AQ_F_0800107_20130207_CMPL_InspRpt

�Aq
OF(,,
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF Washington Regional Office
AIR QUALITY W.E. Partners II,LLC
NC Facility ID 0800107
Inspection Report County/FIPS: Bertie/015
Date: 02/07/2013
Facility Data Compliance Data
W.E.Partners II,LLC Inspection Date 01/17/2013
3539 Governors Road Inspector's Name Betsy Huddleston
Lewiston Woodville,NC 27849 Operating Status Operating
Lat: 36d 8.3832m Long: 77d 13.4331m Compliance Code Compliance-inspection
SIC: 4961 /Steam Supply Action Code FCE
NAICS: 22133/Steam and Air-Conditioning Supply On-Site Inspection Result Compliance
Contact Data Permit Data
[ Facility Contact Authorized Contact Technical Contact Permit 10126/RO1
Garald Cottrell Garald Cottrell Garald Cottrell Issued 11/28/201 1
President&General President&General President&General Expires 11/30/2015
Manager Manager Manager Classification Synthetic Minor
[phone] [phone] [phone] Permit Status Active
Inspector's Signature: Comments:
)JW6% DAQ is waiting on the facility to respond to a query if they have submitted a
monitoring plan and a NOCS(GACT requirements). Further discussion is
Date of Si ature: needed concerning both documents. Otherwise,the facility appeared to be in
3 compliance with the permit conditions at the time of the inspection.
Directions
Take Highway 17 North to Windsor,and then turn left onto Highway 308W at the second stoplight
in Windsor(Bill Clough Ford dealership is on the right just before the light). Stay on Highway 308
through Lewiston Woodville.Turn left at the Perdue chicken processing plant and drive down to
the Valley Proteins rendering plant. W.E. Partners is located directly in front of the rendering plant.
General Facility Summary
W.E. Partners II, LLC is a subsidiary of Wellons Energy Solutions, LLC. It is a biomass cogeneration
facility. It supplies steam to the Valley Proteins rendering plant (their contract did not change when
Perdue sold the facility to Valley). The facility began operation January 17, 2012. The facility has one
turbine, and has been supplying power to the grid since initial startup of the boilers.
Safety Concerns
• Much of the equipment is hot, so do not touch anything.
• Be careful around the fuel bunker. There are unloading activities and truck traffic.
• Required safety equipment includes hard hat, hearing protection, safety glasses, and steel-toe shoes.
• Be aware of trip and slip hazards.
Permit History
• Permit R00 was issued on December 29, 2010 for a greenfield facility(three boilers with
multi-clones/ESP and the fuel bunker).
• Permit RO1 was issued on Nov. 28, 2011 for the following modifications:
Addition of cotton gin residues, soybean hills and peanut shells as biomass fuel for
combustion in the boilers.

Page 2
Addition of an electrostatic precipitator to further control particulate emissions from the boilers.
The ESP was installed to meet the Boiler GACT particulate limit for new biomass boilers
(sized between 10-30 MMBtu/hr).
Increase in the synthetic minor annual fuel consumption limit.The increase was due to the
ESP providing additional particulate control and the permittee applying a lower vendor-
guaranteed carbon monoxide emission factor.
Inspection Observations and Regulatory Review
On 1/17/2013 I conducted an inspection of the facility with assistance from Don Lassiter, Operations
Manager. All sources were in operation and were physically inspected. We arrived at the facility
approximately 30 minutes following startup. Permit required records were reviewed back to January
2012.
The following sources are included on the permit:
Emission Emission Source Control Device Control System
Source ID Description ID Description
..
ESB-I one biomass-fired boiler(green wood, MC-1 imulti-cyclone
(NSPS, cotton gin residue,soybean and peanut (18 tubes,each 9 inches in diameter)
NESHAP) crop residuals,29.4 million Btu per hour
:maximum heat input);the biomass fuel
`is not considered a CISWI "solid waste" ESP-1 electrostatic precipitator
(9,222 sq ft total collection plate area,
two fields with 60 kv charge per field)
___ - .... ..
.. ._..__..
ESB-2 one biomass-fired boiler(green wood, MC-2 in
(NSPS, cotton gin residue,soybean and peanut (18 tubes,each 9 inches in diameter)
NESHAP) crop residuals,29.4 million Btu per hour
maximum heat input);the biomass fuel _.____________. el _........_..._._.._.._.___... _..._._.._._..._._..._..
ESP-1 electrostatic precipitator
is not considered a CISWI "solid waste" 1(9,222 sq ft total collection plate area,
=two fields with 60 kv charge per field)
ESB-3 one biomass-fired boiler(green wood, MC-3 multi-cyclone
;(NSPS, cotton gin residue,soybean and peanut (18 tubes,each 9 inches in diameter)
NESHAP) crop residuals,29.4 million Btu per hour
maximum heat input);the biomass fuel ESP-1 electrostatic precipitator
is not considered a CISWI"solid waste" I (9,222 sq ft total collection plate area,
.._..
two fields with 60 kv charge per field)
............
1SB-1 green wood fuel storage bunker N/A N/A
The boilers' operation schedule matches that of Valley Protein, so they are shut down regularly on the
weekends. Mr. Lassiter said that the boilers and controls have been very reliable, and there have been no
major malfunctions since startup.
The boilers are each 600 hp. They were combusting only wood chip during the inspection. Unlike the
boilers at the W.E. Partners Cofield facility, these boilers have never burned the other permitted biomass
fuels. The visible emission from the combined stack was approximately 5%. Combined steam
production during the inspection was 53.8 klbs/hr(evenly distributed between the boilers).
Daily fuel use is backed out from steam production. Their daily steam/fuel log is identical to that used at
the Cofield facility (and example is attached to the file copy of the Cofield 1/17/2013 inspection report).
A weekly report is compiled from road tickets of loads of fuel received (load log example is attached to
the file copy of this report). Fuel use is also calculated off those truck totals. The truck total can be
compared to the calculated total from steam production.

Page 3
The boilers were operating at the following conditions during the ins ection:
ESB-1 (Boiler A) ESB-2 (Boiler B) ESB-3(Boiler C)
Draft inches HZO) -0.30 -0.38 -0.28
Steam Pressure( au apsi) 319 319 319
The multiclones are inside the building with the boilers. There are small doors at the base of the
multiclones that can be easily opened to observe dust as it falls out. Boiler ash is stored in one container.
The ESP fields were o erating at the following conditions during the inspection:
ma kW kV( econdary voltage)
Field 1 77 4 45.9
Field 2 199 5 144.4
Stack temperature during the inspection was approximately 3207.
The boilers had an annual inspection November 2012.
The fuel bunker has large augers and moving floor grates that carry the wood chip under the floor to the
boiler room. Crop residuals are sectioned off in the bunker. The boiler controls are set so that augers and
floor grates will automatically adjust the feed rates for the different biomass fuels to the required
percentages.
2D.0504 "Particulates from Wood Burning Indirect Heat Exchangers,"
DAQ is treating the residuals as wood under this rule. The allowable emissions of particulate(PM)from
the boilers are calculated by the equation
E= 1.1698 Q-0.2210
Where E=allowable emission limit for particulate matter in lb/million Btu
Q=Maximum heat input in million Btu/hour.
The total of maximum heat inputs of all wood burning indirect heat exchangers at the facility must be
used to determine the allowable emission limit for each boiler. Therefore,a total of 88.2 MMBtu/hour is
applied to calculate limits. Each boiler has a limit of 0.43 lb PM (filterable+condensable)/MMBtu.
In their greenfield application W.E. Partners provided an emission factor of 0.38 lb/MMBtu for biomass.
Because the emission factor was vendor supplied and the facility has a synthetic minor limit,the permit
contains filterable PM testing condition for one of the boilers. There is also a filterable PM testing
requirement for all three boilers against the GACT particulate limit. Testing was performed on all three
boilers on 5/10/2012. The average emission rate was 0.0079 Ib/MMBtu. SSCB has not completed review
of the test results, but they do indicate compliance.
The W.E. Partners I Cofield facility (ID 4600106)was required by permit to perform condensables. The
biomass boilers at that facility have only multi-cyclone control. This facility did not have to include
condensable in the particulate test, if compliance with 2D.0504 was demonstrated at Cofield. The Cofield
test result was 0.31 lb PM/MMBtu(filterable+condensable). SSCB has reviewed and approved those
test results(memo 3/21/2012).
The boilers appear to be in compliance with 2D.0504.
2D.0515 "Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes"
This rule applies to the fuel bunker. According to the application the maximum truck fill rate for the
bunker is 100 tons/hour. The unloading rate is 12 tons/hour.

Page 4
The equation to calculate the emission limit for filling is E=55.0(P)O-"-40
The equation to calculate the unloading emission limit is E=4.10(P)o.b'
E=the maximum allowable emission rate for particulate matter in lbs/hour(calculated to three significant
figures for process rates greater than 30 tons/hour)
P=the process rate in tons/hour
The filling emission limit is 51.277 lbs/hour. The unloading emission limit is 21.669 lbs/hour.
I could not find a specific particulate emission factor for truck unloading of bark and wood chip to the
bunker. There is a factor for aggregate handling and storage piles in AP-42 Section 13.2.4. The
particulate factor has to be calculated using moisture content and silt(fines)content. Assuming most of
the wood fuel will be supplied by the wood products industry,the aggregate factor that Weyerhaeuser
New Bern(facility ID No. 2500104)calculated for its wood chip truck unloading and chip handling
seems to be the best conservative factor for the bunker emission. Weyerhaeuser's factor was established
based on green wood/bark chip use.
Filling 100 tons/hour(8.5E-4 lbs/ton)= 0.09 lbs/hour
Unloading 12 tons/hour(8.5E-4 lbs/ton)=0.01 lbs/hour
The annual fuel bunker emissions appear to be insignificant, so there is no permit condition for this rule.
The facility appears to be in compliance with 2D.0515.
2D.0516 "Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Combustion Sources"
Sulfur dioxide emissions from fuel combustion may not exceed 2.3 Ibs/MMBtu heat input. This rule does
not apply if there is a limit provided in NSPS for the source. NSPS Dc applies to the boilers. However,
Subpart Dc provides no sulfur dioxide limit for wood or crop residual combustion. This means that
2D.0516 is the more restrictive rule and applies to the facility.
Wood is low in sulfur. The permittee analyzed the crop residuals for sulfur content(around 0.06%by
weight). The AP-42 emission factor for sulfur dioxide emissions from wood combustion is 0.025
lb/MMBtu. The boilers are in compliance with 2D.0516.
2D.0521 "Control of Visible Emissions:"
This rule states that the 20% opacity limit does not apply if an affected source has an applicable NSPS
limitation. NSPS Dc applies to the boilers. However,there is no NSPS opacity limit for the boilers
because their sizes are less than 30 MMBtu/hour. Therefore,the limit under 2D.0521 applies(it becomes
the more restrictive limit).
The boilers and the fuel bunker must meet a limit of 20%when averaged over a six-minute period. One
exceedance in an hour is acceptable(if less than 87%),up to four times in a 24-hour period. It was a
cloudy day during the inspection,and the plume was very light gray. It was difficult to read the opacity,
but, visible emissions appeared to be approximately 5%. The facility appears to be in compliance with
2D.0521.
2D.0524 "New Source Performance Standards,"40CFR 60,Subpart Dc
Subpart Dc applies to any steam generating unit constructed after June 9, 1989 and that has a maximum
design heat input capacity less than 100 MMBtu/hr and greater than 10 MMBtu/hr. The regulated
pollutants are SO2 and PM. However,there are no SO2 or PM emissions limitations provided for these
boilers. 60.43c(c)exempts boilers under 30 MMBtu/hr from opacity requirements. 60.43c(e)(1)
exempts boilers under 30 MMBtu/hr from particulate limits. NSPS is essentially hollowed out for the
boilers at this facility.

Page 5
Permit Specific Condition No. 6.a. requires the facility to record the amount of fuel combusted daily. The
facility records the daily amounts of fuel by back calculating from the steam production. Their logs are
identical to those kept at the Cofield facility. A weekly fuel consumption report is compiled from road
tickets of loads of fuel received(load log example is attached to the file copy of this report). Fuel use is
also calculated off those truck totals. The truck total can be compared to the calculated total from steam
production.
As required by permit Specific Condition No. 6.b.,W.E. Partners II submitted their notice of construction
on 3/25/2011. The notice of startup was received by DAQ on 1/18/2012.
The facility is in compliance with 2D.0524.
2D.0535 "Excessive Emissions Reporting and Malfunctions:"
NSPS Subpart A has general requirements for excess emissions recordkeeping for the NSPS Dc boilers.
However,2D.0535 provides requirements for reporting. The permit condition requires the facility to
report excessive emissions that require more than four hours to repair. Any excess emissions that do not
occur during start-up or shut-down are considered a violation of the applicable standard unless the facility
demonstrates to the Director that the excess emissions are the result of a malfunction. No excess
emissions have been reported by W.E. Partners. The facility is assumed in compliance with 2D.0535.
2D.0540 "Particulates from Fugitive Dust Emission Sources"
This rule requires the facility to prevent fugitive dust emissions from causing or contributing to
substantive complaints or excess visible emissions beyond the property boundary. Some fugitive dust
may be generated when loading and unloading the crop residuals on-site. None were observed on or off
of the property during the inspection. The facility is in compliance with 2D.0540.
2D.2609 "Particulate Testing Methods"
Permit Specific Condition No. 9 was crafted so that the results could be compared to 2D.0504 and applied
as a factor for synthetic minor emissions reporting. This rule states that particulate testing must be
conducted using Methods 5 and 202. W.E. Partners met the testing performance and reporting
requirements of Condition No. 9.
2D.0611 "Monitoring Emissions from Other Sources"
I&M permit conditions are crafted under this rule.
Permit Condition No. 10 requires the facility to perform an annual internal inspection and monthly
external inspections on the multi-cyclones. The most recent internal inspections were performed on
11/11/2012. The boiler operators inspect the multi-clones on a daily basis,and record the inspection on
their operations log sheet. An example of the logsheet is attached to the file copy of this report. The
inspection includes opening the doors and looking inside,and external observation. I suggested to Mr.
Lassiter that they either create a reference activity checklist for inspection to go with their daily record
(which simply notes the inspection was done),or create a monthly maintenance inspection form that can
be used to satisfy the rule. He agreed to improve their records.
Permit Condition No. 11 requires the facility to perform periodic I&M and an annual internal inspection
of the ESP. The annual inspection has to include rappers, ash removal equipment,electrodes, buildup on
the plenum, hopper,and insulators. The facility began operation January 2012, so the first internal
inspection wasn't due until January 2013. I told Mr. Lassiter that they should do the inspection before the
end of the month to meet the intent of the condition. They emailed me the record of their inspection,
which was conducted on 1/22/2013. The inspection is attached to the file copy of this report and saved at
K:\Bertie08\00107\Memo Lewiston ESP Inspection 2013.pdf
The boiler operators perform daily external inspection of the ESP,but do not record the activity. I asked
that they create a place to record those daily visuals. They do have grease and filter change records on the
ESP.

Page 6
2Q.0705 "Existing Facilities and SIC Calls,"2Q.0706 "Modifications,"2Q.0711 "Emission Rates
Requiring a Permit,"and 2D.1100 "Control of Toxic Air Pollutants"
According to 2Q.0706(c), after July 10, 2010 a modification to a combustion source that causes an
increase in emissions will trigger evaluation of toxics from all permitted combustion sources. However,
the NC toxics rules are being modified to exempt facilities from performing toxics review for
MACT/GACT sources. This permit was issued before the toxics rule changes, and DAQ performed the
modeling for W.E. Partners.
The toxics limits in the permit are the potential emissions assuming that there are no synthetic minor
limitations, and the boilers operate 8760 hrs/yr at maximum load.
Permit condition No. 12. states that the facility will be considered in compliance with the toxics limitation
if I&M permit conditions 10 and 11 for the multiclones and ESP are met, and if the GACT conditions for
the ESP are met.
The facility compliance is in with toxics limitations.
2D. 1111 "Maximum Achievable Control Technology,"40 CFR 63,Subpart JJJJJJ— "NESHAPfor
Area Sources:Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers"
The rule was revised and finalized 1/14/2013. The changes were just published in the Federal Register.
Per the regulation,these boilers are categorized"new"biomass boilers because they began construction
after June 4, 2010. A summary of 6J requirements, along with comments from the inspection,are
provided as follows:
• Each boiler is limited to 0.07 lb PM/MMBtu. The facility was required to test the boilers for
filterable particulate(M1-5)and provide the testing results within 180 days of startup. The test
was performed on 5/10/2012 and start up was 1/17/2012. All three boilers were tested at
maximum heat input and steam production(61.876 klbs/hr). The test was performed at the ESP
stack. The average result was 0.0079 lb/MMBtu. SSCB has not completed review of the test
report.
• During the performance test, W.E. Partners had to establish the minimum secondary power to the
ESP. The regulation requires the facility to maintain the secondary power input at or above the
lowest 1-hour average secondary electric power measured during the most recent particulate
performance test(63.11201). The lowest hour during the test averaged 3 kW.
W.E. Partners must also continuously monitor the secondary power on a 12-hr block average(i.e.
12am-12pm). The averages are electronically recorded and saved. The average is always visible
to the operators on the control panel. I was confused at first when looking at the control panel
because the screen said the average was 24-hour basis. We called the engineer who programmed
the wattage tracking. He explained how the data was collected,and they are actually tracking on
a 12-hr basis. The labeling is incorrect. The facility has had no incidents where the secondary
power dropped below 3 kW.
ESP secondary power is also hand recorded every 6 hours in the operator log. Secondary voltage
is recorded as well.
• Startup and shutdowns must be according to manufacturer's recommended procedures. It is my
understanding that the operators are trained according to the manufacturer's requirements. W.E.
Partners is a subsidiary of a boiler manufacturer.
• The boilers must undergo an initial tune-up upon startup, and then perform biennial tune-ups
thereafter. A copy of the tune-up results is attached to the file copy of this report. The CO ppmv
were in keeping with what was measured during the 6/19/2012 stack test.

Page 7
• The facility must keep annual records of fuel usage. The facility must keep records of tune-ups
and tests. The facility must keep records of their NHSM determinations. All malfunctions and
corrective actions must be recorded.
• The facility was required to submit a Site Specific Monitoring Plan 60 days prior to the initial
performance test. I could not find this document in the file, so I have contacted Garald Cottrell
(see email dated 2/8/2013 attached to file copy of this report)to determine what needs to be done.
• The facility is supposed to submit the stack test data to the EPA Central Data Exchange. I have
emailed Garald Cottrell to remind him to do so if he hasn't already.
• The facility is required to provide a notification of startup. DAQ received the notification on
1/18/2012. A Notification of Compliance Status was due within 60 days of the initial stack test.
The NOCS must include statement that the tune-up was completed and startups and shutdowns
are conducted according to manufacturer's specifications. I could not find a NOCS in the file, so
I have emailed Garald Cottrell about the NOCS, and will discuss with Robert Bright if it turns out
the NOCS was not submitted.
• The facility must compile annual compliance certifications by March I`each year. They are not
required to submit the certifications to DAQ unless requested or if there are deviations.
2D.1806- "Control and Prohibition of Odorous Emissions"
This rule requires the facility to prevent objectionable odors from the facility from moving off of the
property. I did not observe any odors that would be associated with the boilers during the inspection.
W.E.Partners is in compliance with 2D.1806.
2Q.031 S "Synthetic Minor Facilities"
The uncontrolled potential facility wide PM10,CO and NOx emissions are greater than 100 tons per year.
The permit limits criteria emissions to less than 100 tons/year each so that W.E. Partners can be a
synthetic minor.
The facility wide potential emission of carbon monoxide is 97.86 tons per year. The 0.32 lb/MMBtu CO
emission factor was vendor supplied and significantly less than the AP-42 factor of 0.60 lb/MMBtu. The
permit required W.E. Partners to test CO against the vendor factor. The test was completed on 6/19/2012
and the average emission rate was measured 0.45 lb/MMBtu. The test report is still under review at
SSCB. CO is now the limiting pollutant for tracking against the synthetic minor 100 tpy limit.
Permit Condition 15.a. requires the facility to calculate CO and NOx emission each month. W.E. Partners
must also submit an annual report(due January 301h)of tons of fuel combusted each month, CO monthly
emissions and NOx monthly emissions. The monthly rates are also reported as rolling 12 month totals.
The report is due on January 30`h every year. The report was received on time(1/15/2013). I have
reviewed and approved the content. 2012 CO emissions were 70.08 tons(they applied the 0.45
lb/MMBtu test factor).
The facility is in compliance with 2Q.0315.
2Q.0317"Avoidance Conditions"
Because uncontrolled potential emissions of PMIO are over 250 tons/year,a PSD avoidance condition was
added to the permit. Because the facility has a 100 tpy limit for PMIO to be a synthetic minor,this permit
condition points to the synthetic minor recordkeeping and reporting conditions to ensure compliance.

Page 8
BACT Determination for Boilers ESB-1 and ESB-2
General Assembly of North Carolina, Session Law 2007-397,Senate Bill 3 (SB3)
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard(REPS)requires 3%of North Carolina
retail sales for each electric public utility to come from renewable energy resources for calendar year
2012. One of the ways to meet this requirement is to purchase electric power from a new renewable
energy facility. W.E. Partners plans to serve as such a facility.
Senate Law 2007-397, Senate Bill 3 (SB3)(62-133.7(g))requires biomass combustion processes at a new
renewable energy facility to meet Best Available Control Technology(BACT). The BACT determination
is performed in the same manner as required by PSD. W.E. Partners II submitted a BACT analysis on
October 5, 2010. DAQ Central Office Permits Section has yet to complete the review of the analysis.
W.E. Partners had recommended that multi-cyclones serve as BACT for particulate control.The
recommendation did not change with the addition of the ESP. The ESP is not being installed as BACT,
but is installed to meet the Boiler GACT particulate standard for new biomass boilers. DAQ also
determined that crop residual fuels are considered wood, so there was no need to update the BACT
analysis for those new fuels. Once the BACT determination is completed, DAQ will open the permit
administratively and include BACT conditions.
New Source Performance Standard(NSPS)for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
(CISWI), 40 CFR 60,Subpart CCCC
The DAQ and Division of Waste Management have been comparing renewable fuels to the definition of
"solid waste"under the CISWI regulations. DAQ is requiring permit applicants to submit information
about their fuel so that a determination can be made. The NC Division of Waste Management and DAQ
have also documented by email(3/22/2011,\\Nroarl 1\voll\DATA\DAQ\Bertie08\00107\FW CISWI
determination-Alternative fuels for W.E. Partners I.txt)that the cotton gin, soybean and peanut residuals
are not considered CISWI solid wastes.
The Final Rule Amendments for the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units NSPS and
the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule are published in the Federal Register 2/07/2013. In the
next two months(60 days from publication) Garald Cottrell plans to submit a request to DAQ to confirm
a number of"clean cellulosic biomass"fuels as per the revised rule definitions. He already submitted a
request letter to this end on 1/18/2013, so I assumed it will simply be re-submitted with the date of rule
effectiveness. A copy of the letter is attached to the file copy of this report. NHSM determinations are
processed by Raleigh Central Office Permits Section,so Jeff Twisdale will provide the response.
Compliance History and Conclusion
There have been no violations documented for this facility. DAQ is waiting on the facility to
respond to a query if they have submitted a monitoring plan and a NOCS (GACT requirements).
Further discussion is needed concerning both documents. I am not sure they necessarily need a
monitoring plan for the secondary power to the ESP. Otherwise, the facility appeared to be in
compliance with the permit conditions and applicable regulations at the time of the inspection.
(k:\bertie\00107\20130117a 16.doc)

Operators Signatures: Rol'i o d k Date:- 1/1(q/13
700 Hrs. 1300 Hrs- 1900 Hrs. 0100 Hrs.
,I C 3 A T-R S 3- A A R 3 3L R C
"�-Z-a
Water Meter Reading (,I(,. 6S,- 16 5-7.OS�
i-4,;t . (3 3 bw
Stearn Flow KPPH 3;t 44 73,901
Steam Pressure Header 305 13A — —
Steam Pressure Line Jag 109 13(
Exhausts Stack Temp. 301 33q
Sao
Clean Viewing Windows, Metering and dropout ✓
----
Furnace Draft "H20 7:1711 12-34 10-449, 1014f 10-63 1A-91 Id,70
:til Y, I -- -1
Drum Level /Valve% -7 4M 3 11 4 36 -io -7 3 90 5 61
,"F-SP KW 12 Hr. Avg AM ?.a
ESP KW 12 Hr. Avg PM -7.9 -1
ESP Purge Air Heater Duct Control Temp --- 112, 110 115, 11
ESP Purge Air Heater Over trip Temp 15a 149 155' 15q
11�.4 -7 ---.—
TSP Field #1 Secondary Voltage 0 '16.5 14-7.A q5-.
4:5- 1 O-L
ESP Field#2 Secondary Voltage 1�83 )91 3010
ESP Hopper Heater#1 Temp 31-1
316
ESP Hopper Heater#2 Temp
Blow Down Water Column
Blow Down Triple Low Switch ✓
Blow Down Sight Glass
Boiler Gas Outlet Temp 5--0 1530 6,30
Bottom Blow Front Sidewall Header
Soot Blow Economizer
Bottom Blow Back Sidewall Headers
'Soot Blow Airheater
Inspect Multicione Discharge Inspection Door
Air Compressor PSI 0Lf 10 101Compressor
,Air Compressor Temp /10 11b 1-20
,Air Compressor Separator and Dryer Filter Diff
Blow Down Air Compressor Water Trap
'Turbine Bearing Temp
Vibration
';Turbine Bearing
Turbine Oil Level
FD Fan Outlet Temp
'Grate Water Pump (#operating) and Pressure I 670 102 O too
:Grate Water Temperature 01013 9:8 a 3 ;L4-�-3
00 535 600
iFeedwater pump(#operating) and Pressure (#a �10 �LI--
I Ash Container inspection and Level
�ESP Ash Auger Inspection
ESP Ash Roto Lock Inspection
Fuel Bunker Conveyor Chain Inspection
Fuel Incline Conveyor Chain Inspection
Fr r A/4-