1544 Sawdust Road, Suite 301, The Woodlands TX 77380

281.292.0636, fax: 281.298.2550 http://www.denovogt.com

NITRIC AC XID TAIL GAS UNIT NO EMISSIONS

PERFORMANCE TEST

COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES NITROGEN FERTILIZERS

COFFEYVILLE, KANSAS

Final Report

4/11/08

DNV-5283.03
1544 Sawdust Road, Suite 301, The Woodlands TX 77380

281.292.0636, fax: 281.298.2550 http://www.denovogt.com

April 11, 2008

Mr. Doug Robker

Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers

P.O. Box 5000

Coffeyville, Kansas 67337

Re: Ni Xtric Acid Tail Gas Unit NO Emissions Performance Test, Coffeyville

Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers Facility Coffeyville, Kansas

Dear Mr. Robker:

Enclosed are 3 hard copies and 1 copy on CD of the final test report for the Nitric Acid

Tail X Gas Unit NO Emissions Performance Test, at the Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen

Fertilizers facility located in Coffeyville, Kansas.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at:

(281)292-0636 Ext. 14. Denovo appreciates this opportunity and we look forward to

continuing our successful and lasting relationship.

Sincerely,

Louis M. Esposito

LME/th

Enclosures
SUMMARY

Denovo Global Technolog X 3 ies, Inc. (Denovo) conducted the lb-NO / ton HNO Emissions

Performance Test at the Nitric Acid Tail Gas Unit (NATGU) EU-1004, associated with

Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers (CRNF) plant operations, Coffeyville, Kansas.

Testing was conducted for the pollutant Oxides of x 2 Nitrogen (NO ), diluent Oxygen (O )

along with stack flow and moisture. This test was performed to provide documentation of

compliance with requirements contained in the Kansas Department of Health and

Environment (KDHE) operating permit and 40 CFR 60 Subpart G.

The testing was conducted on April 04, 2008. The test procedures were performed in

accordance with 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A, Methods 1, 2, and 4 for stack flow, along

with 2 X methods 3A 7E for the determination of O and NO respectively.

Mr. Doug Robker of CRNF was the project coordinator. Mr. Scott Postma was present for

EPA region VII. Mr. Javier Ahumada and Mr. Jeremy Duis were present for KDHE. The

team leader for Denovo was Mr. Louis Esposito. 

Based on the results of this test, the Nitric Acid Tail Gas Unit complies with the 

X 3 lb-NO / ton HNO performance certification requirements.

Louis M. Esposito

Project Manager

DeNovo Global Technologies, Inc.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................. Page -1-

SECTION 2.0 TEST METHOD AND EQUIPMENT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . Page -2-

SECTION 3.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -3-

SECTION 3.1 EMISSION PERFORMANCE TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -3-

SECTION 3.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES ..... Page -3-

3.2.1 Sampling Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -3-

3.2.2 Instrumentation Calibration Procedure ............... Page -3-

3.2.3 Pollutant Sampling Procedure ..................... Page -4-

3.2.4 Pollutant Sample Data Collection and Reduction ....... Page -4-

3.2.5 Flow Sample Data Collection and Reduction .......... Page -4-

SECTION 3.3 Supporting Documentation ...................... Page -5-

SECTION 3.3.1 Unit Mass Emission Determination . . . . . . . . . Page -5-

SECTION 3.3.2 Ammonia Slip Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -5-

SECTION 3.3.3 NO vs NO2 Determination in Gas Stream . . . . . . . . . . Page -5-

Table 3-1: Nitric Acid Tail Gas Unit Emission Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -6-

APPENDIX A - PERFORMANCE TEST DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX B - STACK FLOW DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX C - UNIT OPERATING DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX D - GAS CALIBRATION CERTIFICATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX E - QUALITY ASSURANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page -1-

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Denovo conducted the lb-NOX 3 / ton HNO Emissions Performance Test for the Nitric Acid

Tail Gas Unit operations at the CRNF facility in Coffeyville, Kansas. The Performance Test

series was conducted while the unit was operating at a >90% operating load condition. The

Performance test condition consisted of three (3) sixty minute runs.

The subsequent sections of this report present results for the tests as follows:

Section 2.0 — Test Method and Equipment Summary

Section 3.0 — Summary of Test Results

The appendices provide documentation and supporting data. The appendices are

organized as follows:

Appendix A — Performance Test Data

Appendix B __ Stack Flow Data

Appendix C __ Unit Operating Data

Appendix D __ Gas Calibration Certificates

 Appendix E __ Quality Assurance
Page -2-

SECTION 2.0 TEST METHOD AND EQUIPMENT SUMMARY

The test program was designed to provide data for documentation of compliance with

federal regulations associated with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and state

operating permit requirements related to the certification of the Nitric Acid Tail Gas unit

emission limits. Specifically, testing for the CRNF facility consisted of sampling the Nitric

Acid Tail 2 x Gas Unit exhaust for O , NO , flow and moisture.

Calculated process flow 3 and NHO production rates were collected on the Plant Data

Acquisition System (DAS) which is managed by a Honeywell Total Distributive Control

(TDC) processor which compiles data points from the unit into the Honeywell Plant History

Database (PHD). The PHD system provides one minute average data.

Other operational data included the field determination of actual nitric acid concentration

for conversion to 100% acid basis and the amount of excess ammonia in the vent stream

by plant personnel.
Page -3-

SECTION 3.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

A summary of the Performance Test is given in Table 3-1 

SECTION 3.1 EMISSION PERFORMANCE TEST

An Emissions performance Test (EPT) was conducted on the Nitric Acid Tail Gas Unit to

evaluate the lb-NOX 3 / ton HNO emissions rates of the unit on April 04, 2008. Three (60)

minute test runs were used to calculate the emission and flow averages for the process unit.

These averages were then compared with the allowable unit limits to determine the overall

uni X 3 t compliance. The Performance Specification for the unit lb-NO / ton HNO emissions

X 3 rates specifies the emission levels can not exceed 0.8624 lb-NO / ton NHO (@100%

concentration) X 3 emissions during a 7 day rolling average or 0.600 lb-NO /ton HNO (@100%

concentration) on a 365-day rolling average. For the purpose of this test, the 7 day

emission limit was used to determine compliance. 

SECTION 3.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

3.2.1 Sampling Instrumentation

The compounds cal x 2 ibrated for were Oxides of Nitrogen (NO ) and Oxygen (O ). The

O2 was detected using a California Analytical Instruments Model 600 Paramagnetic

O2 x analyzer. NO analysis was performed utilizing a California Analytical Instruments

Model 600 CLD Chemiluminescence analyzer.

3.2.2 Instrumentation Calibration Procedure

All analyzers were calibrated using EPA protocol 1 gas mixtures. Each analyzer was

zeroed with ultra-pure nitrogen, followed by a mid and high range calibration

standard, corresponding to between 40% and 60% for the mid range, and 100% of

the analyzer full span value. For the Nitric Acid Tail Gas Unit the calibration ranges

were as 2 X Xfollows: O : 0 - 10.01 %, NO : 0 - 33.6 ppm and 74.3 ppm. NO converter

ef 2ficiency is checked using 49 ppm N0 . During the course of the test series, the unit

N0X concentration steadily rose resulting in the re-calibration of the analyzer at the

completion of the second run. The N0X analyzer range used for the first two runs was

33.6 ppm and 74.3 ppm for the final run. 
Page -4-

A system bias check was performed before and after each test run using the midrange gas mixture through the entire sampling system to check for line

contamination and leaks. Calibration correction factors were determined and used

to correct the raw sample concentrations. 

A system leak check was performed before and after the test series.

3.2.3 Pollutant Sampling Procedure

The flue gas samples present in the exhaust stack gas were sampled and measured

according to the requirements and procedures of EPA Reference Method 3A (O2)

and 7E (NOx). Samples were drawn from three points across the stack diameter,

16.7%, 50%, and 83.3% using a multi port probe. From the probe, the sample was

then transferred through a heated line to the mobile laboratory. Upon entering the

lab, the sample passed through a seven micron filter assembly to remove

particulate, a Universal Analyzer Model 1090 to remove moisture, and a manifold,

used to control flow to the analyzers.

3.2.4 Pollutant Sample Data Collection and Reduction

The sample data was collected and averaged on a Measurement Systems DSM

Data Processor with LabTech data acquisition software. The data was collected

every second, with one minute averages printed out. Performance testing consisted

of (3), sixty minute test runs. The results from each run were then averaged together

to determine the overall concentration for the system.

3.2.5 Flow Sample Data Collection and Reduction

Stack flow data was collected using Methods 1, 2, and 4 found in 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, and was based on the average of three (60) minute test runs. The

results from each run were then averaged together to determine the overall flow and

moisture concentration for the system.
Page -5-

SECTION 3.3 Supporting Documentation

SECTION 3.3.1 Unit Mass Emission Determination

Testing was pe X 3 rformed to determine mass emissions and lb-NO /ton HNO ( @

100% concentration). Mass emission analysis was determined for the operating unit

based X 2 on the measured stack flow rates along with NO and O concentrations

collected by DeNovo X 3 . The lb-NO /ton HNO factor is generated from the mass

emission values measured and 3the reported plant HNO production rates (corrected

to 100% acid) for the same time frame that the field testing occurred. 

SECTION 3.3.2 Ammonia Slip Determination

At the end of the test series, a separate test to determine the residual ammonia

concentration in the stack was conducted by plant personnel. It was observed during

the test, that the ammonia concentration was too low for a color change to be

observed in the field. A subsequent titration of the test solution in the lab determined

that the ammonia concentration was approximately 6 ppm.

SECTION 3.3.3 NO vs NO2 Determination in Gas Stream

At the conclusion of the Xtest series, the NO analyzer was toggled between NO and

NOX 2 2 to determine the ratio of NO to NO . It was demonstrated that the percent NO

X

in the gas stream was less then 2% (< 1 ppm) of the total measured NO

concentration.
Page -6-

Table 3-1: Nitric Acid Tail Gas Unit Emission Data

Instrument Measured or Calculated Permit (7 day

RUN average) 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 Average

X

*NO Emissions (lb/hr) 10.23 12.47 20.07 14.26 N/A

NHO3 Production Rate (ton/hr) 24.5 24.5 24.69 24.56 N/A

Em X 3 ission rate (lb *NO / ton NHO ) .417 .509 .813 0.58 .8624

Ave Xrage Measured *NO (ppm) 26.82 31.97 52.91 37.23 N/A

X 3 *NO / ppm - Ton of HNO factor .0156 .0159 .0154 0.02 N/A

% 2 NO in stack exhaust < 2 N/A

Residual Ammonia (ppm) 6 N/A

*Fo X 2 r calculation purposes, NO assumed to be all NO 
APPENDIX A - PERFORMANCE TEST DATA
DeNovo-nv, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICES

CLIENT: DATE: 04/04/08

LOCATION: PROJECT NO.: 5283.003

STATION: Unit - Model # / Serial #:

UNIT #: LOAD: 

 Applicable Regulations: Crew Information

40 CFR Part 60 X L. Esposito Project Mgr.: 

40 CFR Part 75

Facility Representative(s)

Applicable Methods

EPA 1,2 & 4 X Doug Robker

EPA 3a X

EPA 7e X

EPA 10 RM System Leak Check: in, HG Time

EPA 19 Pretest - Start 17.5 7:35

Pretest - End 17.5 7:45

Applicable Standards Leak Rate (In-HG / Min)

CO Nox Post Test - Start 18 13:22

PPM: N/A N/A Post Test - End 18 13:28

lb/hr: N/A N/A Leak Rate (In-HG / Min)

tons/year: N/A N/A

lb/MMBtu: N/A N/A Line Temperature OF Line 1 Line 2

249.5 N/A

Stack Information

Stack Diameter (inches): 41.5 Chiller Temperature OC 4

Sample Point Height (feet): 45

RM Corrections

% O2 Correction 0

1 6.9 % Moisture (bwa). 0

2 20.8

3 34.6 RM Sample

Wet 

NOX O2 CO Dry X

Component Deviation % : 0.00% 0.00% n/a

Stack Stratified : No Nox Converter Check 98.78%

Probe Position Settings(

0.00

NH3 Plant 94.47%

0.00

TESTING INFORMATION

N/A

1544 Sawdust Road, Suite 302

The Woodlands, TX 77380

CRNF

Coffeyville, KS
DeNovo-nv, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICES

CLIENT: CRNF DATE: 

LOCATION: Coffeyville, KS PROJECT NO.: 

STATION: N/A UNIT - MODEL# :

UNIT #: NH3 Plant LOAD: 

RM Bias RM

Instrumentation Gas SPAN

Carbon Monoxide Monitor Cylinder No. Concentration

Manufacturer: California Analytical SG9905181A Zero 0.00

Serial Number: 03584 Mid x

Model No. 601 NDIR High

Oxygen Monitor:

Manufacturer: California Analytical SG9905181A Zero 0.00 10.00

Serial Number: 03584 EB0000169 Mid 5.10 x

Model No. 601 Paramagnetic EB0006632 High 10.01

NOx Monitor:

Manufacturer: California Analytical SG9905181A Zero 0.00 33.60

Serial Number: T - 02015 CC141585 Mid 18.10 x

Model No. 600 CLD CC204419 High 33.60

CC204451 Recal 74.30

NO2 Cal Gas: SD13871 49.00

SO2 Monitor:

Manufacturer: SG9905181A Zero 0.00

Serial Number: Mid x

Model No. High

Facility (Fd):

Fuel Factor Dry (Fd):

1544 Sawdust Road, Suite 302

The Woodlands, TX 77380

>90%

04/04/08

Protocol Gases

RM

RM INSTRUMENTATION & PROTOCOL GAS DATA

5283.003

0
DeNovo-nv, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 

1544 Sawdust Road, Suite 302The Woodlands, TX 77380

CLIENT: DATE: 0

LOCATION: PROJECT NO.: 5

STATION: UNIT - MODEL# : 

UNIT #: LOAD: 

Actual Analyzer Analyzer 

Conc., Cma Resp., Cm Calibration

% % Error, %

Zero Gas 0.00 -0.02 -0.20

Mid Span 5.10 5.11 0.10 x

High Span 10.01 10.03 0.20

Zero Gas Upscale Gas

Initial Final Initial Fina

System System System System System System System 

Response, Bias, Response, Bias, Drift Response, Bias, Response, 

Run No. Date Time % % of Span % % of Span % of Span % % of Span % 

1 4/4/2008 8:33 -0.02 0.00 0.04 0.60 0.60 5.10 -0.10 5.15 2 4/4/2008 9:42 0.04 0.60 0.01 0.30 -0.30 5.15 0.40 5.12 3 4/4/2008 11:04 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.20 -0.10 5.12 0.10 5.11 4 4/4/2008 0:00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 5.11 0.00 0.00 

Average Average Average Corr. Gas Limits: Initial Calibration <= 4.0%

Conc., Zero Bias, Upscale Bias, Conc., Bias Check <= 10.0%

Run No. Date Time C, % Co, % Cm, % Cgas, % Instrument Drift <= 6.0%

1 4/4/2008 8:33 3.65 0.01 5.13 3.632 4/4/2008 9:42 3.56 0.03 5.14 3.53 Equations:

3 4/4/2008 11:04 3.32 0.01 5.12 3.31 Bias =4 4/4/2008 0:00 0.00 0.00 2.56 0.00

Drift =

Run No.

Calibration 

Error <2%

System Bias 

< 5%

Zero Drift 

< 3%

Calibration 

Drift < 3%

1 Pass Pass Pass Pass2 Pass Pass Pass Pass CgasO2 = (C - Co) * Cma

3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Cm - Co

4 Pass Pass Pass Pass

CRNF

Calibration Q/A Q/C

Bias and Drift Values

Bias Corrected Concentrations

Calibration Correction / Bias Correction Data Sheet

EPA Method 3A, Excess Oxygen (O2)

Cal gas used S

for system 

bias

(Final Cal. Response - Initia

Span

>

Coffeyville, KS

(System Response - Analy

Span

N/ANH3 Plant
DeNovo-nv, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER

1544 Sawdust Road, Suite 302The Woodlands, TX 77380

CLIENT: DATE: 

OCATION: PROJECT NO.: 

STATION: UNIT - MODEL# 

UNIT #: LOAD

Actual Analyzer Analyzer 

Conc., Cma Resp., Cm Calibration

ppm ppm Error, %

Zero Gas 0.00 0.03 0.09

Mid Span 18.10 18.12 0.06 x

High Span 33.60 33.90 0.89

Zero Gas Upscale Gas

Initial Final Initial Final

System System System System System System System System

Response, Bias, Response, Bias, Drift Response, Bias, Response, Bias, 

Run No. Time ppm % of Span ppm % of Span % of Span ppm % of Span ppm % of Span 

1 8:33 0.06 0.1 0.00 -0.1 -0.18 18.04 -0.24 17.96 -0.48 2 9:42 0.00 -0.1 0.00 -0.1 0.00 17.96 -0.48 18.22 0.30 3 11:04 0.00 -0.1 0.01 -0.1 0.03 33.70 -0.60 33.56 -1.01 4 #REF! 0:00 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.03 34 45.95 0 

Equations:

Bias =

Average Average Average Bias Corr. O2 O2 Corr.

Conc., Zero Bias, Upscale Bias, Gas Conc., Correction Gas Conc., Drift =

Run No. C, ppm Co, ppm Cm, ppm Cgas, ppm % COCgas, ppm

1 26.66 0.03 18.00 26.82 N/A 26.82

2 31.95 0.00 18.09 31.97 N/A 31.97 Cgas = (C - Co) * Cma3 52.95 0.01 33.63 52.91 N/A 52.91 Cm - Co

4 #REF! 0:00 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!

COCgas=

Run No.

Calibration 

Error <2%

System Bias 

< 5%

Zero Drift 

< 3%

Calibration Drift 

< 3%

1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Limits: Initial Calibration <= 4.0%

2 Pass Pass Pass Pass Bias Check <= 10.0%3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Instrument Drift <= 6.0%4 Fail Pass Pass Pass

Coffeyville, KSN/ACRNFNH3 Plant 

Cal gas used for 

system bias

(Final Cal. Response - In

S

(System Response - An

Bias and Drift Values

Calibration Correction / Bias Correction Data Sheet

EPA Method 7E, Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Bias Corrected

Cgas * (20.9-O2 Cor

(20.9 - CO2gas 

Corrected Concentrations

O2 Corrected

S

Calibration Q/A Q/C
DeNovo-nv, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICES

CLIENT: CRNF DATE: 

LOCATION: Coffeyville, KS PROJECT NO.: 

STATION: N/A UNIT - MODEL# :

UNIT #: NH3 Plant LOAD: 

PRETEST POST TEST PRETEST

System Response System Response System Response Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4

O2 Zero -0.02 0.00 -0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00

O2 Mid 5.11 5.11 5.10 5.15 5.12 5.11

O2 High 10.03 10.03

NOx Zero 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01

NOx Mid 18.12 0.00 18.04 17.96 18.22

NOx High 33.90 33.9 33.7 33.6

Nox Converter Check 48.4

Pre-Convertor

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Test Average. Run 4

O2 (%) 3.65 3.56 3.32 3.51

Nox (ppm) 26.66 31.95 52.95 37.2

CO2 (ppm) #DIV/0!

Start Time 8:33 9:42 11:04

End Time 9:33 10:42 12:04

Pre-Converter

100% HNO3 Ton/hr (Rated)

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Test 4

Amb._Temp.: Deg. F 51 53 57

Amb._Press.: (In. Hg.) 29.29 29.29 29.29

Relative Humidity 42% 42% 42%

Humidity Ratio (lb. Moisture / lb. Air) 0.0034 0.0036 0.0042

100% HNO3 Ton/hr Throughput 24.50 24.50 24.69

Stack Temp.: - Deg. F 325 327 325

1544 Sawdust Road, Suite 302

The Woodlands, TX 77380

04/04/08

POST TEST

CALIBRATION ERROR

5283.003

0

26

FIELD DATA

RM CALIBRATION & BIAS DATA

< 90%

OPERATING CONDITIONS

Stack

SYSTEM BIAS CHECK

TEST RUN CONCENTRATIONS
DeNovo Global Technologies, Inc.

CRNF Performance Test

Date is 4-04-2008. Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers

Time O2 NOx O2 NOX Nitric Acid Process Data

HH:MM:SS % PPM % PPM

7:54:16 0.01 0.02

7:55:16 0.04 0.03 Average Acid Production (100%)

7:56:16 5.46 0.07 Production 8.2 tons/hr

7:57:16 10.03 0.04 O2 Mid

7:58:16 9.84 0.04

7:59:16 5.25 0.03 O2 High Nitric Acid Concentration

8:00:16 5.11 0.03 Nox Zero 09:05 Sample 55.7 %

8:01:16 4.92 1.02 13:15 Sample 56.6 %

8:02:16 0.10 17.66 Average 56.15 %

8:03:16 -0.02 18.12 Nox Mid

8:04:16 -0.02 22.90

8:05:16 -0.02 33.10 O2 Zero Ammonia in Stack gas

8:06:16 -0.02 33.90 Nox High Titrated value 6 ppm

8:07:16 0.00 33.72

8:08:16 0.34 26.49

8:09:16 0.35 43.16

8:10:16 0.35 48.27

8:11:16 0.24 48.40

8:12:16 -0.01 22.67

8:13:16 2.23 2.55

8:14:16 5.09 1.58

8:15:16 5.10 0.06 O2 Mid Nox Zero

8:16:16 2.34 13.73

8:17:16 -0.02 17.67

8:18:16 -0.02 18.04 O2 Zero Nox Mid



8:31:59 3.65 26.95 O2 NOX

NITRIC ACID 

PRODUCTION

HNO3 @ 

(100%)

8:32:59 3.62 26.84 % PPM lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr tons/hr

8:33:59 3.57 26.73 3.65 26.66 86576.8 48612.9 49002.2 24.50

8:34:59 3.61 26.98 86792.3 48733.9

8:35:59 3.65 27.22 86901.0 48794.9

8:36:59 3.65 26.89 87115.6 48915.4

8:37:59 3.66 26.98 87333.1 49037.6

8:38:59 3.64 26.93 87423.9 49088.5

8:39:59 3.62 26.58 87403.9 49077.3

8:40:59 3.67 26.23 87410.3 49080.9

8:41:59 3.70 26.41 87543.4 49155.6

8:42:59 3.67 26.52 87340.0 49041.4

8:43:59 3.64 26.32 87206.7 48966.5

8:44:59 3.61 26.09 87493.6 49127.7

8:45:59 3.60 26.28 87770.2 49283.0

8:46:59 3.58 26.08 88163.5 49503.8

8:47:59 3.59 25.73 88474.6 49678.5

8:48:59 3.56 25.43 88527.8 49708.4

8:49:59 3.57 25.52 88492.7 49688.6

8:50:59 3.60 25.45 88285.6 49572.4

8:51:59 3.54 25.23 87907.8 49360.3

8:52:59 3.55 25.10 87611.1 49193.6

8:53:59 3.62 25.80 87310.5 49024.8

8:54:59 3.71 26.94 87184.0 48953.8

8:55:59 3.72 26.77 87077.6 48894.1

8:56:59 3.71 26.68 87251.5 48991.7

8:57:59 3.72 26.56 87522.6 49143.9

8:58:59 3.69 26.65 87305.0 49021.7

8:59:59 3.68 26.83 86925.8 48808.8

9:00:59 3.70 26.97 86946.9 48820.7

9:01:59 3.74 27.26 87096.6 48904.7

9:02:59 3.74 27.53 87132.9 48925.1

9:03:59 3.68 26.90 86993.6 48846.9

RUN 1

HNO3 Production 

@ (100%)

Pretest Calibration

N0x Converter Check

Pretest Bias

RUN 1
9:04:59 3.69 26.72 86730.3 48699.0

9:05:59 3.64 26.31 86274.6 48443.2

9:06:59 3.58 26.14 85699.4 48120.2

9:07:59 3.57 25.98 85349.9 47924.0

9:08:59 3.60 26.15 85367.1 47933.6

9:09:59 3.69 26.33 85496.7 48006.4

9:10:59 3.66 26.25 85625.5 48078.7

9:11:59 3.63 25.64 85818.4 48187.0

9:12:59 3.58 25.60 86232.8 48419.7

9:13:59 3.56 25.38 86717.3 48691.8

9:14:59 3.63 25.40 86918.9 48805.0

9:15:59 3.73 25.87 87324.1 49032.5

9:16:59 3.77 26.48 87685.3 49235.3

9:17:59 3.75 26.90 88098.7 49467.4

9:18:59 3.69 26.90 88544.4 49717.7

9:19:59 3.69 27.07 88743.5 49829.5

9:20:59 3.68 27.13 88892.4 49913.1

9:21:59 3.64 27.99 89083.0 50020.1

9:22:59 3.63 28.14 89255.0 50116.7

9:23:59 3.61 27.94 89082.5 50019.8

9:24:59 3.63 28.10 88624.8 49762.8

9:25:59 3.66 28.11 88246.4 49550.3

9:26:59 3.67 28.02 87664.4 49223.6

9:27:59 3.62 27.83 87189.0 48956.6

9:28:59 3.59 27.21 86919.5 48805.3

9:29:59 3.61 26.87 86553.4 48599.8

9:30:59 3.67 27.06 86279.3 48445.8

9:31:59 3.71 27.60 86188.1 48394.6

9:32:59 3.68 27.82 86223.1 48414.3

9:33:59 3.68 27.90 86133.3 48363.9

9:34:59 3.63 27.67

9:35:59 4.51 7.11

9:36:59 5.15 0.00 O2 Mid Nox Zero

9:37:59 4.47 2.40

9:38:59 0.06 17.61

9:39:59 0.04 17.96 O2 Zero Nox Mid



9:40:37 0.03 18.11 O2 NOX

9:41:37 1.30 22.69 % PPM lb/hr tons/hr

9:42:37 3.68 30.86 3.56 31.95 86506.1 48573.2 49004.3 24.50

9:43:37 3.67 30.78 86480.5 48558.8

9:44:37 3.70 30.72 86462.1 48548.5

9:45:37 3.73 30.86 86681.7 48671.8

9:46:37 3.76 31.06 87117.4 48916.4

9:47:37 3.74 31.16 87524.8 49145.2

9:48:37 3.73 30.68 88009.9 49417.6

9:49:37 3.70 30.44 88248.3 49551.4

9:50:37 3.64 30.11 88381.5 49626.2

9:51:37 3.67 30.08 88554.9 49723.6

9:52:37 3.72 27.69 88391.5 49631.8

9:53:37 3.72 23.79 87949.1 49383.4

9:54:37 3.61 21.61 87658.1 49220.0

9:55:37 3.56 19.58 87293.8 49015.5

9:56:37 3.59 18.43 86958.5 48827.2

9:57:37 3.63 18.00 86704.1 48684.3

9:58:37 3.59 18.07 86675.9 48668.5

9:59:37 3.54 18.51 86544.3 48594.6

10:00:37 3.53 18.97 86171.2 48385.1

10:01:37 3.66 20.74 85832.6 48195.0

10:02:37 3.75 23.18 85768.1 48158.8

10:03:37 3.69 25.47 85860.9 48210.9

10:04:37 3.66 27.59 85987.1 48281.8

10:05:37 3.59 28.49 86544.9 48595.0

10:06:37 3.61 28.55 87073.8 48891.9

10:07:37 3.64 28.07 87552.1 49160.5

Post Run Bias

RUN 2 HNO3 Production 

@ (100%)

RUN 2
10:08:37 3.59 28.14 87871.5 49339.9

10:09:37 3.50 31.07 87928.7 49372.0

10:10:37 3.48 30.65 87668.5 49225.9

10:11:37 3.51 29.02 87054.4 48881.0

10:12:37 3.53 30.93 86635.1 48645.6

10:13:37 3.52 33.40 86329.4 48474.0

10:14:37 3.47 33.24 86046.3 48315.0

10:15:37 3.42 33.84 85783.0 48167.1

10:16:37 3.46 34.38 85680.3 48109.5

10:17:37 3.56 34.62 85684.7 48112.0

10:18:37 3.51 34.14 85813.9 48184.5

10:19:37 3.48 33.35 86144.3 48370.0

10:20:37 3.49 33.50 86827.8 48753.8

10:21:37 3.50 34.05 87403.6 49077.1

10:22:37 3.48 33.48 87791.9 49295.2

10:23:37 3.45 30.47 88158.5 49501.0

10:24:37 3.41 28.59 88232.9 49542.8

10:25:37 3.41 30.38 88133.9 49487.2

10:26:37 3.43 29.75 87863.1 49335.2

10:27:37 3.43 35.80 87460.6 49109.1

10:28:37 3.46 42.24 87305.2 49021.9

10:29:37 3.49 41.88 87308.5 49023.7

10:30:37 3.53 39.47 87441.7 49098.5

10:31:37 3.53 36.86 87668.5 49225.9

10:32:37 3.52 37.28 87593.2 49183.6

10:33:37 3.51 39.38 87510.0 49136.9

10:34:37 3.53 40.57 87595.7 49185.0

10:35:37 3.52 42.52 88106.4 49471.7

10:36:37 3.43 42.67 88761.1 49839.4

10:37:37 3.43 43.70 88926.8 49932.4

10:38:37 3.44 45.61 88723.8 49818.4

10:39:37 3.43 45.73 88778.7 49849.2

10:40:37 3.46 44.45 88672.1 49789.4

10:41:37 3.52 44.78 88192.5 49520.1

10:42:37 3.52 45.57 87683.2 49234.1

10:43:37 3.49 46.81

10:44:37 1.08 22.25

10:45:37 0.01 18.22 O2 Zero Nox Mid

10:46:37 2.45 9.64

10:47:37 5.12 0.00 O2 Mid Nox Zero



NOX

PPM

10:49:07 0.11 0.25 Nox Zero

10:50:07 0.12 15.48

10:51:07 0.15 26.85

10:52:07 0.14 26.93 Nox Mid

10:53:07 0.13 32.77

10:54:07 0.13 34.00

10:55:07 0.11 59.39

10:56:07 0.11 77.59 Nox High

10:57:07 0.11 74.68

10:58:07 0.11 74.71

10:59:07 0.12 45.18

11:00:07 0.11 33.70 Nox Mid

11:01:07 0.11 13.10

11:02:07 0.11 0.25 Nox Zero



11:02:24 -0.02 0.00 O2 NOX

11:03:24 1.18 21.30 % PPM lb/hr tons/hr

11:04:24 3.37 62.45 3.32 52.95 87312.5 49026.0 49378.2 24.69

11:05:24 3.31 61.65 86965.4 48831.1

11:06:24 3.27 61.93 86717.3 48691.8

11:07:24 3.24 63.13 86660.4 48659.8

11:08:24 3.24 64.83 87061.3 48884.9

Pretest Run Bias

RUN 3

Post Run Bias

Nox Re-Calibration

RUN 3

HNO3 Production 

@ (100%)
11:09:24 3.27 66.09 87316.7 49028.4

11:10:24 3.32 66.61 86938.4 48815.9

11:11:24 3.35 65.59 86634.0 48645.0

11:12:24 3.33 65.87 86325.6 48471.8

11:13:24 3.28 65.92 86023.2 48302.0

11:14:24 3.29 66.95 85844.3 48201.6

11:15:24 3.32 66.69 85948.1 48259.9

11:16:24 3.35 66.52 86420.3 48525.0

11:17:24 3.38 65.28 86866.7 48775.6

11:18:24 3.36 61.99 87544.5 49156.2

11:19:24 3.37 60.28 88559.2 49726.0

11:20:24 3.41 60.39 89502.3 50255.6

11:21:24 3.43 57.16 90424.5 50773.4

11:22:24 3.45 56.60 91002.7 51098.0

11:23:24 3.43 56.48 91045.9 51122.3

11:24:24 3.39 55.42 90501.7 50816.7

11:25:24 3.39 53.10 89403.7 50200.2

11:26:24 3.40 51.09 88008.6 49416.8

11:27:24 3.32 47.84 86686.6 48674.5

11:28:24 3.26 43.50 85609.0 48069.5

11:29:24 3.26 41.99 85164.1 47819.6

11:30:24 3.25 42.41 84985.0 47719.1

11:31:24 3.25 41.71 85118.7 47794.1

11:32:24 3.31 45.27 86108.2 48349.8

11:33:24 3.42 46.31 87248.0 48989.8

11:34:24 3.45 47.75 88350.7 49608.9

11:35:24 3.43 50.37 89351.6 50170.9

11:36:24 3.38 52.64 90037.8 50556.2

11:37:24 3.37 54.12 90333.4 50722.2

11:38:24 3.35 55.16 90431.6 50777.3

11:39:24 3.36 56.83 90238.6 50669.0

11:40:24 3.38 58.59 89715.2 50375.1

11:41:24 3.38 56.88 89029.9 49990.3

11:42:24 3.33 55.99 88500.5 49693.0

11:43:24 3.26 56.56 87926.1 49370.5

11:44:24 3.22 56.83 87213.0 48970.1

11:45:24 3.27 52.97 86841.0 48761.2

11:46:24 3.34 50.48 86684.6 48673.4

11:47:24 3.37 51.00 86612.0 48632.6

11:48:24 3.36 50.06 86715.0 48690.5

11:49:24 3.29 47.65 87150.2 48934.8

11:50:24 3.22 49.89 87611.0 49193.6

11:51:24 3.19 49.70 88042.2 49435.7

11:52:24 3.22 45.95 88199.1 49523.8

11:53:24 3.22 43.81 87970.2 49395.3

11:54:24 3.23 44.85 87571.7 49171.5

11:55:24 3.24 44.40 87306.9 49022.8

11:56:24 3.32 44.36 87499.1 49130.8

11:57:24 3.34 43.72 87865.5 49336.5

11:58:24 3.30 42.42 88165.7 49505.1

11:59:24 3.28 43.67 88751.4 49833.9

12:00:24 3.30 44.19 89155.2 50060.7

12:01:24 3.30 39.45 89495.6 50251.8

12:02:24 3.30 36.81 90045.5 50560.6

12:03:24 3.34 36.10 90540.7 50838.6

12:04:24 3.36 35.44 91032.4 51114.7

12:05:24 3.35 35.38

12:06:24 4.35 5.50

12:07:24 5.11 0.01

12:08:24 5.11 0.01 O2 Mid Nox Zero

12:09:24 4.54 2.40

12:10:24 0.03 30.63

12:11:24 0.00 33.56 O2 Zero Nox Mid



Post Run Bias
Duration 00:24:36

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

CRNF, Unit, Pretest Calibration & Bias, 04/04/08

0

102030405060708090

100

O

2

T

r

a

c

e

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

O2 ( % )NOx (ppm)

 -0.025

 18.06

O2 - Min NOx Mi

SP - 1 BIAS

ON

OFF

Bias On
Duration 00:29:45

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

CNRF Performance Test Run # 1 - 04/04/08

0

102030405060708090

100

%

o

f

S

c

a

l

e

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

O2 -( % ) NOx (ppm)

 3.74

 27.30

O2 - MNOx M

SP - 1 SP - 2 SP - 3 BIAS
Duration 01:08:25

00:08 00:18 00:28 00:38 00:48 

CNRF Performance Test Run # 1 - 04/04/08

0

102030405060708090

100

%

o

f

S

c

a

l

e

00:08 00:18 00:28 00:38 00:48 

O2 -( % ) NOx (ppm)

 0.034 18.09

O2 - MNOx M

SP - 1 SP - 2 SP - 3 BIAS
Duration 00:34:31

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

CNRF Performance Test Run # 2 - 04/04/08

0

102030405060708090

100

%

o

f

S

c

a

l

e

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

O2 -( % ) NOx (ppm)

 3.42

 33.74

O2 - MNOx M

SP - 1 SP - 2 SP - 3 BIAS
Duration 01:07:11

00:07 00:17 00:27 00:37 00:47 

CNRF Performance Test Run # 2 - 04/04/08

0

102030405060708090

100

%

o

f

S

c

a

l

e

00:07 00:17 00:27 00:37 00:47 

O2 -( % ) NOx (ppm)

 5.12

 0.0072

O2 - MNOx M

SP - 1 SP - 2 SP - 3 BIAS
Duration 00:09:12

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

CRNF, Unit, NOx Re-Calibration, 04/04/08

0

102030405060708090

100

O

2

T

r

a

c

e

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

O2 ( % )NOx (ppm)

 -0.025

 33.63

O2 - Min NOx Mi

SP - 1 BIAS

ON

OFF

Bias On
Duration 00:23:51

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

CNRF Performance Test Run # 3 - 04/04/08

0

102030405060708090

100

%

o

f

S

c

a

l

e

00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40 

O2 -( % ) NOx (ppm)

 3.40

 50.58

O2 - MNOx M

SP - 1 SP - 2 SP - 3 BIAS
Duration 01:09:09

00:09 00:19 00:29 00:39 00:49 

CNRF Performance Test Run # 3 - 04/04/08

0

102030405060708090

100

%

o

f

S

c

a

l

e

00:09 00:19 00:29 00:39 00:49 

O2 -( % ) NOx (ppm)

 0.0020

 33.51

O2 - MNOx M

SP - 1 SP - 2 SP - 3 BIAS
APPENDIX B - STACK FLOW DATA
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 1 Stack Flow Worksheet

As =

ID =

π =

=

As =  ft2 As =  m2

As =  ft2 As =  m2

As = ft2 As = m2

Ps = Static pressure inside the stack measured in inchesof water "H 2O

Pbar =

Pstd = Standard Barometric Pressure 

Pcor =

Kflow =

Kflow =( / )x x 60 =

As

Kflow =( / )x x 60 =

As

Area of the Stack (L x W) or ( π x (ID/2)

2

)

Kflow scm/min

29.07

K-Flow is the flow that would exist in the stack based on the ambient pressure and the 

internal pressure, and corrected to standard conditions

29.07 29.92 9.393 547.65

CNRF

12:10

3.1415927 as a pre-defined constant for circular geometry

inside diameter of the stack wall in inches

End Time

ID 

29.92 0.873 50.88

Pcor Pstd

0.87

Tail Gas

4/4/2008

11:00

L (ength)

1 inch

2.54 cm

105.41

AREA OF THE STACK

Plant

Unit

Date

Start Time

41.50 ID 

L (ength)

W (idth)

centimeters

Ambient barometric pressure in inches of Mercury "Hg

W (idth)

9.39 0.87

KINETIC FLOW IN THE STACK

inches

9.39

" H2O

29.07 "Hg

-2.95

29.29

29.92

sec/min

Corrected Barometric Pressure

"Hg

"Hg

Pcor Pstd sec/min Kflow scf/min

RUN 1
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 1 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

= =

1

2

3

4

5

6

SG

mL

Vic

mL x = scf

Vic Vk

Allowing that flue gas is composed of CO2 + O2 + N2

=

=

=

=

100 % - ( + ) =

+ +=

g CO2/mol

1.16

g O2/mol

26.17

g N2/mol

1.28

93.47

%N2

Distribution of components of the flue gas

Md

28.6092 g/mol of dry flue gas

2.9

%O2

3.63

%CO2

%O2

%N2

Dry Molecular Weight of Theoretical Flue Gas

Measured Percentage of CO2 in the Flue Gas

Measured Percentage of O2 in the Flue Gas

Calculated Percentage of N2 in the Flue Gas

Md

%CO2

scm

Dry Molecular Weight. 

0.414

Vw std

8.8 0.04707 0.01173

Vw std

4.2

Total Volume of Water Collected 8.8

675.3

-1.2

5.2

0.6

Difference

679.5

577.7

584.0

503.4

576.5

589.2

504.0

Impinger weights in grams

Impinger # Initial Final

Vk

Total volume of Water collected in Impinger Train

Vapor Constant to correct mL of water to scf of water vapor 0.04707

Vic

Vw std

Volume of Water Vapor Corrected to Standard Conditions

Volume of Water Vapor in gas sample Corrected to Standard Conditions
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 1 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.013 x x ( / ) = 9

Y 10

11

12

x = 13

14

15

x = 16

17

18

19

20

/ ( + ) / 100 = 21

22

23

24

25

averages

=

=

=

( x ) + ( x ) =

Average of the DGM inlet and outlet temperatures o

F

scf

64.0

dscf dscm/dscf Vm std

Vw std

Wet Molecular weight of the Flue Gas

22.318 0.028317 0.6320 dscm

0.4142

Vw std

22.318

Vm std

1.2647

E1

1.82%

Bws

22.500

Vdgm

529.1

Pc Tdgm

29.360

17.647 Ideal Gas Constant

74.5 63.8 0.95

0.95

0.95

∆H

" H2O

0.95

0.95

63.0

64.0

75.0 64.0

Inlet

73.0

Outlet

DGM Temperatures o

F

22.318

Vm std

75.0

75.0

Dry Gas Meter Readings

Initial Final

0.4142

90.500 113.000

22.5

Vdgm

1.2647

E1

Tavg

Pc

Percentage of Moisture by Volume

Volume of gas measured by the Dry Gas Meter (DGM)

Dry Gas Meter Volume corrected to standard conditions

Tavg corrected to standard temperature Rankin (o

F +460)

Y correction Factor for DGM, Determined at calibration of DGM

DGM Pressure[(average of Delta H readings / 13.6) + Pbar]

Vm std

Vdgm

Percent Moisture by Volume of the Stack Flue Gases

MW H2O

Ms

Pdg Percentage of dry gas in the sample. (100 % - Bws)

Wet Molecular Weight of the flue gas measured

Molecular weight of water (18 g/mol)

Tdgm

Y

Bws

1.82%

Bws MW H2O

98.18% 18

Pdg

28.609

Md

28.416

Ms

g/mol
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 1 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

=

= Average temperature across the stack in Rankin (Ts + 460)

= Ts

xx= 1 o

F

avg E1 2 o

F

3 o

F

4 o

F

( / ( x ))

1/2 = 5 o

F

6 o

F

7 o

F

8 o

F

9 o

F

10 o

F

x = 11 o

F

12 o

F

13 o

F

14 o

F

= fps 15 o

F

16 o

F

= mps 17 o

F

18 o

F

19 o

F

20 o

F

21 o

F

22 o

F

23 o

F

24 o

F

25 o

F

Averages

AVF =

x x=

x x=

As

Vs

E1

85.48

Kp

sec/min Vs

Flue gas velocity in feet per second

Ts cor

Pitot Tube Constant 85.48

Pitot Tube Coefficient 0.84

Differential pressure across the Pitot Tube in inches of Water "H2O

Kp

Cp

∆P

1.84 325

4.20

∆P

3.40

2.05

Stack Temp

4.80

5.00

4.99

4.75

5.00

4.00

2.09

2.00

4.75

4.25

4.50

4.37

3.99

2.23

2.18

2.24

2.12

2.00

2.18

2.06

1.97

1.96

2.09

2.18

2.18

2.13

2.09

2.09

2.19

2.24

2.17

2.20

327

325

325

324

325

4.428 2.10 325.2

3.86 1.96

147.13

Vs Metric

4.35

150.92 0.97 147.13

E2 Vs

4.75

4.76

Stack Gas Velocity in feet per Second

28.416

Point

4.35

4.83

4.54

4.73

3.89

3.85

4.37

0.84 2.10189 150.92

Cp

9.39

Ts cor

785.167

Pcor

29.07

Actual Volumetric Flow in the stack

Ms

0.97

E2

Vs English 

44.85

60 44.85 0.87

Actual Volumetric Flow In the Stack

60

sec/min

147.13

Vs

ft3/min

As AVF

2,348.16 m3

/min

82,924.51

AVF
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 1 Stack Flow Worksheet

Tstd =

Tk =

x x = x 60 =

x 60 =

Qsd =

Pk =

Tstd =

Tk =

x x x = x 60 =

x x x = x 60 =

x /= =

x x x 60 =

lb NO2/ ton HNO3 NO2/ppm-ton of HNO3

24.50

Ton/hr HNO3

0.417 0.0156

92,062.56

SVF in scm/hr

3,251,140.95

SVF in scf/hr

1,534.38

SVF in scm/min

Kflow SVF in scf/min

ng/hr NOX

x106 4.64E+06 = 4.6385E+12

Pdg SVF scm/min mg/hr NOX

1,534.38

mg/dscm NOX

51.319 98.18%

Mass Per Hour Emissions of Pollutants

90,384.56

Qsd Nm3/hr

98.18% 2,348.16

Pdg AVF Tk Pk Qsd Nm3

/min

0.672 0.972 1,506.41

Dry Standard Volumetric Flow in the stack (Normal Volumetric Units)

0.672 147.132 547.65 54,185.68

Tk Vs

Temperature correction Coefficient (Tstd/Ts cor)

Temperature correction Coefficient (Tstd/Ts cor)

Pdg AVF Tk Pk Qsd dsft3

/min

98.18% 0.672 0.972 3,191,900.58

Qsd dsft3/hr

Standard Temperature in degrees Rankin 528

Pressure correction coefficient (Pcor/Pstd)

82,924.51 53,198.34

Conversion of ppm to mg/Nm3 and then to ng/Nm3

26.82

ppm NOx

46.000

MW NOx

24.04

l/mol mg/dscm NOx

51.319 5.132E+07

ng/dscm NOx

Dry Standard (Normal) Volumetric Flow Rate 

Standard Volumetric Flow in the Stack

Standard Temperature in degrees Rankin 528

10.23 43.26

lb/hr NOX ton/yr NOX
5283.03 Unit flow

Run 2 Stack Flow Worksheet

As =

ID =

π =

=

As =  ft2 As =  m2

As =  ft2 As =  m2

As = ft2 As = m2

Ps = Static pressure inside the stack measured in inchesof water "H 2O

Pbar =

Pstd = Standard Barometric Pressure 

Pcor =

Kflow =

Kflow =( / ) x x 60 =

As

Kflow =( / ) x x 60 =

As

Area of the Stack (L x W) or (π x (ID/2)

2

)

Pcor Pstd sec/min Kflow scm/min

29.07 29.92 0.873 50.88

Pcor Pstd sec/min Kflow scf/min

K-Flow is the flow that would exist in the stack based on the ambient pressure and the 

internal pressure, and corrected to standard conditions

29.07 29.92 9.393 547.67

29.92 "Hg

Corrected Barometric Pressure 29.07 "Hg

KINETIC FLOW IN THE STACK

-2.94 " H2O

Ambient barometric pressure in inches of Mercury "Hg 29.29 "Hg

9.39 0.87

W (idth)

inches centimeters

9.39 0.87

W (idth) 2.54 cm

ID 

L (ength) L (ength)

41.50 ID 1 inch 105.41

14:40

AREA OF THE STACK

inside diameter of the stack wall in inches

3.1415927 as a pre-defined constant for circular geometry

Plant CNRF

Unit Tail Gas

Date 4/4/2008

Start Time 13:30

End Time

RUN 2
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 2 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

= =

1

2

3

4

5

6

SG

mL

Vic

mL x = scf

Vic Vk

Allowing that flue gas is composed of CO2 + O2 + N2

=

=

=

=

100 % - ( + ) =

++ = 28.6052 g/mol of dry flue gas

g CO2/mol g O2/mol g N2/mol Md

%CO2 %O2 %N2

1.28 1.13 26.20

2.9 3.53 93.57 Distribution of components of the flue gas

%O2 Measured Percentage of O2 in the Flue Gas

%N2 Calculated Percentage of N2 in the Flue Gas

Md Dry Molecular Weight of Theoretical Flue Gas

%CO2 Measured Percentage of CO2 in the Flue Gas

Dry Molecular Weight. 

6.5 0.04707 0.306

Total Volume of Water Collected 6.5

scm

Vw std Vw std

0.00866

717.1 722.9 5.8

608.1 608.1 0

497.6 498.3 0.7

Impinger # Initial Final Difference

Vic Total volume of Water collected in Impinger Train

Vk Vapor Constant to correct mL of water to scf of water vapor

Volume of Water Vapor in gas sample Corrected to Standard Conditions

0.04707

Impinger weights in grams

641.5 641.5 0

Volume of Water Vapor Corrected to Standard Conditions

Vw std
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 2 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.013 x x ( / ) = 9

Y 10

11

12

x = 13

14

15

x = 16

17

18

19

20

/ ( + ) / 100 = 21

22

23

24

25

averages

=

=

=

( x ) + ( x ) =

Average of the DGM inlet and outlet temperatures o

F

scf 0.94

75.0 74.0

dscf dscm/dscf Vm std

35.300 0.028317 0.9996 dscm

28.514 g/mol

Pdg Md Bws MW H2O Ms

MW H2O Molecular weight of water (18 g/mol)

99.14% 28.605 0.86% 18

Pdg Percentage of dry gas in the sample. (100 % - B ws)

Ms Wet Molecular Weight of the flue gas measured

74.5 73.0 0.94

Wet Molecular weight of the Flue Gas

75.0 74.0 0.94

Vw std Vw std Vm std Bws

0.3060 0.3060 35 0.86%

74.0

E1 Ideal Gas Constant Vm std

2.0004 17.647 35.300 75.0

0.94

Vdgm Pc Tdgm E1

35.900 29.359 533.8 2.0004

Vdgm

35.9

113.100 149.000 73.0 70.0 0.94

Dry Gas Meter Readings DGM Temperatures o

F ∆H

Initial Final Inlet Outlet " H2O

Y Y correction Factor for DGM, Determined at calibration of DGM

Pc DGM Pressure[(average of Delta H readings / 13.6) + Pbar]

Vm std Dry Gas Meter Volume corrected to standard conditions

Tavg

Tdgm Tavg corrected to standard temperature Rankin ( o

F +460)

Percent Moisture by Volume of the Stack Flue Gases

Bws Percentage of Moisture by Volume

Vdgm Volume of gas measured by the Dry Gas Meter (DGM)
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 2 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

=

= Average temperature across the stack in Rankin (Ts + 460)

= Ts

xx= 1 o

F

avg E1 2 o

F

3 o

F

4 o

F

( / ( x ))

1/2 = 5 o

F

6 o

F

7 o

F

8 o

F

9 o

F

10 o

F

x = 11 o

F

12 o

F

13 o

F

14 o

F

= fps 15 o

F

16 o

F

= mps 17 o

F

18 o

F

19 o

F

20 o

F

21 o

F

22 o

F

23 o

F

24 o

F

25 o

F

Averages

AVF =

x x=

x x= m3

/min

sec/min Vs As AVF

60 45.48 0.87 2,381.41

ft3/min

sec/min Vs As AVF

Actual Volumetric Flow In the Stack

Actual Volumetric Flow in the stack

60 149.22 9.39 84,098.86

4.560 2.13 326.0

4.21 2.05

3.72 1.93 325

4.75 2.18

4.51 2.12

4.68 2.16

4.53 2.13

4.75 2.18

Vs Metric 45.48 4.59 2.14

4.68 2.16

Vs English 149.22 4.60 2.14

4.99 2.23 326

4.54 2.13

E1 E2 Vs 4.85 2.20 326

153.24 0.97 149.22 5.00

4.90 2.21

2.24

4.88 2.21

4.44 2.11

4.38 2.09

4.72 2.17

Ts cor Pcor Ms E2 4.00 2.00

786 29.07 28.514 0.97

4.81 2.19

4.11 2.03

2.09 327

Kp Cp 4.46 2.11

85.48 0.84 2.13423 153.24

Point ∆P

4.35

Stack Temp

∆P Differential pressure across the Pitot Tube in inches of Water "H 2O

Ts cor

Vs Stack Gas Velocity in feet per Second

Flue gas velocity in feet per second

Kp Pitot Tube Constant 85.48

Cp Pitot Tube Coefficient 0.84
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 2 Stack Flow Worksheet

Tstd =

Tk =

x x = x 60 =

x 60 =

Qsd =

Pk =

Tstd =

Tk =

x x x = x 60 =

x x x = x 60 =

x/= =

x x x 60 =

lb NO2/ ton HNO3 NO2/ppm-ton of HNO3

1,554.49 93,269.69

SVF in scm/min SVF in scm/hr

3,293,770.15

Tk Vs Kflow SVF in scf/min SVF in scf/hr

Standard Volumetric Flow in the Stack

Standard Temperature in degrees Rankin 528

Temperature correction Coefficient (Tstd/Ts cor)

0.672 149.216 547.67 54,896.17

x106= 5.6566E+12

mg/dscm NOx Pdg SVF scm/min mg/hr NOx ng/hr NOx

61.174 99.14% 1,554.49 5.66E+06

Mass Per Hour Emissions of Pollutants

6.117E+07

ppm NOx MW NOx l/mol mg/dscm NOx ng/dscm NOx

31.97 46.000 24.04 61.174

Conversion of ppm to mg/Nm3 and then to ng/Nm3

Qsd dsft3/hr

Qsd Nm3

/min Qsd Nm3/hr

99.14% 2,381.41 0.672

Pdg AVF Tk Pk

Pdg AVF Tk Pk

92,467.75

Dry Standard Volumetric Flow in the stack (Normal Volumetric Units)

Dry Standard (Normal) Volumetric Flow Rate 

Pressure correction coefficient (Pcor/Pstd)

99.14% 84,098.86 0.672 0.972 54,424.46 3,265,467.77

Standard Temperature in degrees Rankin 528

Temperature correction Coefficient (Tstd/Ts cor)

1,541.13

Qsd dsft3

/min

0.972

12.47 52.75

lb/hr NOX ton/yr NOX

24.50 0.509 0.0159

Ton/hr HNO3
5283.03 Unit Flow 

Run 3 Stack Flow Worksheet

As =

ID =

π =

=

As =  ft2 As =  m2

As =  ft2 As =  m2

As = ft2 As = m2

Ps = Static pressure inside the stack measured in inchesof water "H2O

Pbar =

Pstd = Standard Barometric Pressure 

Pcor =

Kflow =

Kflow =( / ) x x 60 =

As

Kflow =( / ) x x 60 =

As

Date 4/4/2008

Start Time 15:20

3.1415927 as a pre-defined constant for circular geometry

41.50 ID ID 

Tail Gas

16:35

AREA OF THE STACK

inside diameter of the stack wall in inches

RUN 3

Plant CNRF

Unit

End Time

Area of the Stack (L x W) or (π x (ID/2)2

)

1 inch 105.41

L (ength) L (ength)

W (idth)

inches centimeters

9.39 0.87

W (idth) 2.54 cm

9.39 0.87

Corrected Barometric Pressure 29.07 "Hg

KINETIC FLOW IN THE STACK

-2.96 " H2O

Ambient barometric pressure in inches of Mercury "Hg 29.29 "Hg

K-Flow is the flow that would exist in the stack based on the ambient pressure and the 

internal pressure, and corrected to standard conditions

29.07 29.92 9.393 547.64

29.92 "Hg

Pcor Pstd sec/min Kflow scf/min

29.07 29.92 0.873 50.88

Pcor Pstd sec/min Kflow scm/min
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 3 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

= =

1

2

3

4

5

6

SG

mL

Vic

mL x = scf

Vic Vk

Allowing that flue gas is composed of CO2 + O2 + N2

=

=

=

=

100 % - ( + ) =

++ = 28.5964 g/mol of dry flue gas

g CO2/mol g O2/mol g N2/mol Md

%CO2 %O2 %N2

1.28 1.06 26.26

2.9 3.31 93.79 Distribution of components of the flue gas

%O2 Measured Percentage of O2 in the Flue Gas

%N2 Calculated Percentage of N2 in the Flue Gas

Md Dry Molecular Weight of Theoretical Flue Gas

%CO2 Measured Percentage of CO2 in the Flue Gas

scm

Vw std Vw std

Dry Molecular Weight. 

17.8 0.04707 0.838 0.02373

679.8 686.6 6.8

Total Volume of Water Collected 17.8

504.0 504.5 0.5

587.0 593.4 6.4

544.0 548.1 4.1

Impinger # Initial Final Difference

Vk Vapor Constant to correct mL of water to scf of water vapor 0.04707

Impinger weights in grams

Volume of Water Vapor Corrected to Standard Conditions

Vw std Volume of Water Vapor in gas sample Corrected to Standard Conditions

Vic Total volume of Water collected in Impinger Train
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 3 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.013 x x ( / ) = 9

Y 10

11

12

x = 13

14

15

x = 16

17

18

19

20

/ ( + ) / 100 = 21

22

23

24

25

averages

=

=

=

( x ) + ( x ) =

Pdg Md Bws MW H2O

28.363 g/mol

MW H2O

Ms

97.80% 28.596 2.20% 18

scf 0.96

76.0 72.0

76.0 72.0

dscf dscm/dscf Vm std

37.188 0.028317 1.0531 dscm

0.96

Wet Molecular weight of the Flue Gas

Ms Wet Molecular Weight of the flue gas measured

Molecular weight of water (18 g/mol)

Pdg Percentage of dry gas in the sample. (100 % - Bws)

75.5 71.5

76.0 71.0 0.96

Vw std Vw std Vm std Bws

0.8378 0.8378 37 2.20%

E1 Ideal Gas Constant Vm std

2.1073 17.647 37.188

0.96

Vdgm Pc Tdgm E1

37.800 29.361 533.5 2.1073

Vdgm

37.8

150.200 188.000 74.0 71.0 0.96

Dry Gas Meter Readings DGM Temperatures o

F ∆H

Initial Final Inlet Outlet " H2O

Y Y correction Factor for DGM, Determined at calibration of DGM

Pc DGM Pressure[(average of Delta H readings / 13.6) + Pbar]

Vm std Dry Gas Meter Volume corrected to standard conditions

Tavg

Tdgm Tavg corrected to standard temperature Rankin (o

F +460)

Average of the DGM inlet and outlet temperatures o

F

Percent Moisture by Volume of the Stack Flue Gases

Bws Percentage of Moisture by Volume

Vdgm Volume of gas measured by the Dry Gas Meter (DGM)
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 3 Stack Flow Worksheet

=

=

=

= Average temperature across the stack in Rankin (Ts + 460)

= Ts

xx= 1 o

F

avg E1 2 o

F

3 o

F

4 o

F

( / ( x ))

1/2 = 5 o

F

6 o

F

7 o

F

8 o

F

9 o

F

10 o

F

x = 11 o

F

12 o

F

13 o

F

14 o

F

= fps 15 o

F

16 o

F

= mps 17 o

F

18 o

F

19 o

F

20 o

F

21 o

F

22 o

F

23 o

F

24 o

F

25 o

F

Averages

AVF =

x x=

x x=

sec/min Vs As AVF

ft3

/min

sec/min Vs As AVF

60 146.99 9.39

Vs English 146.99

Actual Volumetric Flow In the Stack

Actual Volumetric Flow in the stack

Vs Metric 44.80

150.63 0.98 146.99

E1 E2 Vs

28.363 0.98

Ts cor Pcor Ms E2

Kp Cp

785.25 29.07

Stack Temp

0.84 2.09776 150.63 3.71 1.93 326

∆P

Flue gas velocity in feet per second

Kp Pitot Tube Constant 85.48

m3

/min

82,844.51

60 44.80 0.87 2,345.90

4.406 2.10 325.3

325

4.65 2.16

3.91 1.98

4.25 2.06

4.74 2.18

4.42 2.10

4.43 2.10

4.81 2.19

4.29 2.07

4.50 2.12

4.51 2.12

4.45 2.11 325

4.55 2.13

4.13 2.03 325

4.68 2.16

4.59 2.14

3.65 1.91

4.75 2.18

4.57 2.14

4.16 2.04

4.75 2.18

4.54 2.13

4.21

4.50

2.05

2.12

Vs

85.48

Stack Gas Velocity in feet per Second

Point

∆P

Ts cor

Cp Pitot Tube Coefficient 0.84

Differential pressure across the Pitot Tube in inches of Water "H2O
5283.03 Unit Flow.xls

Run 3 Stack Flow Worksheet

Tstd =

Tk =

x x = x 60 =

x 60 =

Qsd =

Pk =

Tstd =

Tk =

x x x = x 60 =

x x x = x 60 =

x/= =

x x x 60 =

lb NO2/ ton HNO3 NO2/ppm-ton of HNO3

ppm NOx MW NOx l/mol mg/dscm NOx ng/dscm NOx

Conversion of ppm to mg/Nm3 and then to ng/Nm3

89,934.93

Pdg AVF Tk Pk Qsd Nm3

/min Qsd Nm3/hr

97.80% 2,345.90 0.672

3,176,021.94

Pdg AVF Tk Pk Qsd dsft3

/min Qsd dsft3/hr

Pressure correction coefficient (Pcor/Pstd)

Temperature correction Coefficient (Tstd/Ts cor)

97.80% 82,844.51 0.672 0.972 52,933.70

SVF in scm/min SVF in scm/hr

Dry Standard Volumetric Flow in the stack (Normal Volumetric Units)

Dry Standard (Normal) Volumetric Flow Rate 

3,247,577.80

Tk Vs Kflow SVF in scf/min SVF in scf/hr

Standard Volumetric Flow in the Stack

Standard Temperature in degrees Rankin 528

Temperature correction Coefficient (Tstd/Ts cor)

0.672 146.990 547.64 54,126.30

1,532.69 91,961.66

9.11E+06 x106

= 9.1052E+12

mg/dscm NOx Pdg SVF scm/min mg/hr NOx ng/hr NOx

101.242 97.80% 1,532.69

Mass Per Hour Emissions of Pollutants

52.91 46.000 24.04 101.242 1.012E+08

% ISO

Standard Temperature in degrees Rankin 528

0.972 1,498.92

20.07 84.91

lb/hr NOX ton/yr NOX

24.69 0.813 0.0154

Ton/hr HNO3
APPENDIX C - UNIT OPERATING DATA
APPENDIX D - GAS CALIBRATION CERTIFICATES






Instrument Certification

All instruments are certified by the vendors with regards to interference, response and

repeatability. The following limits are stated for the instrumentation utilized;

• Resolution: 0.1 ppm

• Noise: Less then 0.5% of full scale

• Linearity: +/- 0-.5% of full scale

• Repeatability: Better then 0.5% of full scale

• Zero and Span drift: Less then 0.5% of full scale in 168 hours.

• Instrument Response Time: 1.5 to 20 seconds (instrument and configuration dependant)

• All interference < 1%

•

All repairs are performed by certified manufacturer representatives

System Sample Response:

Denovo operates the sample system at a constant flow rate of approximately 5 liters / minute and

8 psi sample manifold pressure. Sample line suction vacuum is allowed to fluctuate with the

system demands. Excess sample not directed to the analyzers is externally dumped to

atmosphere.

Using 100 feet of sample line, the sample system has been calculated to have a total volume

(from sample probe to instrument) of approximately 2.1 liters resulting in an initial sample

response time of 25 seconds. The same configuration, including the bias loop has a calculated

total volume of 3.6 liters resulting in an initial bias response time of 43 seconds.
Model 600 HCLD 

NO Interference Data 

Interference Response 

Date of Test 7/26/2006 

Analyzer Type NO 

Model No. 600-HCLD 

Serial No. S050301 

Calibration Span 3000ppm 

 

 

Test Gas Type Concentration Analyzer Response 

 (ppm) Wet Dry 

H2O 2.5% 0 0 

CO2 5% 0 0 

CO2 15% 0 0 

CO 50 0 0 

CH4 50 0 0 

SO2 N/A N/A N/A 

NH3 15 0 0 

NO N/A N/A N/A 

N2O 9 0 0 

NO2 N/A N/A N/A 
California Analytical Instruments 

Stability Certification to 40CFR53.23 

California Analytical Instruments 600 series product line are produced 

with barometric and temperature compensation and therefore 

intrinsically meet the EPA guidelines for temperature and pressure 

stability under 40CFR53.23 specification. 

The input AC voltage range is 100 to 270VAC which is greater than the 

specified range of variation stated in 40CFR53.23 and therefore meets 

or exceeds the requirement of the EPA guideline. 

CAI’s 600 series includes the following analyzers; 

600 HFID / M-HFID 

600 CLD / HCLD 

601 NDIR 

601P NDIR 

602 NDIR 

602P NDIR 

603 NDIR 

APPENDIX E - QUALITY ASSURANCE
QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL

Specific quality control measures were used to insure the generation of reliable data from all

sampling and analysis activities. Proper collection and organization of information followed by clear

and concise reporting of the data was a primary goal in the project.

The objective of a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program is to ensure that the precision

and accuracy of all environmental data generated by DeNovo Global Technologies, Inc. is

commensurate with data quality objectives (DQOs). DQOs are based on a common understanding

of the intended end use(s) of the data, the measurement process, and the availability of resources.

Once DQOs are established, formally or informally, QC protocol can be defined for the

measurements.

In this project, the final data users will be Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, USEPA Region

VII and the State of Kansas. The DQOs for this project are to generate legally defensible data to

be used to demonstrate compliance with Federal regulations associated with NSPS Subpart G and

state operating permit requirements related to annual certification of continuous emission

monitoring systems (CEMS).

Two basic goals of a QC program are to:

1) Control errors; and

2) Verify that the entire analytical method is operating within acceptable performance

limits.

Use of qualified personnel, reliable and well-maintained equipment, appropriate calibrations and

standards, and close supervision of all operations are important components of the QC program.

The following sections describe the QC results for maintaining instruments and equipment in a

state of calibration (defines the accuracy or bias error), results for measuring a continuously

maintained state of cleanliness (eliminates interference or contamination), and the paper trail which

documents that the methods were performed to instructions, calibrated within method performance

standards, and/or traceable to National Technical Information Services (NTIS) standard reference

materials. Standards of QA set forth in the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution

Measurement Systems, Volume III (USEPA-600/4-77-027b) were strictly followed.
FIELD DATA REDUCTION

Example calculations are used in the field to check on sampling conditions and a list of formulas

used to reduce the field data. The data collected was reviewed in the field by the Project Manager.

Errors or discrepancies were noted on the data sheet. Appendices of this report present the

standardized forms that were used to record field sampling data.

INTERNAL QC CHECKS AND FREQUENCY

QC checks were performed to ensure the collection of representative samples and the generation

of valid analytical results of these samples. These checks were performed by project participants

throughout the program.

QA PROCEDURES

The following QA procedures were implemented during this test program:

! Use of designated sampling and analytical equipment. The sampling equipment

used in this test met all calibration and operating criteria of the applicable Kansas

Department of Health and Environment and USEPA Methods.

! Sampling system was calibrated and operated according to Kansas Department of

Health and Environment and USEPA documented procedures. All site activities

including audit results were logged into the daily site book. 

! Equipment calibration. The portable sampling equipment is calibrated with two

concentrations of USEPA Protocol 1 gasses and a zero gas before the first test.

Calibration span settings are checked after each run. Other test equipment is

calibrated in accordance with USEPA specifications in Quality Assurance Handbook

for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume III (USEPA-600/4-77-027b).