Marc McDaniel FLARE EFFICIENCY STUDY

, . - - ." I' -"J.4' 7

. .- •**,.'~.'** ";"1 .•

Prepared for: EPA-600/2-83-052 July 1983

by**Engineering~Science,** Inc. 2901 NorthJnterregional Austin, Texas 78722

EPA Contract 68-02-3541-6 EPA Task Officer: Bruce A. Tichenor

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20460 Industria1. Processes Branch Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, NC 27711**r------~.---** --ABSTRACT A full-scale experimental study was performed to determine the efficiencies of flare burners as devices for the disposal ofhydrocarbon emissions from refinery and petrochemical processes. The primaryobjectives ofthe study were to determine the combustion efficiency and hydrocarbon destruction efficiency for both air- and steam-assisted flares under a wide range of operating conditions. Test results indicate that flaring is generally an efficient hydrocarbon disposal method for the conditions as evaluated. The study provides a data base for defining the air quality impact of flaring

.operations. The test methodology utilized during the study employed a specially constructed 27-foot sample probe suspended by acrane over the flare flame. The sample extracted by the probe was analyzed by continuous emission monitors to determine concentrations of carbon dioxide (CD2). carbon monoxide (CD). total hydrocarbons (THC). sulfur dioxide (SD2). oxides of nitrogen (NDx). and oxygen (D2)· In addition. the probe tip temperature. ambient airtemperature. and wind speed and direction were measured. Integrated samples of the relief gas were collected for hydrocarbon species analysis by gas chromatograph. Particulate matter samples were also collected during the smoking flare tests. The rigorous test program included flare testing under thirty-four different operating conditions during a three-week period in June 1982. Test variables included Btu content of the relief gas (propylene diluted with nitrogen). relief gas flow rates. steam flow rates. and air flow rates. When flares were operated under conditions representative of good industrial opera- ting practices. the combustion efficiencies at the sampling probe were determined to be greater than 98 percent. Combustion efficiencies were observed to decline under conditions of excessive steam (steam quenching) and high exit velocities of low Btu gases.

i iCONTENTS

Abstract III III • .... • III III III .. III III III • ... III III III • lit- • • III. ii Figures. . • • • • • • • . • .• vi Tab1es 41 ..... • • • III • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • III .. • • • • vi; Abbreviations and Symbols ••••••••••••••••••••••viii Section 1 Introduction ..•..... . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 2 Conclusions................ 2 Technical Sununary . . • • • . 2 Conclusions and Observations 5 Section 3 Testing Methodology. • • • • • • .• 6 Experiment Design and Flare Operation . • •• 6 Sampling and Analysis. . . . . . . • . . . • . 8 Types of Flare Burners Tested. • • • • 8 Flare Test Procedures.

.. • • • • • • • 13 Background Measurements • • •• • • • .• 14 Continuous Emission Analyzers 15 Hydrocarbon Species Analysis 15 Temperature Measurements

. . . . . . 18 Particulate Analyses . • • • • . . •• • • . 18 Moisture Determinations. 18 Meteorological Measurements • . • • . 19 Audio and Video Recordings • . . • . 19 Section 4 Data Collection and Calculations. ...• • • • . 20 Continuous Analyzers' Data Acquisition . • • . 20 iiiHydrocarbon Species Data Documentation 

# · . .. 

# . · .

# . Page 21 21 Calculations 

# . . . . · · · · · 

# · · · · . . 22 Section 5 Review of Flare Test Results. 

# · · · · · • 25 Steam-Assisted Flare Tests 

# · · · · · · 

# · · · 25 High Btu Content Relief Gases 27 Low Flow Rate, High Btu Relief Gases 

# · · . . 28 Low Btu Content Relief Gases. 29 Purge Rate Relief Gas Flows 31 Air-Assisted Flare Tests 

## · 

# · · · · · · · · 31 High Btu Content Relief Gases 

# · · · · 31 Low Btu Content Relief Gases 

# · · · · · • 33

Particulate Material Analyses. 34 34 34 37 39 43 • • • • • • III • •

• • • • • • Ijt * • • • • • • Hydrocarbon Analyses Purge Rate Relief Gas Flows •• Sensitivity of Combustion Efficiency to Probe Height .•••••••••••. Effect of Steam-to-Relief Gas Ratio on Combustion Efficiency •••••. Flare NOx Emissions

Dilution Ratio and Destruction Efficiency Determinations • • • . . • ••• Moisture Determinations •• Other Flare Test Analyses. 43 48 48 Section 6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Activities. Multipoint Calibrations. Zero and Span Checks

. 

# . . . · . 

# . 50 50 50 Instrument Response Times and Through-Probe Calibration Checks •••••••.•••• iv 53Appendices A. 

### B. C. D. Background Measurements . . • •**Combus~ion** Efficiency Error Analysis Graphical Review of Selected Tests Statistical Summaries •••••••• Calculation of Destruction Efficiency (DE)•• Soot Composition..•••••••••

v Page 56 56

59 78

• 125
. . • 129Sensitivity of combustion efficiency to probe height (Test 28) .•••..•.•.•.•••. 35 • III • III Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 FIGURES

Flare efficiency test systems Flare flow control system ••• Flow control and nitrogen cylinder manifolds. Flare sampling and analysis system •. Flare emission sampling probe ••. 

# . . . 

# . 3 4 10 11 

### 12

7 Sensitivity of combustion efficiency to probe height (Test 57) •••••••• III • • III

.. 36 8

9 Effect of steam-to-relief gas ratios on flare combustion efficiency (High Btu content relief gases) ...•••• III • • III • .. • • • • • 38 Example gas chromatogram hydrocarbon analysis (Test 50) • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • .. ••• 44

viHydrocarbon analysis summary Steam-assisted flare tests ...•.•....••.• 41

Flare efficiency test Moisture content of samples (EPA Test Method 4)...• 49 Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 TABLES

Flare efficiency test results ..••••••• Flare emission analyzers and instrumentation Gas chromatograph operating conditions Steam-assisted flare summary. Air-assisted flare summary Flare NOx results ••..•.
Hydrocarbon analysis summary Air-assisted flare tests. Particulate analysis Smoking flare combustion efficiencies.
Multipoint calibration checks. Zero/span check summary . Instrument response times

. Sampling system leak checks. Error estimates

v; i Page 4

· • 16

· 17

. . . . " 26

• 32 . . " " " 40

• • 42

• • • 45 46

· • 51

· 52

• 54

• 55

• • • 57. ,;; ABBREVlATIONS AGL Btu Btu/hr Btu/min Btu/SCF FEP ft/min 

### HP 10 in2 lbs/hr l/g mg/l 00 

### PPM psia psig SCFM SYMBOLS CO C02 

### N2 NOx 02 SFS S02 

### THe LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
Above ground level British thermal unit British thermal unit per hour British thermal unit per minute British thermal unit per standard cubic foot fluro elastic polymer feet per minute horsepower inside diameter square inch pounds per hour 1iters per gram

-- milligrams per liter outside diameter parts per million by volume pounds per square inch absolute pounds per square inch gauge pressure standard cubic feet per minute @14.7 psia**~nd** 70°F

carbon monoxide carbon dioxide nitrogen nitrogen oxides

-- oxygen sulfur hexafluoride sulfur dioxide total hydrocarbon

viii

### SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This document is a report on an experimental study to determine the efficiencies of flare burners as devices for the control of continuous hydrocarbon emissions. The primary objectives of this study were to determine the combustion efficiency and hydrocarbon destruction efficiency for both airand steam-assisted flares over awide range of operating conditions that might be encountered in continuous low flow industrial applications. The study excluded abnormal flaring conditions which might represent large hydrocarbon releases during process upsets, start-ups and shutdowns. Both government and industry environmental officials are concerned with the effects of flaring hydrocarbons on the air quality. However, since flares do not lend themselves to conventional emission testing techniques, few attempts have been made to characterize flare emissions. Flare emission measurement problems include: theeffects ofhigh temperatures and radiant heat on test equipment, the meandering and irregular nature of flare flames due to external winds and intrinsic turbulence, the undefined dilution of flare emission plumewith ambient air, andthe lack of suitable sampling locations due to flare and/or flame heights, especially during process upsets when safety problems would predominate. Previous flare efficiency studies did not encompass the range ofvariables encountered in the industrial setting. Limited test conditions of flare types, relief gas types, Btu content, relief gas flow rate, and steam-to-relief gas ratios were explored. This study was intended to add to the available literature on the subject by testing the flaring of an olefin (propylene) in both air- and steam-assisted flares with test variables ofreliefgas flow rate, relief gas Btu content, and steam-to-relief gas ratio. Separate elements ofthis flare efficiency studywere sponsoredby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). Other project participants included John link Companywho provided flares, test facility and flare operation, and Optimetrics, Inc. who operated the EPA I S Remote Optical Sensin9 of Emissions (ROSE) system. Engineerin9- Science, Inc. (ES) operated the extractive flare sampling and analysis systems and prepared this report.

1SECTION 2 CONCLUSIONS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Figure 1 is an overview of the equipment used to operate and test the flares. The test methodology utlized during the study employed a specially constructed 27-foot sample probe suspended by acrane over the flare flame. The sample extracted by the probe was analyzed by continuous emission monitors to determine concentrations of carbon dioxide (C02), carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), sulfur dioxide (S02), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxygen (02)' In addition, the probe tip temperature, ambient air temperature and wind speed and direction were measured. Integrated samples of the flare plume were collected for hydrocarbon species analysis by gas chromatograph. Particulate**~att~.~>~JJ.les_.wer~.~coll,ected d~r:ing**  the smoking flare tests. Sulfur use--was attempted as a tracer material in an effort to determine the dilution of the relief gas between the flare burner and the sampling probe location. However, the implementation of this unproven sulfur balance method for determining dilution ratios was unsuccessful. The term "combustion efficiency" was used during this study as the primary measure of the flares' performance. Conceptually, this term defines the percentage of flare emissions that are completely oxidized to C02- Mathematically the combustion efficiency is defined as: 

### %CE 

## = C02 X100 C02 + CO + THC + Soot Where: C02 =parts per million by volume of carbon dioxide CO =parts per million by volume of carbon monoxide THC= parts per million by volume of total hydrocarbon as methane Soot =parts per million by volume of soot as carbon*. Table 1 sunmarizes the results ofthe flare efficiencytests. Therigorous test program included flare testing under thirty-four different operating conditions during athree-week period in June 1982. Test variables included Btu content of the relief gas (propylene diluted with nitrogen), relief gas flow rates, steam flow rates and air flow rates. 'Five ofthe thirty-four tests were divided into thirteen subtests for purposes of data analysis because the flare operation did not represent steady-state conditions. The Btu content of the relief gas was varied from 2,183 to 192 Btu/SCF for the steam-assisted flare, and from 2,183 to 83 Btu/SCF for the air-assisted flare. The relief gas flow



### * In most cases, the "soot" term was zero. 2STEAM BOILER EPA ROSE

SYSTEM NITROGEN

FLOW

. ROTOMETER



# t**I,~**

, I I ( NATURAL GAS

### VIDE~~~£~~ER

# l~\\",---lt\ '-'-

PI

PI STEAM MEASURING STATION Figure 1. Flare efficiency test systems. ..

'"-"..

... .". I ". ,I I , .

. . .. 

# o**NITROGEN~ NITROGEN~** 

# ~~~. 00 t ];----, NATURAL (PiJ NATURAL**GAS~** GAS

ENGINEERLNG SCIENCE ANALVSIS TRAILERS

METEOROLOGICAL STATION w

### TABLE 1. FLARE EFFICIENCY TEST RESULTS

Relief Gas Heating Steam-to·Relief COIIIbustion Test Flow Value Gas Ratio Effieieney Number (SCFM) (Btu/SCF) (Lb/Lb) (S) CCIllIJlents STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS 1 473 2183 0.688 99.96 2 464 2183 0.508 99.82 3 456 2183 0.448 99.S2 Incipient smokiny flarC! 4 2S3 21S3 0 99.80- Smking flare 8 157 2183 0 98.81- SllIoki"9 flare 7 154 2183 0.757 99.84 Incipient**~oklng** flare 5 149 2183 1.56 99.94 67 14S 2183 0.725 Sa.pling probe in· flare flame 17 24.5 2183 0.926 99.84 50 24.4 2183 3.07 99.45 56 24.5 21S3 3.45 99.70 61 25.0 2183 5.67 82.1S Steam-quenched flame 55 24.7 2183 6.86 6S.95 Steam-quenched flare 57 703 294 0.150 99.90 lIa 660 305 0 99.79 lIb 599 342 0 99.86 lIe 556 364 0 99.82 59a 591 192 0 97.95 59b 496 232 0 99.33 60 334 298 0 98.92 51 325 309 0.168 98.66 16a 320 339 0 99.73 No smoke 16b 252 40S 0 99.75 No SllIOke 16e 194 519 0 99.74 Incipient smoking flare 16d 159 634 0 99.78 SlIIoking flare 54 0.356 209 0 99.90 23 0.494 267 0 100.01 52 0.556 268 77.5 98.82 53 0.356 209 lZ3 99.40 AIR-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS Air Flow. Hi. Low. Off 26 4S1.6 2183 Hi 99.97 65 159 2183 Off 99.57- Smking flare; no air**a~sisldnce** 28 157 2183 HI 99.94 31 22.7 2183 Low 99.17 66 639 158 Off 61.94 Detached flame observed 29a 510 168 Low 54.13 Detached flame; no air assistance 29b 392 146 Low 64.03 Detached flame; with air assistance 64 249 282 Low 99.74 62 217 153 Low 94.18 Flame slightly detached 63 121 289 Low 99.37 33 0.714 83 Low 98.24 32a 0.556 294 Low 9fs.94 32b 0.537 22a Low 98.82**--~----**


# - Not accounting for carbon present as soot (see**T~'e** 10).

4

### • rates ranged from 703 SCFM to 0.35 SCFM (purge flowrate) for the steam-assisted flare, and from 639 SCFM to 0.54 SCFM (purge flow rate) for the air-assisted flare. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS

• When flares are operated under conditions which are representative of industrial practices, the combustion efficiencies in the flare plume are greater than 98%.

• Steam- and air-assisted flares are generally an efficient means of hydrocarbon disposal over the range of operating conditions evaluated. • \Varying flow rates of relief gas have no effect on steam-assisted flare (\combustion efficiencies below an exit velocity of 62.5 ft/sec.**(l.1~·'1 w:...h.~A**  )-, '.-t_p\-**""1o··,-.L'<::~'''-_:'''1·''--/.I'''"i)-~-'''''--iY'''--:!,,....;\- _~,O-_,r_t**  "",J**~tr·",--~~** ..i .·h'"l ) -\**I(4/~H'-'.nJ** . 7

. Varying Btu content of relief gases have no observed effect on steam- II assisted flare combustion efficiencies for reliefgases above 300 Btu/SCF. Aslight decline in combustion efficiencywas noted for reliefgases below 300 Btu/SCF. \. • Flaring low Btu content gases at high exit velocities may result in lower combustion efficiencies for air-assisted flares.

• Smoking flares achieve high gaseous hydrocarbon destruction efficiencies.

• In many cases, where high combustion efficiencies were observed, the carbonmonoxide and hydrocarbon concentrations observed in the flare plume were approximately equal to those found in ambient air.

• Concentrations of NOxemissions in the flare plume,were observed to range - from 0.5 to 8.16 ppm.

• The combustion efficiency data were insensitive to sampling probe height within the normal operating heights of the probe.

• Further development of a technique to use sulfur or another material as a tracer material to determine the flare dilution ratios is required.

• Steam-assisted flares burning relief gases with less than 450 Btu/SCF lower heating value did not smoke, even with zero steam assistance.

• The meandering of the flame's position relative to the sampling probewith varying wind conditions affected the continuous measurements but had no apparent effect on the combustion efficiency values.

• Higher concentrations of THC and CO were not observed during the purge rate flare tests.

5SECTION 3 -TESTING METHODOLOGY EXPERIMENT DESIGN AND FLARE OPERATION The flare tests were designed to determine the combustion efficiency and hydrocarbon destruction efficiency of flares under a variety of operating conditions. The tests were devised to investigate routine industrial flaring operations. Conditions representative ofemergency flaring operations were not investigated. The primary flare operating variables were:

• Flow rate of relief gas;

• Heating value of relief gases; and

• Steam-to-relief gas ratio (steam flare only). The preliminary test plan called for twenty-seven tests, with each test having adifferent combination of flare operating variables. The operating variables were defined as follows: Relief Gas Flow High

- 25 foot flame length. Intermediate

- 1/6 of high flow. low

- 1/20 of high flow. ,.**-.:;,-~.-**..

. . .. .. .' ", The maximum practical flame length**~hat** could be tested was approximately 25 feet due to height limitations of the crane boom holding the sampling probe. This was the limiting factor for setting the maximum relief gas flow rate. Heating Value High

- Heating value ofthe undiluted reliefgas (zero nitrogen flow) (2,200 Btu/ft3). Intermediate

- Twice the low heating value condition (300-600 Btu/ftJ). Low

- lowest heating value that will maintain combustion (high nitrogen flow) (less than 200 Btu/ft3). Steam Flow High

- Steam-to-relief gas mass ratio of 1.0. Intermediate

- Steam-to-relief gas mass ratio of 0.5. Low

- Steam flow at incipient smoking. Zero 6The preliminary test plan called for determination ofthe vertical profile of the plume by sampling at least four different heights above the flame. As discussed on page 34, this was not done due to the insensitivity ofcombustion efficiency to probe height. Following the vertical profile measurements, the flare's efficiency was' to be determined at the vertical point where the combustion reactions are complete but prior to further dilution with ambient air. Atechnical pretestmeeting was held onMay6, 1982 atthe John linkCompany flare demonstration facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma to allow the project participants to finalize the test plans. During this meeting, six (6) smoking flare test designs were adopted in addition to the 27 tests previously mentioned, for a total of 33 planned tests. Other items discussed during this meeting included: the division of responsibilities, lines of communication, quality**assuran~e** procedures, safety considerations, schedules and testing sequence. During the early stages ofthe test program, the participants learned more about the characteristics offlares, and it became apparent that several of the planned tests were not practical and/or did not represent the intended flare operating conditions. Therefore, sixteen of the thirty-three plannesLtests (numbered 1 through 33) .were cancelled and a substitute grgup of tests {numbered 50 through 67) were formulated in the field and executed in their place. The most common reason for abandoning tests was that many ofthe planned incipient smoking tests and smoking steam-assisted flare tests would not smoke, even with zero steam flow. During each test the flows of the flare feed gases were monitored and maintained as close as practical to the target levels. For several tests it was not possible, due to physical constraints, to maintain all the flow rates- at constant level. This was particularly true for those tests that called for high nitrogen flow. As the pressure in the NZ cylinder banks declined during atest, the nitrogen flow would tend to decrease, resulting in higher reliefgas heating values. Sulfur was selected as a tracer material to allow estimation of the dilution of the relief gas from the flare burner tip to the sampling probe. Sulfur was chosen primarily because ofthe availabilityofmonitoring instrumentation to measure part-per-billion levels of sulfur using flame photometry. Helium was considered as a tracer material. However, this material is difficult to quantify at levels less than several tens ofparts permillion and thus, would require large quantities of gas. Additionally, helium cannot be detected on acontinuous basis as can 502' Sulfurhexaf1uoride (SF6) was also considered as a tracer material. However, SF6 is not stable at the elevated temperatures found in a flare flame. The sulfur in the relief gas originated from three primary sources: 1) naturally occurring reduced sulfur in the crude propylene, 

### Z) sulfur**~dded** to the propylene in the form of butyl mercaptan (approximately 1 gallon butyl mercaptan/6,800 gallons crude propylene), and 3) sulfurdioxide gas added to the relief gas stream. All three sources and forms of sulfur are presumably oxidized to SOZ as the relief gas is burned. The flare emissions were then analyzed for total sulfur as S02 using flame photometry. 7Crude propylene was selected for the relief gas because it is-relativly difficult to burn smokelessly, as compared to paraffins. The availability of propylene and safety considerations also influenced its selection as the relief gas. Lower Btu content relief gases were obtained by diluting the crude propylene with inert nitrogen. Flow rates for both the propylene and the nitrogen werecontrolled by appropriately sized metering valves and rotameters. Steam flow to the steam-assisted flares was controlled by ametering valve and monitored by an orificemeter. Sulfurdioxidewas added to the reliefgas during some ofthe tests to increase the 1eve1s oftracermateria1. Theflow ofS02 was monitored and regulated by arotameter and metering valve assembly. Figure 2 is a schematic of the flow controls and plumbing used to operate the test flares. Figure 3 presents photographs of the flow control manifold assembly and the nitrogen cylinder manifold arrangement. SAMPLIN(,AND ANALYSIS An extractive sampling systemwas use!to collectthe flare emission samples and transport these samples to two mobile analytical laboratories. Figure 4 is a diagram of the sampling and analysis system. The extractive sampling system consisted of a specially designed 27-foot sampling probe which was suspended over the flare flarne by support cables and a hydraulic crane. This probe consisted of a5-foot unheated section of 1" stainless steel pipe coupled with a22-foot heated secti6n of5/8" stainless steel tubing. The heated section was insulated and housed in a 3u pipe which provided support for the entire probe assembly. Guy wires were attached to both ends of the 3" pipe support to position and secure the probe from ground level. Figure 5 contains photographs of the flare emission sampling probe. Gaseous flare emission samples entered the sampling system via the probe tip, passed through the particulate filter, through the heated probe section and then were carried to ground level by a 3/8" heated FEP teflon tube sample line. The sampling system temperature was maintained above 100 C to prevent the condensation of water vapor. The flare emission sample was divided into three possible paths. Afraction of the heated sample was passed through an EPA Reference Method 4 sampling train to determine the moisture content of the sample. Asecond fraction was directed through amoisture removal cold trap and thence, into a sampling manifold in one ofthe mobile laboratories. Sample gas in this manifoldwas analyzed bycontinuous monitors for 02, CO, C02, NOxand THC on adry-sample basis. Athird fraction ofthe sample was directed into aheated sampling manifold in the other mobile laboratory. Sample gas in this manifold was analyzed for 502 and hydrocarbon species on a wet basis. TYPES OF FLARE BURNERS TESTED The steam-assisted**f~are** used for the test**ser~es** was aJohn Zink Standard STF-S-8 flare tip with two constant ignition pilots. Overall length was 12'-3 1/2" with the upper 7'-3" constructed of stainless steel and the lower 5'-1/2" made from carbon steel. The maximum capacity of the tip is rated by John link Company at approximately 53,300 lbslhr for crude propylene at 0.8 Mach exit velocity. However, the STF-S-8 would not burn this volume of gas and remain totally smokeless. The capacity of steam flow through the flare**~team** manifold 8

# mflt--

9 • 

# e • • ;; 

# 5 t: ! 

# I ii 

# .. I ::! ::! 

### 5 

### E III 

## i**~.** • ::! 

# .. ... 

### ... II! 

### ... I! 

### ... 

### a ... f 

### ... ;; 

### ... rt 

# .. .. e 

# o .,g

# e:c 

# - - i 

# - ; • 

### ! 

### §



# . E Q) 

# ... VI VI


# - 0


# ... c 0 u 0 

# - I+- Q) to 

# - u..



# . N II <1J i ::s • 0) 

### ! 

### ....

### Flow Control Manifold

Nitrogen Cylinder Manifold Figure 3. Flow control and nitrogen cylinder manifolds. 

### 10**~RANE** SUPPORT

EXIlAl/51 HETEOROLOBItAL TOWER**TII£RI10~OUPLE**

:::::: ::::;:**~::;:: :::~;:**  :::::: :::::: :.:.:.:**::;:;~: ~~~~)** **.'~'.~** ::::::

# ~~~t ....**~.~** ::::::'

...... ...... :.:.:. .:.:.:- r:.=:

.. 

### ..i\ /1\

, '.11.'" I (I\ •

• I J

___**.!!.~T!.IUI~.t!!~I.1l ~O~'.:E_** LAB 12
----------- HEAT**TRA~E** SAIlPLE LINE.



# - -

Figure 4. Flare sampling and analysis system.**.~~** 

# .., - 

# .

...
,**1~-t'** 

# if '

.... Figure S. Flare emission sampling probe. 12is 10,080 lbs/hr based on steam conditions of 100 psig and 3380F. The recommended steam flow for this flare is approximately 0.4 pounds of**~team** per pound of crude propylene. The steam jet total flow area is 1.92 in and the unobstructed flow area at the exit of the 8 5/8 11 10 steam-assisted flare tip is 27 0 . 2 ". • 1n • The air-assisted flare was the John link STF-LH-457-5 flare with two constant ignitibn pilots. The overall length of this flare was 13'-211 • The upper portion ofthis flare's airplenumand burner areconstructed ofstainless steel and the lower portion is ofcarbon steel. The maximumcapacity ofthe airassisted flare is approximately 23,500 lbs/hr of crude propylene, which can be burned smokelessly through use ofan air blower. The blower used for this test series was 7 1/2 HP vane axial fan located in the base of the 18 1/411 10 air riser. The relief gas is delivered to the tip by an 411 00 internal riser with the air supplied around the outsidethrough the airriser and plenum. Therelief gas is discharged via a specially designed IIspider ll on the end of the internal riser. The total area ofthe reliefgas holes in the spider burner was 5.30 in2 for the tests on high Btu content relief gas and 11.24 in2for the tests on low Btu content gases. The air**f]o~~_g** gJL

__**flo~_.** velocity**~re** __**I:I!",?pr.j.~t~r::Y** information and are not included in this**report.-··--------~-----** - -**_...........---------.........._~.,'~** ,__**._~_.** __ .•- ...••

_ .•**-~~~'-'r.· ,~~~**  •.**~_,. .~**  •. .•.

__ ._ Typical field installations of air-assisted flares utlize two-speedforced draft fans. The blower normally runs at low speed with automatic advancement to high speed upon an increased relief gas flow signal. The blower is also automatically returned to low speed when the increased relief gas condition subsides. Some deadband is normally provided to avoid excessive speed cycling of the blower with oscillating flows. Normal low speed operation handles approximately one-third of the maximum smokeless duty. The air-assisted flare used in these tests employed an adjustable air inlet vane assembly instead of a two-speed fan. Adjustment of the vane assembly allowed duplication ofthe high and low speed air flow rates**withou~** the two-speed fan. Two different IIspider ll burner tips were employed during the air-assisted flare tests. The LH burner tip, designated at IIAII, was used for tests 26, 65, 28 and 31 for high Btu content gases, and the burner tip designated as IIBII was used for the low Btu content gas tests 66, 29, 64, 62, 63, 33 and 32. John link Standard STF-6-2 pilots were used for both flare tips. At 15 psig, the pilots were designed to burn 300 SCFH ofnatural gas. The natural gas burned in the pilots had a lower heating value of 921 Btu/SCF. Two pilots were used on both the air- and steam-assisted flares, resulting in 552,600 Btu/hr being supplied to the flare by the pilots. FLARE TEST PROCEDURES All key personnel invoived in the execution of the flare tests were in communication with one another via a hard wire intercom system. This communications system included the following: Jl test coordinator, ES instrument operator, CMA test observer, EPA ROSE operator, steamflow operator, rotameter operator, vaporizer operator, crane operator, propylene truck/nitrogen bank operator and video camera operator. All conversations between these persons during tests were recorded on the video tape and on a-portable tape 13recorder. In addition, the two ESmobile laboratories were in communication via a separate intercom system.
. Flaring was not begun until all key personnel were at their stations and verified that they were prepared to initiate a formal test. Then .the test coordinator would call for flare ignition and the gas flows to the flare would be adjusted to the previously agreed nominal values. Once the flows were stabilized the probe would be brought into position by manipulating the hydraulic crane and guy wires.

. The probe positioning objective was to place the probe tip as close as possib1eto the flareflarnewithoutthe probebeing in the flarne. The intent was to sample the flame emission plume as close as possible to the combustion zone to minimize the ofdilution ofthe plume by ambient air. The probe tip was kept out ofthe flame so as not to bias thedatawith gases thatwere still undergoing combustion reactions. Probe positioning was directed by the JZ test coordinator. The test coordinator's visual probe positioning was aided by observers located in different quadrants surrounding the flare and the CMA observer who was situated on an elevated platform. Additionally, theES instrument operatormonitored the probe tip temperature, CO, C02, and THC. When the project participants agreed that the probe was positioned as well as was feasible, the test coordinator announced the initiation ofthe test and data collection ensued. The probe position was adjusted as required during the test to compensate for changes in wind conditions causing movement of the flame and the plume away from the probe tip. iThese adjustments were both vertical and lateral. The primary criteria for determinirig, the need to adjust· the probe position was a decline in probe tip temperature. Short-term declines in temperature (i.e. less than one minute) were common as the flare flame and plume moved 'with intermittent changes in the wind. However, extended temperature declines (i.e., greater than two minutes) were regarded as a significant shift of the wind and signaled the need to adjust the probe position. Data collecton continued for each test for atarget period of 20 minutes. The actual test duration was dependent on anumber offactors which influenced decision of when to terminate the tests. These factors included: 1. The effects of the flare's radiant heat on buildings, personnel and test equipment in the area; 2. The representativeness of the data from the standpoint ofbeing able to maintain good probe positioning during the majority of the test; and 3. The consumption rates of propylene and nitrogen. BACKGROUND MEASUREMENTS Ambient air concentrations of the compounds of interest were measured in the test area before and after each test or series of tests. These background 14measurements were collected for a minimum period of five minutes. The background measurements collected before the tests were typically initiated fifteen to thirty minutes before the anticipated start of the next test. Background measurements collected after the tests were initiated as soon as all the instruments indicated a complete return to baseline concentrations (typically five to ten minutes after test completion). On occasions when several tests were executed in a relatively short time period (less than four hours), the same pair of before and after background measurements were applied to more than one test. On other occasions a set of background measurements collected after atest would also suffice as the background data set collected before the next test. CONTINUOUS EMISSION ANALYZERS Flare emission measurements ofcarbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), oxygen (02), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), total hydrocarbons (THC) and sulfur dioxide (S02) were measured by continuous analyzers that responded to real time changes in concentrations. These analyzers obtained their samples from the sample manifolds in the two mobile laboratories. Table 2 is a summary of the instrumentation used during the tests. The operating principles of these instruments are well known and are not discussed in detail in this report. The instruments were operated according to the manufacturers I recommendations, utilizing the primary measurement ranges listed in Table 2. The only exceptions to this were the operation ofthe THC and S02 analyzers. During some tests it was necessary to change the operating range ofthe THC analyzer to higher scales due to elevated levels of these compounds. The Meloy SA 285 S02 analyzer was modified to incorporate a 1:5 sample dilution system. This ,was necessary in order to minimize the effect of variable 02 content in the flare emissions on the instrument response. All instruments were housed in air conditioned mobile laboratories to minimize the effects of temperature on instrument response. However, given the high radiant heat effects of some of the flare tests, itwas not always possible to maintain aconstant temperature within the mobile labs. This factor had the greatest effect on the NOx and S02 analyzers which employed photomultiplier tubes in their detection systems. The effect of rising ambient temperature was noted as a slight shift in the instrument baseline. HYDROCARBON SPECIES ANALYSIS Flare emission samples were collected during each test for gas chromatographic analysis for hydrocarbon species. These samples were of two forms: instantaneous samples and time integrated samples. The instantaneous samples were periodically withdrawn directly from the sample manifold during each test and injected into the chromatograph via agas sample loop. The time integrated samples were transferred from the manifold into a six liter**Tedlar~** bag over a period of five to ten minutes. Subsequently, the integrated samples were analyzed by gas chromatograph. The analysis techniques for the integrated and instantaneous samples were the same. Only the sampling differed. Table 3 outlines the operating conditions of gas chromatograph. 15TABLE 2. FLARE EMISSION ANALYZERS AND INSTRUMENTATION
Primary

.Make and Mode1 Parameter Operating Range Operating Principle Thermo Electron Model 10 NOx 0-25 ppm Chemiluminescence Horiba PIR 2000 CO 0-1,000 ppm Infrared absorption Horiba PIR 2000 CO2 0-5% Infrared absorption Teledyne 320 AX 02 0-25% Electro**catalysi~** Scott 116 Total hydrocarbon 0-100 ppm Flame ionization Carle 211 Gas Chromatograph Hydrocarbon Species N/A Flame ionization



## .... C7I Meloy SA 285 (ES Modified) Tracer (S02) 0-5 ppm Flame photometry Climatronics Electronic Wind Speed 0-50 mph Photo chopper Weather Station Wind Direction 0-540 Precision potentiometer Ambient Temperature 40-120°F Thermistor Omega Thermocouple Chromel-Alumel exposed bead Assembly Probe Temperature -300° to 2300°F thermocouple17 

### GAS CHROMATOGRAPH OPERATING CONDITIONS

Elution Times: Methane Ethane/Ethylene Propane Propylene Butane Minutes 1.27 1.62 

### 2.44 2.91 4.68 

### Carle 211 

### 4.9 foot 

### x 1/8 in. stainless steel n-octane/porasil C, 100/120 mesh 35OC 35OC 

### Nitrogen 35 

### cc/min. 1 

### cc Carle 6 

### port, selonoid activation Flame ionization detector Methane equivalents (parts per million) 0.05 ppmas CH4 Direct injection, no backflush TABLE 3.

Gas Chromatograph: Co1

### umn: Packing: Oven Temperature: Sample Loop Temperature: Carrier Gas: Carrier Flow: Sample Loop Size: Sample Valve: Detector Type: Calibration Basis: Lower Detection Limit: Valving Scheme:TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS The temperature at the sampling probe tip was continuously monitored during the tests with a chromel-alumel thermocouple in conjunction with a digital thermometer. The thermocouple selected was an exposed bead type so as to minimize the response time. An open end stainless steel shield protected the thermocouple from the flame's radiant heat and still allowed free circulationof the flare emission around the thermocouple. Thermocouples were also installed in the heat trace line, the heated manifold and the heated probe assembly to allow monitoring of these tempertures during the tests. PARTICULATE ANALYSES The probe assembly included an in-line particulate filter housed inside the heated section ofthe probe about six feet from the probe tip. This in-line particulate filter assembly served two purposes: 1) collection of particulate samples from smoking flares for subsequent analysis, and 2) maintaining the cleanliness ofthe sampling system. The preweighedfilter elements used were of the thimble configuration and constructed of0.3 micrometer glass fiber. The filters were changed before and after each ofthe smoking flare tests. Following the tests the filters were reweighed to determine the mass of particulate collected. This information, combined with the measured flow rate of sample through the probe assembly, allowed the calculation .of the gross particulate concentration of the flare emission at the sampling location. It should be noted however, that these particulate samples were not collected. isokineticall and thus, re resent only ross e· of the articulate concentratlOn. e are partlcuate emlSSlons were not isokinetlca y samprrecr15ecause It*was not practical to directly measure the plume velocity. Due to

small particle sizes, the lack of isokinetic sampling conditions is probably insignificant.
. MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS The moisture content ofthe sampled flare emissions were determined by the procedures set forth in EPA's Reference Method 4 (40 CFR 60 Appendix A). Agas sample was extracted from the heated sample line and passed through a series of four impingers immersed in an ice bath. The impingersremoved thewater from the sample stream by condensation and by adsorption on silica gel. The weight gain of the impingers was measured to determine the moisture content of the sample. The only deviation from the published method required by this appication was a reduction in the size of the sample passed through the impingers. Due to the short duration ofthe test, it was not possible to sample the full 21 SCF volume recommended in the published method. This deviation only slightly affects the accuracy of the moisture determinations. The purpose of collecting moisture samples was to provide data to allow conversion of concentrations measured on a wet basis to a dry basis and vice versa. This was believed to be important since the instrumental analyses were conducted on both a wet and dry basis. However, the moisture determinations revealed low levels ofmoisture content by weight (3.8% (volume basis) average 18for steam-assisted flare tests and 3.0% average for air-assisted flare tests). Therefore, moisture corrections were not applied to the data because of their low levels and questionable accuracy. It is not believed that moisture corrections would enhance the value of the data. The results qf the moisture determinations may be found in Section 4 of this report. METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS The ambient wind speed, wind direction and temperaturewasmonitored at the flare test facility concurrently with the**collectio~** of flare emission data. The meteorological sensors were situated as close as was practical to the test flares at an elevation approximatelythe same as the flare tip (12 feet, 8 inches AGL)•Due to the numerous airflow obstructions in the test areathewind data are not expected to correspond with the prevailing Tulsa area winds. Rather, the wind data were intended to represent the wind encountered by the subject flare flames. Testing of the flares was found to be infeasible when wind velocities exceeded 5 miles per hour. Elevated wind velocities prevented sustained and consistent positioning of the probe in the flare plume. AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS Audio and video recordings were made during the flare tests. Video recordings were made to document the flame behavior and the probe position relative to the flame. The video camerawas positioned to have an unobstructed view ofthe flame by placing it on aplatform approximately 20 feet above ground level. The distance from the flare to the camera was approximately 50 feet. Audio recordings were made of the verbal observations of the participants during the tests. The audio recordings weremade on the same magnetic tape used for the video recordings. The intercom system served as the source ofall audio recordings. The audio and video recordings were made primarily as means ofdocumentation ofthe tests and to allow possiblefuturemoredetailed analyses ofthe data with respect to flame behavior. These recordings were not generallyused in the data analysis contained in this report. The one exception to this is the use of the recordings to identify the point at which smoking began during Test 11 relative to the increasing Btu content of the relief gas.

19SECTION 4 DATA COLLECTION AND CALCULATIONS CONTINUOUS ANALYZERS' DATA ACQUISITION The outputs of the**continuo~s** monitoring instruments used for this study were analog signals that were proportional to the magnitude of the parameter being monitored. These output signals were recorded on both a strip chart recorder and on a data logging system. The strip chart records provided a permanent, continuous record ofthe analyzeroutput and agraphical displaythat aided in the data interpretation. The electronic data logger system provided a convenient means to record and process a large quantity of data. Although the data logger served as the primary means of data acquisition, the strip chart records provided a baCk-up data acquisition system and documentation for the data logger. The data logger employed for this project was a Monitor Labs Model 9300. This instrumentwas coupledwith a9-trackmagnetic tape recorder (KennedyModel 9800) and aten-digitmanual dataentry system. Thefunctions ofthedata logger were as follows:

• Scan each instrument output (approximately every 12 seconds);

• Convert the analyzer's analog output to a digital value;

• Scale the digital value to a useful unit of measure (ppm, mph, etc.);

. • Record the scaled instantaneous value on the 9-track magnetic tape.

• Average the instantaneous values to one-minute averages;
• Print the one-minute averages on paper tape for on-site review; and

• Label each set of data with the time and the appropriate manually entered status data. The original test plan called for the data logger to scan each channel once every six seconds. However, this was not possible given the number of input channels to the data logger (10), the required functions, and the speed of the instrument. Each input channel was scanned for instantaneous data approximately once every twelve seconds. The data logger's internal clock was set as closely as possible to Central Daylight SaVings Time (CDST). This clock_,was used as the standard time for all data acquisition relating to the '(Jar-I? tests. The printed paper tape output of the data logger provided means to review thedata being recorded on-site by the data logger. This data was compared with the strip chart data to ensure integrity in the entire data acquisition system. Likewise, the paper tape outputwas used to indicate the combined instrument and data logger responses to the routine zero and span calibration gas inputs. An example paper tape output may be found in this report's Appendix; 20A10-digit manual data entry system allowed the labeling of each set of data as it was collected. This system was used to record the following: Record Digits Parameter 0, 1 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8 9

HYDROCARBON SPECIES DATA Test number designation Sampling probe height (feet and inches) Spare Status of data 

## o=Calibration data 1 

### =Acceptable test data 2

### =Change in test conditions 3

### =Questionable data 4

### =Ambient background data 5

### =Trial test burn 6

## =Probe positioned in fire 7, 8 Spare 9

### =Disregard data

The gas chromatography data for hydrocarbon species was recorded by a Hewlett-Packard Model 3390 Integrator. This device accepted the analog signal from the gas chromatograph and plotted the peaks which correspond to the hydrocarbon species. The integrator also determined the retention time for each peak and the peak areas which are proportional to the hydrocarbon concentration. This datawas recorded by aprinter/plotteron apapertape. Thepeak area values recorded on this tape were subsequently reduced to units ofparts permillion by volume .of methane equivalents.

- DOCUMENTATION The performance of these tests was documented by the following:

• Logbooks maintained by CMA project participants. These records contain a test chronology, records of field observations, records of flow rates of gases feeding the flare and preliminaryfield data records copied from the data loggerpaper tape. These logbooks are stored at CMA's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• Logbooks maintained by ES test personnel. These records contain a chronology of all events associated with the flare tests that are related to the arralysis of flare plume gases. This recorded data includes records of calibrations, zero and span checks, sampling probe heights, test observations, moisture determination data, particulate mass loading data, difficulties encountered and solutions offered. These logbooks are stored at the ES Austin, Texas office.


### 21• Strip chart records. This includes continuous recordings ofCO, C02, NOx, THC, S02, 02, probe temperature, wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature and the gas chromatograph integrator. These records are maintained at the ES Austin, Texas office.

• Video and audio recordings. These magnetic tapes include the audio recordings ofthe participants' comments and observations made during each test through the intercom system. The video tapes also include a visual record of the flare flarne during the tests. Copies of these tapes are stored at the JZ Tulsa, OK facility; the EPA, IERL Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; and the CMA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• Data tapes. These paper tapes and magnetic computer tape contain all the validated data logged by the data logger during the tests. The paper tapes are stored at the ES Austin, Texas office. Copies of magnetic tape are stored at CMA headquarters, Washington, D.C., and at the ES Austin, Texas office. CALCULATIONS The following calculation formulas and constants were employed to reduce the data presented in this report. Combustion Efficiency
%CE Where:

Gaseous Flows %MR 

### F

t =

### ;:;:;;:;.=l~OO~.;::M=F::;:==;:;;:= _/MW. 14.7. T +460**~29** P+14.7 530 MR F

t 

### =**;;;;:;:==~:::::;:::=;;:==;;;:=** .{M

2W

9 • 14.7. T + 460 "'V P+14.7 530 Standard Rotameters {SCFM}

.Direct Reading Rotameters {SCFH}
Where: Ft 

### =gas flow at time t %MR 

### =percent of full-scale meter reading for standard flow MR 

### =**mete~** reading for direct reading rotameters MF 

### =flowmeter calibration factor {SCFM} 22MW 

### =molecular weight of gas in flow meter P

### =flowmeter back pressure (PSIG) T

### =temperature of gas (OF) Flow Meter Calibration Factors Meter Designation 

### 699 MT 391 MT R13M-25-3 R10M-25-3 R8M-26-2 Gas Constants Flow Meter Calibration Factor (SCFM) 745.4 409.5 128.8

26.04

2.13

Gas Crude Propylene Nitrogen Sulfur Dioxide Lower Heating Density (lbs/ftll Value (Btu/ft3

## 1**~,frt1** 2183

### -..u.~~0 ,/ht/I 

# I muI' 0

### rJ;;~~'? 0 Molecular Weight 42.4 28 64 Steam Orifice Flows 3" orifice maximum flow 

### =2,250 lbs/hr 1-1/2" orifice maximum flow 

### =600 lbs/hr 1/2" orifice maximum flow 

### =200 lbs/hr
F 

### = -

## 1% Chart

- 20

t F MaxV----,,;8"""0--- P g 

### .p o Where: F t 

### =steam flow at time t (lbs/hr) FMax 

### =maximum steam flow through orifice (lbs/hr) %Chart 

### =response of recorder coupled with flow transducer 20 

### =zero offset of recorder 80 

### =full-scale recorder response P

g

### =steam pressure, (psia) Po = base pressure, (psia)

23

### Average Flows F

t1 + 

### F t2 + 

### F t3 FA 

### = z + •••


### Where: FA 

### =average flow rate for each test z 

### =number of flow rate readings during each test F

tz 

### =flow reading numbered l

...

### z at time t

24SECTION 5 'REVIEW OF FLARE TEST RESULTS The test reviews contained in this section are grouped by the experimental variables of flow rate and Btu content of the relief gas. The test reviews consist of a narrative description of the test conditions and the results by test group. The measured combustion efficiency of the flare is the term which is used in these discussions to evaluate the flare performance. Statistical data summaries are presented on a test-by-test basis in the appendix to this report (Appendix B). The data presented in these summaries were calculated from the instantaneous data values (collected at approximately 12-second intervals) which have been corrected by sUbtracting background concentrations. No adjustment was made for moisture. These summaries include average values, standard deviations, number of observations and combustion efficiency calculations for each test. The combustion efficiencies for each test were calculated by two methods: 

### (I) the "average combustion efficiency" values listed in the summaries are the average values of all of the instantaneous combustion efficiency calculations performed on the instantaneous data values; (2) the "overall combustion efficiency" term was calcuclat"ed from the average concentration values of CO, C02 and THC for the entire test. The differences between these two calculation methods are not regarded as significant. The "overall combustion efficiency" term is used in this report for comparison between tests.
.
I The chronological order in which the tests were performed minimized piping and equipment changes in the field,**~nd** this order is sUbstantially different from the groupings listed here. The test numbering system is not sequential since many tests were added or deleted from the planned sequence. Tests numbered 1 through 33 represent tests which were completed in accordance with the planned test series. Tests numbered 50 through 67 represent test conditions which were planned and implemented in the field in place of the deleted tests. The results for tests numbered 11, 16, 59, 29 and 32 have been divided into subtests (designated ll{a), 11{b), etc.). These test data were divided into subtests for data analysis because the flare operating conditions significantly changed during the tests. The division into subtests allowed the data to more closely represent steady-state flare operation. All other tests werejudged to represent steady-state flare operation. The criteria for steady-state flare operation were that all individual flow readings must be within +10% of the average flow. STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS Twenty-three tests were completed on the John Zink Company (STF-S-8) steam-assisted flare. The flare operating conditions and the results of these tests are summarized in Table 4. 25N O'l 

### TABLE 4. STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE SUMMARY
RELIEF GAS* lower Test**CondlUon~** Exit t1eaUng Steam Steam-to-Relief CllIIlbllstion Test Flow Velocity Vallie prOjYlene Flow Nitrogen Flow Flow Gas Ratio EHidency**~umber** (SCFH) (ftlmln) (Btu/SCF)**(16~/hr** (SCFM) (16s/hr) (SCFH) (Ibs/hr) (Ibllb) Percent

1 413 2,523 2,183 3,13B 413 Q- 0 2,159 0.668 99.96 2**~61** 2,415 2,183 3,018 464 

### - - 1,564 0.508 99.82 3 456 2,432 2,183 3,021 465 

## - - 1,355 0.448 99.82 "- 4 263 1,509 2,183 1.815 283 

# - - - - 9£.80"*



# ..**~~** 8 151 831 2,183 1.044 151 

### - 

## - '-
- 98.81** ;a: 1 154 821 2,183 1,019 154 122 0.151 99.M 

# .. - - 5 b U Q> 5 149 195 2,183 991 149 - - 1,543 1.56 99.94 :0 0


### ... 61 148 189 2,183 980 148 

## - - 111 0.125 See DO. 28. 

### ... ! 17 24.5 131 2,183 162 24.5 

## - - 150 0.926 99.84 ::I:

# ["

.., ...r 24.4 lJO 2,18] 162 24.4 

## - - 498 ].01 99.45

## ~~ 24.5 lJl 2,18] 163 24.5 

## - - 562 3.45 99.10 Steam Flow 166**-~~l** - 82.18 ' I .3 Rates 1 25.0 lJ3 2,183 25.0 

### . ! 5.67 5 24.7 lJ2 2,183 164 24.1 

## - -...**~....** 1,1 5 ,\ 6.86 6B.95 , 51 703 3,149 294 629 94.8 2.663 608**2~** .1. 497 0.150 99.90 l1[al 660 3,520 305 612 92.2' 2,489 568 .(.'1., 

## - - 99.93 lllb) 599 3,195 342 623 93.9 2,210 505 ::t-'i';.. - - 99.86 ! 1I1c) 556 2,965 364 616 92.8 2,028 463 )o'If 

### . - 99.82 ;: 591a) 591 3.152 192 345 52 2,361 539 I

... (" 

### . - 9S.11 \ 

### ... 59(b) 496 2,645 232 350 52.7· 1,942 443 Ie- 

### - 

## - 99.32

## ~~ 60 334 1,181 <ffi)'2.0'\ 212 32 1,325 302**l~** 

### - 

## - 98.92

.. L 51 325 1,133 J09 305 46 1.222 219 :15' 256 0.168 98.66

.. 0 16{a) 320 1,101 339 329 49.0 1.182 210 li·g 

### - - 99.14 "' 0 U 16{b) 252 1,344 405 3}) 41.2

. 097 205**3~h~** 

# - - 99.15 ::I , 

# .. 16(e} 194 1,035 519 301 46.2 650 14U**41'~** 

### - 

### · 99.14 ..,**.~** 16{d) 159 846 634 301 46.3 496 113 62- 

## - - 99.18 54 0.356 1.90 209 0.226 0.0341 1.41 0.322 

### - · 99.90 !: , '23 0.494 2.63 261 0.451 0.0680 2.13 0.481 

### - · 100.01 

# -.**;,'~** Excessive

# h 2 0.556 2.96 268 0.452 0.0662 2.14 0.468 201 17.5 95.82 Steam Flow' 209

. 0.226 0.0341 1.41 0.322 201 12] L Rates 53 0.356 1.90 99.40 ::I Q. * All values at standarD conditions of 1uur**a~~** 29.92 in H9. *. Not accounting for carbon present as soot (see Table 10).
Uw for purge flows the pilot cor.tributed greater than**95~** of the total**combu~tible** gas to the flare.High Btu Content Relief Gases This test group addresses the steam flare's combustion efficiency while burning high Btu content.relief gases at variable flow rates and various steamto-relief gas ratios. Tests numbered 1, 2 and 3 examined the burning of the crude propylene at the normal (high) rate of approximately 3,100 lbs/hr with steam-to-relief gas ratios ranging from 0.688 to 0.448. Test 3was run at the steam flow which yielded incipient smoking ofthe flare. No significant change in the combustion efficiency values was noted between these three high flow rate tests. What 1ittle hydrocarbons were present were predominately methane• .j Likewise, the average corrected CO concentrations for these tests were low, 4 ranging from 3.8 to 13.8 ppm. The C02 values reported during the first minute of test 3 are lower than those which were prevalent during the remainder of the test. The combustion efficiency data does not appear to be influenced by this unexplained anomoly. The background data file applied to test 3 has anegative average value for CO (-0.4 ppm). This was caused by the physical limitations of the CO analyzer. This instrument was operated on the lowest available range (0-1000 ppm). At this range, the practical limit for accurately adjusting the analyzer's zero response was +3.0 ppm. Therefore, it is not surprising that slightly negative background CO values could be recorded during conditions of low ambient CO concentrations. The average corrected total hydrocarbon value reported for test 1 is -0.7 ppm. This negative value results from the measured ambient background THC concentration being higher than the THC concentration measured above the flare flame. Tests numbered 4 and 8were perf-Ormedwithcrudepropylenereliefgas flows of 1,875 and 1,044 1bs/hr without any steam assistance to the flare. These conditions purposely resulted in aheavily smoking flare condition. The relief gas flow rates for test number 4 were reduced from those used in tests 1, 2 and 3 in order to keep the flame length within the probe height constraints. The combustion efficiencies for these two tests are reported as 98.80% and 98.81%. It should be noted that these combustion efficiency calculations do not account for the carbon lost as soot; onlycarbon present as gaseous species are considered (CO, C02, and THC}. Higher levels of CO were observed during these tests (61 to 75 ppm corrected) in comparison to tests 1, 2 and 3. However elevated 1eve1s of unburned gaseous hydrocarbons were not detected. 

### ..IbL hydrocarbon species data shows the predominant species presentto bemethane and_acetyleneParticulate samples of the soot were collected during these two tests. This data is addressed later in this section. Tests numbered 7 and 5 were designed to represent flaring of a high Btu content gas at an intermediate flow rate. The steam-to-relief gas ratio was 1.56 for test 5 and represented the high steam flow case, while the ratio of 0.757 for test 7yielded incipient smoking. Both ofthese tests at intermediate 27flow rates yielded similar combustion efficiency results to the high flow rate tests (1, 2and 3)•. The observed combustion efficiencies were 99.94% and 99.84% for tests 5 and 7respectively. Methane accounted for themajor fraction ofthe total hydrocarbons**pres~nt** in the flare emissions. The corrected CO levels for both tests were fairly low at 4.1 ppm for test 5 and 7.9 ppm for test 7. During test 67 the sampling probe was deliberately placed in the flare flame. This is in contrast to the other tests which sought to sample in the flare plume above the flame. The purpose .ofthis short test was to demonstrate the upscale instrument responses to the partially combusted gases in the flame. Concentrations of CO and THC were observed to rise sharply and offscale as the probe was placed in the flame. THC concentrations were observed to be greater than 100 ppm and CO concentrations were observed to be greater than 2,280 ppm. Thedatacollected during thiS test does notrepresent the combustion efficiency ofthe flare since the samplewas collectedwithin theflame. The average values for THC and CO reported in the statistical summary are disregarded since these numbers excluded the overrange observations. Low Flow Rate, High Btu Relief Gases Tests numbered 17, 50, 56, 61 and 55 examined the effects of increasing steam flows on the flaring of a high Btu content relief gas at a low flow rate (approximately 164 lbs/hr). Test 17 yielded results similar to the high and intermediate flow rate tests. The overall combustion efficiencywas calculated to be 99.84% and the corrected average concentrations ofTHC and CO were low at -0.5 and 6.1 ppm, respectively. (The negative THC value resulted from the measured concentration being lower than the background concentration.) It was determined during this test that a steam-to-relief gas ratio of 0.926 was required for smokeless operation at the designated flow rate. Tests.50, 56, 61 and 55 were performed at increasing steamflow rates. The steam-to-relief gas ratios used for these tests are regarded as bei.ng higher than those that would represent good engineering practice. Steam-to-reliefgas ratios for tests 50 and 56 were 3.07 and 3.45 and yielded combustion efficiencies of 99.45% and 99.70%. By contrast the steam-to-relief gas ratios for tests 61 and 55 were 5.67 and 6.86 and resulted in lower observed combustion efficiencies of 82.18% and 68.95%. data**s~ests** that**ste~~to-relief ~ios**  above 3.5 1!@..t**cau~-irtefficien.L.c.ambJti.tto_r.!:~** - The total hydrocarbon and CO concentrations for tests 50 and 56werefairly low in keeping with the high observed combustion efficiencies. However, the hydrocarbon specie data for these two tests show that a larger fraction of the total hydrocarbon was present as unburned propylene (approximately 1/4 of the total hydrocarbon for test 56 and 1/2 of the total hydrocarbon for test 50) in comparison to the previouslydiscussed tests. In tests 61 and 55, with the lower observed combustion efficiencies, the CO and THC concentrations were elevated and propylene represented approximately 3/4 fraction of the total hydrocarbon. Test 61 was arepeat ofTest 55. This repeat test was performed because of uncertainties regarding probe placementduring test55. The flaring ofthe high heating value reliefgas at alow flow with avery high steamrate yielded alow luminosity flame that prevented accurate visual placement of the probe. 28Additionally, test 55 was conducted during variable wind conditions. Test 61 was performed at night to aid visual probe positioning and to take advantage of stable wind conditions. The only significant difference between test 61 and test 55 was that the steam-to-re1ief gas ratio for test 61 was somewhat lower (5.7 versus 6.9)

. .This ratio is still regarded as being very high and not representative of typical industrial operating practices. The effect of steam quenching on the flare combustion efficiency is evidenced in the test data. Low Btu Content Relief Gases The flaring of low Btu content relief gases was simulated by diluting the high Btu crude propylene with inert nitrogen. Thus, by changing the relative flow rates ofnitrogen and crudepropyleneto the flare, the heating value ofthe relief gas could be varied. For this series of tests, the Btu content of the relief gases ranged from 634 Btu/SCF to 192 Btu/SCF, and the relief gas flow rates ranged from 3,292 1bs/hr to 803 1bs/hr. The original test plan called for the series of tests involving low Btu content relief gases to include variations in the steam flow to achieve incipient smoking and smoking conditions. However, for most of these tests smoking was not observed, even with zero steamflow. Onlywhen the lower heating. va1ue

_**ro_~~_abC?ve._**..450**"B.~~I~.~L** __ q_urt,!g.

__**~_~~t_l§ .~.~_?** __**~,!!1.~~ ~nQ,_o.b~~:_v.~.:,...**  Tests numbered 11, 59 and 16 in this series were divided into subtests because the flare operation was not steady-state during these tests. Due to physical limitations in the nitrogen flow control system, the flow ofnitrogen decreased with respect to time causing a corresponding increase in the lower heating value ofthe reliefgas. The division into subtests allowed the datato more closely represent steady-state flare operation. Test 57 represented the highest.flow rate of alow Btu content gas thatwas**tested~** The flare was supplied with 3292 lbs/hr of relief gas with a lower heating value of 294 Btu/SCF and a steam-to-relief gas ratio of 0.150 steam/lb relief gas. Test 51, by comparison, represented flaring of a similar heating value gas (309 Btu/SCF) with a similar steam-to-reliefgas ratio (0.168), but at a lower flow rate of 1,527 lbs/hr. Tests 57 and 51 achieved combustion efficiencies of 99.90% and 98.66%, respectively.**~or,r~c:~ed hydrocarbo~**  c.o_ncentrations of2.0 ppm and 11.5 ppm and CO concentrations**of5~O** ppm-and 34.1**'ppm.~ere** obtained for tests 57 and 51, respectively. The slightly'lower- combustion efficiency of test 51 is also observed in the hydrocarbon species data. The observed hydrocarbons in test 57 were approximately 20% non-methane species, while the hydrocarbons in test 51 were comprised of 58% non-methane species. The flames for tests 57 and 51 were of low luminosity and visual positioning of the probe was difficult. These two tests were the only low Btu flare tests where steam was supplied to the flare. The background file as applied to test 51 (and tests 23 and 52) lists probe tip temperatures that are higher than ambient levels. This is believed to be caused by the probe acting as aheatreservoir from the test event that immediately preceded. This anomaly does not effect the combustion efficiency data.
29Tests 11, 59, 60 and 16 examined the flaring ofreliefgases with heating values of 192 Btu/SCF to 634 Btu/SCF at flow rates ranging from 3,101 lbs/hr to 803 lbs/hr with zero steam flow to the flare. The variations in observed combustion efficiencies for this set of tests was fairly narrow, ranging from 99.93% to 98.11%. Test 59 demonstrated the flaring of a low Btu content gas ata high flow rate with no steam. The nitrogen flow decreased during this test from 2,453 lbs/hr to 1,726 lbs/hr due to declining pressure in the nitrogen cylinders. This resulted in an increase in the Btu content of the relief gas from 182 Btu/SCF to 257 Btu/SCF from the beginning to the end of the test. This corresponds to a slightly lower combustion efficiency for test 59(a) than for test 59(b). Tests 59(a) and 59(b) had the lowest Btu content reliefgases ofthe group. likewise, these tests exhibited slightly lower combustion efficiencies. This observation is confirmed in the hydrocarbon species datawhich shows test 59 to have elevated total hydrocarbon concentrations (as compared with tests 11, 60 and 16). and non-methane hydrocarbons representing 92% of the total. These results indicate that some unburned hydrocarbons were sampled during this test. Test 11 was to demonstrate the flaring of low heating value gas at a flow rate of approximately 3,100 lbs/hr. No steam was supplied to the flare. The flow rate of nitrogen to the flare declined somewhat during the test, thus, causing a corresponding increase in the heating value of the flare gas. Therefore, this test has been divided into three subtests [11(a), II(b) and II(c)] for purposes ofdata analysis. The data does not indicate any change in the flare combustion efficiency with the change in nitrogen flow. Test 16 was designed to be a smoking flare test utilizing an intermediate flare gas flow with alow heating value gas. No steamwas supplied to the flare. As was the case with Test II,. the nitrogen flow declined during the test and hence, the testwas divided into subtests for data analysis [tests 16(a}, 16(b}, 

### 16(c}, 16(d)]. During the initial period of the test, when the heat content of the flare gas was the lowest, the flare did not emit smoke. However, as the nitrogen flow declined and the heat content of the flare ,gas increased, the flare began to smoke. The smoking began approximatelynine and one-halfminutes from the start of the test [during subtest 16(b}] when the heating value of the flare gas reached approximately 450 Btu/SCF. The smoking increased with increasing Btu content ofthe reliefgas. The onset of smoking and the change in heating value did not have any obvious effects on the gaseous combustion efficiency data (if carbon lost as smoke is excluded from the combustion efficiency calculations). Test 60 was similar to Test 16(a) except the Btu contentwas slightly lower at 298 Btu/SCF instead of 339 Btu/SCF. The flow rates for the two tests were similar with exit velocities of 1781 and 1707 ft/min. The observed combustion efficiency for test 60 was 98.92% as compared with 99.74 for test 16(a). As was the case for test 59. this slightly lower combustion efficiency is believed to be a result of the lower Btu content of the relief gas. . 30Purge Rate Relief Gas Flows Tests 54, 23, 52 and 53 examined purge gas flare operations. Purge flows are sometimes used in flare operations to prevent oxygen encroachment into the flare systemduring the time that no reliefgas is provided the flare. It should be noted for these tests that the flow of natural gas from the flare pilots was significantly greater than the flow ofthe purge gases. The two pilots burned atotal of 10 SCFM (9210 Btu/min) ofnatural gas as compared with purge flows of 0.56 to 0.36 SCFM (149 to 74 Btu/min). Thus, the overall combustion efficiency measurements for these tests were primarily a measure of the flare pilots. During these tests only an occasional flicker offlame could be observed at the flare header. Tests 54 and 23 were performed without the addition of steamto the flare. These tests yielded high observed overall combustion efficiencies of99.90% and 100.01%. The calculated combustion efficiency greater than 100% for test 23 resulted from the observed hydrocarbon level above the flare being slightly lower than the measured ambient background hydrocarbon concentrations. The corrected total hydrocarbon concentration for tests 54 and 23 were 0.0 and -5.0 ppm. Tests 52 and 53 were similar to tests 54 and 23 except 210 lbs/hr steamwas supplied for the former. The calculated combustion efficiencies for tests 52 and 53 were 98.82% and 99.40%. This slight decline in the combustion efficiency is believed to be due to steam quenching of the combustion process. Corrected total hydrocarbon values observed for tests 52 and 53 are 15.2 and 10.9 ppm. Correspondingly, the CO concentrations for tests 54 and 23 were lower than for tests 52 and 53 (6.8 and 4.5 ppm versus 16.0 and 23.9 ppm). Likewise, nonmethane species represented a 1arger percentage of the total hydrocarbon 'for tests 52 and 53 than for tests 54 and 23.

- The probe tip temperatures during the first three and one-halfminutes of test 53 were not recorded by the data logger. This temperature data was recovered from the strip chart record. The low, steady wind speeds that prevailed during test 54 allowed the collection oftwentyminutes ofrelatively consistent data. However, during the latter part of the test the wind speed was observed to increase with acorresponding decrease in probe tip temperature, C02 concentration, and S02 concentration. AIR-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS Eleven tests were completed on the John link Company STF-LH-457-5 airassisted flare. The flare operating conditions and results are summarized in Table 5. High Btu Content Relief Gases Four tests numbered 26, 65, 28 and 31 were conducted on undiluted crude propylene burned in the air-assisted flare. The flow of relief'gas for these tests ranged from 3,196 lbs/hr to 150.8 lbs/hr. All these tests achieved observed combustion efficiencies greater than 99.0%. 31**,~**..... '( \. .'**~o** .,-1

W N / / 

### c:

;,: " \,**oJ~~: ~.**  F.



# . TABLE 5. AIR-ASSISTED FLARE SUMMARY

RELIEF GAS. Heating Combustion Test Flo. veloc1tl Value**prO~lene** Flow Nitro,en F1C* Efficiency Test Conditions Number (SCFM) (ftlmin (Btu/SCF) (16s r) (SCtA) (16slhr (SCFM) Air FIOlrI (I)



# ... m c: 26 481.6 13087 2183 3196 481.6 

# - 

# - High 99.97 01 c: .c:.
... .•- :a 01

- "'0

... 65 159 4320 2183 1056 159 Off 99.57** ods**'lI~** tV 

## - 

# - XU**1lI~a:** I. 28 157 4266 2183 1043 157 

## - High 99.94 ;:, v 

# - ... 8 2183 a:I 31 22.7 617 151.8 22.7 

# - - low 99.17 66 639 8192 158 308 46.4 2598 593 Off 61.94 til 29(a) 510 6538 168 ' 261.9 39.3 2062 471 Low 55.14 c 

# .. .- 29(b) 392 5025 146 " 173 26.2 1602 366 Low 65.65 c:**:e~~** 3 01

.... tV 64 249 3192 282 214 32.2 949 217 Low 99.74 B8 L.14.a:

... u 

## 2! 62 217 2782 153 101 15.3 884 202 low 94.18 ;:, 

## ... 63 121 1551 289 106 16 464 105 low 99.31 a:I 33 0.114 9.1 83 0.181 0.0272 3.01 0.687 low 98.24 &BS 32(a} 0.556 7.1 294 0.498 0.0750 2.10 0.481 Low 98.91 lo

...

### .=**cf'~** 32(b) 0.531 6.9 228 0.314 0.0563 2.10 0.481 Low 98.86

• All values It standard cond1ttons of 70·f Ind 29.92 in Hg•

•• Not accounting for carbon present IS soot (see Tlble 10).The hydrocarbon species data for the higher flow rate tests 26, 65 and 28 show the bulk of the total hydrocarbon present as methane. Test 31 integrated hydrocarbon species data shows only 14% of the total hydrocarbon present as methane. Correspondingly test 31 has the lowest flow rate and combustion efficiency of the group. The data collected during test 28 exhibits more variation than usual due to the unstable wind conditions that were present. One of the ambient background files that is applied to this data (file 32) shows slightly higher concentrations of CO and C02 and lower concentrations of THC during the firstminute ofdatathan are prevalent during themajority ofthe background period. The probable explanation for this is that the probe temporarily was in the plume of another combustion source in the area. This abberation does not significantly effect the test results. Test 65 represents the combustion of ahigh Btu content hydrocarbon at an intermediate flow rate and no air assistance. This test essentially represents a repeat of test 28 without the air blower switched on. During the test, the flame was observed to smoke. Low Btu Content Relief Gases Five tests were performed on low Btu content relief gases with the airassisted flare. The relief gas flows for these tests ranged from 2,906 to 570 lbs/hr and the lower heating values varied from 146 to 289 Btu/SCF. Tests 66, 29 and 62 of this group yielded the lowest combustion efficiencies observed for the air-assisted flare tests. Correspondingly, these tests involved the lowest Btu content relief gases (146 to 158 Btu/SCF) that were tested on the air-assisted flare. The flare flames for these tests were of low luminosity and were observed to be detached from the flare tip•.This detached flame condition is not regarded as good engineering practice. Predictably, the major portlons of. the unburned hydrocarbons present 1n the' flare·plume were in the form of propane and propylene. Likewise, elevated CO concentrations were observed during tests 66, 29 and 62. In contrast to the above lowefficiency tests, the air-assisted flaring of 282 and 289 Btu/SCF relief gases during tests 64 and 63 proved to be much more efficient. These higher Btu content relief gases were flared at lower flow rates (1,163 and 590 lbs/hr) than the previously discussed tests and yielded good combustion efficiencies of99.74% and 99.37%. Methane comprised 61% ofthe total hydrocarbon for test 64 and only 29% ofthe total hydrocarbon for the less efficient test 63. The C02 data from test 63 shows a three minute period in the middle of the test with C02 concentrations observed near ambient levels. This is believed to have been caused by the flare plume shifting away from the sampling probe due to a wind shift. This is evidenced by shifts in wind speed and direction and a dec1ine in probe tip temperature that corresponds to the dec1ine in C02 concentrations. This shift in C02 concentrations caused a corresponding decline in the combustion efficiency data. Therefore, the average combustion efficiency data presented for this test is regarded as conservative.
33The first thirteen minutes ofdata collected during test 29 was designated as test 66. The difference between these two tests was that the air-assisted flare Is axial fan was turned offfor test 66 and turned on for test 29. Both the propylene and the nitrogen flows were observed to decrease during test 29, thus resulting in unsteady flare operation. Therefore, the testwas divided into two subtests [29(a) 29(b)] in an effort to'make the data within each subtest more closely approximate steady-state flare operation. Purge Rate Relief Gas Flows Tests 33 and 32 evaluated the performance of the air-assisted flare in burning purgerate flows oflowBtu content gases. As was the case for the steam flare purge gas tests, the overall efficiency of the purge gas combustion is masked by the flare pilots. The purge flows for tests 33 and 32 are rangedfrom0.714 SCFMto 0.537 SCFM as compared with the 10 SCFM flow of natural gas from the pilots. The lower heating values of the purge gases for these tests ranged from 83 Btu/SCF to 294 Btu/SCF. The observed combustion efficiencies for these tests were 98.24% for test 33 and 98.87% for test 32. These values are slightly lower than those observed for the steam-assistedflare purge gas tests. However, the majority of hydrocarbon measured in the flare plume was found to be methane, thus, suggesting that incomplete combustion of the natural gas from the flare pilots may have caused the lower combustion efficiencies. The flow ofcrude propylene tothe flaredid notremain constantthroughout test 32. Hence, the test data was divided into two subtests [32(a) and 32(b)] appropriate for data analysis. SENSITIVITY OF COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY TO PROBE HEIGHT During the course of the test series the position of the flare sampling probe was frequently adjusted to keep the probe tip as near as possible to the middle of the flare plume and as close to the flame as possiblewithout being in the flame. These changes were necessary to compensate for changes in the wind that occurred during the tests and resulted in changes in the flare flame pattern and location. Not infrequently, the probe was situated at several different locations and heights during a test. The vertical position of the probe did not have adefinable effect on the combustion efficiencydata. Figures 6 and 7 are graphs ofcombustion efficiency versus probe height that demonstrate the insensitivity of the vertical probe position to the combustion efficiency measured at the probe tip.

. EFFECT OF STEAM-TO-RELIEF GAS RATIO ON COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY Steam injection is atechnique commonly used in flare operations to enhance the combustion process. The steam-assisted flare tests performed in this project included a wide range of steam flows and steam-to-relief gas ratios. 34

## .. 

# - • 2

1 

## •

0 

# •

• 9


# • 8



# •

•

• 24 99.60 99.70 99.80 99.90 100.00 100.10 100.20 100.30 100.40 COMBUSTION**EFFICIENCY(~)** 2S 26 27 3

3 3 3



# - c 2 10. 

# -- ... lI:l Cl II: II. 10. Q 2 !i: C:l



## ... :;:;

Figure 6. Sensitivity of combustion efficiency to probe height. Test 28 3546

43



# - -' c 42



## ... 1.1.. 

# - ... CD o a:: ll. 1.1.. o 41 !:



## ... ::c 40

39 

## • •



# •

•

•

38

37

99.80 99.90 100.00 COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY(%) --·-100.10 Figure 7. Sensitivity of combustion efficiency to probe height. Test 57

36Figure 8 is a graph of the effect of steam-to-relief gas ratios on the measured combustion efficiencies of high Btu content relief gases. This plot shows general tendencies for combustion efficiencies to decline at higher or lower than normal steam flows. This data suggests that steam-to-relief gas ratios ranging from 0.4' to 1.5 yield the best combustion efficiencies. The smoking flare tests at zero steam flow were observed to have slightly lower combustion efficiencies than the other comparable tests at normal steam flows. Presumably this is due to the lack of steam-induced turbulence and reaction in the combustion process. It should be noted that these combustion efficiency values do not account for carbon lost as smoke. The steam flows during the low flow rate tests were at too low a velocity to**promot~** good combustion. Likewise, because of the low relief gas flows the steam to hydrocarbon ratioswere greaterthan for the higherflow rate tests. In the case of tests 61 and 55, the excessive steam-to-relief gas ratios are believed to have caused steam quenching of the flame. FLARE NOxEMISSIONS Emissions of NOx from both steam- and air-assisted flare plumes were measured during this testprogram. TheNOxconcentrationsobservedduring these tests were fairly low in comparison to other types of combustion sources. However, the NOx concentrations were subject to undefined dilutions of ambient air and steam not normally encountered in other sources. Corrected NOx concentrations ranged from 0.50 to 8.16 ppm. The NOx mass emission rates were estimated from the NOx and C02 data suggested by EPA: ENO 

### =Moles NOx • 46 lbs/mole NOx • 132 lbs C02 produced x .Moles C02 44 lbs/mole C02' 42 lbs propylene burned

• 47.2 lbs**~ropylene** burned 10 Btu ENO 

## =PPM.NOx Measured • 155.0

## =lb NOx/106 Btu

, x PPM C02 Measured Where: Moles NOx 

### =PPM NOx Measured Mole C02 PPM C02 Measured Assumptions: 1. 100 %combustion of propylene (fuel assumed to be 100% propylene); 2.

.Equal dilution ofNOxand C02 between flare plume and sampling probe; 3. Neglect Btu6content of flare pilots (612,600 Btu/hr, gross);* 4. 47.2 lbs/10 Btu higher heating value for propylene.

* For purge tests, this assumption is invalid.
377 6 2 ) It 5 STEAM TO _ELIEF lAS IATIO(lb/lb) ."aJ Jt



# ..

KEY 1{

•• SMOKING FLARE TESTS o • HIGH FLOW RATE TESTS X• LOW FLOW**~AT[** TESTS 67

oo 90 89 88 92 91 100

87 56 2 85 

# .. ... z 81t 

### ...


### ... 

# .. 8) 

# .. ... z 82 

### ... 5 i 81



### ... 80 79 78 77 76 75 7" 73 72 71 70 69 68
Figure 8. Effect of steam-to-relief gas ratios on flare combustion efficiency. (High Btu content relief gases) 38Table 6 summarizes the NOxresults ofthese calculations. This treatment of the NOx data yields NOx emission rates ranging from 0.018 to 0.208 lbs/l06 Btu. Examining this data shows no clear patterns of high or low emissions between test groups. One possible exception to this is the high Btu content airassisted flare tests which yielded the highest calculated NOx emission rates. HYDROCARBON ANALYSES Hydrocarbon analyses were performed both by continuous total hydrocarbon monitor and by gas chromatograph for hydrocarbon species. The samples for the gas chromatograph were taken from the heated sample manifold (wet basis) and either directly injected into the instrument (an instantaneous sample) or collected in a**Tedlar~** bag over a period of time (integrated bag sample), and subsequently, analyzed by the same gas chromatograph. The continuous hydrocarbon analyzer withdrew its samplefrom an unheated samplemanifold (drybasis) and measured total hydrocarbon (THC) directly. Both the chromatograph and the continuous hydrocarbon analyzer utilized flame ionization detectors. Thus, three sets of hydrocarbon data are available for each test. Tables 7 and 8 present a summary of the hydrocarbon data collected during the steam- and air-assisted flare tests. All three sets of hydrocarbon data show good agreement between their total hydrocarbon values for those tests with lower THC concentrations (high combustion efficiency tests). In addition, the instantaneous and bag sample values show good agreement (considering the different sampling techniques) throughout the range of values. However, some**di~crepancies** are noted between the continuous THC values and the gas chromatograph

### THC analyses at the higher concentrations encountered during thJL Tower combustion efficiency tests. Ihese dlscrepancles at hlgher lAC concentrations are**believea~due'primarily** to the absorption of unburned propylene in the cold trap associated with the dry basis sampling system utilized by the continuous THC analyzer. It is believed that the propylene was subject to loss by virtue of its solubility in the water in the cold trap. This may have been the situation despite the precaution ofusing aminimum-contact design cold trap condenser. The sample concentrating effect of the cold trap is believed to be negligible due to the low moisture content ofthe gaseous samples. Variations between the response characteristics of the gas chromatograph Is and the continuous THC analyzer's detectors are not thought to be significant. Both instruments were calibrated in terms ofparts per million by volume ofmethane equivalents. The continuous total hydrocarbon analyzer's data is believed to be themost useful for evaluating the higher combustion efficiency tests where methane was the major fraction of the total hydrocarbon. However, in the case ofthe lower combustion efficiency tests where water soluble propylene could have been lost in the continuous analyzer' $ sampling system, the integrated bag samples provide the most representative total hydrocarbon data. Likewise, since the reported combustion efficiency values were based on the continuous total hydrocarbon data, these vaiues may be biased high for the lower combustion efficiency tests due to the potential loss ofpropylene in the sampling system. 39

### TABLE 6. FLARE NOx 

### RESULTS

Test "x" CO2- NOx Concentration Concentration Mass Emission No. (PPMy) (PPMy) (1bs1106 BTU)

1 3.09 7,U52 0.068 

# .. 

# j 2.16 4.719 0.071 

### = 1.54 2.496 0.095, lSI


### .... 1.96 6,616 ftO• 0.046 

### = 0 1.45 5.400

### .~ 0.042 I..,) 1.6Z 5.224 0.04& ::::I "f**~~** 

### e
.... 2.0$ 7,052 0.046 

### '" CD**J~J** 3.77 NtA N/A 

# - lq,! I 

### .... .r::: 1.00 3.499 0.044 0> /) 

# .- 50 0.50 4,220 0.018-.,.......- lSI == 

# .. 

# i: 0.58 3,120**~~a\) O.O~**  III 

# - 1.32 .- 6.273 j" 0.033 III III O.38 ,\,6'> "":1: 2,012 , l).0,,+74 0.029 <: I 5 57

### v 2.68 6.945 /tr1, 0.060 lSI 

### .... 11 3.69 5,269 0.108 

# ... c: In lSI 9) 1.41 5.413 0.040
.... c: 60

### ~~- 0.99 3,685 AiJ?-l' 0.042 8 

# B. 0.57 3,347 

## <r",;/,f, 0.026 :I 1.87 4.059 0.071 

# .. cD 5.00 7,115 0.109 ! 23, 5.90 8,465 0.108"-:::.1.2.-• -' ,0.68 2.622 0.040'1-',**C\,o~** 7 ""., \\,\ 

### r"**,/",~** '\2.83 i**:'~·O\j""':** t·; 5.741 O.076-:rioo, 'd)**~1** ::::I

.. (5.34 6.270 'f); 0.132,



## .. = III CD lSI ,2.40 4.878 0.076 

# ..**~.;i."** /' H- I.. .r::: 

## = 28
-8.16 6.076**O.20B~'"** 

### '" 0>0 i.! ! .4.U2**.2'4~** I:

- u 31 ...., """**~,?** 4,568**,D~** 0.136 ;y."**"'o'~** == 

# f ·0.97 2,432**4"~** D''''' 0.062 II 

# .. 1.06 2,179 ' II. 0.075 III :I

.. 

# - ... c '1 C/;j 1.24 3,Z8Z '-lIt, 0.058 lit cD III III 

# .. 0.60 3.076 ]' -<1 0.030 <: ! 5 

### ;%/ I 63/ 1.57 4,184 0.058 'f\'<**~3** I.. -,I..,) 

# - i 0.74 1,857 0.061".,.,0-

# 0'7 <: "',iI )11,13 ).75 " ',,.'1,. ",v>'! 3.702 0.0730"'

...., 0,03

- Corrected for background.

40 1'17..' ",\.11 .vl r**~,_1·1"**

l'..

..'

### TABLE 7. HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS SUMMARY STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS' (0.; J... Ii'" \.I

. '" i"" 'J.

. J ..Ji' ").**~I** t "4

- 9 J 'Y\ 0 I**~.** -j"," ,.. 0'**,~**

. ...... Of\: \-II ,'i,j' .::'-;. ;. 

## •**e~.}j** 

## i;·(.J.[(P¥9M,· ,,?-¥.,**~/:l-~,** .•**~"f~·** . - £

, ...i..... I. ' •**-~~. -o.~"**  d**~~!,** .•.•**C~~"'"** i, '" f)',.I· I !. ,) f"U.

....,tLj ,k" '.**~J'** •t. ,) v' 4., \"'

. .]'3, .j

. L1.**'(~ 1""~**  (\. 7':1, t .. I:. ,i .:

,**~l'** I \. '1**(~,o'to \~.;')** 

"" c \ (. , C I

... \ ... i, ('



## ..**~~** ... ( "]

'r

.....**~.-** ".to b.oq'l Lf. G'1.

..

### 1 ", l,.'" I**~'J".I"V/**

.... "l.**,~( ~.**  .1' .,**~'.I"'I** ,

os- .; c. J-., -T'-1-( h- '1.

.'\ "" ,..".**4~'** 'i: J y.,,-......... 

### 1.1. '".->,-., t, Y**~/** \'-'**~"+** ' :(b .:;'/

..<5,3 ) If"'. lQ

..1 'h.> 1**~~-~ \.l~?** 


# .. "

..... LJ> I 

### '"ok -r**~',** (**~.l ~I**  =... f 011I( D t e.**~" ~.**  "/0**~~'3** c3':C 'Y'- -!\ j 

## "" \; ,

# . Conttnuous THC Instantaneous Samoles. Averaoe Values· 8aD SlIIIIIlles AVl!ralll' Valu

..**~"** Test Analyzer flo. Avg. Cone." Cl CZIC2· C2- C3 C3· [4 TH[ [I [2/[2- C2- C3 C3'" C4 THe

I 3.7 2.2 

### - - - - - 2.2*'* 3.0 

### - - - 

### - - 3.0- 2 ti.5 3.0 

### - - - - - 3.0

.... 2.8 

### - - - - - 2.8

..... Q;J 4.3 2.5**t:~~'1** .i.}**'"1,c:-~~** - 0\**~.~5~"** 3.5 

### - - - - - 3.5

....**~~** 

# .. 10.5 4.73 0.68 2.51 0.25 2.66 - J.lhff 6.19 0.16 2.95 0.34 0.71 

### - 11.0

# i~ 9.5 5.10 0.63 3.00 0.15 1.82 

### - 11.3 5.81 0.63 1.46 0.18 0.34


### - 8.5 9.9 1.19<1 0.20 0.30 0.1l 0.35 

### - Z.8 2.92


### - 0.22 0.23 0.56 

### - 3.9 '" 2.4

.... 3.08 :.:; 5 4.9 2.4


### - - - - . 

### - C.32 0.30 0.29 0.03 4.0 &11 4.1 2.59 0.25 

### - 0.09 . 

### - 2.9 3.12- 0.59 0.35 0.15 0.06 · 4.3 %50 12.0 3.59 1.08 0.49 1.34 5.65 

### - 12.1 4.31 1.90 0.95 2.21 1.65 

### - 12.6 56 8.2 4.06 0.]2' 0.]0 0.19 1.52 

### - 6.0 4.91 1.46 1.06 0.88**~_2.~22** .____**:_~** i@ 1;45.6 -'69.2" 635 --, 964 143 Z,675 

### - 3,568 -24.2 61.4 :U.5 282 1,182 1.08 J60]**~,~** 742 1\14.07 3.]5"

___ Jl..2ll. 268 1

..**()1~** .., 

# - ).361 16.5 36.6 21.0 259 ].06] 

### - ]402. 57 1.8 6.12 0.37 0.03 0.29 0.50 

# - 1.9 1.54 0.53 0.16 0.36 0.82 

### · 9.4 n 6.6 4.29 0.24 0.52 0.3] 0.11 

### - 6.1 5.10 1.33 0.35 0.]2· 0.19 0.02 8.5**~(it.** 36.] : .4.00 2.96 1.05 3.]0 9.6] 

### - 20.11 4.n 5.11 1.72 ll.O ' 31.4 

# - 55.6 :l 60 14.3 3.15 1.28 0.55 1.47 -6.22 

# - 13.3 4.45 3.05 1.3) 2.63 14.2 0.08 25.6 .§ 51 Z2.8 5.82 0.56 0.53 0.50 1.18 

### - 11.2 8.19 3.73 3.83 1.38 5.92 

### - 23.] 

### ;'l<t6i'. 6.4**_~.~06** 0.49 0.18 0.64 2.16 

### . 9.5 6.55 0.46 0.25 0.55 1.15 

### · 9.0

### i~**'~5** .' ...

........**_~** 3.]5 0.64 . 1.16 2.42 

### - 8.0 3.46 0.64 0.33 0.86 1.51 0.02 6.

## ~.~ 6.3 3.41 0.03


### - 0.06 

### . 

# - 3.6 3.95 0.05 

### - 0.09 o.n 

### - 4.2 f ?4.6 1.66 1.14 0.03 5.21 21.24 - 35.9 6.65 2.49 4.23 6.10 27.8 

### - 41.9 15.6 3.39 0.90 0.31 Z.04 6.10 - 12.7 3.97 1.53 0.55 3.2Z

.. 13.6**-~** )

'-\i:l-j V"_ )**l\--\~** ... I', 'i'

. 'J"'!.

\I.

.**~,\** ,; c)\, :.0l-- 1- '1.b0

, -, r' (!\ ( • All velues ere ppm by volume methane equlvaleni{i**u~corrected** for background THe•

.. The ge\ chromatograph electrometer attenuation**~as** set to a less sensitive scale for these analyses. KEY: Methane. [, fropane. C3 Butane. C4 Ethane. C2 Propylene. C3- Total Hydrocarbon, THC Ethylene, CZ· Atetylene. C2- I-'

," ,:'F · .' "t' , ,

.**~.·1** ...-r,1 \**\~** ..--...v-- ' t,
...J- .\ f,

....-4-. -\

..**.-..-~'** ".J-**;,-.i'--~** .'

- .,).,;"". "',

...... -. ". '"

..tt<....... l ,A--\' '" • . \' •.'" , t.\e A \J!"""**j.~..** . ...., •. ,,,:., 

### , "

....."'\ :'if""

..... , .. .... , }7"-.**.~**..'**)..,.#,.>/~"t_.**-1:>0 N 

### TABLE 8•. HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS SUMMARY AIR-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS

Conttnuous THC Instantaneous Samoles. Averaoe Values· Bag Samples. Average Values* Test Analyzer No. Avg. Conc.* Cl C2/C2- £2= C] [3- C4 THC 'I C2/C2- '2= '3 '3" '4 THe

:= +.I 26 11.3 3.36 0.86 0.15 0.67 2.02 

# - 7.06 3.18 

# - - 0.22 0.78

.

# - 4.18**~~** 4.8 4.63

___- 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.06 

# - 5.0 4.50 0.11 0.32 0.16 0.18 

# - 5.3 ..:+.1 OJc 8 6.0 4.15 0.19 0.03 0.18 0.54 5.1 3.43 0.09 0.05 0.22 0.77 4.6

...8 2 

# - - :z: " 31 15.7 I 7' 4.85 4.93 1.20 3.62 29.0 

# - 43.6 4.12 3.20 2.19 3.82 15.36 

# - 28.8 

### +.I1N6J2!P 1,238

....-' 25.5 69.1 27.4 513 1,992

- 2.627 31.4 47.4 21.1 474 1.965 0.20 2,539 c:' •...**--~----~.,---_** ..**-~"~"~ ~~**  - ---**.~~..,..,** r._ • .".. • .._, 0:'66- --·0."as-1.97 

# .**~--'**

# 'riO :l 64 8.7 7.59 0.54 0.06 0.36 0.82 

# - 9.37 7.35 1.14 

## 8

# ® 109 ··H.l 14.7 5.64 32.8 249 0.08 315 16.6 16.5 6.16 33.7 139 0.09 214
:= 63 15.3 5.97

-- 1.57

. 0.78 1.67**Ji.~~** "0.03 16.5 6.18 1.83 0.63 2.60 10.4 

### - 21.6**t£:~ ~-** **.~.** 

### _ ..**~.~ '~'".'**  - --'
-**.-~. ~-**  -. .-- .. ,.**.".~. ~~** ..**~-~.** ,-' .....- .. , 3 32.1 25.1 2.71 0.10 1.44 3.38 10.2 42.9 27.6 12.7 0.10 1.83 5.19 0.11 47;5 

## .3t32 34.1 15.6 1.71 0.28 0.93 2.19 

### - 20.7 29.7 ].96 0.65 1.67 4.31 0.13 40.4

--......**~-** *All values are ppm by volume ofmethane equivalents, uncorrected for ambient background THC. KEV: Methane, C1 Propane, CJ Butane, C4 Ethane, C2 Propylene, C]= Total Hydrocarbon, THe Ethylene,**C2~** Acetylene, C2= .J-'

F'

t" ...,.,...,.M-l**~t~** t.!'b**.,...\~** C.**~o,,,>Q/~ ~.**  j'l..'%**''f:l..~'1 ~~**  1.j.,'1.-'/.

",. -1

oV\

.. 7 - e· -hJ

...', 

## .:1." """'f

... 

## S.,.x**G~,** ,.., t**rr~** 1·1...\ a·c/. """"

.j."
Cj.l-;1'\(·· 1 '\'/**~.** - 19
0-,. 'ty(.**~~.....,,--~r-.** ; ,.:../';JFigure 9 is an example of a gas chromatograph analysis of the flare emissions. PARTICULATE MATERIAL ANALYSES Samples of the particulate material emitted from the flare flame were collected during the flare test series. An in-line fiberglass filter collected these samples for determination of particulate mass loading and subsequent analysis for polynuclear aromatic compounds (PNA's) by gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy. The PNA data is reported in Appendix D. Table 9 is a summary of the mass particulate concentration data collected during the test series. Thedata show distinctdifferences between particu1ate loadings of nonsmoking and smoking flare tests. The combustion efficiency calculations used in this report as ameasure of the flares' performance did not account for the carbon lost as particulate material in the smoke. Only terms for CO, C02 and THC concentrations are used in thesecombustion efficiency calculations. Therefore, the gaseous combustion efficiency values reported for the smoking flare tests would be expected to be higher than the real combustion efficiency. The following equation was used to include the carbon lost as particulate material for smoking flare tests 4, 8 and 65. CE% =

__ CO_2 x 100 C02 + CO + THC + C p Where: C02 

### =carbon dioxide concentration (PPMv) CO 

### =carbon monoxide concentration (PPMv) THe 

### =total hydrocarbon concentration (PPMy as methane) C

p

### =particulate concentration (PPMy assuming smokeparticulate as gaseous elemental carbon and ideal gas, 2.03 l/g). Table 10 outlines the results of calculating the combustion efficiency using this particulate corrected method. DILUTION RATIO AND DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY DETERMINATIONS The attempt to use sulfur- as atracermaterial for the flare tests yielded disappointing results. The tracer technique was employed in lieu of measuring the volumetric flow rate of the flare plume. Volumetric flow rate determinations in an open combustion system such as aflare are not feasible. The intent was to complete a sulfur balance between the flare burner and the sampling probe in order to calculate the effective dilution ofthe flare gas due to combustion, steam, forced air and ambient air. By knowing the dilution ratio, estimates of flare destruction efficiency and emission rates can be calculated. Unfortu43AMOUNT 8.898 8.888 3.591 8.889**~.898** 8.880 8.898 8.888 AREA TYPE**CAl~**

291 -P8 198 PB 92868 PY 1. 46859 

## y.,. 232Ef1 YY 2l!l129 YP 87374 PB

llit44 PY



### 44 RUN' 194 to 26128.88 ESTO IH 9.89 9.28 1.29 1.62 1.91 244**~.a9** 3.52 TOTAL**A~fA=** 271969 MUL FilfTOR= 1.eea9E+88 STOP

# ~~~~~~~;:~===:I- L2' METHANE 1.62 ETHANE f.91 ACETYLENE 

## -:::====--**...c:::===~2=.4=4 ~~~~======-_**  2.S9 PROPYLENE

# ~.~

Figure 9. Example gas chromatogram hydrocarbon analysis. (Test 50)

.TABLE 9. PARTICULATE ANALYSIS

Wt. gain, Test No. Fi.1terNo. (grams) Sample Time 1 Sample Rate Concentration (minutes) (i/min) (ug/t)

1 ' Includes time for,probe'positioning while probe was in the plume but before formal initiation of the test. 2 Separate tests conducted for John Zink Company not reported herein.

45 2, 3, 1, 5, 7 A-1 0.0063 7, 17, 50, 51 23, 52, 53, 54 F-l" 0.0071

40 274 

### 177

18.51 18.51 18.51 18.51 18.51 18.51

25 16 25

0.0183 0.0179 0.0810 0.0819



### F-5 F-4. 

### F-2 F-3: 4 (5moking) 8 (Smoking) 55, 56, 11, 57 16, 59, 60, 61 28, 31, 26, 29 33, 32, 62, 63 64, (80" 81, 82 83, 84)£ 65 (smoking)TABLE 10. SMOKING FLARE COMBUSTION EFFICIENCIES

Combustion Particulate Efficiency Concentration (percent) Test (1l9/1) (lll/l) Particulate Corrected Reported 4 274 557 91.21 99.80 8 177 360 92.72 98.81 65 40 81 97.95 99.57

46nately, considerable difficulty was encountered in quantifying and maintaining constant levels of sulfur in the relief gas. The primary source of flare gas for this series oftests was atank truck of 6,800 gallons of crude propylene to which approximately 4 liters of butyl mercaptan were added. This addition ofmercaptan should have yielded a sulfur concentration of approximately 89 ppm (by weight) in addition to the naturally occurring sulfur in propylene (estimated at2 - 10ppm). An extremelywiderange ofresults were obtained from these analyses. Thus, there is considerable doubt as to the actual concentration of sulfur in the propylene. Additionally, this data cast doubt on whether or not the concentration of sulfur was stable or if a fraction of the sulfur could have combined with the steel tank, iron pipe or other materials which were in contact with the propylene. The sulfur content of the nitrogen used for dilution of the propylene and the sulfur content ofthe steam condensate were found to be very low and did not represent a significant contribution to the overall sulfur balance. The levels of S02 measured during the initial tests were lower than expected, and in some cases, challenged the practical detection limit of the analyzer. After completion of ten of the thirty-four tests, provisions were made to add S02 gas into the relief gas stream in order to elevate the sulfur levels in the flare emission into a midrange level. This modification was plagued with mechanical**fa~ures** that prevented the addition of S02 to many of the subsequent tests and was not accomplished at a uniform rate. The sulfur balance data yielded results that were much higher than would reasonably be expected to occur. In addition, the ratio of S02 to C02 concentrations in the flare emissions were not constant as was expected, either between tests or within tests. The S02 and C02 ratio should be constant given that both these gases are subject to the same dilution effects and assuming a**const~nt** level of sulfur in the relief gas and no effect due to background concentrations. Because of the doubts surrounding the sulfur balance dilution ratios, an alternate means of calculating dilution ratios was formulated using the C02 data. This technique assumes stoichiometric combustion and is frequently used in evaluating emisions from othercombustion sources. However, the C02 dilution technique was not well received because: (1) it did not provide ameasure of dilution independent ofthe combustionmeasurement, and (2) the flare plume did not maintain steady-state conditions relative to the sampling probe. Bymaking simplHying assumptions, destruction efficiencycalculations can be made and are provided in Appendix C. With regard to flare efficiencies, it should be noted that in a smokeless flare, the total hydrocarbon destruction efficiency will always be greater than the combustion efficiency. This is because, by definition, the percentage of hydrocarbon that is converted to C02 (combustion efficiency) is equal to or less than the percentage of relief gas that is converted to CO and C02 (destruction efficiency).

--

4748 MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS

OTHER FLARE TEST ANALYSES

1.9% Ethane/Ethylene 19.8 18.5 Propane 80.2 79.4 Propylene less than 1 mg/l 0.03 mg/l 0.13 mg/l Acomposite sample of the steam condensate was collected and analyzed for sulfur and hydrocarbon content. The results of these analyses are as follows: The moisture content ofthe flare emissions was gravimetricallydetermined using an ice-bath condenser type ofmoisture trap. Table 11 lists the results of these moisture analyses. The moisture data were lower than expected with an average of3.0% moisture measured for the air-assisted flares and 3.8% moisture measured in the steam-assisted flare samples. Adescription ofthe methodology used for moisture determinations may be found page 18 of this report.

Analyst Sulfate Sulfide Hydrocarbon

Vendor ES The crude propylene that was used during the test series as the basis for flare fuel was analyzed by both the propylene vendor and by ES. The results of these analyses are as follows:

For the purposes ofthis test series, thedifferences between these two analyses is not significant. The nitrogen used to dilute the crude propylene to a lower heating value gas was analyzed for hydrocarbon content. The nitrogen was found to contain 0.33 ppm by volume of hydrocarbon methane equivalents.

### Test Number 2 3 

### 1 5 7 17 50 51 23 52 53 54

4 8 55 56 11 57 16 59 60 61 28 31 26 66 29 33 32 62 64 63 65 

### TABLE 11. FLARE EFFICIENCY TEST MOISTURE CONTENT OF SAMPLES (EPA METHOD 4)


### Moisture (Volume 

### %) <1

N/A 7.1 

### <1

3.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.5 5.5 7.1 4.6 3.1 3.0 4.6 

### 3.7 1.9 2.9 4.8 N/A 

### N/A N/A 2.1 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.8

49SECTION 6 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES MULTIPOINT CALIBRATIONS Before the collection ofdatawas initiated, the continuous**an~lyzers** were checked for proper operation. Akey element of the operational checks was the multipoint calibrations. These multipoint calibrations consisted of cha1- lensing the analyzers with azero gas and several upscale concentrations of the**gas~ous** compounds of interest. Calibrations were conducted at the concentrations anticipated to be in the flare emission plume. The purpose of these multipoint calibrations was to demonstrate instrument response Jinearity both within instrument ranges and between instrument ranges. Table 12 lists the analyzer ranges and gas concentration ranges used for these checks. The criteria for calibration curve acceptabilitywas no more than 5% deviation from the input value within a range and no more than a 10% deviation from the reference standard between ranges. The source of the calibration gases was aluminum compressed gas cylinders certified by their manufacturers to be accurate within + 2% of their listed concentrations. The gas standards for NOxand CO were traceable to theNational Bureau of Standards' standard reference materials. The compressed gas standard

.for S02 calibrations was contained in aTeflon® lined aluminumcylinder and was

certified on-site against a graviametrially calibrated S02 permeation device. In addition, the efficiency of**~he** N02 to NO converter in the NOxanalyzer was checked using the procedure recommended in EPA Reference Method 20 (40 CFR 60 Appendix A). The converter efficiency was found to be greater than 99% efficiency in the conversion of N02 to NO. The response of the probe tip thermocouple was verified at ambient temperature against the calibrated meteorological station thermistor and was checked for OOC response in an ice water bath. ZERO AND SPAN CHECKS Before and after each"test or series oftests. all thecontinuous analyzers were challengedwith zero gas and a single upscale concentr;ation ofthe compound of interest. The purpose of these calibration checks was two-fold. First the collectionofthe zero/span data provided adata base to allow estimation of the analyzer's precision ofmeasurement. Secondly, the gas standards used for the zero and span checks provided points of reference for instrument calibration adjustment between tests. Thus, the zero/span checks provided amechanism to both monitor and maintain the precision of the data. Table 13 is a summary of the zero span check data. 50TABLE 12. MULTIPOINT CALIBRATION CHECKS Analyzer Instrument Ranges Checked Calibration Gas Levels 1 CO 0-5,000 ppm 3,490 ppm 0-3,000 ppm 1,003 ppm 0-1,000 ppm2 252 ppm3 CO2 0-5%2 5.01%3 0-10% 10.0% 0-15% THC4 0- 100 ppm2 50 ppm3 0-1000 ppm 159 ppm 0- 500 ppm 500 ppm NOx 0-25 ppm2 3.7 ppm 0-100 ppm 17 ppm3 0-250 ppm 92 ppm 9-1000 ppm 02 0-25%2 21.0%3 12.1% 2.0% S02 0-1 ppm range .934 ppm3 (Instrument modified with .404 ppm 1:5 dilution system to .103 ppm yield an effective 0-5 ppm range) 1 All instruments' zero responses were verified with zero nitrogen. 2 Primaty operating range used during tests. 3 Concentrations used for routine span checks and calibration adjustments. 4 THC analyzer calibrated on methane.

51TABLE 13. ZERO/SPAN CHECK SUMMARY Average Deviation No. of of Instrument Response Standard Upper 95% Lower 95% Parameter Checks to Span Value Deviation Probability Limit Probabitlty Limit CO 29 -0.91% ±1.8B% +2.77% -4.59% CO2 30 -1.16%**~3.09%** +4.90% -7.16% THC 31 -0.13% ±2.65% +5.06% -5.32% NOx 29 +2.94% ±4.37 +11.51% -5.63% 02 29 -0.07% ±l.32% +2.52% -2.66% 502 34 -3.25% t4.9B% +6.51% -13.01% HC Species 33 -0.80% ±2.20% +5.11% -3.51%

U1 NDuring the initial tests, zero/span checks were conducted between each test. As the project progressed, confidence in the reliability of the instruments increased and the frequency ofthese calibration checks was reduced by allowing two or three tests to be completed between zero/span checks. As a minimum, zero/span checks were conducted at the beginning and end of each test day. INSTRUMENT RESPONSE TIMES AND THROUGH-PROBE CALIBRATION CHECKS The response time for each instrument was adjusted to allow comparision of individual data values. The goal was to ensure that all the instruments were analyzing afraction of the same sample at the sametime. The synchronizationof the instrument responses permitted data calculations to be performed on the instantaneous data as well as on the one-minute and test averages. Forexample, the combustion efficiency calculations, which included data from three separate instruments, could be performed on each set of instantaneous data because the three analyzers were simultaneously sampling the same flare emission gas. The instrument synchronization was accomplished by adjusting the sample tubing length and volume between the sample manifold and the instrument and adjusting the sampleflow rate to the analyzer. In this manner, the transit time of the sample between the manifold and the instrument could be adjusted. These adjustments were made in reference to the instruments' initial upscale response time.The upscale and downscale response times ofthe instruments were checked by introducing calibration gases through the probe and timing the subsequ'ent response of the instrument. Table 14 summarizes the results of these response time checks. An adaptor fitting was attached to the probe tip to allow the introduction of the calibration gases. this 1/4" tube to 1" pipe adapter fitting presented aflow restriction on the entire sampling system thatwas notpresentduring the normal sampling. Thus, the response times reported in Table 14 may be somewhat slower than the actual response times encountered during the sampling. The introduction ofcalibration gases through the probe tip also served to verify the integrity of the sampling system. There were no significant differences observed in instrument responses to calibration gases introduced directly into the analyzers as compared to calibration gases which were passed through the probe. This evidence suggests that the sampling assembly did not alter the composition of the flare emissions during the sampling. Leak checks of the sampling system were performed on several occasions during the test series. The procedure followed was to introduce zero nitrogen in the probe tip and monitor the oxygen contentofthe sampling system. If leaks were present in the sample system, they would be evidenced by elevated oxygen levels in the sampling system. Table 15 presents the results of these leak checks. This leak check data is believed to be conservative since the installation of the required adapter fitting on the probe tip during these 53

### TABLE 14. INSTRUMENT RESPONSE TIMES
(Up Scale (Seconds) Down Scale (Seconds) Initial 90% Response Initial 90% Response CO 32 115 30 115 CO2 30 123 25 120 THC 35 147 34 125 NOx 

### 32 77 

### 25 69 02 30 123 25 120 S02 29 90

.32 80



### 54TABLE 15. SAMPLING SYSTEM LEAK CHECKS

02 Analyzer Percent 1 Date Input Response Leakage 6/17/82 N2 0.80% 3.8% 6/17/82 N2 0.25% 1.2% 6/18/82 N2 0.31% 1.5% 6/19/82 N2 0.24% 1.1% 7/ 1/82 N2 0.30% 1.4% 1 Assuming 20.95% oxygen in ambient air.

55check's caused an increase in the vacuum present in the samp1ing system as compared to during normal flare emission sampling. The zero response ofthe othercontinuous analyzers to zero nitrogen passed through the sampling system was also verified during the leak checks. BACKGROUND MEASUREMENTS Ambient air component concentrations ofCO, C02, THC, NOx, 02 and S02 were collected immediatelybefore and after eachofthe tests or series oftests. The collection ofthis background datadocumented the influenceoflocal ambient air concentrations on the flare emission measurements. The background concentrations of these compounds of interest could have had asignificant effect on the data given the dilution effects of ambient air in both steam- and air-assisted flare emissions. This is especially true in this situation since other combustion sources were present and operating in the test area. Acomplete listing of the background concentration measurements is contained in the data volume (Volume II) of this reort. The background data was applied to the flare emission data by subtraction. The average background values were subtracted from each raw flare emission concentration values to determine the corresponding corrected value. This subtraction removed any data bias between tests that was caused by variable ambient concentrations. Additionally, the subtraction of the average of the background concentrations before and after each test helped to compensate the data for instrument calibration drift that may have occurred between these periods. It is recognized that to properly account for background concentrations, a dilution factor correction is required. As discussed previously, dilution factors were notobtained in this study. Calculations indicate that an error of less than 0.1% in combustion efficiency (for CEls greater than 98%) is caused. by the background correction-method employed herein. As**sho~n** below, this error is less than the sampling and analysis error. Therefore, the background correction described above is suitable for this study. COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY ERROR ANALYSIS It is assumed that accuracy of the combustion efficiency calculations is dependent on two primary sources of error: (l) the accuracy of the listed concentrations of the calibration gases, and (2) the accuracy of the instruments I measurements of the gaseous samples (instrument drift, interference, repeatability, etc.). Other systemic errors due to sampling, data acquisition, etc. are assumed to be negligible. Table 16 lists estimates of the magnitude of these two primary types of error for each of the continuous analyzers. The instrument error data in this table was calculated from the instrument responses to the routine span calibration checks. The calibration gas error data are nominal values supplied by the vendors of the calibration gases. Although these two types of errors are independent of each other, it is assumed for thisworst-case error ana1ysis that theyreinforce and·are additive. Likewise, it should be noted that the measurement errors of variables in the 56TABLE 16. ERROR ESTIMATES

Instrument Precision fnstrument Calibration Gas Total Worst Case Parameter Standard Deviation of**Sp~n** Errn' Accuracy Error Accuracy Error CO 1.80% !.4.7 ppm ±S.O ppm ±9.7 ppm CO2 3.09% ±.1545 ppm :1:.1000 ppm *2545 ppm 

## He 2.65% ±1.3 ppm ±l.0 ppm :1:2.3 ppm NOx 4.37% ±D.l ppm ±D.3 ppm ....1.0 ppm 02 1.32% ±D.2l% ±O.42% :l:O.69% S02 4.98% ±O.046 ppm ±V.019 ppm 0.065 ppm
U'l '-Jcombustion efficiency calculations are independent of one another. However, for this worst-case analysis it is assumed that the errors in the measurements of CO, C02 and THC concentrations reinforce. For this worst-case analysis two sets of concentration values for CO, C02 and THCwere selected: (1) for the high combustion efficiency case, and (2) for the low combustion efficiency case. The total worst-case accuracy error values were applied to these two sets ofconcentration values to determine the effects on the combustion efficiency calculations•.

CO Observation (ppm) C02 Observation (ppm) THC Observation (ppm) %CE Best Estimate %CE Highest Estimate 

### %CE Lowest Estimate· High Efficiency Test 8 7000

. 4 99.83 100 .99.46 Low Efficiency Test 1000 5000 90 82.10 87.49 69.02 This exercise shows that the high combustion efficiency test data are less sensitive to accuracy errors than are the low combustion efficiency test data. This analysis also provides worst-case estimates of the magnitudes of the combustion efficiency accuracy errors. It should be noted that the real accuracy errors (which were not directlymeasured) are expected to be less than those 1isted above since the sources of error are independent and do not necessarily reinforce. Another mechanism for examining the quality of the combustion efficiency determinations is to examine the variance ofrepetitive determinations basedon consecutive measurements of CO, C02 and THC within each test. The data listing and analysis program used to compile the data from these tests incorporated routines to calculate the combustion" efficiencyfrom each set ofdata collected every twelve seconds. The variance (and standard deviation) of the average combustion efficiency value was determined from this data set as an indicatorof the precision of the data. The standard deviations of the consecutive· measurements of combustion efficiency ranged from +0.1% to +11.1%. As in the worst-case error analysis, the largest variances occurred with the low combustion efficiency tests and the smallest variances were obseved with the high combustion efficiency tests.

58APPENDIX A GRAPHICAL REVIEW OF SELECTED TESTS Five of the thirty-four flare efficiency tests completed during this project were selected for more detailed data analysis via graphical aids. The selected tests are as follows:
Steam-to-Flare Combustion Flare Gas Flow Heating Value Gas Ratio Efficiency Test Flare Type (SCFM) (Btu/SCF) (lb/lb) Percent 3 Steam-assisted 456 2183 0.45 99.8 55 Steam-assisted 24.7 2183 6.9 68.9 57 Steam-assisted 703 294 0.15 99.9 28 Air-assisted 157 2183 99.4 33 Air-assisted 0.714 83 98.2 These tests were selected because they represented afairly wide range of flow rates, heating values and combustionefficiencies. Figures A-I and A-2 are photographs of the flare taken during these tests.

- Three types of graphical test data plots were compiled from the digitized instantaneous data collected on magnetic tape via a data logger. Adetailed listing of these data may be found in a separate data volume to this report (Volume II). The plots chosen for this exercise are as follows: S02 and Probe Temperature versus Time; THC and CO versus Time; and CO and Combustion Efficiency versus time. Figures A-3 through A-17 are the graphical plots of this data. The plots of S02 and probe temperature show apositive correlation between these two parameters. The temperature values are observed to lead the SOZ values by about 0.3 minutes. This time lead indicates the difference in response times between the thermocouple/digital thermometer assembly and the sampling system/SOz analyzer. The positive correlation between these two parameters is due to both parameters being indicators ofprobe position relative to the flame. The graphical presentations of THC and C02 versus time show variable amounts of positive correlation between these two species. Theoretically, 59given a flare burning with constant combustion efficiency, the ratio ofTHC to C02 should be constant regardless of flame postion relative to the probe. This is shown to be the case in the plot for Test 55 and to a lesser extent Test 57. Tests 3, 28 and 33 show little or no correlation between concentrations ofTHC and C02. The graphs of combustion efficiency and CO versus time show an inverse relationship between CO and concentrations on the combustion efficiency. This demonstrates the importance of the CO term in the combustion efficiency calculations and the usefulness of-CO measurements as a primary indicator of relative combustion efficiency. These plots of the test data also serve to graphically show the typical range and variation ofconcentrations and temperature observed during the flare tests.

60

# ... l/'I QJI

### 61 

### ..... I c:e: QJ :l 0\


### ..... u..O'l N



### Test 57 Test 28 Figure A-2. Photographs of flare taken during tests.TEST· 03 JUNE 18 HOUR 09:54

o \0

o 'O:t 802 TEMP o o (X) (Y)

o o '<:t (Y)

" o o o (Y)

o o (X)**~-** 

### ou 

## >eo



# - Q.. L oW

'1- o C\J C\J

o o '<:t 

# - " " t, ,

" " " " , " ,

# .

" 

# .

,

# '. , " I I I

" "

" " '" II \ II't pi II**~;** ;::', ::' 'I " .1 I I I I I, II .' I 'I 'I' 'I. " 'I I I**~'** I ! I ' I I I', I I I ,I , "

, "
j • I

... , I I " . ", ",
,
" " " , ,

.' ,,

\ ,. " 'I' .1

" " " " ;" j I " o C\J

o \0 o

o 'O:t o 

# -

"-' 1:0 a...0 0.."': 

# -

a o o

74.0 78.0 70.0 

### (MIN) 66.0 

### TIME 62.0 58.0 ,,' , ':", , 

# r:;/

o

# -!~ 0 o +-**~----~----~----..._----..__---___,r__------'O** o54.0 o C\J o



### Figure A-3. S02 and temperature V5. 

### time. 63TEST 03 JUNE 18 HOUR 09:54

a a a U') 0 (Xl 0'\ THC CO2 a a a l'- 0 1.0 00
0 0 0 0'\ 0 '0:1" l'-

-.. 0

# '-

, , 

### 8I: 0..

..... 00- 

### a...**~a..** l'-


# -- - U oC\j I , 

## ., 

### 0 0 

# . au ('t') 0

, , 0 \l?



# . , 

# .- 0 , 0 lJ) \ 

# . 0 ,


## .. 

# . 0 lJ) 

# . . (Xl



# .. 

# . /', 

# .: ,.pO",

. 

# .

,

# . 0 0 l'- 0 0 '0:1" \,{,)

0 0 0'\ 0 0 ('t') '0:1"

0 0

..... 0 0 ('t') N

54.0 58.0 62.0 66.0 70.0 74.0 78.0 

### TIME (MIN) Figure A-4. 

### THC and 

### CO2 VS. 

### time. 64TEST 03 JUNE 18 HGUR 09:54



# -

o o

# - o 00 LJ)



### o u o v (l')

o \0 N o o lJ)

o 00


### ....**o~** No.. ""'0..

74.0 78.0 • I. I



## ... EFF CG

62.0 66.0 70.0 TIME (MIN) r, 

# .

58.0 -',:.",:'",:".:',

.. '. ;

• It. ",". ;,_ , : .;''..•/,,'\.

.... ;1.' :. I_ I o ,", rI

....._.-!' ,\, • ,;, ': \0 .: ",",'.,.1_,'., 0 +- .....- ---. -.- "T""" ,...-_---l • ...;.'...;.-,. ...JN 54.0 o 00 0\ 0\

0 v 0\ 0\

0 0 0\ 0\

0 _\0

### ~~ ....... LL l.L.. WO N 00 0\

0 00



## . " 0\

0 V 

## " 0\

, , ,

## . 0 0 ., 

### ." 

## ". 0\ \ , ,**I~** •

Figure A-5. Efficiency and CO V5. time. 65TEST 55 JUNE 23 HOUR 14:03

(Yl (\J o "
" "
" , , S02 TEMP o o (\J

C\J o o (\J

o o



# -**~u** \J)O 0\ '-' 0.... :L W**o~** (Xl co ,,' ", ", , , ' , ' ", ','

,

# . , I

"



## . ;

, ' (l') 0 

## ., I " , 0 0 ' , I' \ I ,, (Xl , " " , , ' "
" , ' , , " '.
" 

## ... ' , 0 

# - ' , , , '. (\J 0 '. t"'-

, 0\ 0 0 " 0 " " \J)

,

### , t"'- o 0 \J) 0 U1

3,0 7.0 11.0 15.0 19.0 23.0 27.0 

### TIME (MIN) Figure 

### A-6. S02 and temperature VS. time. 66 0\ 0



# - .' , Lt"'- " " , 0-- " , "
" " 

## .' ;, 0..

### 0 " " " " -, " ,


## .. '- " , " (\J- ' ,' " " , '. " " e:" 

# '.

' , .' , Cl)lJ') , , '. 0 "TEST 55 JUNE 23 HOUR 14:03

0 0



## . 0 0 0 0 0\ I' 

# - 'It THe
0 CO2 0



## . ;. 

## . 0 

# .. 0 0 l. 0 I' 

# .. C"l 

# . 'It
0 0 0 0 0 0 11) 0"1 

# - C"l

-0 0

# - 1:. .\ 0 1: 

### 0.8 0 Q..**a..~** 11) 

# ., C"l

### a.. 

# - - u , 

# · , , 

# · (\j Ic , 

# · 0 0 1-' 

# . 0 0 U 0 0 

# - - 

# - C"l

" " 

# . " 0 0 : '

, I**',~** 0 0 0 0 • I' 0\ " C\l 

# .
0 0 0 0 0 0 C"l I' C\l

0 0 ' , 0 0 .' 0 0 "

## .. 0"1 In



# .. " 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 Lf) (T)3.0 7.0 11.0 15.0 19.0 23,0 27.0 

### TIME (MIN) Figure A-7. 

### THC and 

### CO2 vs. time. 67TEST 55 JUNE 23 HGUR 14:03

0 0 ''It ''It

0


## . 0 

## "" (T)

0 0 'II" (T)

0

# - 0 L 0\ 0.. C\I Q..

...... lib 0 U 0 "it C\I

0 0 0\


### ....

a 0 "it


### ....

o o 0\ ,"'" , " , ,

,. , , , , , ",: : , " " ", , ",

, " , ,.

, , 

# .. " 

## ., , ,

, , ! ' , ,, I ", , ; 0 \0 ,..... EFF
" 0, m " , , 0


## . ''It 

## "

o N \0 o \0 \0 o N ,.....

-0

### ~~ ......

27.0 23.0 19.0 

### (MIN) 15.0 

### TIME 11.0 7.0 o " 0**~+----"';"'r------** ......**-----,...-----';-r-----...,..-----..----_---l~**

3.0 Figure A-B. Efficiency and CO V5. time. 6BTEST 57 JUNE 24 HOUR 09:13

37.0 33.0 29.0 

### (MIN) 25.0 

### TIME 21.0 17.0 N 0 o -l-

......**--,~---....,..----"'T"""-"----r-----.....,.------lO** o co 13.0 0 

### ..,. 0 en 0 0 S02 

### ..,. TEMP 0 0 0 ('f) I,() 0 ('f)

0 I,() 0 N " " N 0 

## ·
- ('f) 

## ·
. 

## ·



# - L N 0-
,

# . 'U Il.N : 0 0 

### a... 

# . co 0 , 

# . N - 

# - : C\J Q.. L 0 oW (f)co '1:\' -I-

..... 0 

### ..,. 0 N :.: ,

# .

. 0 

### ..,.

..... 0 0 0 N

, , " " 

# . 0 0 

# ..

..... 

## .. 0



### .. I,() 0 .....

0 I,() 0 0 N 0



### Figure A-g. S02 and temperature vs. time. 69TEST 57 JUNE 24 HOUR 09: 13

0 0 

# - 0 0 (l"l 00 

# - THe 

# - CG2 0


## · 0 

# - 0 0 N 1,0 

# - - 0 0 

# - 0 0 

# - o;t 

# - -

- 0 1: · ,.... 0 L 0..- 0 0 a.. 0-0 i. N

......

# - 

# -a.. 'I 

# - U 0 (\J I 

# . 0 l- 

# . 0 0 U 

# - , , 0 " " i 0 0\**~;** 

# -

0 0 

# - 0 

# .. 0 Q) Q)



### .. 0 • '. 

# .. 0 

# - ., ., 0 0 

### ,... I,()

0 0 

# - 0 0 I,() """

0
· 0 

# - 0 0 IJ) N 13.0 17.0 21.0 25.0 29.0 33.0 37.0 

### TIME (MIN) Figure A-IO. THC and CO2 VS. time. 70TEST 57 JUNE 24 HOUR 09: 13

(1) o o -<

(1) N o o -< 0



## .: N EFF (1) CO 0 ex) N

o o -<

,..... o 

# -

.

### ~~ 

# - o V N



# - 02: 

## oa.. NQ..



# -

o ex) o N -< 

# . . \

, '* •• '

## ... I :**~.** I. ,

. ,


## ., \ '.

j. , " , \ 

## ., , , " • I'

.' I "
'

## . " o

37.0 33.0 29.0 

### (MIN) 25.0 

### TIME 21.0 17.0 !

..I ,..... \D o O\+--

__-r- """T--i_---L_--,r-- r-- r-**~----.J** 0\ 0 13.0 

### Figure A-ll. Efficiency and CO vs. time. 71to o TEST' 28 JUNE 28 HOUR 17:14

S02 TEMP o o _0'1

(Y)

o o L1.l (T)



## .'.



# . , 

# - 1: o..U') 0... _0

v o

(T') o " ,.'

" .oj

'i '.

"

## . ,

## . . ' ' 

## .'.

.'. ,, 

## .,



## .. . .' " i \ 

## . ,



## .. , • r \. 

## .. .. I' , ' ;.

I,',
t
.... 

### '. ....

','

...**'~** ;

, " o o (Y)

0-

·u 

## Ro N

...... 0.... :L oW

.1- o (T.) N

o o 0'1 

# -

C\I 0-



# - o 

## .

" I I ; ',' ,

" '.

# \J~ 

# VJ \

I 

### .- r 18.0 22.0 26.0 30.0 34.0 38.0 

### TIME (MIN) o o L1.l

o o

Figure A-12. 502 and temperature V5. time. 

### 72-< (Tl o

o
,.... N

0 (Tl C\I



# 0 :L 0\

### a.. a..



# - 0 u 0 to. -<

o
-< -<

o r--

o (Tl

o , I.

38.0 

# .

.," t • 

# ..

.

# . . I ,

## . • • I I ••• , , t



## ... , 

### ...

34.0



### .....



# .' HOUR 17: 14

30.0 

### (MIN)

73 

## '.



# . 

# '.

, JUNE 28

Efficiency and CO vs. time.

26.0 

### TIME TEST 28

22.0 Figure A-13. 18.0 !

. , '., '1 ('I') 0\ 0\

O\+------r-----"T"'""-----,.-- .---- "T"" -,.- --' 0\14.0 

# -

,....



## . 0 0 EFF CO IJ)



## . 0 0 

# -

til 0 0



# - 4- 0..' 

### a..

## 8



# -- lJ... lJ... WO\ 0\ 0\. TEST 28 JUNE 28 HOUR 17:14

(T') 0

, ' THe CO2**~~** 0\ o o o o IJ;)

o o o o "<I'" 

# - o o o o N

o

# .-**g~** 00..**~Q..** 

# - U IIlJ') lJ') , I • 

## ·. · ' 

# · .0 II r -.' , .'

" 

## ·. ,

# . ·, 

## · ' , I 

# · ,

, '
, ' ,; -',
., 

## ., , , , ,

'-

......... I.J• .' , -.'1

., -'I I (\j**~O** 

### ou o o 00

o o o o IJ;)

o o o o "<I'"

o o o o l'\J

38.0 34.0 30.0 

### (MIN) 26.0 

### TIME 22.0 18.0 0\ 0**('r)+-----r------r----..,.--r--~--.__----r__----r__-------lo** 14.0 Figure A-14. THC and C02 vs. time. 74

# - 1: 0.. 0 Q.. '- _"it ru 10 CJ)C\l cri-

\0 ...;-

(Xl o !I,

, " , S02 TEMP

,.

, ,

. " "t • 1 1 .- '-'\" I. I I" . , 

### ,. \

## .. TEST 33

" " ,

# . .

# .

, 'I ' l I.**~,~** I'. ",,,-,

',' " ' " ' , t, JUNE 29 HOUR 22:49

I;

I I.'

., I.**I~,**

• i.· i t'.i .' ,',1 ,'._ • '",: ; '". ,

- '.1
II I' , 

## . , ' , 73.0 o ttl o 

# -

o

## . trl o 

# -

o ttl 0\
00

'0 ('1')_ 0\

### a.. I: W 01- _00

co

o _(Y)

co

o**-~**

o ('I') r-.



### Figure A-IS. 502 and temperature vs. time. 75TEST 33 JUNE 29 HOUR 22:49

o v IJ)

o o to THe CO2 o o o l' "it

o o o ('I') v



# - o o o 0'1 en



# -

o o a (Y) C\Iru 

## c.:o ou a


# -- t'\')

a o o 0'1



# -- o o 

### R N

73.0 69.0 • .' ,\

65.0 

### (MIN) 61.0 

### TIME 

## .\

" , I ' ,

# . .

57.0 

# ..

, , ...'. 

# .

# ., , "



# . i i." 

# . , \ 14 ", I II 't.' .'

53.0 

# '.

,

# .

. ,'.' / "

# ., , , 

## . co (I')

o \0 N

o o 0 o 

### g:+----......----......**--~-"T"""-""----.._----.__----..._-----'~.**

49.0 o o (I') U I**~o**

Fi,gure A-16. THe and C02 V5. time. 76TEST 33 JUNE 29 HOUR 22:49

C\I 0 0 

# - EFF CG m 0'\ 0'\

'O;f 

### t 0'\ 

# . 0'\ 

### :

-0

### t/.~ _0'1


# . lJ.. 

# .
.. lJ.. W\O CXl 0'1

, .. 

# ..

. C\I ,



## . CXl 0'1



# · · ·

: I 

# .. '. , 

# . , 

### : 

# . ,', , , : I, 

# .

, , I ••



# .,
.: "



# . ,

# .

.." !

# . ::



# . . :'



# . "

# ..

·

,

# .

·.

I ••



# ·.

" o \0 (Y)

o C\I (Y)

0 CXl N



# - 0 E

.

### a.. 'O;f 0- N

...... 0 u 0

. 0 N

o \0 

# -

o N

o CXl

53.0 

### :

# . 

# .. 

# .
, 57.0 61.0 65.0 69.0 

### TIME (MIN) 73.0 

### Figure A-17. Efficiency and CO vs. time. 77

### APPENDIX B 'EST 1 SJATISTICAL**SU"~ARY**
PROSE T["PCCI S02 Cpp,U NOIC CPPIIII 02 IPCTI co (PPM) C02 (PPMI THC (PPMI WS U'PHI WO IDEGI AHBIEN' T£HPCca CD"HUSJIDN EFFICIENCY AIlt:RAGE* STANDARp DEVIATION**~U"B(P** OF OBSERVATIONS AYERAGE BACKGROUND -----·-------------

_____________ 0

__________________•

___ •

_______________________________________________ 175.3 0.053 3.09 ttJ.46 3.8 1052. -0.1 3.5 261. 30.1 99.9

13.8 0.0'" 2.12 0.62 1•• 3"Et8. 0.2 1.2 24. .0.6 0.1

111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 28.2 0.013 O.-\'i 20." 3 ••1 373• 4•• 2..9 285. 28.0

BACKGROUND**A~BIrNJ** HEASURfMENTS**-~-----------------------------**



### " 00 BACKGIlOUND fILE BA('ICGROUND 4 BACKGROUND 5 flME BEGIIV 18/1J:11:29 18/10\:14:22 TIME END 18/13: 32: 10 la/H: 22:07 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

### =99.96%



### * All concentrations here and throughout Appendix Bhave been corrected via subtraction. Thus, the actual measured value (i.e.,**uncorr~cted)** 1S the Uaverage" plus the IIaverage backgroundll (last row).TEST 2 STATISTICAL SUHMARY

NO AtlBIENT COt"IBUSTION (DEG) TE"P(C» EFFICIENCY WS (11PH» THC CPPM) C02 (PPI1) CO (PPM» 02 (Pcn NOX (PPM» 502 (PPM' PROBE TEPIP(C.



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE 158.7 0.197 2.16 19.73 8.5 4719. 0.2 2.8 199. 33.6 99.8 STANDARD DEVIATION 45.6 0.152 1.31 0.42 12.9 1684. 1.3 0.9 33. 0.6 0.2 NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 AVERAGE BACKGROUND 38.2 -0.008 1.41 20.26 6.3 388. 5.2 2.7 198. 31.5

BACKOROUND MBIENT f'lEASUREI1ENTS



## -------------------------------

'" U) BACKGROUND FILE BACKGROUND 1 BACKGROUND 2 TlI1E BEOIN 17/16152'27 17117'25151 TItlE END 171161**5~1iI38** 17117130147 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.82%Trs, 3 STATISTIC_L**SUH"A~'**
PA0'3r sa2 Nox 02 co CO2 THC WS "0 AHBIENT CO'tBUSTIO'" ,nIPcc. (PPM' (PP"" (PCT. (PP"', (PPM' (PPM) ."IPIi' C DEG. l(HPCCJ [FfICIENCY



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVEIUGE 18'1.4**0.3~6** ;s.46 19.411 13.8 8159. 1.2 3.0 221. 30.5 99.8 STANDARD DEVIATION 56.1**0.~96** 

## I."''' 0.49 14.5 2567. 1.3 0.'1 27. 0.4 0.4 NUHBEP OF oaSERVATIONS 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 'II 98 98 98 AVERAGE BACKGROUND 29.6 0.005 o. :53 20.58 -0.4 394. 3.1 J.2 219. 21.2

BACKGROUND**AMaIE~T** MEASUREMENTS



## -------------------------------
(X) a BACKGROUND FILE BACKGROUND 3 11"[ 8EGI"I 18110:26:06 l1H£ END 19/IO:2,9:U 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

### =99.82%

# :7
lEST' ' STATISTICAL SUMMARY
PROBE S02 NOX 02 CO CO2 THe WS WD AMBIENT COMBUSTION TEMPlC) (PPM) (PPM) (PCT) (PPM)' • CPPM) lPPl'1) CHPH) CDEa) TEMPle) EFFICIENCY



### ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE 153.4 0.153 1.96 20.-05 75.3 6616. 5.3 1.4 184. 32.8 98.8 STANDARD DEVIATION 38.6 0.080 0.9b 0.52 35.5 3004. 2.9 0.2 8. 0.2 0.2 NUMBER OF OBSERVAT\ONS 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 AVERAGE BACKGROUND 24.9 0.003 0.11 21.09 3. I 497. 5.2 0.8 186. 26.3

BACKGROUND AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS

co


## .... BACKGROUND FILE BACKGROUND 18 BACKGROUND 19 TIME BEGIN 22/21121: J7 22/22148109 TIME END 22/21127129 22/221**~4** :34 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 

### 98.80%JEST 8 SrAJISJICAL SUHMARY

PROBE" TEMPCC' S02 epp,u NIHI (PPM' 02 epn, CO (PPI'II C02 Cpp,.., THC (PP". \IS ("PH) .,0 (O£G) AHDIENT

. COMOUS'ION**~E"P(C)** EFFICIENCY**---------------------------------------------._------- ~----------------------.--_._--_._~------~-------**  AVERAGE. STANDARD OEVrAT!ON NUM8[R OF oHSfRVAr(ONS**AV[RA6~** BACKGROUnD 121.0 )l.2 84 31.11 0.0&5 0.040 84 o.ooa**1.~S** 0.96 94 0.12 '20• .)0 0.52 0"1 21.12. 61.1 36.1 84 l.8 5400. 3094. 84 495. 3.1 3.9

6' 5.8 0.9 0.]

84 0.6 1'5. 11.

84 U3. 32.2 0.9

84 16.6 911.9 0.3

84**BAC~GROUND** '"BIENJ nEASUR£HEtJ1S

00 N 8AUG10UII[I FILE 8ACKGllOutlD 19 8AUGHDUND 20 j ItiE BE 61

... 22122:48:09 .22123:21:41 nl'lE ("AID 22122:54:'" 22/23: 32: 10

. 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

### =98.81%T(ST 1 STATISTICAL SUMMARY



## ----------------------------_.-------------.----------------------------------------------------------- AVERAG( STANDARD OEVIATION NU"BER Of**OBSERVATJO~S** AVERAGE**8AC~GROUND** PRORE T["PtCI 138.4

39.1

103 24.0 S02 (PP"I 0.04ll 0.026 103 0.002 NOI tPPHI

1.62 0.96

103 0.06 02 (PCTI 20.13

0.41

183 20.81 CO (PPM.

7.9 3.0\ 10J 0.1 C02 (PPHI 5220\. 2254. 103 396. THC (PPM' 0.3 1.0 103 9.6 US (,.PIt' 3.1 0.9 103 2.4 VD nEG. 262.

24. 103 280. AMBIENT TEMPIC' 26.1

0.5 103 24.5 COMBUSTION EFFIClEfilCY CJ9.8

0.1 103**8ACKGROU~O** 'MRIENT**MEASUR[~[NTS** 

## ._----------------------------- co w BACKGROU"lO filE BACKGi\OU"lO 8 BACKGROU!\IO 9 TUC R£61111 2111 0:S5: 50 21/11 :55:06 TIME £"'0 21111: 04: 29 21112:01:30 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

### =99.84%TEST 5 STATISTICAL**~Y**

165 0.1 99.9 30.8

0.6 165 29.9 AI1BIENT COMBUSTION TEMPCC) EFFICIENCY

59.

WD CDEO) 294.

165 289. 1.0 165 2.9

2.7 WS (I1PH)

165 5.0 -0.1

0.2 THe IPPI1) CO2 CPPI1)

2908. 165 368. 6115. 1.6 4.1

165 3.4 co CPPft)

0.49

165 19.42

20.28 02 (PCT)

1.25

165 1.00 2.09 NOX CPPI1)

165 502 CPPI1J 0.070 0.060

0.022 165 54.6

32.8 172.8 PROBE TEI1P(C)



## -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AVERAGE BACKGROUND AVERAOE STANDARD DEVIATION**~BER** OF OBSERVATIONS

BACKGROUND**AH~IENT** I1EASUREI1ENTS



## -------------------------------
en ,.1::0 BACKGROUND FILE TII1E BEGIN TJI1E END "
BACKGROUND 6 BACKGROUND 7 18/16123148 18/17145133 18/16139105 18/17149139 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.94%n:ST 6' STA'ISTICAL SUN"ARY 

# ,r

PR03E T!:"PCC. 502 (PP

... NO- (PP"" 02 CPCI. CO (PPM. C02 CPP

.., 'HC (PP'" US IMPH. uo fDEG. AMBlE

..' TEMPIC' COIllEtUUJON EFFICIENCY



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVCR'6f 410.9 0.018 3.71 20.19 NfA 3158. N/A 6.6 71. 25.11 "fA SlANDAQO OEVIATIOft 16.0.0 0.001 '.:!l2 0.69 NfA 2241. NfA 2.0 13. 0.3 MIA NUMBEQ OF OBSrqVIliONS 21 21 21 21 NfA 21 NfA 21 21 21 NlA aVERAGC**OICKGaO~N~** 22.2 -0.002**O.I~** :-0.92 5.4 362. 3.] 3.1 1H. 22.1**8'CKGROU~O A.~It~T** **"~ASUA["~N'S** 

## ------------------------------- CXl c.n UCICGROUNI FILE 8ACIlGROUND 1)1 TIME: 8£GI. 19/10:n: 18 TIME rNO 19/10:32:51TEST 11 STATISTICAL**SUM~Aq,**
PROBE S02 NOll 02 CO CO2 'lie WS VO 1"91£1,11 C (l""JUSTI**~'j** TEJIlP(CJ (PPMJ (PPMI (PCT) (PPMJ (PFI'IJ (PpIOJ ."oHI (DEGI n",ptci**~FF"** JCJ**r:1~C** y


## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE 12".8 0.023 1.00 28.38 6.1 3"93. -0.5 1.8 255. 26.9 99.6 STANDARD DEVIATION 35.1 0.011 0.84 0.40 3.9 2214. 0.6 0.9 IT. 0." 0.2 NUMBER OF DeSERV_TIONS 135 135 135 135 135 135 lJ'i US 1'35 135 135 AVERAGE**HAC~GROUND** 29." o.oos -0.05 20.86 0.2 

## "3"• 5.2 1.8 216. 26.3**OAC~GqOUND** AMBIENT**MEASU~E"[NTS** 

## ----------...

## _-._._--------._--
00 0'1 B'CKGROUND FlLr oaClCGROUNO 9 B.CKGflOUNO 10 TINt: BEGIN 21/11:55:06 21113:2!.:3" 'TJHE [flO 21/12: ,11: 3D 21113: 38: 5{l 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 

### 99.84%TEST 50 ST'TISTICAL**SU~"ARY ------------------------------~-----------------------** **-----------------_._-----------------------------** "VERA&[**ST'~DARD DEVIaTI~N** **~U"8ER** OF**OBS~RVATIO~~** aVERAGE**BaCK6RO~~~** PRODE n,.p(C) 131.5

'3.'1

103 33.2 502 (PPM) O.Oll 0.013 103 0.009 NO.**(PP~)** 0.50 0.30

103 0.12 02 IPeT) 20.19

0.38

103 20.Ql CO (PPM. 16.1 11.0

103 0.1 C02 IPPI'. .220. 2119. 103 41';. 'ftC fPP-1

6.6 !i.!I 103 5.011 liS (IiIPH) 2.2 0.8 103**~.o** ..0 IDEGI 269.

Itl. 103 229. AMlJlt'4' TEMPICI 21.1

3.5 103 28.0 CO-8usnGIV tFFICIPiCY '19.'

0.3 11)'**HACKGqQU~C** 'KRIENT**"~ASU~~":~TS** 

## ----_....

### _---_...

## -•......•.•---

00 

## '"**eICKGII:OU~D** fiLE BACkGQOUtlD 10 eaCKGQCUND 11 TJI'(**BE.6I~** 21113:26: 3" 21/U:19ao TU'£ fNC 211n: 31!: Sil 21114:29:33



### ... 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.45%"l
nST 56 STATISTICAL SUMMARY

PROBE 502 NOX 02 CO CO2 THC liS 110 AHBIEn CO"OUSTIO,. TEMPIC' IPP

.., IPPH) IPCTI IPPI1I IPPHI IPPM,

..,PHI COrGI**H~PICI EFFIClr~c,** **-----------------------------~-------.** 

### __**._------------------------~-----------------------~------------** AVERAGE 120•., 0.25'2 0.':)8 20.61 1.9 3120. 1.6 2•• 

## .'8. 31.8 '19.1**STA~D~RO** DEVIATION 40.4 0.221 0."3 

## 0.'" 6.3 2190. 1.6 1.0 

## "D. 0.4 0.3 NUMB£R OF OUSERVATION$. IH 134 13" 134 114 134 134 U4 134 130' IH AVERAG[ UACr,GROUNO**32.~** 0.016 0.18 U .23 0.2**51~.** 6.6 J,.,5 171. 30.8

BACKGROUND _"BIENT**HEASUR~"[nTS** 

## ------------------------------- 00 00 BACI<GROUNO fILE aACKGRilUNO 21 6ACI<GROUND 22 1U[ or61N 21/1): Dc:!: 36 23/15:18:53 TIME EflC 23'13: 1'J: .", 23/15:26: 12 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.70%TEST 61 STaTISTICAL**Su""a~Y** 

# y /
PROBE TEMPIC' S02 (PPM' N01{ (PPM' 

### 0" (PCB CO (PPM) C02 (PPM) THC (PPMI 

### "S ("PH) we (O[GI**A"BIE~T** TEHPCC. COMBUSTION EFflCIENcr**------------------------------------------------------ -------------------~-------.---------------._----**  AVERAGE 166.8 0.039 1.32 1'1.41 3'J8.4 6213. '}it.l 1.1 68. 21.1 81.6 STaNDARD DEVIaTION 32.6 0.012 O.'H D.]" 111.0 1823. 251.4 0.6 12. 0.1 3.a NUMBER Of OBS(RVATIONS 58 58 58 59 58 58 S8 58 58 58 58 AVERAGE BACKGROUnD 21.2 0.003 0.11 20.46 -0.6 ]91. l.S 0.4 10. 21.2

BACKGROUND AHBIEN' MEaSUREMENTS

en \0 I:IACI(GR0UN0 filE BACKGROUND 30 BACI(GROUH0 :n TI I\E BrGIH 24122: 18:40 2S/OO:08:S!J Tlft[ [NO 24/22:30:0' 25/00: 11 :0' 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =82.18%nsr 55 STATISTICAL SUMMAR' /" \
, V / -,

101 68.9 CO"IWSTIO'J (FFJCIENCf

0.4 30.9 AH8J[HT TEMPle'

39.

uo CDf'GI 181. 2.2. 0.8 ws IHPHI 135.5 212.1

THe (PPM' C02 (PPM t

68&. 2012. CO IPPM,

8}.OJ 111.0 0.21

02 (PCl) 20.83 o. J8 O.3Z NOX IPPM, S02 IPPIII 0.112 0.030 H

.. O 85.6 PROSE l(HP let



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE STANOARD**D[VIATIO~ NU"B~R**  Of**06S~RVATJONS** 93 93 'JJ 93 '13 <;J 93 'JJ 93 9) 

# " AVERAGE OACKGROU"O 32.9 0.016 0.18 21.23 1I.2 51!. 

## '·6 2.3 171. 30.8**BACKG~OUND** AHOICHT**"EASU~("(N1S** 

## -------------------------------
U) o UActeGROUNO fILE ll""E BEGIN lIN£ f NO BACfl,GROUND 21 BACKGROUND 22 23/13:09:36 23/15:18:'3 2J/1l:1'J:H 23/IS:26:1I 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =68.95%TEST 57 STATISTICAL SU""ARt

PROBE TEMP(eI soz (PPM' NOX (PP"I. 02 (PCTI CO (PP"' C02 (PPPlI THC (PPM. us ("PHI UD (D£G. AMOIEN' TEMPlet CO"BUST10" EFF"]CI(lfCY 

## -------------------------------._---------------------------_....

## _._-----_.-.-------------_.----------- AVEUG£ I".T 0.11l 2.li8 1'.'0 5.0 6'J45. 2.0 1.5 168. 21.1 99.9 ST••UARD DEVIATION 12.5 0.061 2.05 0.19 7.6 "1&1. 2.3 0.'5 25. D. ] 0.1 NU"8ER OF OOSERVATION5 100 100 100 100 J00 100 100 100 100 100 100 AVERAIE DACKGPOUNO 23.3 -0.00" 0.19 21.11 5.] 12". 

### s.e T.0 ' 1'56. 22.J

QACKGROUND A"Hl[Nt "EASURfft[UTS

\0

...... BACKGROUND FlU: 8ACKGROUND 25 \U.CICGROUfiO**2~** TItlE BEGIN 2'"0IS: "11:29 2"'09:44:11 till" END

__e. 2"'08:5":&"2 24109:**~O:** 5' 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY

## =99.90%TEST 11 STATISTICAL SUMMARY

63 0.2 99.8

63 0.3

21.0 23.3 AMBIENT COMBUSTION**T~MPlCI** EFFICIENCY

63 24.

88.

WD IDEO. 135.

1. 1 1.2 0.4

63 US lMPHI 1.6 1.9 63 5.0 THe (PPHI

63 512.

C02 (PPM) 5269. 3156. 63 7. 1 5.2

3.6 co (PPM)

63 20.03

0.33·

21.34 02 (peT)

63 21.609 1.19

0.22 NOX (PPMI

63 S02 (PPM) 0.1603 0.057 63 21.4 -0.003 31.6 159.7 PR08E TEMPle)



### ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE

AVERAGE BACKGROUND STANDARD DEVIATION NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

BACKGROUND AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS



### -------------------------------
\.0 N BAC\WRQUND FILE lIME £IEGIN TIME END BACKGROUND 23 BACKGROUND 24 24/07107106 24/07155:07 24/07114122 24/08104146 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 

### 99.83%

.TEST ItA STATISTILAl SU"MAQT I

PflOI4£ T£NPH) soz (PPH) NO", (PP"l 02 (PCT) co (PPM) C02 (PP

... THC (PPM) WS UPH) WO tOES) A"BIENT COMBUSTION TEMP(C. EFFICftNCY

---------------- m

_ AV£R'6[ STANDARD OEVIJTIOW IoIUHOER or OSSERVATIONS AVERAGE HACK6ROUNO 1.19.8 30.4 ]) 21.4 0.135 0.0'2 33 -0.003 3.11 1.02 n**O.2~** 20.10 0.35 33 21.34**~.l** '.2

J3 3.6 6611. 1446. 33 512. 0.2 1.4

33 5.0 1.2 0.4

33 1.1 130. 24.

31 89. 23.2 0.3

33 21.0 99." 0.1

33

BACKGROUND AHBt£NT**A[ASU~E"£HTS**

l,Q w BACI(GIlOUlfO FILE IlACKGIlOUflO 23 UCICGROUNO 2' 

## "'E BEIiIN 24/01:01:06 2",,01:SS:01 11,.£ END 24101:1": 22 24108: 04: 6



# .. OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.93%

# ,.

TEST liB STATISTICAL SUMMARY

PROBE S02 HOX 02 CO CO2 THe WS WD AMBIENT COP1BUSTION TEMPCC) (PPHI (PPMI (Pcn (PPI'II (PPH) (PPM) (t1PHI (DEOI TEMPCel EFFlCIENCV



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAOE 181.:5- 0.198 4.17 19.92 8.6 8158. 3.0 1. I 149. 23.4 99.9 STANDARD DEVIATION 7.7 0.028 0.74 0.21 4.9 60B. 0.9 0.3 16. 0.1 0.1 NUf19ER OF OBSERVATIONS 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 AVERAGE BACKGROUND 21.4 -0.003 0.22 21.34 3.6 S12. 5.0 l.1 88. 21.0

BACKGROUND AMBIENT HEASUREMENTS



## ------------------------------- \Cl BACKOROUND FILE TIHE BEGIN TIME END BACKGROUND 23 24/07107106 BACKGROUND 24 24/071S5107 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## = 24/07114122 24/08104146 99.85%lr$1 lit S1l1JSllCIl**SU~"ARY** 

### ry

PRO!'! TUIP.C' so:' CPPM. Nor fPPfU 02 CPCT. co (PPM' C02 CPPM' lHC (PPM' US 'MPH' uo (Dna AMBIENT TEMP'ct C01lt8USlION [FFttIENn 

## -------_...

## ----------------_.-.------------------------------------------------------------------------- h'i"RA-.'" S1AhOlRD**~EVII'10N ~UMe[p**  CF 093fRVATICN> 181.4 l'h2 12 0.189 0.081 12 ••00 1.13 12 19.98 0.311 12 11.6 

# ..,

12 8210. 110e. 12 3.3 1.5

12 1.4 0.4

12 125. 

## 2'.

12 23.' 0.1

12 99.8 0.1

12 AVERICE**8ICKGqOU~~** 21.4 -0.003 0.22 21.3' 3.6 512. 5.0 1.1 BII. 21.0**e.C~GROUND A"~IC~1** **":ASUQ~"ENIS**

ID c..n 8'CKGP:OU'lD FILE PACtr6ftOU"'D 23 BACKGIo'CU\D 2'**TI"~** ftEGU 2""7:01: 06 24107:55:01 TIME END 24181: 14:22 2"08:04:46 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.82%TEST 59 STATISTICAL SU1I'IARV

57 J.0 98.4 22.2.

0.1

57 21.8 51 94. 67.

93.

ND A"BIENT**~BU$TION** CDEG. TEMPIC) EFFICIENCY

0.6 0.9

51 0.5 NS tMPH)

57 2.9 33.3 24.7 THe (PPtlJ CO2 (PAn

57 421. 1481. 5413. 49.9 26.4 51 0.0 CO (PPM) 02 IPcn 19.53 0.39 51 20.61 57 1.41 0.50

0.19 NOX IPPtU

57 802 IPP". 0.060 0.024

0.002 26.3 51 20.4 139.3 PROBE TE"P(Ct**-------------------------------------------~-----** 

## ---------------------------------------------- AVERAGE STANDARD DEVIATION NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AVERAGE BACKOROUND

BACKGROUND AMBIENT MEASUREHENTS



## ------------------------------- '0 0\ BACKGROUND FILE TIME BEGIN TI"£ END BACf<OROUND 29 BACf<OROUND 30 24/211 16112 24/22118140 24/21131111 24/22130109 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =98.49%T£ST**59~.** STaTIS1lCAL**SU~~A~'** 

### /

PilOSE l£f1PCCt S02 (PPM. ....II (PPM) 02

. CPCTI CO (PPNI C02 CPPMI THe (PPM) us (MPHt va fD!Gt AM8IEW' COMRUSTION T["PCCI [FFICIE"Cl



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAG:::**ST.~Da_D ~CVI'TIO~**  NUMBE' OF**nBS~RV_110~~** aV[RAGf**8aCK~ROU~~** 142.4 29.9 18 20.4 0.052 0.D2'i 3A 0.002 1.16**0.~3** :'18 O.HI 19."4 0.40 38 20.61 62.1 11.8 3'1 0.0 5515. 1659. 38 421. 4S.S 21.7 :511 2.9 1.0 0.6

18**(t.~** 12. 46.

38 93. 22.1 0.1

3B 2t.P 91.9 D.q

:s..**~.CKr,.OU~D .~BIENT** **IiIraSU~r"ENTS** 

## --------------------_.---------

\0

........ OACKGltOU,",O flLE**A'CKGQOU~O** 2'1

..aCKGflOUNO 38 lIPE PEtit

.. 24/21:16:12 2"'22:Ill:40 lIM( [.,D 24/21:31:11 24/22: 30:0'" 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =98.11%

### I~SI 59q 

## "L STaTIS'[CAl**SU~"A~T** /' r

I" 1.1 'CJ.]

n 0.0 22.]

21.8 AMB[E.'**COM8US'JO~** T£MPec.**£FFICJ£~CY**

19 19.**~].**

YO eDrG' 140.

19 0.1 0.6

0.5 "s 

## e""H'
].1

19 9.4 

## 2.' THC (PPM' C02 IPPM'

11} 421. 11102. 50'0.

19 1.9

0.0 25••

CO (PPM.

lIJ 0.]0



# 0,. epcTI 19.11

20.61 n 1.62

0.18 0.]5 NOlf epPM,

n 0.016

'SOl IPPM,

0.014

0.002 19 15.9

20.4 133.1 

## ------------------------------------------------------._-----------------------------------------------

PIIOHE 'ftlPIC'

. UERl&£**A~[R'~£** BACKGROUND**SlA~O.RD** OEVta'13N NUMBfq OF**OB5ERV"IO~S 8'C~6ROU~D** **A"8I~N' "~'SUA~M£~'S**  

## -------------------------------
\0 CO BICKGAOU".O FILE



## ---------- T

# ,,,!:

. S£UN TIME uo RICIlf;qOU'Il!) 2q**F.CKG'l.OU~O** 30 24121:t6:11- 24122:l9:4tl 24121:31:11**2"22:30:0~** 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.32%nST 60 STATISTICAL**SUH~ARY**
PROUE: 502 NOX 02 CO CO2 THC WS "0 A"oHNT COMBUSTlOti tEMPIC) (PPI1)**(Pp~)** CPCT) (PPM- (PPMI (PP") ("PHI (OEG) n:ttPCC) £FFItH"CY 

## -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_. A¥£UG£ 99.1 0.052 0.99 19.10 28.1 3685. 11.8 1.1 65. 21.1 98.8 STANDARD D£VIAT10N 20.1 0.01'**0.~1** 0.33 9.5 1290. 2.9 0.4 12. 0.0 0.4 NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS 97 91 'H 91 'J1 'n '}7 91 

### n 91 91 AVERAGE BACKGROUND 21.2 0.001 0.11 20._6 -0.6 391. 3.5 0.4 70. 21.2.**BAC~GROU"D** AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS

\0 \0**B~CICGIl.OU"l1}** FILE BACICGflllUNO 30 BACICGROUf,lO 31 TIII£ BEGIN 2H22:18:_0 25/00:08:51 lI"E (NO 24121:l0:n 25/00: 11:09 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =98.92%TEST 51 STATISTICAL SUtltlARY

78 0.9 98.5 30.1

0.2

78 29.6 78 27. 193.

1&.

WD AtIBJENT CQttBUSTlON (DEG) TEJ1PCCI EFFICIENCY 2.3 0.8

78 2.S ws CJ1PHI

78 11.5 12.1

11.3 THe CPPtI) C02 (PPM' 3347. 2564. 78 410. 78 0.6 32.3 34.1

co (PPM,

0.60 19.85

79 20.45 02 (PeT)

0.66 78 0.57

0.42 NO)! (PPJ1)

79 802 (PPM'

0.017 0.039

35.1 -0.003 119.6 45.4 78 PROBE TEtlPtC'**---------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------** AVERAGE STANDARD DEVIATION NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AVERAGE BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND AJ18IENT "EASUREMENTS



## -------------------------------

..... o o BACKGROUND FILE BACKGROUND 13 TUE BEGIN 21/18130'47 TitlE END 21/18'37139 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =98.66%TEST It:> STATISTICAL SUMMARY

PROBE TEMPle. S02 IPPM. NOX (PPM) 02 IPCT) CO (PPM. C02 (PPM) 'HC (ppnt WS (MPH) WIl (IlEOI AMBIENT COMBUSTIDN TEMPIC. EFFICIENCY



### ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE 129.5 0.121 I.B7 20.43 7.7 4059. 2.4 1.7 149. 22.7 99.7 STANDARD DEVIATION 20.7 0.056 1.02 0.38 3.5 1501. 1.5 0.6 22. 0.2 0.1 NUMBER OF OeSERVATIONS 103 103 103 103 103 103 108 103 103 103 103 AVERAGE**~ACKOROUND** 24.7 -0.002 0.26 21. 17 0.6 394. 6.0 

### o.a 16:8. 22.3

BACKOROUND AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS



### ..... a



### ..... EsACKOROUN[1 FILE f!lACKGROUND 27 TIME IiIEGIN 24/11126I05 liME**Et~D** 24/111 3'5'"

.. 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.75%TEST 1611 STATISTICAL SUN"ARY 

# .\<

'"D]ENl COMBUSTION TE"PICI EFFICIENCY UD CDE61 US (MPHI THC CPPM' C02 CPPMI co CPP'U 02 (PeT) NOli (PPflIl S02 (PPM) PI'OUE T[flIPIC)



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE 113.0 0.082 1.39 '20.55 6.1 3236. 2.3 1.8 136. 22.9 99.7**S'ANDA~D** DEVIAT]ON 22.4 D.Q33 1.02 

## 0." 3.5 1651. 1.8 0.9 13. 0.1 0.1 NUMBER OF**OaS(~VAT]O~S** H 34 341 3" H 341 341 34 3" 3" 341 AVERAGE**aICKGROU~J** 2".1 -f).002 0.26 21.11 0." ]'1". 

## '.0 0.8 188. 22.3

BACkGROUND ANB]EN' H[ASUREMENTS



## --------------------..

## _--------

...... a N BACKGROUND FILE**R.CKGROU~D** 2., TUE nEGIN 24111:26:05 TIME END 2'"11 : 35: "" 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.74%**T~ST** UR N. ST.TJSlICAL SU"MARY /

PROOE 5"2 NIJ. 02 CO CO2 THe liS liD .NBI£NT CO"BUStION '[flPec) (PPM) (PPM) (PClt epPM' IP'M' CPPM' C"PH' CO£:61 1[M'CCJ [FFlCt£NCY



## -------..

### _-..

## -----------------------..

## ----------------------------------------_

# .._--------------------- lVERAG: 14fl.6 D.16A 2.42 20.20 9.6 52tJl. 1.5 1.4 151. 22.9 .'9.8**S'A~3'AO** orV••T'ON 11.1 0.050 0.Q8 0.16**~.l** ue3. 0.1 0.5 24. 0.1 0.1**~UMB~P** CF**ORS~RV"IO~;** 28 2A 211 28 28 28 28 21t 28 28 28**'~E~'GE R.CKGAQU~D**  2".1 -0.002 0.26 21.U 0•• 394. 6.0 0.8 188. 22.3**P.C~GRDUNO ."B'~N'** **~~.SUq("~N'S** 

## -----_..

## _------...

## _----------_.



## .... o eN UCKG-'OU-'O FUr. 

### T,"[ BUI"I '1'1"[ END**P..CK6~OU~D** 21 2"'11:26:05 24'11:35:44 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.751HST 16C STITISTICll**SU~"AR,** \ I N 

# / " ..

22 D.I 1)9.7

22 G.I 22.4 AMBlE"' CDR8USTJON T[MPIC'**[FFIC]E~CY**

Z2 14. 1(,,4. UD IDE6.

22 0

... 1.9 US I"PH' 1.4 0.8

22 THC IPPM' C02 «PPM.

22 ell'. 34.9. 2.11

22 1.] CO CPPM.

22 0.24

02 ,pelt 20.59 1.57

22 0.77 NOY CPDM. 0.101 0.D52 22 $02 'PPM.

22 

## R.' 12'i.0 PfUlqr n",pcc.



## -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. AVERAGe SIANDIRD DEW.IriON**~U"B[R** OF**OBsrRVlrIO~S** AV[RAG:**RIC~r.ROU~D** 2'.1 -0.002 0.26 21.11-- 

## 0." 3'14. 6.0 

## ".8 181'. 22.3**BIC~r.ROU~D A~Rlr~T** **~~ISUR[~EtTS** 

## ------_.-._--------------------

I-' o

. .$:lo BJC'CGPOU",O FIL£


### ..

## _--._.-.. "'CKGPOUN:l 21**TI"~** "'CG}ff 

## ._-- 24111 :2&: 05 TI"E [J.jD 24111:35:" 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.74%l!"Sf 160 \r STATISTICAL**SUM~'Rf** /



## ------------------------------------------------------------....

## -----------------_._------------------- ."(AI\iE**SlAN~ARD** DEV'AlION NUMBfP CF**OBS(RV~lJO~i** AV!PIG!**B'CK~qOUND** PROBE T(MPtC' 136.3

l.t

19 2••1 S02 tPP

.., 0.138 0.045 19 -0.002 NOll (PPM,

2.18 D.Al I 11' 0.26 02

.fPCTJ

20.16

0.1' 1'9 21.11 co (PPM'



## J.' 2.5

19 0.4 C02 tPPM' 4458.

61J. 19 394. THC CPPM' 2.0 1.3

1'9 6.0 85 (llIPH, 

## 1.' 0.6

n 0.1 YD CD!G' 155.

26.

19 188. '"81£14' TrMPCC' 22.4

0.1

n 22.3 COMaUSTION (FFICI!Nn If'i.f1

0.1

19**~AC"GqOU~C .MBlf~T** **"~ASUq!"[NlS** 

## -------_...

## _-_..

## _.-------.-._.-



## .... o (J"I BACICGP:OU!t1D FIll 8ICKODOU'IO 27 lItrE q£&

## 1-.
2"11 :26: OS TIME fHD 24111: 35:4. 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY a 

### 99.78%f£:Sf**5~** \J STATISTICAL**SU~"ARr** /'

AMBIENT**CO"BUSTIO~** TEMPIC' EFFICIENCY 110 (DE6. US ("PHI THe IPPM) C02 (PPM. CO IPPM, 02 (PCl) NOX (PPIt. S02 (PPH) PROD£: l£HP(C)**----------~-------------------~----------------------- -------------------------------------------------**  AyrRAG£: 197.1 0.559 5.00 19.15 6.8 1115. 0.0 1.5 225. 31.6 99.9 STAHDARD DEVIATION**~8.1** 0."78 2.29 0.51 3.8 2157. 0.8 0.6 31. 0." 0.1 HU"tBER Of OBSfllVA**1I0~S** 92 92 92 92 92 d 92 92 92 92 92 AVERAGE**BAC.~HOUNO** 311." 0.085 D.2l 20.35 0.8**'35~.** 6.5 

## I." 211. :n••

BACKGROUND AHBIEHT HEASUR[M£"fS 

## ----------------._-------._----

..... a 0' BACf{Gnou,m FILE rUlE BfGIN TIME EfIID BACkGROUND 1(, DACflGROUI4O 11 12/16:52: 39 22/11:U:U 22117:09:36**22111:~6:** JS 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

### =99.90% ;TEST 23 s,aTISTICAl**SU"MA~'** .**-------------------------------------------------._--- -------------------~-----------------------------**  AVEUGE**STA~BARO** DEVIATION**~UMBER** OF**OBSrRVATIO~S** AV[RAGE RACKGRJtlND PJt06£ 'EMPltt**21~.1** 111.' [0]**3~·.1** S02 CPP

.., O.OlB 0.017 101 -0.003 NO. CPP",

5.CJ3 5.3[

103 o.·? o? cpcn 18.12

I.!!

103 20.45 co (PPM'



## '.5 4.5 103 0.6 CO2 'PPM' 8465. 6646. 103

..10. THe CPP".

-5.0



## D.' 103 11.] "S C

## "pHI 1.5 0.'5 103 2.3 YD CDEG) 160.

21. 103 186. ""Blnn n ..pcet 28.4

0.1 [03 29.6 COMBUSTION**£FFICIE~C'** 100.2 0.5 103

UACKGQOUND**."8Ir~T "~'SUqE"~~rS** 

o '-J**R.CI(&ROU~O** FILE OACICGROU

..D 13**TU'~** BtU" 21/18nO:47 tJM[ no 211u:n::sa 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =100.01%TEST 52 fA STATISTICAL**SU"~A~'** 

### I

98.1 28.0 AMBI[W'**CO.BUSTIO~** 'EMPie.**[FFICI[~C'** 165. liD IOEG) 0.9 liS "'PH) 15.2 THe (PPM) C02 (PPMJ 2622. 16.1

CO (PP"J 02' cpeT) 19.92 0.68 NOM (PPIIIJ $02 CPPIIIJ 0.801 118.2 PROIJ£**TE~PCC** t**------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------~--------------------** **AVERIG~** STANOIRD**DrVIITIO~** 1_.3 0.003 0.31 0.17 5.0 851. 4.8 0.3 20. 0.2 0.4 WUMBrA OF**OBS£RV.'IO~S** 80 80 RO 80 110 80 80 80 "0 80 AU AVERIGr**8.CKGAOU~D** 39.9 -0.004 0.02 20.46 -0.5 3110. 9.4 1.5 179. 28.5**BICKr.ROU~D .M8Jr~T** **"~.SURr~NTS** 

## -------------------------------

..... o co**HICK6ItOU~O** FILE R**ICkG~ OU'~'**  1] RICKGROU"4D H lI'i: Ri:Gn


## ---.. 21/18:30:., 21/20:15:10 TIME END 21/U:37:39 21120:20:

.. 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =98.82%TEST 53 

## "f. STATISTICAL SUI1I'IARV"

PROBE TEMPle) S02 (PPf1) NOX 02 (pp,n· Ipcn co CPPK) C02 CPPK) THe CPPI'1) ws C

....) NO MBIENT COI'lBUSTJON (DEO)**TE~fC)** EFFICIENCY



## ------------------------------------------------------------- . 

## ---------------------------------- AVERAGE STANDARD DEVIATION NUKBER OF OBSERVATIONS AVERAGE BACKGROUND 160.6 47.1

112 30.5 0.729 0.264 112 0.0500 2.83 I.B9

112 0.14 19.22 0.68

112 20.50 23.9 12.4

112 0.3 5741. 3489. 112 375. 10.9 6.4 112 5.7 2.0 0.8 1I2 2.2 235. 33. 112 225. 30.4 0.3 ll2 30.6 99.3 0.4 112

BACKOROUND AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS



### ..... a lD BACKGROUND FILE BACKGROUND 15 BACKGROUND 16 TIME BEGIN 221131 13156 22/16152139 TIt'IE END 22/1311BI48**22/1710913~** 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.40%·T£ST 26 ST_rISlICIL**SU~"IR'**

0.1 12" 100.0 D.l) 124 31.7

33.5 A"8IENT COftlUSTION T["PIC. EffiCIENCY

124 

## 2'.

YO (BEst 250.

244. 1.1

124 2.4 I.a 

### us IMPH.

124 0.9

1.4 -3.9 'HC IPP

... C02 IPPR.

124 315. '210. 2646. 5.5 2.1 124 0.2 124 0.t4

02--

- CO cpcn CPPJU n.6!

21J.63 124 5.34 2.93

0.f10 NOIe CPP",. 502 IPP".

124 0.356 0.228

0.013 124 32.8 42.5 1'J4.D PR3BE TEMD(C' 

## ---------------------------------------_._--------------------_..

## _------------------------------------- AVERAGE

AVERleE**~_CKGROU.D** STANDARD DEVIITION NUNBtR OF**OBS~RVATIO~S**

AACKGRau.o I-BIE"**"r.su~£~rN'S -----------~--.--~_.-.---------** 



## .... .... o**"ICICGROU~11** FlU 

### ---------. OICl(GROU",O 35**RICKGqOU~O** 36 

## ""E' BEGfIII 29/13:n: 20 29114:44:11 lut END 2lf/I4:01:?2 29/14:58:17 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.97%**T~ST** &5 STATISTICAL SU""ARY

PROBE 502 N'JX 02 CO CO2 THt VS liD '''BIENT CO-BUSlION T["Pltt (PP". (PPfI'**~PCTl** (PP"I (PP'" (PPM' (tIPH. (OU, TE"P(CI EFFICIENCY



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AV[IUGE 111.3 0.062 

## 2.". 20.31 20.3 4811. 0.6 2.1 112. 31.0 99.5**S'._OI~O** DEVIATION 26.6 0.02" 1.82 0.35 5.1 2168. 1." 1.5 12. 0.2 0.1 NU"BE- OF OBSERVATIONS 81 83 83 lJ3 8] 83 n as 83 113 

### as AVERaGE**nAC~6~OU~D** 26." 0.001 0.15 21.14 ••1 399. ••2 1.1 179. 26.9

BACWGROUNO A"BIENT**~~ASUR~"ENTS**



## .... 

## .... .... RICIl&fl:QU't:l Fit! IUCIC&Rou.,a 41 eICIlGRJU.,O 4" TIM!: 1'£61., 30123:31:27

1/00:10:30 TillE END



## ---- lO/n:;16:3"

1/00:14:21 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY • 99.57T[ST 28 STATISTICAL SUMMARY

.
PROYE 502 Wow 02 C3 CO2 THC "S YO**A"BI[~T** COMBUSTION TE"P(ct fPPM) (PPM. fPCT) fPPII. fPP") fPPM) (IIPH)**(D~G)** 1£IIP(C) rFFICIENCY**---------~---------_._----------------._-------------- --------------------_._--------------------._----**  AV!:U&r 212.1 0.329 1.16 19.66 3.2 6018. 0.7 3.5 290. 31.6 9ct.C1 SfANDARD DEVIATION 

## 71.' 0.22. 5.'2 0.62 5.4 3562. 1.1t 1.5 87. 0.7 9.1 NUNSER OF**OBSERVATIO~S** .43 143 143 143 

### .41 143 143 .43 143 143 143 IttRaGE BACKGROU"D 30.7 0.009 0.73 20.51 5.9 250. ").3 :'1.9 324. 30.2**BAC~GA~U~D** AMBIE"T**NEIS~~r"ENTS** 

## --._-----_._---_

# ....--_

# ...**-_._~**



### ..... ..... N BACIC6POU"'J FILE 

## ---_._---- BACKGROUND 32 BACKGROUND ]] 1UIE 

### ern. 28'16:23: J] 28'11:51:1] TUI£ [NO 21'16:38:5J 2./18: 0.:50 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.94%TEST 31 STATISTICAL SUMMAR'**PftO~E** 502 NOW 02 CO CO2 THC US YD 1"81£'"**CO"RUSnO~** TEMPIt) (PPfIt) (PPM) (PCl) (PP"') (PPM) (Pp",) (MPHI CDE6. ,[MPICI EFFICl£"CY 

## ._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ""ERAGE 159.3 1.226 _.02 l li-B3 21.9 .568. 18.1 2.a 315. 31.1 99.1 STINDARD OrVIJTIO

.. ]7.6 0.751 2.34 0.56 1:!.1 2258. 3.1 1.1 '3. 0.3 0._ "UM8EQ OF**08srAVA'IO~S** 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121**AV[A.G~ A'C~GROUNO**  ]£t.4 0.022 0."19 20.53 0.5 321. 5.6 ]

# .., 3U. 30.2

8ICKGROU.O .-RtfNT**"rJSU~["ENTS** 

## ----_..

## _-_.------._...

## _---.----



# .... .... w**BACtI;~RaUND F1L~** **tl.CKGQOUr.I~** ]] BJCIUiROUND ]. TIM! 8!GI" 28/1l:51:1J 28#18:56:54 TlM7 UO 211l#1R:D4:'50 28#llJ:05:46 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.17%TEST 66 STATISTICAL**SU"MA~'**
PROBE 502 NO. 02 CO CO2 fHC US YO AM81£Nf CONRUSTION T[

..PCeI (PP

..I fPPI" 'CPeTI (PP,,) 'PP"I CPP"I '''PHI fDEGI TEMPeel EFFICIEfo!CY 

## --------_._----._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERIIGE 102.2 0.935 0.97**10.0~** .Z'J.4 2432. 1265.0 0.6 .44. 29.7 60.6 STANDARD Dr'llTION 25.!: 0.3'5 0."3 0.39 114-2 11n. SID., 0.2 23. 0.1 llel**NU~B£R** Of 08S£:R"TION5 

### 6' 69 60J 69 6' 6i 61? 69 69 6'J 6CJ**IV£~.Gt 8ACK~~DU~D**  2B.9 a.OZ6 0.00 21.01 2.4 331. 12.1 1.1 lId. 29.1**BAC~GAOUND .MBJ~~T** **"~.S~R~~!~TS** 

# .....

# --..**-~-~-.--.--** 

## _-_.

1-1 1-1 BaC1(61"JU'0 FILE**RACI(6R(lU-~O** 3R**B"CKGROU~O ~q**  

### n'r Bren

... 2Q/20:S2:4Q 29121:4':2' TUE UD 29/20:56:')5 n/21:5SUD 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =61.94%nSf 29 STATISfICAL**SUM~AR' -------~----------------------~-----------------------** **-------------------.----------------------------** lVCRAG[ STANDARD**DrVIATIO~ NU~BER**  OF**OBSERV4fIO~5** AVEAAG£ BACKGROUND PROf:lC TE"PIC) 86.3 14.3

57 28.9 502 (PPM' 1.365 I.5DZ 51 O.02l5 NOX (PPH)

1.06 0.40 57 0.00 02 IPcn 20.23

0.23 S1 21.01 CO (PPM) 180.9

46.3 51 2.4 C02 .PPM' 2119.

789. 51 331. 'HC (PPMJ 1111.6

296.4 51 1?1 "'S (MPHJ 0.6 0.3

51 1.1 

### wo nEGJ l'iO.

1 'l.

51 IfP. 4JtBIUU H"PCC)**2~.3** o.a.

51 2'.1 conljUSTJON [FFleUHC' £1.0 10.0; 51

BACKGROUND AMBIENT ftCASURE"ENTS

.-..

...... U1 BACKGROUND FILE 8ACIl:G**qOU~o** 311 8ACKGROUND 39 THI[ 8£GI'1I 29120:'i2: 411 29/21:46:20 IIM( E",O 2H20: !I':6] 2"21:55:10 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 

### 61.60%HSf 29' STATISTICAL**SU"M'~'** 

# y / !
PROIIE TEMPIC' so,. IPPM, NO'( (PPM' 0' IPClI co IPP"' C02 (PPM' THC (PP'" US elllPH' UO COEG' A"BIENT CO"BUSTIO" TEMPec, EfFICIENC'



## -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**."£R'G~** ST._D.RD**~EVI'TION** NUMBER OF**OBS~RVATloN~** aVERAGE OACKGROUNO 15.1 It.1

2d 28.9 1.236 0.'509 28 0.026 1.09 0.40 2'1 0.00 20.34 8.22 u 21.01 146.' 

## 2'''' 28 2.4 1529. 416. 28 331. 1097.1 U3.0 211 12.1 0.6 0.3

28 1.1 1"1. 21.

28 

# .,ft. 2'.'5 0.1

28 29.1 '54.1 10.11**2~**

BACKGROUND**'"81~N' ":.SU'E"~N'S**  

## -------------------------------

..... ..... O'l nJlCkGlJoUND FILE BaCkG"OU'I[I 38 BACkGAOU,.O 39 TlPE fiE6n


### ...

# _- 2"120:52:48 29121:46:20 11"[ UO


# ---- ,,,no :56:53 29121;'5:10 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 

### 55.14%T[ST 2911 ! U TJSTItAL SUNNARI 

# Y
f i PROBE lnlPcct SO?**cpp~»** NO. .PPM» 02 .PCU CO IPP"t C02 CPP"» THC tpP"' liS ,MPHt 110 COEG» AMBIENT COMBUSTION TEMPeCI FFfICIENC' 

## _._---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE 91.2 1."89 1.84 28.12 213.9 2808. 1255.4 0.1 189. 29.2 65.6 SIANOARD DEVIATION 9.9 0.410 0."1 0.18 

# H.'

....0. 325.6 o.s 15. 0.1 1.1 NU"BER or**OBS£RV~IIO~S** 29 29 29 29 29 29**~9** 29 29 29 29 AVERAGE BACKGROUND 2B.9 0.026 0.00 21.01 2.4 3H. 12.1 1.1 1111. 29.1

BACKGROUND AMAIENT**"[ASURE~ENTS**

t-' t-'

..... U"CKGROUND FILE BACKGRCUND 38 nlCKGflOUNO 19 Tl"f 11£6111 29"0:52:"8 29/21:46:20 TUE (ftD 2!J120:56:53 29/21:55: 10 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =65.6%TESI 60\ STATISTICAL**SU~"AR'**
PROBE SfJ2 NO' 02 CO COl THr WS YO AM81EtfT CO"AUSTJOft t(

..P(C, (PPM' (PP'" IPen IPPM' IPPM) 111'11'''' I-PH) IDEG) TEMPle. EFFICIENCY**------------------------------------------------------ -------------._--------------------~-------------**  AVERAGE 1D!J.O 0.051 1.24 20.42 8.6 3282. -0.1 0.9 185. 25.3 99.7 S'ANDAAJ**D~VI.TIO~** 10.1 o.ou 0.117 0.20 3.1 896. 1.9 t'.3 23. 0.1 0.2 .UM9ER OF**09s~qV"10~~** 

# " 61 61 6? 67 E1 67 67 61 61 61 lW[RAG£**H.CKu~~U~D** 2<f.O 0.032 0.03 21.11 -1.7 42B. 8.8 :.7 184. 25.1

ftACKGROUNO**'''AIE~T** "LASUREMENTS



## -------------------------------

.- 

### .-. en PlCKGIIOU"-{l FILE QACKGItOUllOO 40**RACI('olQU~D** lilt**fIM~** f'!:G1" 30/00:l:J:08 30/02:01:53 TIME END 30/00:15:111 30/02:0I!: 111 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 

### 99.74%TEST 62 ST_TISTICAL**SU~"ARY**
PROBE 502 NOM 02 CO CO2 THC WS WD

....OIEtH COM8USTIOPl TrMP (C) (PPtU UP"') (PCT. (PPM. (PPMI (PPM) UPH) (OEGl T["'PCP EH**tCIf~CY** 

## ---------------------------_._------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVEIUGE 108.3 0.841 0.60 20.39 90.2 3016. 9'J.8 0.9 175. 25.2 9J.B STANOARg**D[VI"TIO~** 22.1 0.661 0.36 0.39· 32.0 1206. 30.6 0.2 1s. Q.l 1.(, HUMBER OF**OBSCRVATIO~J** 113 113 113 113 113 IlJ 113 113 113 11] 113 AVERAGE UACKGROUUO 2').0 0.0]2 O.OJ 21.11 -1.T ":t8. II.S 0.1 18". 25.1**8AC~GROUNO** AMBIENT**"EASUR[M[~TS**



### ..... ..... \0 8ACK(>ROUHO FILE BACKGRl!UtIO 110 BACKGROUND "J fur 8EG]1I 30/00: 10: 08 30/02:01:53 TINE**~ND** -.--- 30/00: 15: 14 30/02:08:1. 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =94.18%TEST 61 s,aTISTlcaL**SU"~AR'**
PROBE S02 NlJr 02 C;) CO2 THe us UO a"SIENT**CO~BUSTION** TeMPIC) tPP,,, CPPMI cpen IPPIIIJ tPPM) CPPM, CltPH) COEG) TEMPIC) [FF1CI[HCf



## -------------------------------------------------------------..

## _--------------------------------------- AVER.fiE 123.4 8.851 1.5T 10.13 19.9 4184.**~.5** 1.4 "7. 24.8 99.1 stANDARD**D[V1ATI~N** 30.4 0.031 1.0& 

## D.". 9.8 2204. 6.7 0.1 44. 0.6 Ie? NUIII8CR OF**08SE~VATIO~S** lOft 10ft 106 186 106 to6 106 106 106 U6 1O§ AVERAGE**8ACK;AOU~D** ?CJ.D D.032 0.1)] 11.11 -1.1 428. 8.'1 D.l 184. 25.1**B'CKG~OUND A.Blr~T** **M~.SUqL"EN1S** 

## --..

### __

## ._--_._----_....

## _--._----

.... N o BlCKGQOUND FILE**(lACI(GROU~D** 40 UCKGIlOur.D 41 TIM::

.**HrGI~** 30,:,.1:10:0.1 30/02:01:'5.1 TIME [flD 30/D0:15:1' 30102:De: H 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

## =99.37%TEST 33 STATISTICAL SU""IRY**f~**



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVE"lor**STINDA~D ~[VIITION** **NU~RrR** Of OOSERV'TIONS AVERIOE**RAC~GR~U~D** PR08E TE,.P(C, 86.6 12.5

102 21.5 S02 (PPM, 3.n3 1.440 102 0.044 NOI (PPII'

0.1" 0.79

102 -0.01 02 (Pcn 20.'6

0.11

102 21.23 co cpp,., 15.8 5.6 182 D.I C02 ,PPJI' lRS1.

SOD.

102 436. THC fPPMI

11.5 6.4 102 141.6 us '''PHt 1.0 0.2 102 1.0 UO CDfGI 181.

11. 102 115. A"BIENT**T£~P(Ct** 26.9

0.7 102 26.Q CO"BUSTJON EFFJCInc' 98.2

0.5 102



## -------------------------_._---**~AC~~qOU~D A"BIE~T** **"~.S~qE,.:~'S**



# - N 

# - IUCK6ROU,.n FILE BACI(GROUND 39 IUCKOROUfO0 40 TJflt BEGIN 29/21:46:20 .10/00:10:08 UIIt[ HO 29/2J:**S5~** 10 30/00:15:1- 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY • 98.24%TrST 32 

# > STATISTICAL**SU"MA~'**
COMUUSliOH EFFJCI£"C' A"8IC'" TEMPIC, WO IDE6' NS I"PH' THC (PPM' COl CPPH' CO IPPM) 02 IPCT) NOM IPP'n S02 IPPM) PROBe TEMPIC)



## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AYfRAGE 120.9 3.281 1.15 20.0\9 22.1 3702. 1'j.5 0.8 189. 26.3 98.9 STANDARD DEVIATION ]6.1 1.098 1.01) 0.36 11.0 1132. 11.8 0.2 12. 0.1 0.3 NUMBER Of OBSERVATIONS 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 12.1 AVeRAGE BACKGROUND 21.5 0.00\4 -O.OJ 21.23 0.1 o\Jf

.. 10\.6 1.0 11'i. 26.'**8ACKGROU~D** AMUILNT**H(ASU~E~E~JS** 

## -------------------------------

I-' N N**OACI(GROU~D** FilE BaCKGROUND 39 BACkGROUllIiJ 0\0 TI"[ HEGI" 29121:0\6:20 30/00:10:08 TIME END 29/21:55:10 30/00:15':14 

### OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY

## =98.87%**,~s,** l2A 

## 'f STATISTICAL**SU~~'A'** ..



# .4 0.4 .1.'1

4. 0.1 26.5

26.a AMBI£NT COMBUStlOI TEMPIC' £FFICI£Ncr

7. 

# ., 110 cors. 199.

IT5. 44 0.'1 0.2

1.0 US 

## "'PH'

44 5.4 7.3

14.6 THC 'PPM'

4

.. 436. 520.

C02 'PPM' 1"1.



# .. 6.3

0.1 12.2 CO (PP".



# .. 0.11

02 (pen

21.23 20.90

44 0.25 0.65

-0.05

Nil' (PP", S02**(PP~,**

44 0.82' 2.20'

0.0'" 

# .. 9.7

27.5 80.5 PR05lE TEMP(e,**---_._-_.~--_._-------_._-._.~---------_._----_._----------------------------------------------------~-** · AVERAG!**A'ER.~£ B.CK6AOU~D** **S'A~DIRD D£VI"IO~** **NUNB~R** OF**OAS[RVA'IO~S O.C~GAOU~D** **'"81!~'** -:ISUQC":NTS 

## ------------_ -._---------

OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY 

### ..... N W 8UICGAOUND flU



# --.._----- R'CK6POU"lD 3" DICKGltOU"lO 40 n'E A£61'4 29121:4':20 30/00:13:08 TlN[ EhD 29/21 : 55:1D 30/00:15:14 

## =98.91%lEST 12q SUTlSTICU SU

.....R'f' /



## ---------..

## ------._----------..

## _----_._---_._---------------------------------------------------------- urR'G': STAND'RD**O~VI'TID~ NU~BER**  Cf**OAS'RVA110~S** AVfR.GE**8'CKG~OU~O** PROBt '("PtCt 144.1

23.9 lJ 27.5 502 tPPMt 3.896 0.680 n 0.044. Nnw CPPM,

2.39 0.63 11 -0.0] 02

. CPCT.

20.21

0.22 11 21.23 co CPPM' 28.8

8.2

II 0.1 C02 tPP", 4E111 • 1011. 11 436. THC CPPMI

26.5**~.]** n 14.6 us '''PHt 0.1 0.2

n 1.0 

### "D CoEGI 184.

11.

11 175. I"B1[NT Tn'PUt 26.3

0.1

n 26.9 CO"BUSTJO.**[FFlClr~cy** tJ8.9

0.2

17

bACKGRnUND**A"Or~"l ":.SURrM~~TS**  

## _.-..

## _-----------_•..

## _--.------

..... N rtICkG"OU"ID FlU A'CkIiPOU"IO 3q eACKlit:OU'110 40 11'£ fI[6[., 29/21:46:20 3D/DD:lD:D8 lIM£ UD



## ---- 29/21:55: 10 30'00U!i: 14 

### OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY

## =98.86%APPENDIX C CALCULATION OF DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY (DE) While dilution factors are required for an accurate determination of destruction efficiency (DE), estimates ofDE can bemade for total hydrocarbons (THC) and for individual hydrocarbon species. Assuming: (a) All carbon resulting from combustion is accounted for in the measurements, (b) Dilution is neglected, and (c) The relief gas is 80% propylene and 20% propane. One can calculate DE's as follows: DETHC 

### = C02 + CO + Soot C02 + CO + Soot + THC x 100
DEpropylene 

### =0.8(C02 + CO + Soot + THC)

- CPropylene x 100 0.8(C02 +·CO + Soot + THC) DEpropane 

### =0.2(C02 + CO + Soot + THC)

- CPropane x 100 0.2(C02 + CO + Soot + THC) where: DETHC 

### =Total Hydrocarbon DE (%) DEpropylene 

### =Propylene DE (%) DEpropane 

### =Propane DE (%) CPropylene 

### =Measured Propylene Concentration (ppmv) CPropane 

### =Measured Propane Concentration (ppmv) and all other variables as previously defined. Tables C-1 and C-2 provide calculated values for DETHC, DEpropylene' DEprQpane for each of the tests. Note that aCombustion Efficiency \Ct) value is also provided, and in some cases, it differs from CE values reported in previous tables. This is due to the method of calculating CE: (a) THC,**CPropylen~,** andCPropane values from the integrated bag samples (Tables 7 and 8) were used instead of the continuous THC data used in previous calculations. As noted in the report, there are differences between the continuous and integrated bag THC results.
125TABLE C-1. DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS

Test CE DETHC DEpr?i11ene**DEpro~ane** Number 

### (%) (%) (% High Btu Tests 1 99.85 99.96 2 99.66 99.95 3 99.80 99.96 4 91.67 99.86 99.99 99.98 8 93.15 99.87 99.99 99.99 7 99.79 99.93 99.99 99.98 5 99.82 99.94 99.99 99.98 17 99.73 99.89 100.00 99.98 50 99.37 99.73 99.80 99.76 56 99.49 99.71 99.92 99.88 61 76.92 81.51 82.96 83.74 55 61.63 65.81 67.65 68.42 Low Btu Tests

57 99.73 99.87 99.99 99.98. 11 99.67 99.85 99.98 99.97 59 98.22 99.06 99.34 98.91 60 98.71 99.38 99.59 99.68 51 98.48 99.39 99.81 99.82 16 99.61 99.80 99.97 99.94 54 99.81 99.91 99.97 99.91 23 99.84 99.93 100.00 99.99 52 97.93 98.44 98.87 98.91 53 99.24 99.63 99.72 99.74

126-----_._._
..

TABLE C-2. DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES
.- AIR-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS

Test CE**DET~C DEpr?~lene** **DEpro~ane** Number 

### (%) (% (% High Btu Tests 26 99.85 99.94 99.99 99.98 65 97.95 99.90 100.00 99.99 28 99.78 99.93 99.98 99.98 31 98.84 99.42 99.61 99.61 Low Btu Tests

66 49.98 54.17 55.66 57.22 29 48.03 51.53 53.11 54.76 64 99.49 99.68 99.93 99.89 62 92.05 94.38 95.44 95.57 63 99.14 99.54 99.72

- 99.72 33 97.31 97.98 99.72 99.61 32 98.50 99.04 99.87 99.80

127

### (b) Since the integrated bag sample hydrocarbon data were used and no background data were available for propane and propylene, the measured values for hydrocarbons in the flare plume were not "corrected" by subtracting background concentrations. Thus, the CE and DE values in the following tables were calculated from a consistent set of data. (c) Did not segment tests 11, 16, 29, and 32 due to lack of hydrocarbon species data.

128

# ES APPENDIX D SOOT COMPOSITION 

## ENGINEERING-SCIENCE 3109 NORTH INTERREGIONAL.AUSTIN.TEXAS 78722. 512/47r-9901 CABLE ADDRESS: ENGINSCI TELEx: 77-6442 February 1. 1'983 Dr. Bruce Tichenor Industrial Processes Branch (MD-63) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Dear Dr. Tichenor: In response to your letter dated December 9, 1982, and our subsequent telephone conversation. I am providing a summary of the procedures used for the PNA analyses of soot collected during the flare efficiency test. The sample probe assembly included an in-line particulatefilter housed inside the heated section of the probe about six feet from the probe tip. This in-line particulate filter assembly served two purposes: 1) collection of particulate samples from smoking flares for subsequent analysis, and 2) maintaining the cleanliness of the sampling system. The preweighed filter elements used were of the thimble configuration and constructed of 0.3 micrometer glass**fi~er.** The tilters were changed before and after each of the smoking flare tests. Following the tests the filters were reweighed to determine the mass of particulate collected

.. This information, combined with the measured flow rate

# of sample through the probe assembly. allowed the calculation of the gross particulate concentration of the flare emission at the sampling location. It should be noted however, that these particulate samples were not collected isokinetically and thus, represent only gross estimates of the particulate concentration. The flare particulate emissions were not isokinetically sampled because it was not practical to directly measure the plume velocity. Table I is a sUU1mary of the mass particulate concentration data collected during the test series. Although these samples were not collected isokinetically, the data shows distinct differences between particulate loadings of nonsmoking, lightly smoking (Test 65) and**h~avily** smoking (Test 4) flare tests. Samples**wer~** prepared for PNA analysis by Soxhlet extraction of the air filters as received with 200 mL ofmethylene chloride for 24 (+2) hours. The condenser water was chilled to 1 - 4°C and no solvent loss (bp 40°C) was noted. The samples were transferred to bottles and the glassware washed with additional methylene chloride which was added to sample. Samples were dried lor several days over anhydrous sodium sulfate which had been kiln-fired at 450°C to remove organic compounds. Sample extract volumes were carefully reduced to 1 mL using Kuderna-Danish flasks and three-ball Snyder columns. 129ENGINEERING.SCIENCE Dr. Bruce Tichenor February 1, 1983 Page 2. Sample extracts were analyzed by GC/MS using a 60 meter J &Wfusedsilica DB-1 bonded SE-30 capillary column, using d12-Chrysene as an internal standard. Individual compound respon.se factors were obtained by running a standard mix prepared from EPA standard solution concentrates, and spiked with d12-chrysene. Quantitation was based on integrAted peak areas and was performed by the GC/MS data system. As a further quality assurance measure, a solvent blank was run, spiked with d12-chrysene, and was found to be free of interfering peaks. No recovery efficiency data can be given, since there was only one of each sample. Ideally, one should consider collecting at least one replicate sample which could be spiked (directly onto the soot)·with a known addition of a surrogate PNA. By this means, an·indication of the efficiency of recovery of PNAIs from the soot matrix could be obtained. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results of the PNA analyses. As I indicated in our telephone conversation, I am**unab~e** to calculate these results in terms ofmass emission rates (e.g., mg/106 Btu, mg/hr, etc.) because of the lack of isokinetic sampling and a measure of the dilution between the reaction zone and the sampling probe. If you have any questions, please call me at 512/444-5830. Sincerely,

Marc McDaniel Attch. /kg

130ENGINEERING·SCIENCE Dr. Bruce Tichenor February 1, 1983 Page 3.
Table 1. Flare Efficiency Study Particulate Analysis.

Wt. gain, Sample Time1Sample Rate C oncentration Test No. Filter No. (grams) (minutes) (Urnin) (].IghJ 2, 3, 1, 5, 7 A-I 0.0063 18.51 7, 17, 50, 51 23, 52, 53, 54 F-l 0.0071 18.51 0.0810 16 18.51 274 4 (Srook;n9) F-2 8 (Smok;n9) F-3 0.0819 25 18.51 177 55, 56, 11, 57 16, 59, 60, 61 28, 31, 26, 29 F-4 0.0179 18.51 33, 32, 62, 63 64, 80, 81, 82 83, 84 65

# (~~t~**F~5** 0.0183 25 18.51 40

1 Includes time for.probe positioning while probe was in the plume but before formal initiation of the test.

131ENGINEERING-SCIENCE Dr. Bruce Tichenor February 1, 1983 Page 4.

Table 2. Total Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Filter Samples, in Microgramsl

.

E.S. Sample i Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 napthalene . 2 3 (O.OS) 1.9 1.8 acenapthylene 3.3 6.2 acenapthene 0.25 fluorene (0.02) 0.61 phenanthrene 0.35 4.7 11. (0.02) (0.06) anthracene 0.24 1.5 0.32 pyrene 0.77 6.0 17. 0.25 0.38 fluoranthene 0.96 8.3 21. 0.93 0.63 benzanthracene 0.13 0.18 4.7 1.0 0.21 chrysene 0.12 0.28 5.6 1.2 0.17 benzo(a)pyrene 1.2 4.4 2.6 1,2:5,6 dibenzanthracene 1,12 benzopery1ene 1.2

1 - Also equal to concentration in "final 1 mL extract, in**~g/mL** (ppm). 2 - The calculated amount is given in parenthesis if it is below twice the stated detection limit in the extract (0.05ppm). Note that some compounds were detected at concentrations below the stated detection limit. 3 - a dash indicates that the compound was not present above the stated detection limit.

132ENGINEERING-SCIENCE Dr. Bruce Tichenor February 1, 1983 Page 5.
Table 3. Analytical Results for Polynuclear Aromatics in Filter Samples.

E.S. Sample f Fl F2 F3 F4 F5
SumX Sample t 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 Sample weight,g 0.0071 0.0810 0.0819 0.0179 0.0183 Compound PNA concentrations, Y9/9 soot (ppm) napthalene < 14 23 22 no 2 no acenapthy1ene nd 41 76 nO nd acenapthene nd nd 3.1 nd nd fluorene nd <1 7.4 nd nd phenanthrene 49 58 130 <5 <5 anthracene nd 3.0 18 18 nd pyrene 110 74 210 14 21 fluoranthene 140 100 260 52 34 benzanthracene 18 2.2 57 56 11 chrysene 17 3.5 68 67 9.3 benzo(a)pyrene nd 15 54 145 nd 1,2;5,6 dibenzanthracene nd nd nd no nd 1,12-benzoperylene nd nd nd 67 no

Detection Limitl 7 0.6 0.6 3.

1 - Dependent on sample size. Corresponds to 0.05ppm in 1 mL extract. Concentrations of substances found but less than twice the detection limit are reported as less than 

### «) twice the detection limit. 2 - nd = none detected at or above the stated detection limit.

133·, .**~, .~**  .... \. TECHNICAL REPORT DATA

. (P[CllsereQd[NUl'tlctiQl/s 011 tilerel'erse beforecompletillg) 1, REPORT NO. 12• 3. RECIPI ENT'S ACCESSION- NO. EPA-600/2-83-052 4, T1TI.E AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Flare Efficiency Study July 1983 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

Marc McDaniel
9, PERFORMING OROANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PRC/GRAM EI.EMENT NO.

Engineering Science, Inc.

. 3109 North Interregional 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. Austin, Texas 78722 68-02-3541, Task 6

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED EPA, Office of Research and Development TaskFinal· 5/82

- 3/83 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 EPA/600/I3 15. SUPPI.EMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer is Bruce A. Tichenor. Mail Drop 63. 919/541-2547.

16. ABSTRACT The report gives results ofa full-scale experimental study to determine the efficiencies offlare burners for disposing ofhydrocarbon (He) emissions from refinery and petrochemical processes. With primary objectives ofdetermining the combustion efficiency and He destruction efficiencyfor both air- and steam-assisted flares under a wide range ofoperating conditions. it provides a data base for defining the air quality impact offlaring. Test results indicate that flaring is generally an efficient

### He disposal methodfor the conditions evaluated. Test methodology involved a special 27-ft sample probe suspended by a crane over the flare flame. The sample ex;tracted by the probe was analyzed by continuous emission monitors to determine concentrations of CO2, CO. total HC. S02, NOx. and 02. In addition. the probe tip temperature. ambient air temperature. and wind speed and direction were measured. Integrated samples ofthe reliefgas were collected for HC species analysis by gas chromatograph. Particulate matter samples were collected during the smoking flare tests. When flares were operated under conditions representing good industrial operating practice. combustion efficiencies at the sampling probe were greater than 98 percent. Combustion efficiencies declined under conditions of excessive steam (steam quenching) and high exit velocities oflow-Btu content gases. 17. KEy WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS a. DESCRIPTORS b.IOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Gcoup

Pollution Combustion Efficiency Pollution Control l3B 2lB Flares Stationary Sources 19A Burners**;..p~trochemica1** Industry 13A Hydrocarbons 07C Refineries 131 Petrochemistry 08G
19. DISTRI6UTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITy CI.ASS (ThiSReporc) 21. NO. OF PAGES Unclassified 142 Release to Publie 20. SECURITY CLASS (Thisp4geJ 22. PRICE Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) 134