Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm avg sqrt dp Vol std dscf/m NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg Process change? *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F Oily/foggy impinger catch. *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume Something funny happened with these three runs.

29 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: 0 Spreadsheet data checked by: 0 Hollingsworth and Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 7 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (Ps) GP1 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 65 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2O, (Bws) * Corvallis, OR Port 0 Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) C A L C U L A T I O N S SOURCE Meter Box No. 8 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Total water gain 22.1 grams Rotary Coarse Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 113 Avg sqrt Delta P Meter Temp, R 525 Tr Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Narea 3/13/2016 Stack Temp, F 99 Static Pres 0.1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Stack Temp, R(Ts) Ts Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.04 O Impinger H 2O Gain (g) 14 Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Ms Two Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2O Gain (g) 8.1 Dry mol. wt. (Md) Md START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp 0.84 Stack vol. (std-dry) Vs(std) 9:54 / 10:57 T E S T M E T E R EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K POINT Calc SQRT Volume Volume Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D NUMBER cu. ft. Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm K dp std per min Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm avg sqrt dp Vol std dscf/m NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume

30 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: 0 Spreadsheet data checked by: 0 Hollingsworth and Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 7 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (Ps) GP1 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 65 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2 O, (Bws) * Corvallis, OR Port 0 Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) C A L C U L A T I O N S SOURCE Meter Box No. 8 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Total water gain 19.1 grams Rotary Coarse Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 114 Avg sqrt Delta P Meter Temp, R 525 Tr Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Nozzle area (ft^) Narea 3/13/2016 Stack Temp, F 99 Static Pres 0.1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Stack Temp, R(Ts) Ts Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.04 O 2 20 Impinger H 2 O Gain (g) 10 Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Ms Three Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2 O Gain (g) 9.1 Dry mol. wt. (Md) Md START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp 0.84 Stack vol. (std-dry) Vs(std) 11:22 / 12:26 T E S T M E T E R EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K POINT Calc SQRT Volume Volume Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D NUMBER cu. ft. Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm K dp std per min Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm avg sqrt dp Vol std dscf/m NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume

31 BEAKER/FILTER TARES, FINAL WEIGHTS and GAINS BISON ENGINEERING LABORATORY RECORD CLIENT Test Date: Hollingsworth and Vose 3/13/2016 GP1 Rotary Coarse DATA ENTRY CELLS CALCULATED CELL CONTENT Sample Lab Lab Weight Gains Blanks Test Run Sample Description Volume Avg TARE Avg FINAL Net Gains Gains per (mls, #) grams grams grams grams volumes Final Lab Results cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts 75 - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank One CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-6 = 6 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 8.9 grams cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts 86 - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank Two CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-14 = 14 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 8.1 grams cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts 62 - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank Three CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-10 = 10 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 9.1 grams Acetone Blank vol - = Blank Gain Percent residue 0 % Report all weights to g. Record sample volumes in colum 4. "Constant weight" means </= g difference between 2 weighings at least 6 hours apart OR 2 </= 1% of the average total weight less average tare weight. Acetone Blank must be no greater than percent residue M5-3.2, negative blank gains, within the tolorance of the scale, shall be counted as zero gain.

32 Bison Engineering Method 17 Spreadsheet PM Test COMPANY FACILITY LOCATION SOURCE Hollingsworth & Vose GP1 Corvallis, OR Rotary Fine DATE 3/13/16

33 Client Facility Location Source Rotary Fine Test date 3/13/2016 3/13/2016 3/13/2016 Start time 14:57 16:48 18:25 Test run One Two Three Preliminary info Barometric pressure [Bp] "Hg Stack Diameter inch Stack exit area sqft Meter box ID Meter box, Yi Meter box delta, H@ Pitot tube coefficient, Cp Test Information Nozzle size [nz] inch Filter number Sample points Point duration min Test duration min AVERAGE Isokinetics [i] % Sample volume, eq 4.3 dscf Avgerage delta P H 2 O Average sqrt delta P H 2 O Average meter box delta H H 2 O Average meter temp [Tm] deg F Leak check volume dscfm Stack Information AVERAGE Avg stack temp [Ts] deg F Actual stack flow acfm 22,096 22,333 22,671 22,367 Actual stack velocity [Vs] ft/sec Standard stack flow dscfm 19,052 19,447 19,876 19,459 Measured stack moisture [bws], eq 4.4 % v/v Wet standard cfm wscfm 20,450 20,639 21,032 20,707 Dry standard stack flow dscfm 19,056 19,448 19,876 19,460 Measured static pressure H 2 O Stack pressure [ps] Hg Oxygen content %O Carbon dioxide content %CO Lab Information Hollingsworth & Vose GP1 Corvallis, OR Wet (Actual) Molecular Weight, M s lb/lb.mole Dry Molecular Weight, M d lb/lb.mole AVERAGE Impinger H 2 O Gain mls Impinger H 2 O volume [Vwc(STD)], eq 4.1 scf Silica Gel H 2 O Gain grams (g) Silica Gel volume [V sg (STD)], eq 4.2 scf Particulate Matter less blank (PM) g PM less BLANK grains (gr) Emissions AVERAGE Method 17 Particulate Matter [PM] gr/dscf Measured Bws PM mass rate lbs/hr % Insoluble Matter % 39.3% 35.7% 36.7% 37.2% Insoluble Particulate Mass Rate lbs/hr % Soluble Matter % 60.7% 64.3% 63.3% 62.8% Soluble Matter Mass Rate lbs/hr

34 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: KLS Spreadsheet data checked by: KJD Hollingsworth & Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 7 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (P s) GP1 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 65 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2O, (Bws) * Corvallis, OR Port Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) C A L C U L A T I O N S SOURCE Meter Box No. 8 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Total water gain 75.1 grams Rotary Fine Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 109 Avg sqrt Delta P Meter Temp, R 525 Tr Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Nozzle area (ft^) Narea 3/13/2016 Stack Temp, F 100 Static Pres 0.1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Stack Temp, R(Ts) 560 Ts Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.03 O Impinger H 2O Gain (g) 64 Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Ms One Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2O Gain (g) 11.1 Dry mol. wt. (Md) Md START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp 0.84 Stack vol. (std-dry) Vs(std) 14:57 / 16:05 T E S T M E T E R EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K POINT Calc SQRT Volume Volume Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D NUMBER cu. ft. Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm K dp std per min Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm avg sqrt dp Vol std dscf/m NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume

35 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: KLS Spreadsheet data checked by: KJD Hollingsworth & Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 7 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (Ps) GP1 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 65 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2O, (Bws) * Corvallis, OR Port 0 Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) C A L C U L A T I O N S SOURCE Meter Box No. 8 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Total water gain 64 grams Rotary Fine Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 110 Avg sqrt Delta P Meter Temp, R 525 Tr Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Narea 3/13/2016 Stack Temp, F 101 Static Pres 0.1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Stack Temp, R(Ts) Ts Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.04 O Impinger H 2O Gain (g) 53 Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Ms Two Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2O Gain (g) 11 Dry mol. wt. (Md) Md START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp 0.84 Stack vol. (std-dry) Vs(std) 16:48 / 17:56 T E S T M E T E R EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K POINT Calc SQRT Volume Volume Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D NUMBER cu. ft. Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm K dp std per min Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm avg sqrt dp Vol std dscf/m NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume

36 CLIENT Spreadsheet data entered by: KLS Spreadsheet data checked by: KJD Hollingsworth & Vose FACILITY PRELIMINARY INFO. Bp (Pm) (in.hg) PRE TEST INFO Assumed moisture % 7 POST TEST CALCULATIONS Stack press. (Ps) GP1 Width, in Lngth, in Diam, in Rnd, sqft Rect, sqft Assumed Meter Temp, F 65 Total Run Time 60 LOCATION Time per Point 2.5 Actual % H 2O, (Bws) *1 5.5 Corvallis, OR Port 0 Stack Area Nozzle Dia (in.) Actual Isokinetic Avg, (I) C A L C U L A T I O N S SOURCE Meter Box No. 8 Yi Total Number of Points 24 Dry STD Meter Vol * Total water gain 61.9 grams Rotary Fine Meter Box Delta H@ Filter No. 111 Avg sqrt Delta P Meter Temp, R 525 Tr Date TRAVERSE INFO. POST TEST DATA Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Nozzle area (ft^) Narea 3/13/2016 Stack Temp, F 101 Static Pres 0.1 Leak check vol, dcf Dry mol. wt. (Md) Stack Temp, R(Ts) Ts Test Run Aquired avg. delta P 0.04 O Impinger H 2O Gain (g) 52 Wet mol. wt. (Ms) Ms Three Recommended Nz dia CO Silica Gel H 2O Gain (g) 9.9 Dry mol. wt. (Md) Md START TIME / END TIME Pitot tube constant, Cp 0.84 Stack vol. (std-dry) Vs(std) 18:25 / 19:34 T E S T M E T E R EPA Method 5 Isokinetic Spreadsheet Assumed Actual S T A C K POINT Calc SQRT Volume Volume Point Sample MetrVol Vel head Calc Run Stack Meter Temp Point Point A C T U A L S T A N D A R D NUMBER cu. ft. Number Time delta P delta H delta H Temp In Out % I % I Vel ft/sec Flow acfm Vel dsft/sec Flow dscfm K dp std per min Sample Volume avg dp avg dh avg Ts avg Tm ft/sec acfm dsft/sec dscfm avg sqrt dp Vol std dscf/m NOTES: *1 Moisture calculation based on water capture weights Barometric Standard condition is inhg *2 Dry Std Meter Vol calaulation does include "Yi" Source Standard Temperature is 68 deg F *3 x next to meter vol indicates assumed Meter Volume

37 BEAKER/FILTER TARES, FINAL WEIGHTS and GAINS BISON ENGINEERING LABORATORY RECORD CLIENT Test Date: Hollingsworth & Vose 3/13/2016 GP1 Rotary Fine DATA ENTRY CELLS CALCULATED CELL CONTENT Sample Lab Lab Weight Gains Blanks Test Run Sample Description Volume Avg TARE Avg FINAL Net Gains Gains per (mls, #) grams grams grams grams volumes Final Lab Results cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts 94 - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank One CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-64 = 64 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 11.1 grams cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts 60 - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank Two CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-53 = 53 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 11.0 grams cyclone rinse vol & wgts - = PM Gain Acetone PM gain less blank probe rinse vol & wgts 99 - = grams filter # & wgts = Back half Water CPMI gain less blank Three CPM Inorganics vol & wgts - = grams CPM Organics vol & wgts - = Hexane CPMO gain less blank impinger H2O init & fin vol, mls 0-52 = 52 mls grams silica gel H2O int & fin wgts., grams = 9.9 grams Acetone Blank vol - = Blank Gain Percent residue 0 % Report all weights to g. Record sample volumes in colum 4. "Constant weight" means </= g difference between 2 weighings at least 6 hours apart OR 2 </= 1% of the average total weight less average tare weight. Acetone Blank must be no greater than percent residue M5-3.2, negative blank gains, within the tolorance of the scale, shall be counted as zero gain.

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49 APPENDIX B: LABORATORY REPORT

50 April 1 st, 2016 Mr. Chad Darby Senior Consultant Golder Associates, Inc. 9 Monroe Parkway, Suite 270 Lake Oswego, OR RE: Analysis of Stack Samples (FB - Flame Blown) SUMMARY REPORT RJ Lee Group Project Number LLH (work orders IN P005 and IN P009) Dear Chad, The stack samples listed in Table 1 were received by RJ Lee Group (RJLG) on 3/10/16 and 3/11/16 for analysis. The samples were collected following EPA Method 17 stack sampling procedures and each test run consisted of nozzle rinse, filter and back-half rinse samples. The analytical procedures performed on the samples are described in the Experimental section of this report. Table 1. Identification of stack samples for stack tests Run 1 through Run 5 for FB. RJLG Sample ID: Client Sample ID: D.I. H2O Blank Run 1 Nozzle Rinse Run 1 Back Half (1 of 2) Run 1 Back Half (2 of 2) Run 2 Nozzle Rinse Run 2 Back Half (1 of 2) Run 2 Back Half (2 of 2) Run 3 Nozzle Rinse Run 3 Back Half (1 of 2) Run 3 Back Half (2 of 2) I.D. 100 Filter run I.D. 101 Filter run I.D. 102 Filter run I.D. 103 Field Blank M17 Run 4; Container 2 (nozzle rinse) M17 Run 4; Cont. #3 (back half) M17 Run 5; Cont. #2 (nozzle rinse) M17 Run 5; Cont. #3 (back half) FILTER Run FILTER Run 5 Privileged and Confidential Work Product

51 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 2 of 5 Experimental For each stack test, three samples were generated which consisted of: 1) nozzle rinse using deionized water; 2) the Method 17 quartz filter and 3) the back-half rinse using deionized water and the impinger solution consisting of deionized water. Upon receipt, the final volume of each nozzle rinse was measured (see Table 2) and then filtered to remove any insoluble particulate using a pre-weighed filter (0.4 µm HTTP polycarbonate). The resulting rinse filter was dried and weighed to determine the mass of particulate collected. The aqueous nozzle rinse solution was split. One portion was acidified and analyzed by ICP-AES (inductive coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy) for cations using EPA 6010 C and the other portion (not acidified) was analyzed by IC (ionic chromatography) for anions using EPA Based on the final volume of the rinsate solution the total mass (in mg) for each analyte was calculated for each solution. The stack filter sample was desiccated and weighed (gross weight) and subtracted from the tare weight to get total filter particulate mass. The filter was then cut in half. One half of the filter was retained for any possible further analysis while the remaining half was leached with double deionized water for 1 hour. Part of the leachate was filtered to remove any insoluble particulate and the resulting solution was analyzed by ICP-AES and IC as described above for the nozzle rinse. Results were calculated as total mg/filter taking into account the final leachate volume and the fact that the filter was cut in half (the actual conversion factor was determined by dividing the total filter weight by the weight of the half filter used for the leaching). The initial mass of the filter minus the mass of cations and anions in the leachate was used to determine the mass of insoluble particulate collected. The final volume for each of the back-half rinse and impinger solutions was measured (see Table 2) upon receipt and then split (no filtering). One portion was acidified and analyzed by ICP-AES for cations using EPA 6010 C and the other portion (not acidified) was analyzed by IC for anions using EPA Based on the final volume of the rinsate solution the total mass (in mg) for each analyte was calculated for each solution. For the cases where multiple containers were sent for the same run the final volume represents the total volume in both containers. Tables 3 through 7 summarize the results for each run and present the amount of total particulate; amount of undissolved (insoluble particulate) and soluble particulate found in each run. Filtered solids that did not leach were assumed to be the insoluble fraction of the particulate collected. For the purpose of these tables non-detected results are treated as zero. In Tables 3 to 7 below the Total Dissolved Solids is the summation of all the analyte results (as mg) determined by ICP-AES/IC analysis. The Undissolved solids is the difference of the particulate found in the filter minus the total dissolved solids for that sample or the amount of filtered solids in the nozzle rinse sample. The total mass is the summation of the total dissolved solids for the nozzle and back half portions of the samples plus the particulate weight of the filter plus (if present) the particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse portion. The % "insoluble particulate" content represents the ratio of the undissolved solids for the filter plus the filtered particulate from the nozzle rinse divided by the total mass. Privileged and Confidential Work Product

52 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 3 of 5 Table 2. Final combined volumes for the as-received liquid samples. RJ Lee Group Sample ID: Customer Sample ID: Volume (ml) D.I. H2O Blank Run 1 Nozzle Rinse /8 Run 1 Back Half (1 of 2) and (2 of 2) Run 2 Nozzle Rinse /1 Run 2 Back Half (1 of 2) and (2 of 2) Run 3 Nozzle Rinse /4 Run 3 Back Half (1 of 2) and (2 of 2) M17 Run 4; Container 2 (nozzle rinse) M17 Run 4; Cont. #3 (back half) M17 Run 5; Cont. #2 (nozzle rinse) M17 Run 5; Cont. #3 (back half) 366 Table 3. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train Run 1 FB. Run 1 (mg) Analyte Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) 7.90 "Insoluble particulate" content 19.9% "Soluble matter" content 80.1% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Table 4. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train Run 2 FB. Run 2 (mg) Analyte Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) 5.60 "Insoluble particulate" content 9.9% "Soluble matter" content 90.1% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Privileged and Confidential Work Product

53 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 4 of 5 Table 5. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train Run 3 FB. Run 3 (mg) Analyte Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) 7.14 "Insoluble particulate" content 25.5% "Soluble matter" content 74.5% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Table 6. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train Run 4 FB. Run 4 (mg) Analyte Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) 8.10 "insoluble particulate" content 41.2% "Soluble matter" content 58.8% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Table 7. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train Run 5 FB. Run 5 (mg) Analyte Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) 5.99 "insoluble particulate" content 30.7% "Soluble matter" content 69.3% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Privileged and Confidential Work Product

54 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 5 of 5 These results are submitted pursuant to RJ Lee Group s current terms and conditions of sale, including the company s standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is assumed for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted. Unless notified to return the samples covered in this report, RJ Lee Group will store them for a period of thirty (30) days before discarding. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Lykourgos Iordanidis, Ph.D. Laboratory Manager, Analytical Services (Chemistry) Privileged and Confidential Work Product

55 April 1 st, 2016 Mr. Chad Darby Senior Consultant Golder Associates, Inc. 9 Monroe Parkway, Suite 270 Lake Oswego, OR RE: Analysis of Stack Samples (RF Rotary Fine and RC Rotary Coarse) SUMMARY REPORT RJ Lee Group Project Number LLH (work order IN P009) Dear Chad, The stack samples listed in Table 1 were received by RJ Lee Group (RJLG) on 3/15/16 for analysis. The samples were collected following EPA Method 17 stack sampling procedures and each test run consisted of nozzle rinse, filter and back-half rinse samples. The analytical procedures performed on the samples are described in the Experimental section of this report. Table 1. Identification of stack samples for stack tests Run 1 through Run 3 for RF and RC. RJLG Sample ID: Client Sample ID: Rotary Fine Run Filter Rotary Fine Run Filter Rotary Fine Run Filter Rotary Coarse Run Filter Rotary Coarse Run Filter Rotary Coarse Run Filter RC Filter Field Blank Filter Field Blank Lab Blank Lab Blank Rotary Fine Run 1 Back Half Rotary Fine Run 2 Back Half Rotary Fine Run 3 Back Half Rotary Coarse Run 1 Back Half Rotary Coarse Run 2 Back Half Rotary Coarse Run 3 Back Half Rotary Fine Run 1 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Fine Run 2 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Fine Run 3 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Coarse Run 1 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Coarse Run 2 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Coarse Run 3 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Water Blank M17 Privileged and Confidential Work Product

56 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 2 of 6 Experimental For each stack test, three samples were generated which consisted of: 1) nozzle rinse using deionized water; 2) the Method 17 quartz filter and 3) the back-half rinse using deionized water and the impinger solution consisting of deionized water. Upon receipt, the final volume of each nozzle rinse was measured (see Table 2) and then filtered to remove any insoluble particulate using a pre-weighed filter (0.4 µm HTTP polycarbonate). The resulting rinse filter was dried and weighed to determine the mass of particulate collected. The aqueous nozzle rinse solution was split. One portion was acidified and analyzed by ICP-AES (inductive coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy) for cations using EPA 6010 C and the other portion (not acidified) was analyzed by IC (ionic chromatography) for anions using EPA Based on the final volume of the rinsate solution the total mass (in mg) for each analyte was calculated for each solution. The stack filter sample was desiccated and weighed (gross weight) and subtracted from the tare weight to get total filter particulate mass. The filter was then cut in half. One half of the filter was retained for any possible further analysis while the remaining half was leached with double deionized water for 1 hour. Part of the leachate was filtered to remove any insoluble particulate and the resulting solution was analyzed by ICP-AES and IC as described above for the nozzle rinse. Results are expressed as total mg/filter taking into account the final leachate volume and the fact that the filter was cut in half (the actual conversion factor was determined by dividing the total filter weight by the weight of the half filter used for the leaching). The initial mass of the filter minus the mass of cations and anions in the leachate was used to determine the mass of insoluble particulate collected. The final volume for each of the back-half rinse and impinger solutions was measured (see Table 2) upon receipt and then split (no filtering). One portion was acidified and analyzed by ICP-AES for cations using EPA 6010 C and the other portion (not acidified) was analyzed by IC for anions using EPA Based on the final volume of the rinsate solution the total mass (in mg) for each analyte was calculated for each solution. For the cases where multiple containers were sent for the same run the final volume represents the total volume in both containers. Tables 3 through 8 summarize the results for each run and present the amount of total particulate; amount of undissolved (insoluble particulate) and soluble particulate found in each run. Filtered solids that did not leach were assumed to be the insoluble fraction of the particulate collected. For the purpose of these tables non-detected results are treated as zero. In Tables 3 to 8 below the Total Dissolved Solids is the summation of all the analyte results (as mg) determined by ICP-AES/IC analysis. The Undissolved solids is the difference of the particulate found in the filter minus the total dissolved solids for that sample or the amount of filtered solids in the nozzle rinse sample. The total mass is the summation of the total dissolved solids for the nozzle and back half portions of the samples plus the particulate weight of the filter plus (if present) the particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse portion. The % "insoluble particulate" content represents the ratio of the undissolved solids for the filter plus the filtered particulate from the nozzle rinse divided by the total mass. Privileged and Confidential Work Product

57 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 3 of 6 RJ Lee Group Sample ID: Table 2. Final volumes for the as-received liquid samples Client Sample ID: Volume (ml) Rotary Fine Run 1 Back Half Rotary Fine Run 2 Back Half Rotary Fine Run 3 Back Half Rotary Coarse Run 1 Back Half Rotary Coarse Run 2 Back Half Rotary Coarse Run 3 Back Half Rotary Fine Run 1 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Fine Run 2 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Fine Run 3 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Coarse Run 1 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Coarse Run 2 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Rotary Coarse Run 3 Nozzle and Front Half Rinse Water Blank M Table 3. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train for Run 1 Rotary Fine (RF). Analyte Run 1 RF (mg) Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) "Insoluble particulate" content 39.3% "Soluble matter" content 60.7% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Privileged and Confidential Work Product

58 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 4 of 6 Table 4. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train for Run 2 Rotary Fine (RF). Analyte Run 2 RF (mg) Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) "insoluble particulate" content 35.7% "Soluble matter" content 64.3% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Table 5. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train for Run 3 Rotary Fine (RF). Analyte Run 3 RF (mg) Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) "insoluble particulate" content 36.7% "Soluble matter" content 63.3% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Table 6. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train for Run 1 Rotary Coarse (RC). Analyte Run 1 RC (mg) Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** - *** - Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) 0 *** - Total mass (calc) *** "insoluble particulate" content *** "Soluble matter" content *** *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train ***Due to a negative value for the particulate weight further calculations were not possible Privileged and Confidential Work Product

59 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 5 of 6 Table 7. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train for Run 2 Rotary Coarse (RC). Analyte Run 2 RC (mg) Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** - *** - Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) 0 *** - Total mass (calc) *** "insoluble particulate" content *** "Soluble matter" content *** *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train ***Due to a negative value for the particulate weight further calculations were not possible Table 8. Results as mg for each portion of the sample train for Run 3 Rotary Coarse (RC). Analyte Run 3 RC (mg) Nozzle Filter Back Half Filtered solids* Particulate Weight** Total Dissolved Solids (calc) Undissolved solids (calc) Total mass (calc) 7.70 "insoluble particulate" content 48.3% "Soluble matter" content 51.7% *Amount of undissolved particulate filtered from the nozzle rinse upon receipt **Amount of particulate collected on the stack filter of the sample train Privileged and Confidential Work Product

60 RJ Lee Group, Inc. Project Number: LLH Page 6 of 6 These results are submitted pursuant to RJ Lee Group s current terms and conditions of sale, including the company s standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is assumed for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted. Unless notified to return the samples covered in this report, RJ Lee Group will store them for a period of thirty (30) days before discarding. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Lykourgos Iordanidis, Ph.D. Laboratory Manager, Analytical Services (Chemistry) Privileged and Confidential Work Product

61 APPENDIX C: NOMENCLATURE AND FORMULAE

62 Nomenclature A n sampling nozzle cross-sectional area, ft 2 A s stack cross-sectional area, ft 2 Note: Method 2 refers to this as A a Btu mean particle projected area unit heat value (British thermal unit) cs12 c s50 cws particulate concentration corrected to 12 percent CO 2 particulate concentration corrected to 50 percent excess air particulate concentration on a wet basis, mass/wet volume C Χ (corr) actual gas concentration corrected to required percent O 2 B wm B ws percent moisture in gas at meter percent moisture in stack gas D 50 diameter of particles having a 50 percent probability of penetration, μm C 1 viscosity constant, micropoise for BK (51.05 micropoise for BR) C 2 viscosity constant, micropoise/bk (0.207 micropoise/br) C 3 viscosity constant, 1.05 x 10-4 micropoise/bk 2 (3.24 x 10-5 micropoise/br 2 ) C 4 viscosity constant, micropoise/ fraction O 2 D e D h DH D n D p50 equivalent diameter hydraulic diameter pressure drop across orifice meter for 0.75 CFM at standard conditions pressure drop across orifice meter source sampling nozzle diameter 50% effective cutoff diameter of particle, μ C 5 viscosity constant, micropoise/ fraction H 2 O C a C cond C cors concentration of acetone blank residue, mg/g concentration of condensibles, grain/dscf concentration of coarse particulate, gr/dscf C p pitot tube calibration coefficient, 0.84 for type S pitot tube Cp(std) standard pitot-static tube calibration coefficient C PM10 C s concentration of PM 10 particulate, gr/dscf particulate concentration in stack gas, mass/volume D s E diameter of the stack, feet emission rate or mass/unit heat (Btu input) e base of natural logarithms (ln10 = ) %EA E hr percent excess air emission rate per hour, lb/hr ER cond emission rate of condensibles, lb/hr ER cors emission rate of coarse particulate, lb/hr ER mmbtu emission rate per mmbtu or ton of fuel, etc. ER PM10 emission rate of PM 10 particulate, lb/hr ER Χ emission rate of compound which replaces x

63 F c F factor for CO 2, used with percent CO 2, wet or dry basis M cond mass of condensibles F d f o F factor for dry effluent, used with percent O 2, dry basis stack gas fraction O 2, by volume, dry basis M cors M d m f mass of coarse particulate dry stack gas molecular weight filter weight gain, mg F o fuel factor M fine mass of PM 10 particulate F w H F factor for wet effluent, used with percent O 2, wet basis average pressure differential across orifice meter at control box orifice pressure, inches H 2 O mmbtu million Btu m n total weight of collected particulate, mg m n, pm10 total weight of collected PM 10 particulate, mg H d orifice pressure head, inches H 2 O, needed for cyclone flow rate %I percent sampling rate variation, where 100% = ideal isokinetic conditions j K 1 K 2 equal area centroid m 3 /ml for metric units.1 ft 3 /ml for English units Equation m 3 /g for metric units 1. ft 3 /g for English units Equation 4-2 K BK/mm Hg for metric units 1. BR/in. Hg for English units Equation 4-3 M s M w M wx n N re θ O 1 O 2 P wet stack gas molecular weight molecular weight of water, 18.0 g/gmole (18.0 lb/lb-mole) molecular weight of gas species, g/gmol number of particles Reynolds Number total sampling time, min. plume opacity at exit in-stack plume opacity stack differential pressure recorded by the probe=s type S pitot tube K p pitot tube equation dimensional constant, p velocity head of stack gas, mm H 2 O (in. H 2 O) - Equation 2-8 L length of duct cross-section at sampling site % P average of the square roots of P (may also be referred to as AS P) L 1 L 2 m M a mbtu plume exit diameter stack diameter mass acetone residue weight after evaporation, mg thousand Btu % P 1 square root of P at point 1 of the current test % P 1 = square root of P at point 1 of the previous traverse % P= average of the square roots of P from the previous traverse (may also be referred to as AS P=)

64 %CO 2 percent CO 2 by volume, dry basis %O 2 percent O 2 by volume, dry basis %CO percent CO by volume, dry basis %N 2 percent N 2 by volume, dry basis P atm atmospheric pressure P b barometric pressure (P b = P atm ) Q std Q w r R dry volumetric stack gas flow rate corrected to standard conditions wet stack gas standard volumetric flow, ft 3 /min, wscfm path length ideal gas constant, (mm Hg) (m 3 )/(g-mole) (BK) for metric units and (in. Hg) (ft 3 )/(lbmole) (BR) for English units P bar barometric pressure at measurement site, mm Hg (in. Hg) R i resultant angle at traverse point i, degree P g stack static pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg) P i pitch angle at traverse point i, degree P m pmr P p P s P std pts absolute pressure at the meter pollutant mass rate absolute barometric pressure at the sample location, inches Hg absolute pressure in the stack standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg) number of traverse points during the test, minimum of 6, maximum of 12 R max R min T m t s T s T s(avg) T std T t μ s multiplier for V n multiplier for V n absolute temperature at meter, BK (BR) stack temperature, BC (BF) absolute stack temperature, BK (BR) average stack gas temperature, absolute, BR standard absolute temperature, 293BK (528BR) duration of test stack gas absolute viscosity, μ poise ρ w q density of water, g/ml ( lb/ml) time in minutes V f V i final volume of condenser water, ml initial volume, if any, of condenser water, ml Q a Q s Q sc Q sc = stack gas volumetric flow rate, acfm average stack gas wet volumetric flow rate, cfm (ft 3 /min) actual gas flow rate through the cyclone, acfm predicted actual gas flow rate through the cyclone, acfm V m V m dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter, dcm (dcf) incremental dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter at each traverse point, dcm (dcf) V max maximum allowed nozzle velocity, fps Q s(std) total cyclone flow rate at standard conditions, dscm/min (dscf/ min) V min minimum allowed nozzle velocity, fps

65 V m(std) V n v s dry gas volume measured by the dry gas meter, corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf) target nozzle velocity, fps average stack gas velocity, m/sec (ft/sec) 3,600 conversion factor, sec/hr Subscripts: atm atmospheric ave average V w volume of water vapor b barometric V w(std) volume of water vapor in the gas sample, corrected to standard conditions, scf (standard cubic feet) d f dry gas basis final V wc(std) volume of water vapor condensed corrected to standard conditions, scm (scf) V wsg(std) volume of water vapor collected in silica gel corrected to standard conditions, scm (scf) Volume metric units = m 3 /ml x ml H 2 O H 2 O English units = ft 3 /mlxmlh 2 O W width of the duct cross-section at the sampling site g i m n p s SCF std gauge initial at meter at nozzle of pitot tube at stack standard cubic feet standard conditions W f final weight of silica gel or silica gel plus impinger, g w wet basis W i initial weight of silica gel or silica gel plus impinger, g W lc weight of collected water, g X d fraction of dry gas Y dry gas meter calibration factor Y i yaw angle at traverse point i, degree molecular weight of N 2 or CO divided by molecular weight of O 2 divided by molecular weight of CO 2 divided by molecular weight of water, g/g-mole (lb/lb-mole)

66 FORMULAE 1. Dry Gas Volume - Corrected to STP (40 CFR 60, App. A, Eq. 5-1) T P H 13.6 V V Y T P Y is obtained from post-test meter calibrations. 2. Water Vapor Volume - Corrected to STP (40 CFR 60, App. A, Eq. 5-2) Note: W lc = V lc D w 3. Stack Gas Moisture Content (40 CFR 60 App. A, Eq. 5-3, modified) B V V V 4. Stack Gas Dry and Wet Molecular Weight (40 CFR 60 App. A, Eq. 3-1 and 2-6) Eq. 3-1 M %CO %O %N %CO Eq. 2-6 M M 1 B 18.0B 5. Average Stack Gas Velocity (40 CFR 60 App. A, Eq. 2-7 V K C P T P M 6. Average Stack Gas Wet Volumetric Flow Rate Q 60v A

67 7. Average Stack Gas Dry Flow Rate Corrected to Standard Conditions (40 CFR 60 App. A, Eq. 2-10, modified) Q Q 1 B T P T P 8. TSP Particulate Concentration Corrected to Standard Conditions (40 CFR 60 App. A, Eq. 5-6, modified) C, x 10 C, x 10 Note: C s,lb = lb/dscf Cs,gr = grains/dscf mn = mg 9. TSP Emission Rate per Hour E c Q Percent Isokinetic Sampling Variation (40 CFR 60 App. A, Eq. 5-8) I T V P 100 T v θa P 60 1 B 11. Percent Moisture at 100 Percent Saturation (%SVP) % SVP x Tws where: P s = stack pressure (absolute), inches of mercury T ws = saturated stack temperature, degrees F 12. Emission Rate Compressor Engines (g/bhp-hr) E e PPM Q BHP

68 13. Brake Horsepower for Compressor Engines BHP 43.6 x MMCFD x T x K T K 1 x R 14. Pounds Per Hour Emission Rate 1 x LE x FE FanHP lb hr E x BHP x lb g 15. Analyzer Calibration Error, in general, % diff. <2% Cylinder ppm Analyzer Response ppm % Diff. x100 Span Gas ppm 16. System Bias, in general <5% for both zero and upscale gases System Cal. Response ppm Analyzer Cal. Response ppm System Bias x 100 Span Gas ppm 17. Calibration Drift <3% for Both Zero and Upscale Gases During Each Run Final Sys. Cal. Resp. ppm Initial Sys. Cal. Resp. ppm Cal. Drift x 100 Span Gas ppm 18. Parts per million by volume (ppmv) to pounds per hour (lbs/hr) lbs/hr = 1.558x10-7 x molecular weight x flow, dscfm x ppmv lbs/hr = (ppmv) (1.558 e -7 ) (MW) (dscfm) ppm = parts per million dscfm = dry standard cubic feet per minute MW = molecular weight 19. Corrected Concentrations to 12% CO 2 Cs Cs 12 %CO 20. Correcting Concentrations to 6% O 2 Cs %O2d Cs % O % O 2d

69 21. Concentration Moisture Corrections Cd Cw 1 Bws 22. Fuel Burning Rule Cd = concentration dry Cw = concentration wet Bws = moisture content Fuel Input: Measure fuel introduced to the boiler bank. For example, E= 0.882*H E= (12,500 lb fuel /hr x 4800 Btu/lb fuel )/1x10 6 ) E= (60 MMBtu/hr) E= lb/mmbtu Where E is the maximum allowable particulate emissions rate in lbs per MMBtu. Steam Production: Measure steam produced by the boiler bank. For example, E= 0.882*H E= [(30,000 lb steam /hr x1,200 Btu/lb steam )/(60% boiler efficiency )/(1x10 6 )] E= (60 MMBtu/hr) E= lb/mmbtu Where E is the maximum allowable particulate emissions rate in lbs per MMBtu.

70 APPENDIX D:CALIBRATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79