Marc McDaniel

FLARE EFFICIENCY STUDY

, . - - ,.'~.' ";"1 .• ." I' -"J.4' 7 . .- •

Prepared for:

EPA-600/2-83-052

July 1983

by

Engineering~Science, Inc.

2901 North Jnterregional 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

Industr ia1. 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 of hydrocarbon emissions

from refinery and petrochemical processes. The primary objectives of the 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 a crane 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 air temperature. 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 i
CONTENTS

Ab st rac t III III • .... • III III III .. III III III • ... III III III • lit- • • III. i i

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

iii
Hydrocarbon 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 • •

Hydrocarbon Analyses • • • • • • Ijt * • • • • • •

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

53
Appendices

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

. . • 129
Sensitivity 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

vi
Hydrocarbon 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
. ,;;

ABBREV lATIONS

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 a wide range of operating conditions that might

be encountered in continuous low flow industrial appl ications. 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: the effects of high 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 plume with ambient air, and the 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 of variables

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 of relief gas flow rate,

relief gas Btu content, and steam-to-relief gas ratio.

Separate elements of this flare efficiency study were sponsored by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). Other project participants included John link Company who provided

flares, test facility and flare operation, and Optimetrics, Inc. who operated the EPA I S Remote Optical Sensi n9 of Emi ssions (ROSE) system. Engineeri n9-

Science, Inc. (ES) operated the extractive flare sampling and analysis systems

and prepared this report.

1
SECTION 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 a crane 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,ectedd~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 fl ares' 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 X 100

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 of the flare efficiency 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. ' Five of the 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.

2
STEAM 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 Effie ieney 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 smok iny flarC! 4 2S3 21S3 0 99.80- Smking flare 8 157 2183 0 98.81- SllIok i"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 flow rate) 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 fl ares are generally an effic ient 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 relief gases above 300 Btu/SCF.

A slight decline in combustion efficiency was noted for relief gases 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

carbon monoxi de and hydrocarbon concentrations observed in the fl are plume

were approximately equal to those found in ambient air.

• Concentrations of NOx emissions 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 probe with

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.

5
SECTION 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 of emergency 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

a different 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 of the undiluted relief gas (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

6
The preliminary test plan called for determination of the 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 of combustion

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 pretest meeting was held on May 6, 1982 at the John link Company

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 of the test program, the participants learned more

about the characteristics of flares, 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 pl annesLtests

(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 of the 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 a test,

the nitrogen flow would tend to decrease, resulting in higher relief gas 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 of the availability of monitoring 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 of parts per million and

thus, would require large quantities of gas. Additionally, helium cannot be

detected on a continuous 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) sulfur dioxide gas added to the

rel ief 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.

7
Crude 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 were controlled by appropriately sized metering valves and rotameters.

Steam flow to the steam-assisted flares was controlled by a metering valve and

monitored by an orifice meter. Sulfur dioxide was added to the relief gas during

some of the tests to increase the 1eve1s of tracer materi a1. The flow of S02 was

monitored and regulated by a rotameter 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 sampl ing system was use!to collect the 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 fl are fl arne by support cabl es and a hydraul ic crane. Thi s probe consisted of a 5-foot unheated section of 1" stainless steel pipe coupled with

a 22-foot heated secti6n of 5/8" 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 sampl ing system temperature was maintained above 100 C to prevent the

condensation of water vapor. The flare emission sample was divided into three

possible paths. A fraction of the heated sample was passed through an EPA

Reference Method 4 sampl ing train to determine the moisture content of the

sample. Asecond fraction was directed through a moisture removal cold trap and

thence, into a sampling manifold in one of the mobile laboratories. Sample gas in this manifold was analyzed by continuous monitors for 02, CO, C02, NOx and THC

on a dry-sample basis. Athird fraction of the sample was directed into a heated

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 a John 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

•;

§!

..

u..-

to

Q) -I+- 0u0c

...0-

VI

VI

...

Q) EN

II

<1J

i

::s

• 0) ! ....
Flow Control Manifold

Nitrogen Cylinder Manifold

Figure 3. Flow control and nitrogen cylinder manifolds.

10
~RANE SUPPORT

EXIlAl/51

HET EORO LOBI tAL

TOWER

TII£RI10~OUPLE

::::::

::::;:

~::;::

:::~;:

::::::

::::::

:.:.:.:

::;:;~:

~~~~) .'~'.~

::::::

....

~~~t~.~

::::::'

......

......

:.:.:. .:.:.:-

r:.=:

..

..

i\

/ 1\ , '.1 1.'"

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.

12
is 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• 1. 2n • ".

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'-2 11 • The

upper portion of this flare's air plenum and burner are constructed of stainless

steel and the lower portion is of carbon steel. The maximum capacity of the airassisted flare is approximately 23,500 lbs/hr of crude propylene, which can be

burned smokelessly through use of an air blower. The blower used for this test

series was 7 1/2 HP vane axial fan located in the base of the 18 1/4 11 10 air

riser. The relief gas is delivered to the tip by an 411 00 internal riser with

the air supplied around the outside through the air riser and plenum. The relief

gas is discharged via a specially designed II sp iderll on the end of the internal

riser. The total area of the relief gas holes in the spider burner was 5.30 in2

for the tests on high Btu content relief gas and 11.24 in2 for 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-speed forced

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 of the high

and low speed air flow rates withou~ the two-speed fan.

Two different II sp iderll burner tips were employed during the air-assisted

flare tests. The LH burner tip, designated at IIA II , was used for tests 26, 65,

28 and 31 for high Btu content gases, and the burner tip designated as IIB II 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 of natural 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, steam flow 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

13
recorder. In addition, the two ES mobile 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

stabil ized 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

possib1e to the fl are fl arne wi thout the probe bei ng in the fl arne. The intent was

to sample the flame emission plume as close as possible to the combustion zone

to minimize the of dilution of the plume by ambient air. The probe tip was kept

out of the fl ame so as not to bi as the data with gases that were st ill 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, the ES instrument operator monitored 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 of the 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 a target period of 20 minutes.

The actual test duration was dependent on a number of factors 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 of being 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

14
measurements 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 a test would also suffice as the background data set collected before the

next test.

CONTINUOUS EMISSION ANALYZERS

Flare emission measurements of carbon 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 manufacturersI recommendations, utilizing the primary measurement ranges listed in Table 2. The

only exceptions to this were the operation of the THC and S02 analyzers. During

some tests it was necessary to change the operating range of the 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, it was not always possible

to maintain a constant 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 a gas 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.

15
TABLE 2. FLARE EMISSION ANALYZERS AND INSTRUMENTATION

Primary .Make and Mode 1 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 Wi nd Direct ion 0-540 Precision potentiometer Ambient Temperature 40-120°F Thermistor

Omega Thermocouple Chromel-Alumel exposed bead

Assembly Probe Temperature -300° to 2300°F thermocouple
17

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

35 OC

35 OC

Nitrogen

35 cc/min.

1 cc

Carle 6 port, selonoid activation

Flame ionization detector

Methane equivalents (parts per million)

0.05 ppm as CH4

Direct injection, no backflush

TABLE 3.

Gas Chromatograph:

Co1umn:

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 circulation of

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 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

cleanl iness of the sampl ing system. The preweighed filter elements used were of

the thimble configuration and constructed of 0.3 micrometer glass fiber.

The filters 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.

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 insignifican t. .

MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS

The moisture content of the 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 impingers removed the water 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 of the 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 of moisture content by weight (3.8% (volume basis) average

18
for 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 temperature was monitored 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 approximately the same as the flare tip (12 feet, 8 inches

AGL) •

Due to the numerous air flow obstructions in the test area the wind 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

fl ames.

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 fl are tests. Video

recordings were made to document the flame behavior and the probe position relative to the flame. The video camera was positioned to have an unobstructed

view of the flame by placing it on a platform 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 were made on the same magnetic tape used

for the video recordings. The intercom system served as the source of all audio

recordings.

The audio and video recordings were made primarily as means of documentation of the tests and to allow possible future more detailed analyses of the data

with respect to flame behavior. These recordings were not generally used 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.

19
SECTION 4

DATA COLLECTION AND CALCULATIONS

CONTINUOUS ANALYZERS' DATA ACQUISITION

The outputs of the continuo~s monitoring instruments used for this study

were analog signal s 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 of the analyzer output and a graphical display that

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 instrument was coupled with a 9-track magnetic tape recorder (Kennedy Model

9800) and a ten-digit manual data entry system. The functions of the data 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 pl an 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 approx imately 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

the data 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 output was 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;

20
A 10-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 data was recorded by a printer/plotter on a paper tape. The peak area values

recorded on this tape were subsequently reduced to units of parts per mill ion 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 preliminary field data records copied from the

data logger paper 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 of CO, 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 of the participants' comments and observations made during each

test through the intercom system. The video tapes also include a visual

record of the fl are fl arne during the tests. Copies of these tapes are

stored at the JZ Tul sa, OK facil ity; 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

val idated 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

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

MR

Ft =;;;;:;:==~:::::;:::=;;:==;;;:= .{M

2

W

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}

22
MW = 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/ft31

~,frt1 2183

-..u.~~0 ,/ h t/I ImuI' 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 FMaxV----,,;8"""0---

Pg .po

Where: Ft = 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

Pg = 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

Ftz = flow reading numbered l ... z at time t

24
SECTION 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 concentrat ion 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 were judged 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.

25
N

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 - .3 Rates 1 25.0 lJ3 2,183 25.0 . 82.18 ' I

! 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 h2 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

::I Rates 53 0.356 1.90 99.40 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 3 was run at the

steam flow which yielded incipient smoking of the 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 fi le appl ied to test 3 has a negative 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 8 were perf-Ormed with crude propylene relief gas flows

of 1,875 and 1,044 1bs/hr without any steam assistance to the fl are. These

conditions purposely resulted in a heavily 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; only carbon 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

el evated 1eve1s of unburned gaseous hydrocarbons were not detected. ..IbL

hydrocarbon species data shows the predominant species present to be methane 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 7 yielded incipient smoking. Both of these tests at intermediate

27
flow rates yielded similar combustion efficiency results to the high flow rate

tests (1, 2 and 3) •. The observed combustion efficiencies were 99.94% and 99.84%

for tests 5 and 7 respectively. Methane accounted for the major fraction of the

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 .of this 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. The data collected during thiS test does not represent the combustion efficiency

of the flare since the sample was collected within the flame. 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 efficiency was calculated

to be 99.84% and the corrected average concentrations of THC 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 thi s test that a steam-to-rel ief 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 steam flow 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-relief gas 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 56 were fairly 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 previously discussed 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 a repeat of Test 55. This repeat test was performed because of

uncertainties regarding probe placement during test 55. The flaring of the high

heating value relief gas at a low flow with a very high steam rate yielded a low

luminosity flame that prevented accurate visual placement of the probe.

28
Additionally, 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 of nitrogen and crude propylene to the flare, the heating value of the

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 steam flow. Only when 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 of nitrogen decreased with respect to time causing a corresponding increase in the lower

heating value of the rel ief gas. The division into subtests allowed the data to

more closely represent steady-state flare operation.

Test 57 represented the highest.flow rate of a low Btu content gas that was 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-relief gas 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 of 2.0 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

fl are tests where steam was suppl ied to the fl are. The background fi le 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 a heat reservoir from the test event that immediately preceded. This anomaly does not effect the combustion efficiency data.

29
Tests 11, 59, 60 and 16 examined the flaring of relief gases 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 rel ief gases of the group. likewise, these tests exhibited slightly lower combustion efficiencies. This

observation is confirmed in the hydrocarbon species data which 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 of data 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 a low heating value gas. No steam was supplied to the flare.

As was the case with Test II,. the nitrogen flow declined during the test and

hence, the test was 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 approximately nine and one-half minutes 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 of the relief gas. 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 simil ar to Test 16( a) except the Btu content was sl ightly 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. .

30
Purge 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 system during the time that no relief gas 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 of the purge gases. The two pilots burned

a total of 10 SCFM (9210 Btu/min) of natural 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 fl are pilots.

During these tests only an occasional flicker of flame could be observed at the

flare header.

Tests 54 and 23 were performed without the addition of steam to the flare.

These tests yielded high observed overall combustion efficiencies of 99.90% 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 steam was

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-half minutes of

test 53 were not recorded by the data logger. Thi s temperature data was

recovered from the strip chart record. The low, steady wind speeds that

prevailed during test 54 allowed the collection of twenty minutes of relatively

consistent data. However, during the latter part of the test the wind speed was

observed to increase with a corresponding 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) ...

c: m 01 c: 26 481.6 13087 2183 3196 481.6 - - High 99.97 .c:. ... .•- :a 01 "'0 ... - ods 'lI~ tV 65 159 4320 2183 1056 159 - - Off 99.57** XU 1lI~a: I. ;:, v 28 157 4266 2183 1043 157 - - High 99.94 ... 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 .. .- c: :e~~ 29(b) 392 5025 146 " 173 26.2 1602 366 Low 65.65 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 ...

a:I 63 121 1551 289 106 16 464 105 low 99.31

33 0.114 9.1 83 0.181 0.0272 3.01 0.687 low 98.24 &BS

lo ... .= 32(a} 0.556 7.1 294 0.498 0.0750 2.10 0.481 Low 98.91 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 first minute of data than are prevalent during the majority of the

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 a high 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 low efficiency 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 rel ief gases were fl ared at lower flow

rates (1,163 and 590 lbs/hr) than the previously discussed tests and yielded good combustion efficiencies of 99.74% and 99.37%. Methane comprised 61% of the

total hydrocarbon for test 64 and only 29% of the 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

dec 1ine in probe tip temper ature that correspond s to the dec 1ine 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.

33
The first thirteen minutes of data collected during test 29 was designated

as test 66. The difference between these two tests was that the air-assisted

fl are I s ax i al fan was turned off for 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 test was 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 purge rate flows of low Btu 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 ranged from 0.714 SCFM to 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-assisted flare 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 of crude propyl ene to the fl are did not remain constant throughout

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 possible without 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 a definable effect on the

combustion efficiency data. Figures 6 and 7 are graphs of combustion 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 a technique commonly used in flare operations to enhance

the combust ion process. The steam-assisted fl are tests performed in thi s

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

35
46

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

36
Figure 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 ratios were greater than for the higher flow 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 NOx EMISSIONS

Emissions of NOx from both steam- and air-assisted flare plumes were

measured during this test program. The NOx concentrations observed during 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 of NO x and C02 between flare plume and sampling probe;

3. Neglect Btu6

content 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.

37
2 ) It 5 6 7

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

o

o

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)

38
Table 6 summarizes the NOx results of these calculations. This treatment

of the NOx data yields NOx emission rates ranging from 0.018 to 0.208 lbs/l06

Btu. Examining thi s 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 sample from an unheated sample manifold (dry basis)

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 the ir 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 of using a minimum-contact design cold trap condenser.

The sample concentrating effect of the cold trap is believed to be

negligible due to the low moisture content of the gaseous samples. Variations

between the response characteristics of the gas chromatograph I s and the

continuous THC analyzer's detectors are not thought to be significant. Both

instruments were calibrated in terms of parts per million by volume of methane

equivalents.

The continuous total hydrocarbon analyzer's data is believed to be the most

useful for evaluating the higher combustion efficiency tests where methane was

the major fraction of the total hydrocarbon. However, in the case of the lower

combustion efficiency tests where water soluble propylene could have been lost

in the continuous analyzer' $ sampl ing 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 of propylene 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

I..,)

0

= 1.45 5.400 .~ 0.042

::::I 1.6Z 5.224 "f ~~ 0.04&

e .... 2.0$ 7,052 0.046 '" CD J~J 3.77 NtA N/A -.... .r::: lq,! I 0> /) 1.00 3.499 0.044 .- lSI == 50 0.50 4,220 0.018-.,.......- .. i: III 0.58 3,120 ~~a\) O.O~

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

5 57 v 2.68 6.945 /tr1, 0.060 lSI .... ... c: 11 3.69 5,269 0.108 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.! I: ==

- u 31 ...., ! .4.U2 .2'4~ """ ~,? 4,568 ,D~ 0.136 ;y." "'o'~

f II ·0.97 2,432 4"~ D''''' 0.062 .. 1.06 2,179 ' II. III 0.075 :I ..

- ... c '1 C/;j lit 1.24 3,Z8Z '-lIt, 0.058 cD III III .. <: 0.60 3.076 ]' -<1 0.030 I ! 5 63/ ;%/ I.. -,I..,) 1.57 4,184 0.058 'f\'< ~3

- i <: 0.74 1,857 0.061".,.,0- 0' 7

"',i I )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 ..J i' "). ~I t "4

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

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

• e~.}j i;·(.J.[(P¥9 M,· ,,?-¥., ~/: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· Test Analyzer 8aD SlIIIIIlles AVl!ralll' Valu..~" 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

?4.6 1.66 1.14 0.03 5.21 21.24 - 35.9 6.65 2.49 4.23 f 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 )\, :.0 l-- 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

OJ c 8 ... 8 2 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 :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._ • .".. • .._,

:l 64 8.7 7.59 0.54 0.06 0.36 0.82 - 9.37 7.35 1.14 0:'66- --·0."as-1.97 .~--''riO

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

.3 t 32 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 of methane 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-. ; ,.:../';J
Figure 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. The data show distinct differences between particu1 ate

loadings of nonsmoking and smoking flare tests.

The combustion efficiency calculations used in this report as a measure 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 these combustion 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 + Cp

Where:

C02 = carbon dioxide concentration (PPMv)

CO = carbon monoxide concentration (PPMv)

THe = total hydrocarbon concentration (PPMy as methane)

Cp = particulate concentration (PPMy assuming smoke particulate 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 a tracer material 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 a flare 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 of the 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. Unfortu43
AMOUNT

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 (5moki ng)

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

46
nately, 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 of tests was a tank truck

of 6,800 gallons of crude propylene to which approximately 4 liters of butyl

mercaptan were added. This addition of mercaptan should have yielded a sulfur

concentration of approximately 89 ppm (by weight) in addition to the naturally occurring sulfur in propylene (estimated at 2 - 10 ppm). An extremely wide range of results 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 of the 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 other combustion sources. However, the C02 dilution

technique was not well received because: (1) it did not provide a measure of

dilution independent of the combustion measurement, and (2) the flare plume did

not maintain steady-state conditions relative to the sampling probe.

By making simpl Hying assumptions, destruction efficiency calculations 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). --

47
48

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 of the flare emissions was gravimetrically determined

using an ice-bath condenser type of moisture trap. Table 11 lists the results

of these moisture analyses. The moisture data were lower than expected with an

average of 3.0% moisture measured for the air-assisted flares and 3.8% moisture

measured in the steam-assisted flare samples. Adescription of the 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 of this test series, the differences 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

49
SECTION 6

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES

MULTIPOINT CALIBRATIONS

Before the collection of data was initiated, the continuous an~lyzers were

checked for proper operation. A key element of the operational checks was the

multipoint calibrations. These multipoint calibrations consisted of cha1-

lensing the analyzers with a zero 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 acceptability was 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 NOx and CO were traceable to the National

Bureau of Standards' standard reference materials. The compressed gas standard . for S02 calibrations was contained in a Teflon® lined aluminum cylinder and was

certified on-site against a graviametrially calibrated S02 permeation device.

In addition, the efficiency of ~he N02 to NO converter in the NOx analyzer

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 of tests. all the continuous analyzers

were challenged with zero gas and a single upscale concentr;ation of the compound of interest. The purpose of these calibration checks was two-fold. First the

collection of the zero/span data provided a data base to allow estimation of the

analyzer's precision of measurement. 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 a mechanism to

both monitor and maintain the precision of the data.

Table 13 is a summary of the zero span check data.

50
TABLE 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 ppm 3

(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.

51
TABLE 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

N
During 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 of these 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 a fraction of the same sample at the same time. The synchronization of

the instrument responses permitted data calculations to be performed on the

instantaneous data as well as on the one-minute and test averages. For example, 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 sample flow 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 of the 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

a flow restriction on the entire sampling system that was not present during 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 of calibration 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 content of the sampl ing 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

54
TABLE 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.

55
check's caused an increase in the vacuum present in the samp1 ing system as

compared to during normal flare emission sampling.

The zero response of the other continuous analyzers to zero nitrogen passed through the sampling system was also verified during the leak checks.

BACKGROUND MEASUREMENTS

Ambient air component concentrations of CO, C02, THC, NOx, 02 and S02 were

collected immediately before and after each of the tests or series of tests. The

collection of this background data documented the influence of local ambient air

concentrations on the flare emission measurements. The background concentrations of these compounds of interest could have had a significant 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. A complete 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 cal ibration 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 not obtained in this study. Calculations indicate that an

error of less than 0.1% in combustion efficiency (for CEl s 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 thi s worst-case error ana1ysi s that they reinforce and ·are additive.

Likewise, it should be noted that the measurement errors of variables in the

56
TABLE 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

'-J
combustion 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 THC were 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 of concentration 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 directly measured) 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 of repetitive determinations based on

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" efficiency from each set of data collected

every twelve seconds. The variance (and standard deviation) of the average combustion efficiency value was determined from this data set as an indicator of

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.

58
APPENDIX 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-Fl are 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 a fairly wide range of

flow rates, heating values and combustion efficiencies. 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. A detailed

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 a positive 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 of probe 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,

59
given a flare burning with constant combustion efficiency, the ratio of THC 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 of THC

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 of concentrations and temperature observed during the flare

tests.

60
...

l/'I

QJ

I61

.....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

70.0 74.0 78.0

( MIN)

66.0

TIME

58.0 62.0

,,' ,

':", ,

r: ;/

o -!~ 0

o

o +- ~----~----~----..._----..__---___,r__------'O

54.0

o

C\J

o

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

63
TEST 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...

l'- ~a..

U

-- - oC\j I , .,

0 0 . ('t') au

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.

64
TEST 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•...;.'...;.-,. ...J N

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.

65
TEST 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

1-' . 0

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.

67
TEST 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

~~......

19.0 23.0 27.0

( MIN)

15.0

TIME

7.0 11.0

o " 0

~+----"';"'r------......-----,...-----';-r-----...,..-----..----_---l~

3.0

Figure A-B. Efficiency and CO V5. time.

6B
TEST 57 JUNE 24 HOUR 09:13

29.0 33.0 37.0

( MIN)

25.0

TIME

17.0 21.0

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.

69
TEST 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

0..- 0 L

0 0-0 i. N a..

......- -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 (M IN)

Figure A-IO. THC and CO2 VS. time.

70
TEST 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

29.0 33.0 37.0

(MIN) 25.0

TIME

17.0 21.0

! ..I ,.....

\D

O\+--__ o -r- """T--i_---L_--,r-- r-- r- ~----.J

0\ 0

13.0

Figure A-ll. Efficiency and CO vs. time.

71
to

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-

·uRo

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 :L0\ 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 - I

IlJ')

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

30.0 34.0 38.0

( MIN)

26.0

TIME

18.0 22.0

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.

75
TEST 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\I

ru

c.:o

ou

a

--t'\')

a

o

o

0'1

--

o

o

R

N

69.0 73.0

•

.',\

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.

76
TEST 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

N 0-

......

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 B have 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' CDE G. l(HPCCJ [Ff ICIENCY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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"

TEMP CC'

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

8 AUG10UII[I

FILE

8 ACKGllOutlD 19

8AUGH DUND 20

j I tiE

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

EFF I ClEfilCY

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

30.8 99.9

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 OBSrq VI liONS 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 1 H. 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

19/10:32:51
TEST 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) (PPM J (PFI'IJ (PpIOJ ."oHI (DEGI n",ptci ~FF" JCJr: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"

'TJ HE

[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

(IiI P H)

2.2

0.8

103

~.o

..0

IDEGI

269.

Itl.

103

229.

AMlJlt'4'

TEMPICI

21.1

3.5

103

28.0

CO -8usn GIV

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, ..,PH I 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

TEMP IC'

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(GR 0 UN 0

filE

BACKGROUND 30

BACI(GROUH 0 :n

TI I\E

BrGIH

241 22: 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"IWSTI O'J

(FF JCIENCf

0.4

30.9

AH8J[HT

TEMPle'

39.

uo

CDf'G I

2.2. 181.

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)

o. J8 20.83

O.3Z

NOX

IPPM,

S02

IPPIII

0.112

H.. O 0.030

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 (e I

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 J 00 100 100 100 100 100 100

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'"0 IS: "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

---------------- m TEMP(C. EFFICftNCY_

AV£R'6[

STANDARD OEVIJTIOW

IoIUHOER or OSSERVAT IONS

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(GIl OUlfO

FILE

IlACKGIlOUflO 23

UCICGR OUNO 2'

BEIi "'EIN

24/01:01:06

2",,01:SS:01

11,.£

END

24101:1": 22

24 108 : 04: 6

..

OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY =99.93%
,.

TEST liB

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

TEMPCC)

PROBE

(PPHI

S02

(PPMI

HOX

(Pcn

02 CO CO2 THe WS WD AMBIENT COP1BUSTI ON (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 24/071 S51 07

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

22.2. 98.4

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.

49.9 5413.

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

. CPCT I

CO

(PPNI

C02

CPPMI

THe

(PPM)

us

(MPHt

va

fD!Gt

AM8IEW' COMRUSTION

T["PCCI [FFICIE"Cl

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVE RAG:::

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 COMBUST lOti

tEMPI C) ( 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

30.1 98.5

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

24/111 26 I 05

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 =99.751
HST 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

1.57 20.59

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.AlI

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

241 11 : 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"tBE R 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{Gn ou,m

FILE

rUlE

BfGIN

TIME

EfIID

BAC kG ROUND 1(,

DAC flGR OUI4O 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"p HI

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

28.0 98.1

AMBI[W' CO.BUSTIO~

'EMPie. [FFICI[~C'

165.

liD

IOEG)

0.9

liS

"'PH)

15.2

THe

(PPM)

C02

(PPMJ

16.1 2622.

CO

(PP"J

02'

cpeT)

0.68 19.92

NOM

(PPIIIJ

$02

CPPIIIJ

118.2 0.801

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

RICkG~ 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· I pcn

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 • 99.57
T[ST 28

STATISTICAL SUMMARY .

TE"P(ct

PROYE

fPPM)

502

(PPM.

Wow 02 C3 CO2 THC "S YO A"BI[~T COMBUSTION 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: 5 J

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~

TEMP It) (PPfIt) (PPM) (PCl) (PP"') (PPM) (Pp",) (MPHI CDE6. ,[MPICI EFFICl£"CY

._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ""ERAGE 159.3 1.226 _.02 l l

i-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" 'CPeT I (PP,,) 'PP"I CPP"I '''PHI fDEGI TEMPeel EFFICIEfo!CY

--------_._----._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVE RII GE 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 11 n. 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

nEG J

l'iO.

1'l.

51

IfP.

4JtBIUU

H"PC C)

2~.3

o.a.

51

2'.1

conljUSTJON

[FF leUHC'

£1.0

10.0;

51

BACKGROUND AMBIENT ftCASURE"ENTS

.-..

......

U1

BACKGROUND

FILE

8 ACIl: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"12 0 :52: 48

29121:46:20

11"[

UO

---- ,,,no :56:53

29121;'5:10

OVERAll COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 55.14%
T[ST 2911

! U TJ STI tAL 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%
TE SI 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: 0 I!: 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 1 s. 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

EFFJ CInc'

98.2

0.5

102

-------------------------_._---

~AC~~qOU~D A"BIE~T "~.S~qE,.:~'S

-

N

- IUCK6ROU,.n

FILE

BACI(GROUN D 39

IUCKOROUfO 0 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%
STATISTICAL

TrST 32

SU"MA~'

>

COMUUSliOH

EFFJ CI£"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"I D

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

30'00 U!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 of DE can be made 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 a Combustion 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.

125
TABLE 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 particulate filter 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

fil ters as received with 200 mL of methylene 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.

129
ENGINEERING.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 of mass 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

130
ENGINEERING·SCIENCE

Dr. Bruce Tichenor

February 1, 1983

Page 3.

Table 1. Flare Efficiency Study Particulate Analysis.

Wt. gain, Sample Time 1 Sample Rate Concentrati on

Test No. Fil ter 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

4 (Srook; n9) F-2 0.0810 16 18.51 274

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.

131
ENGINEERING-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.

132
ENGINEERING-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 F

5

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[Cllse reQd [NUl'tlctiQl/s 011 tile rel'erse before completillg)

1, REPORT NO.

1

2

•

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 Task Final· 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 of a full- scale experimental study to determine

the efficiencies of flare burners for disposing of hydrocarbon (He) emissions from

refinery and petrochemical processes. With primary objectives of determining the

combustion efficiency and He destruction efficiency for both air- and steam-assisted

flares under a wide range of operating conditions. it provides a data base for defining the air quality impact of flaring. Test results indicate that flaring is generally

an efficient He disposal method for 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 of the relief gas 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 of low-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~trochemica1Industry 13A

Hydrocarbons 07C

Refineries 131

Petrochemistry 08G

19. DISTRI6UTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITy CI.ASS (ThiS Reporc) 21. NO. OF PAGES

Unclassified 142

Re leas e to Publie 20. SECURITY CLASS (This p4geJ 22. PRICE

Unclassified

EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) 134