## EMISSIONS TEST R EP O R T

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Stack Testing of the Main Engines on the
Diamond Offshore BlackHawk Drillship in the Gulf of Mexico

Prepared for:

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

120 1 Lake Robbins Road The Woodlands, TX 77380

Prepared by:

5540 Centerview Drive Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27606 ( 919 ) 256

- 6231

TRC Project No. 2 15228

- 002 0

Ju ly 9 , 201 4215228 i TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

................................ ................................ ..................... 1

1.1 Purpose of Test Program

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1

1. 2 Source Description

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1

1. 3 Scope of Test Program

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1
1.4 Test Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

1. 5 List of Project Participants

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SOURCES & COLLECTION OF PROCESS DATA

............................... 3

2.1 List of Emission Units/Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

2. 2 Emission Unit Load Levels

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3

2. 3 Emission Unit Loading Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

2. 4 Fuel Certifications & Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

3 .0 DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATION S

................................ ................................ .. 4
3.1 Smaller (9 Cylinders) Stacks

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4
3.2 Larger Engines (18 Cylinders) Stacks

................................ ................................ ............................ 4

4 .0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

................................ ................................ .. 5
4 .1 Traverse Point Location (EPA Method 1)

................................ ................................ ...................... 5
4 .2 Stack Gas Velocity & Volumetric Flow Rate (EPA Method 2)

................................ ..................... 5
4 .3 O 2 & CO 2 Concentrations (EPA Method 3A)

................................ ................................ ................. 5
4.4 M oisture Content (EPA Method 4)

................................ ................................ ................................ 6

4.5 Filterable and Condensable Particulate Matte r Emissions (EPA Method 5/202)

..................... 6

4.5.1 Sample Collection

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6

4.5.2 Sample Recovery

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7
4.5.3 Sample Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7 4.6 TRC CEMS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 7
4. 6 .1 Instrument Checks and System Integrity; Setup Day

................................ .................... 8

4. 6 .2 CEMS Calibratio ns

– Methods 3A, 7E , 10 & 25A

................................ ........................... 8

4. 6 .3 Bias Checks

– Methods 3A, 7E , 10 & 25A

................................ ................................ ....... 8 4.6 .4 CEMS Data Acquisition System

................................ ................................ ....................... 9 4.6 .5 CEMS Components

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9 4.6 .5.1 O 2 and CO 2 Measurements (EPA Method 3A)

................................ ................. 10
4. 6 .5 .2 NOx Measurements (EPA Method 7E)

................................ ............................. 11
4. 6 .5.3 CO Measurements (EPA Method 10)

................................ ................................ 1 1 4.6. 5.4

– VOC Measurements (EPA Method 25A )

................................ ....................... 1 2 4.6 .6 Gaseous Pollutant Sampling with 3 Point Traverse

................................ ..................... 1 3

5 .0 TEST RESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 14215228 ii TABLES & FIGURES

Number Description

1.2.1 Source Identifications for Main Propulsion Engines

................................ ................................ ... 1
1.3.1 Scope of Work

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1

4. 6 .5.1 .1 TRC O 2 /CO 2 CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

................................ ................................ ......... 10
4. 6 .5.2 .1 TRC NO x CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

................................ ................................ ............... 1 1
4. 6 .5.3 .1 TRC CO CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

................................ ................................ ................. 1 2 4.6. 5.4 .1 TRC VOC CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

................................ ................................ .............. 1 3

5.1 Summary of Test Results

– Engine # 2

................................ ................................ ....................... 15
5.2 Summary of Test Results

– Engine # 3

................................ ................................ ....................... 16

5.3 Summary of Test Results

– Engine # 4

................................ ................................ ....................... 1 7
5.4 Summary of Test Results

– Engine # 5

................................ ................................ ....................... 1 8

5.5 Summary of Test Results

– Engine # 7

................................ ................................ ....................... 19 5.6 Summary of Test Results

– Engine # 8

................................ ................................ ...................... 2 0Anadarko
BlackHawk

– GOM Drilling Program
Section 1

- Introduction & Overview

1
215228.0020 

## 1.0

- INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

1.1 Purpose of Test Program Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) submitted a PSD Pre

- Construction and Title V Operating Permit Application to conduct exploratory, completion, and associated maintenance activities using the Diamond Offshore Ocean BlackHawk drillship to EPA Region 4 in August

2013. Anadarko has retained TRC Environmental Corporation to conduct source testing of certain emission units on the BlackHawk drillship.

This test report describes the emissions testing t hat was performed on six of the eight drillship main engines

. Six of the main engines are identical Hyundai HiMSEN 9H32/40 4,500 kW
diesel

- fired engines. Two of the main engines are identical Hyundai HiMSEN 18H32/40V 9,000 kW diesel

- fired engines.

. Four of the six smaller engines and both of the larg er engines

were tested.

Depending on the load and engine TRC measure d NOx

, CO2, CO, PM

, and VOC emissions to gather emissions data that may be required by the current PSD and Title V Major Source Permit Application that Anadarko submitted to EPA Region 4 in September 2013

. The tests were intended to develop the emissions profile associated with different loads of the main engines. Anadarko intends to utilize the emissions profile at the different loads for establishing the BACT limits for the main engine s. A summary of the engines and pollutants measured is in table 1.3.1.

1.2 Source Description
Included in Table 1. 2. 1 is a description of the sources t hat were tested :

Table 1. 2.1

– Source Identifications for Main Engines

ID DESCRIPTION MAKE AND MODEL RATING

DR

- M E

- 02 thru DR

- ME

- 05 Drillship Main Engine Hyundai HiMSEN V Type

– 9 Cylinder 4,500 kW

DR

- ME

- 07 thru DR

- ME

- 08 Drillship Main Engine Hyundai HiMSEN V Type

– 18 Cylinder 9,000 kW

1.3 Scope of Test Program

Gaseous parameters or pollutants (NOx, CO, VOC, CO2, and O2) were measured at 6 of the 8 engines at two or three different loads. Particulate matter was measured at 4 of the 8 engines at two loads. Table 1.3.1 summarizes the tests conducted on each of th e engines that were tested.

Table 1. 3.1

– Scope of Work for BlackHawk

ID DESCRIPTION PARAMETER LOAD CONDITIONS COMMENTS

DR

- M E

- 0 2 and

DR

- ME

- 03 Drillship Main Engine NOx, CO, CO2, VOC, PM 3 0%, 6 0%, 9 0% NOx and PM (Filterable) only at 90% and no PM at 60%Anadarko
BlackHawk

– GOM Drilling Program
Section 1

- Introduction & Overview

2
215228.0020 DR

- ME

- 04 and

DR

- ME

- 05 Drillship Main Engine NOx, CO, CO2, VOC 30%, 60%, 90% NOx only at 90% and No PM
Test Runs

DR

- M E

- 0 7 and

DR

- ME

- 08 Drillship Main Engine NOx, CO, CO2, VOC, PM 3 0%, 5 0%, 9 0% NOx and PM (Filterable) only at 90% and no PM at 50%

1. 4 T est Schedule
Anadarko and TRC conduct ed the emission tests between June 3 and June 5, 2014. One engine

w as tested at a time. For the Particulate Matter test runs, e ach test run w as 60

- minutes in
duration. For gaseous pollutant only test runs, each test run was 30

- minutes in duration. One

test run w as conducted at each of three ( 3 ) engine loads.

1.5 List of Project Participants

The following individuals should be contacted if there are questions about th is test report:

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation:
Sara Carlson Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com

Sr HSE Representative, Gulf of Mexico (832) 636

- 1273 (office) (832) 506

- 0888 (cell)

Katie Maness

HSE Manager , Gulf of Mexico Kathyrn.Maness@anadarko.com ( 832 ) 636

- 2582 ( office ) ( 281 ) 639

- 1660 ( cell )

TRC Environmental Corporation Jim Serne, PE, QSTI JSerne@TRCSolutions.com (919) 256

- 6231 (office) (919) 302

- 2529 (cell)Anadarko
BlackHawk

– GOM Drilling Program
Section 2

- Description of Sources & Collection of Process Data

3
215228 

## 2.0

– DESCRIPTION OF SOURCES &
COLLECTION OF PROCESS DATA

2.1 List of Emission Units/Sources Only six of the 8 drillship main engines w ere tested on the BlackHawk . DR

- M E

- 01 through DR

M E

- 06 are the six (6) drillship main engines each rated at 4,500 kW and DR

- ME

- 07 and DR

ME

- 08 are the two (2) drillship main engines each rated at 9,000 kW

.

2. 2 Emission Unit Load Levels

E ach engine was tested at three operating loads. These engines will typically operate at relatively low loads. The target loads for the 9 cylinder engines wer e 3 0%, 6 0% and 9 0%. The target loads for the 18 cylinder engines were 30%, 50% and 90%.

2. 3 Emission Unit Loading Methods Management of the load levels and durations w as done under the direction of the BlackHawk Engine Control Room personnel.

2. 4 Fuel Certification & Analysis Anadarko provide d a representative fuel sample and TRC arranged for Texas Oil Tech to
determine the sulfur content

. The sulfur content was 3,300 ppm (0.33%)Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 3

– Discussion of Sampling Locations

4
215228 

## 3 .0

– D E SC RIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS

3.1 Small er Engine s (9 Cylinder s ) Stacks

For particulate sampling, the e ngine stacks equal to or larger than 12

- inches in diameter must be
traversed.

The 9 cylinder engines have stacks that are 750 mm (approx. 29.5

- inches) in diameter. TRC measured the stack dimensions and determined the inside diameter to be 29.25 inches.

3.2 Larger Engine s ( 18 Cylinder s ) Stacks

The 18 cylinder engines have st acks that are 1,100 mm (approx. 43.3

- inches) in diameter. TRC measured the stack dimensions and determined the inside diameter to be 43.5 inches.

For gaseous pollutants, per the March 10, 2014 guidance issued by EPA’s Emissions Measurement Center, a 3

- point stratification check was conducted. Stratification did not exist in these engine stacks. T he engine stacks w ere sampled for the gaseous pollut ants at the stack
centroid.Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

5
215228 

## 4.0

– SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

All sampling and analytical procedures used in this test program w ere based on procedures published by the EPA in accordance with the guidelines published in Title 40, Code of Federal Regu lations, Part 60 (40 CFR 60), Appendix A; and in Subpart M of 40 CFR 51. Copies of these
methods are available from the EPA EMTIC electronic bulletin board or the Code of Federal Regulations which can be obtained online.

 Method 1 Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources

 Method 2 Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube)

 Method 3A Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Proce dure)

 Method 4 Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases

 Method 5 Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources

 Method 7E Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

 M ethod 10 Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emission from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

 Method 25A Determination of Total Hydrocarbons by Flame Ionization Analyzer

 Method 202 Dry Impinger Method for Determining Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions From Stationary Sources

4 .1 Traverse Point Location (EPA Method 1 ) As described in Section 3, after verifying that no stratification exited, the engine stacks w ere sampled for the gaseous pollutants at the centroid

. For determining the PM emissions the engine stacks w ere traversed to determine the gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. The procedures specified by EPA Method 1, “Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources ”

w ere used to select representative f low and pollutant measurement locations. A measurement site where the exhaust stream is flowing in a known direction w as selected, and the cross section
of the stack w as divided into a number of equal areas. A traverse point w as then located within
each of these equal areas. Based on Method 1 requirements, 24 traverse points (12 traverse points per axis) were sampled during each PM test run. Copies of the stack schematics w ith the actual traverse points are included in Appendix A of th is Test R eport.

4 .2 Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (EPA Method 2) This method is applicable for the determination of the average velocity and volumetric flow rate of a gas stream. The average gas velocity in a stack w as determined from the gas density and
fro m measurement of the average velocity head with a Type S (Stausscheibe or reverse type) pitot tube.

4 .3 O 2 & CO 2 Concentrations (EPA Method 3A) During each Method 5 test period, percent dry O 2 and CO 2 emission concentration data w as collected for use in supporting flow rate, emission concentration, and emission rate calculations.Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

6
215228 For each test run, the molecular weight of the stack gas w as calculated per Method 3 based on

concurrent O 2 and CO 2 stack gas concentrations.

4 .4 Moistu re Content (EPA Method 4) The moisture content of the stack gas w as determined gravimetrically from the weight gain in each impinger and the weight gain of the silica gel impinger from the Method 5/202 sampling

train s

. If PM sampling wa s not performed, t hen the stack gas moisture content was estimated from test data gathered at similar engines operating at similar loads on the BlackHawk

.

4.5 Filterable and Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions (EPA Method 5/202)

4. 5.1 Sample Collection Samples w ere collected isokinetically from the stack using an EPA Method 5 sampling train. The sampling train consist ed of a stainless steel or glass / quartz nozzle, and a stainless steel or

g lass

- lined probe and a quartz fiber filter supported by a Teflon ® frit and m aintained at a temperature of 248 o F ± 25 o F, chilled impingers, and a metering console. Condensable particulate matter (CPM) emissions w ere determined using Method 202 procedures.

This procedure for determining CPM involves recovering the back

- half of t he sampling train. As specified in EPA Method 202, the CPM w ere collected in the two empty impingers which w ere maintained at 85°F or less by use of a chilled water recirculating pump and non

- contact condens er. These two empty impingers we re followed by a Teflon ® membrane filter maintained between 65°F and 85°F or less. This Teflon ® filter is the final sample fraction in the Method 202 sample train. The filter wa s followed by two impingers in an ice bath which serve d to condense any remaining moisture so that the stack gas moisture content c ould be determined. Organic
condensable P M and inorganic condensable PM we re quantified per EPA Method 202 procedures. Prior to sample train assembly, each of the impingers w as w eighed , or the initial volume of water in the impingers were measured using a graduated cylinder

.

Prior to mobilizing for this test program, the glassware used for the Method 202 sample trains

w as prepared by cleaning and baking as specified in EPA Meth od 202 in one of TRC’s
laboratories. As an alternative to baking glassware, Method 202 allows the test crew to perform a proof blank of the sampling train while onsite. Field train proof blanks (FTPB) are recovered

on

- site from a clean, fully assembled sa mpling train prior to the first emissions test. Field train proof blanks are used in lieu of the glassware baking when it is not practical to have baked glassware at remote locations.

As required by Method 202, for each source category one field trai n recovery blank (FTRB) w as recovered from a sampling train after it ha d been used to collect emissions samples and ha d been rinsed in preparation for the second or third test in a series at a particular source. This

FTRB train w as purged with nitrogen. P rior to the purge, 100 ml of DI water w as added to the first impinger. Method 202 specifies that the results of the FTRB, up to a maximum of 2.0 mg,Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

7
215228 be subtracted from the CPM catch weight of the actual field samples. Since all of the six engines
are the same and the same fuel is used, only one FTRB w as collected on the drillship. The FTRB
value for the BlackHawk was 1.9 mg.

4.5 .2 Sample Recovery
The front

- half filter w as removed from the filter holder and placed in a petri dish. The nozzle, probe, and front

- half of the filter holder w ere rinsed with acetone into a glass jar. The filter and
the front

- half acetone rinse w ere analyzed per Method 5 procedures to determine t he filterable PM. Immediately following the test run, each of the impingers w as weighed or the volume of water in the impingers was measured to determine the post

- test weight. The volume of water vapor condensed in the impingers and the weight of water v apor collected in the silica gel w ere subsequently entered into moisture content calculations.

The impinger trains w ere purged with filtered ultra

- pure nitrogen for 60 minutes at a minimum
rate of 14 liters per minute. The material collected in the two empty impingers of the Method 202 sample train w as placed in a glass sample jar. The back

- half of the filter holder, impingers, and connecting glassware w ere rinsed twice with DI water into the jar containing the back

- half impinger catch. Next the bac k portion of the filter holder, the two impingers, and the connecting glassware w ere rinsed once with acetone and then twice with hexane . These solvent rinses placed into a separate glass jar.

4.5. 3 Sample Analysis EPA Method 5 analytical procedures w ere used to analyze the filter and front

- half acetone rinse for filterable particulate. EPA Method 5 analytical procedures (gravimetric) w ere used to analyze
the front

- half PM catch, which consist ed of the filter and acetone rinse of the nozzle, probe lin er, and front portion of the filter housing. EPA 202 analytical procedures w ere used to analyze the combined DI water reagent/DI water rinses and the acetone/ hexane rinses for condensable particulate matter. The water fraction w as extracted with hexane to separate organic material from the aqueous phase. The aqueous phase (after solvent extraction) w as dried down and the remaining residue weighed and reported as the inorganic condensable PM. The hexane rinse
fraction and solvent extract w ere evaporated and the remaining residue weighed and reported as the organic condensable PM. Resolution Analytics , Inc. in Fuquay

- Varina , North Carolina, perform ed the Method 5 and Method 202 gravimetric analyses, sample extractions and separations.

4. 6 TRC CEMS

Gaseous measurements w ere conducted with continuous emissions monitors (CEMS). Each TRC CEM system i ncludes the reference method ( RM ) instrumentation and a data acquisition system necessary to support continuous stack gas measurements. TRC uses an extractive system for sample gas collection and measurement, and reports pollutant concentration data o n a dry basis.Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

8
215228 4. 6 .1 Instrument Checks and System Integri ty; Setup Day EPA Methods 3A

, 7E , 10 , and 25A include strict quality control performance specifications for the CEMS measurement system. EPA Method s 3A and 10 reference EPA Method 7E for applicable CEMS calibration specifications. Prior to the initiation of the field sampling, TRC
conduct ed a “setup period” that involve d a number of initial system checks, site evaluations, and general acceptance runs. All of these checks w ere guided by TRC Standard Operating
Procedures and w ere completed prior to conduct ing the official test runs.

4. 6 .2 CEMS Calibrations

- Methods 3A , 7E , 10 & 25A The following sequence of operations w as conducted to calibrate each Method 3A , 7E, 10 , and
25A analyzer. This activity precede d the system bias, response time, stratification, or other measurements made through the CEMS.

 Complete the analyzer setup as described by the manufacturer’s specifications and allow the instruments to stabilize. Adjust each analyzer by introducing zero and calibration gases in any sequence making all necessary adjustments.

 After the measurement system for the Method 3A , 7E, 10 , and 25A analyzers have been prepared for use, perform a calibration error test by introducing the zero or
low

- range (< 20% of the analyzer span), mid

- range ( 40 to 60 percent of the analyzer span), and high

- range ( 100 percent of the analyzer span) calibration gases to each analyzer. During this check, no adjustments are made to the system except those necessary to achieve the co rrect calibration gas flow rate to the analyzers. Allow the analyzers to stabilize and record the result.

 Calculate the analyzer percent difference or calibration error. Calibration responses for the Method 3A , 7E, 10, and 25A analyzers must be within 2 percent of the span value for the analyzers.

4.6 .3 Bias Checks

- Methods 3A , 7E , 10 & 25A The following sequence of operations was conducted to determine the b i as of the sampling system for the specific source and setup configuration. This activity precede d the system
calibration and w as conducted before the response time or other measurements made through
the CEMS.

 Align the sampling system for calibration.

 Document the system bias checks using the DAS.

 The DAS record s the start and stop of the CEMS bias check procedure. Zero air or calibration gas are introduced into the sampling system. The analyzer(s) are then allowed to reach a stable output. The analyzer response for the zero gas isAnadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

9
215228 recorded on the DAS printout.

 An upscale calibration gas is introduced to the sampling system. The analyzer is allowed to reach a stable output. The analyzer response is recorded on the DAS printout for the upscale calibration gas.

 The procedures are repeated for each parameter. It should be noted that zero gas can be used as a zero for multiple analyzers, and it is not necessary to repeat this procedure as long as the zero measurement is made for each analyzer.

 The CEMS bias w as calculated for each analyzer. The system bias for each Method 3A

, 7E

, 10, and 25A analyzer must be within ± 5 percent of the span
value.

 Method 3A

, 7E

, 10, and 25A CEMS system drifts w ere calculated by comparing the system response to the zero and upscale calibration gas from the system response durin g the previous bias check. Zero and calibration drift must be within ± 3 percent of the analyzer span value.

4.6 .4 CEMS Data Acquisition System
The TRC CEMS DAS is a PC

- based system with hard disk storage and an external 8

- channel analog

- to

- digital converter. The specific instrument voltage inputs are linear and directly proportional to the concentration of the specific gas being measured. In addition to pro viding an instantaneous display of analyzer responses, the DAS compiles and averages the analyzer
data collected once each second and prints one

- minute data averages. Data for the test period

w ere averaged and corrected for calibration error and drift usi ng the DAS software and a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program. The CEMS calibrations and run summaries are
documented with copies of the DAS printout.

4.6 .5 CEMS Components The CEMS sample collection system for O 2 and CO 2 (EPA Method 3A), NO
x (EPA Method 7E)

, CO (Method 10) , and VOC (Method 25A) consist ed of a stainless steel probe with a heated particulate filter, heated sample lines, a moisture removal trap, and a sample pump. All samples are routed through a distribution manifold board for delivery to the analyzers. The gas sample

is distributed to th e individual gas analyzers at near atmospheric pressure and excess sample flow from the system is vented outside the system.

C alibration gases from the control panel inside the Conex are delivered through a separate line to the exit of the probe. During calibration, the gas flow is adjusted to be slightly greater than the total sample collection system flow and the small amount of excess calibration gas is vented through the probe assembly. The configuration of the sampling system allows for the injectio n of calibration gases either directly to the analyzers or through the entire sampling system.Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

10
215228 4.6 .5.1 O 2 and CO 2 Measurements (EPA Method 3A)

O 2 concentrations w ere determined using a paramagnetic oxygen analyzer. The analyzer measures the paramagneti c susceptibility of the sample gas by means of a magneto

- dynamic
type

- measuring cell. The measuring cell consists of a dumbbell of diamagnetic material, which is temperature controlled electronically at 50oC. The higher the oxygen concentration, the

grea ter the dumbbell is deflected from its rest position. This deflection is detected by an optical system connected to an amplifier. Surrounding the dumbbell is a coil of wire. A current is passed through this coil to return the dumbbell to its original po sition. The current applied is linearly proportional to the percent oxygen concentration in the sample gas.

CO 2 concentration will be measured using a NDIR analyzer. The analyzer measures gas concentration based on the principal that each type of gas component shows a unique absorption line spectrum in the infrared region. The instrument consists of an infrared li ght source, a chopper, a measuring cell and a detector filled with a gas mixture containing the gas component to be measured. The infrared light source emits infrared light in all directions. The light emitted forward is transmitted and reflected into th e detectors.

The infrared light emitted backward is reflected b y a reflecting surface and is added to the infrared light emitted forward. Arranged between the infrared light source and measuring cell is a chopper blade which rotates to modulate the infra red light beam at regular frequency. The modulated infrared light beam thus formed passes through the measuring cell filled with a sample gas where the light energy is partially absorbed or attenuated before it reaches the front
chamber of the detector. Both the front and the rear chambers of the detector are filled with the gas component to be measured.

The infrared light energy is partially absorbed in the front chamber and residual light is absorbed in the rear chamber, thereby increasing pressures in both the chambers, respectively. Since the detector is designed to produce a pressure difference between the front and rear chambers, a slight gas flow is produced through a path c orrecting these chambers with each
other.

The slight flow is converted in to an AC electrical signal by a microflow sensor arranged in the communicating path. The AC signal is amplified and rectified to a DC voltage supplied to the output terminals and indicator.

Table 4.6 .5.1 .1

- TRC O 2 /CO 2 CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

RANGE O 2 ANALYZER CO 2 ANALYZER

Zero

- range Nitrogen gas Nitrogen gas

Mid

- range 40 to 60% of calibration span 40 to 60% of calibration span High

- range equal to calibration span equal to calibration span All readings w ere reported within EPA Method 3A criteria.Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

11
215228 4.6 .5.2 NO
x Measurements (EPA Method 7E) The analyzer used to measure NO
x w as a chemiluminescent NO/NO
x monitor. The instrument operation is based on the principal of the chemiluminescent reaction of NO and O 3 . When NO
and O 3 react light is emi tted and the amount of light emitted is proportional to the concentration of NO in the sample gas stream. To measure NO concentrations, the gas sample to be analyzed
is blended with O 3 in the instrument's reaction chamb er. The resulting chemiluminescence is monitored through an optical filter by a highly sensitive photomultiplier tube ( PMT ) positioned at one end of the reaction chamber. The filter/photomultiplier combination responds to light in a narrow wavelength ban d unique to this chemiluminescent reaction (detailed below) the filter assists and eliminates interferences in this wavelength:

NO + O 3 → NO 2 + O 2 + hv

To measure NO
x concentrations (NO plus NO 2 ), the sample gas flow is diverted through a NO 2 -
to

- NO converter. The chemiluminescent response in the reaction chamber to the converter effluent is linearly proportional to the NO
x concentration entering the converter (sample gas).

Table 4. 6 .5.2 .1

- TRC NO
x CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

RANGE NO x ANALYZER

Zero

- range Nitrogen gas

Mid

- range 40 to 60% of calibration span High

- range equal to calibration span

The calibration gases for the NO X analyzer all have Protocol certified values for NO and NO X
. An

NO 2 to NO Conversion Efficiency Test per Section 8.2.4 of EPA Method 7E w as conducted to verify that the analyzer accurately converts NO 2 to NO in the NO
x mode. All readings w ere reported within EPA Method 7E criteria.

4.6 .5. 3 CO Measurements (EPA Method 10) An analyzer based on the principle of GFC w as utilized for the measurement of CO. GFC offers improved specificity and sensitivity over conventional NDIR techniques. GFC spectroscopy is based upon comparison of the detailed structure of the infrared a bsorption spectrum of the measured gas to that of other gases also present in the sample being analyzed. The technique is implemented by using a high concentration sample of the measured gas, through the analyzer,
hence the term GFC.

Radiation from an IR source is chopped and then passed through a gas filter alternating between
CO and N 2 due to rotation of the filter wheel. The radiation then passes through a narrow bandpass interference filter and enters a multiple optical pass cell where absorption b y the sample gas occurs. The IR radiation then exits the sample cell and falls on an IR detector.Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

12
215228 The CO gas filter acts to produce a reference beam, which cannot be further attenuated by CO in the sample cell. The N 2 side of the filter wheel is transpa rent to the IR radiation and therefore produces a measure beam that can be absorbed by CO in the cell. The chopped detector signal is modulated by the alternation between the two gas filters with amplitude related to the concentration of CO in the sample cell. Other gases do not cause modulation of the detector signal since they absorb the reference and measure beams equally. In this way, the GFC system responds specifically to CO.

Table 4. 6 .5. 3 .1

- TRC CO CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

RANGE CO ANALYZER

Zero

- range Nitrogen gas

Mid

- range 40%

– 60% of Span High

- range 100% of Span

CO analyzer was calibrated using a 201.4 ppm span gas. During the tests, some of the concentration averages exceeded the 201.4 ppm span. Based on previous engine test conducted, TRC did not expect the concentrations to be above 100 ppmvd

. Higher calibration gases were
not available at the time of the tests. TRC believes these numbers to be accurate based on previous linearity checks performed on this analyzer.

4.6 .5. 4 VOC Measurements (EPA Method 25A ) An analyzer based on the principle of Flame Ionization w as utilized for the measurement of

VOC. Heated flame ionization detectors (FID) and the procedures described in EPA Method 25A

w ere used to simultaneously m easure the total hydrocarbon emission concentration

. The engine exhaust gas w as transported to the analyzer through heated sample lines. The FIDs w as a JUM Model 300 heated FID . The FID w as calibrated with EPA Protocol propane calibration gases. Heated sampl e lines, designed to eliminate possible condensation of the gas stream, w ere utilized to transport the sample streams to the analyzer. The length of heated sample line from the sampling location to the TRC analyzer w as approximately 100 feet

. All of the exposed connections between the sample line and probe w ere insulated to prevent any cold spots in the sample transport

system . The temperature of the sample transport system w as maintained above 250  F at all times.

The THC concentration data as measured by the FIDs w ere processed and gathered by a digital data logger and 1

- minute averages w ere stored on a personal computer. The data logger r ecord ed the output from the FIDs at a rate of once per second and these 1

- second values w ere used to form

one

- minute averages, which w ere stored in an electronic data file for each test run. At the end of
each one

- hour test, the 60 separate one

- minute averages w ere stored in a spreadsheet and output to a printer and the one

- hour average THC concentration w as computed for each sampling
location. Method 7E equations w ere used to correct the VOC data for bias and drift.

The VOC analyzer w as calibrated with compressed gas cylinder standards. The zero reference

w as established with ultra high purity (UHP) hydroc arbon

- free nitrogen. The instrumentAnadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program Section 4

– Sampling and Analysis Procedures

13
215228 response w as established using propane EPA Protocol gases. Three calibration standards (zero,
mid

- range, and span) w ere used. The zero and span response of the THC analyzer w as checked before and after the test program. The system bias w as checked by introducing zero and span gas standards at the end of the sample probe. The entire sampling system calibration bias w as checked by routing the calibration gases through a separate Teflon line to the sample probe and
back t hrough the heated sample line to the FID. A calibration check w as conducted before and after each test run to insure the sample line integrity and to evaluate analyzer drift during each
test run. Records of all calibrations and calibration checks are pro vided in A ppendix B of this Test Report.

Table 4. 6 .5. 4 .1

- TRC VOC CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

RANGE CO ANALYZER

Zero

- range Nitrogen gas

Low

- range 25

- 35%
Mid

- range 40%

– 60% of Span High

- range 100% of Span

4. 6

. 6 Gaseous Pollutant Sampling with 3 Point Traverse

EPA recently revised its requirements for gaseous pollutant sampling in engine stacks. The
waiver of the requirement for stratif ication checks on engine stacks was withdrawn. Per the March 10, 2014 guidance issued by Steffan Johnson of EPA’s Emission Measurement Center, a

3

- point stratification test was conducted on each stack. No stratification was present. Hence the gaseous pollutant sampling w as conducted at the centroid of each stack

.Anadarko
BlackHawk

- GOM Drilling Program

Section 5

– Test Results

14
215228 

## 5 .0

– TEST RESULTS

Six of the 8 main engines on the BlackHawk were tested. The test results for each engine are summarized in the tables presented in this section. The filterable p articula te matter
tests were conducted at the 90% load and the total particulate matter (i.e., filterable particulate matter + condensable particulate matter) tests were conducted at 30% load on 2 of the 6 smaller engines and the two larger eng ines. The PM results are reported separately for the Method 5 or filterable PM, the Method 202 or condensable PM, and as the sum of the filterable and condensable PM. All of the emissions are reported in the following terms:

 P ollutant concentration (gra ins/dscf for PM emissions and ppmv for the gaseous pollutants)

 Pollutant mass emission rate

, (lb/hr)

 Pollutant mass emission rate, ( grams/kW

- hr )

Table 5

- 1 summarizes the test results for Engine # 2.

Table 5

- 2 summarizes the test results for Engine # 3

Table 5

- 3 summarizes the test results for Engine # 4. No PM tests were conducted on this engine.

Table 5

- 4 summarizes the test results for Engine # 5. No PM tests were conducted on this engine.

Table 5

- 5 summarizes the test results for Engine # 7.

Table 5

- 6 summarizes the test results for Engine # 8.

The field test data and calculations for each engine are provided in detail in the appendices.TABLE 5.1
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Target Load 90% 60% 30% Actual Engine Power Output, kW 4,076 2,722 1,360

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Stack Flow Rate, Moisture and Temperature Volumetric Flow Rate, dscfm 15,353 10,930 6,286 Stack Gas Temperature, F 609.7 626.7 669.7 Stack Moisture Content, % 7.4 7.4 7.4 Stack Oxygen Content, % 12.9 13.1 13.1 Stack Carbon Dioxide Content, % 6.3 6.2 6.2

Total Filterable PM Concentration, grains/dscf 0.00974 0.01610 Emission Rate, lb/hr 1.2817 0.8675 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.143 0.289

Total Condensable PM (adjusted for Field Blank) Concentration, grains/dscf 0.010552 Emission Rate, lb/hr 0.5686 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.190

Total PM (Filterable and Condensable PM) Concentration, grains/dscf 0.02665 Emission Rate, lb/hr 1.4361 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.479

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 691.6 690.3 649.3 Emission Rate, lb/hr 76.07 54.06 29.24 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 8.47 9.01 9.75

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 167.2 209.6 Emission Rate, lb/hr 7.97 5.75 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 1.33 1.92

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, wet as propane 40.5 55.4 Concentration, ppmv, dry as propane 43.7 59.9 Emission Rate, lb/hr 3.28 2.58 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.547 0.861

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Concentration, %, dry 6.2 6.2 Emission Rate, lb/hr 4,621 2,664 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 770.0 888.2 SMALLER MAIN ENGINE # 2

6/3/2014 BLACK HAWKTABLE 5.2
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Target Load 90% 60% 30% Actual Engine Power Output, kW 4,007 2,763 1,294

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Stack Flow Rate, Moisture and Temperature Volumetric Flow Rate, dscfm 14,605 10,678 5,982 Stack Gas Temperature, F 619.3 643.0 682.3 Stack Moisture Content, % 7.2 7.4 7.6 Stack Oxygen Content, % 12.9 13.1 13.1 Stack Carbon Dioxide Content, % 6.4 6.3 6.2

Total Filterable PM Concentration, grains/dscf 0.01413 0.01662 Emission Rate, lb/hr 1.7694 0.8521 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.200 0.299

Total Condensable PM (adjusted for Field Blank) Concentration, grains/dscf 0.014776 Emission Rate, lb/hr 0.7577 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.266

Total PM (Filterable and Condensable PM) Concentration, grains/dscf 0.03139 Emission Rate, lb/hr 1.6098 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.564

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 728.7 731.2 642.1 Emission Rate, lb/hr 76.25 55.94 27.52 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 8.63 9.18 9.64

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 148.3 204.0 Emission Rate, lb/hr 6.91 5.32 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 1.13 1.87

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, wet as propane 49.9 76.9 Concentration, ppmv, dry as propane 53.9 83.2 Emission Rate, lb/hr 3.95 3.42 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.648 1.197

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Concentration, %, dry 6.3 6.2 Emission Rate, lb/hr 4,575 2,555 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 751.0 895.4 SMALLER MAIN ENGINE # 3

6/4/2014 BLACK HAWK

### TABLE 5.3
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Target Load 90% 60% 30% Actual Engine Power Output, kW 4,026 2,665 1,349

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Stack Flow Rate, Moisture and Temperature Volumetric Flow Rate, dscfm 14,932 10,724 6,062 Stack Gas Temperature, F 563.3 643.1 652.6 Stack Moisture Content, % 7.0 7.0 7.0 Stack Oxygen Content, % 12.8 12.7 12.8 Stack Carbon Dioxide Content, % 6.4 6.5 6.4

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 711.2 733.5 706.2 Emission Rate, lb/hr 76.08 56.36 30.67 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 8.57 9.59 10.31

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 262.5 306.2 Emission Rate, lb/hr 12.28 8.10 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 2.09 2.72

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, wet as propane 58.4 75.8 Concentration, ppmv, dry as propane 62.8 81.6 Emission Rate, lb/hr 4.62 3.39 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.787 1.141

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Concentration, %, dry 6.5 6.4 Emission Rate, lb/hr 4,742 2,648 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 807.1 890.2 SMALLER MAIN ENGINE # 4

6/5/2014 BLACK HAWK

### TABLE 5.4
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Target Load 90% 60% 30% Actual Engine Power Output, kW 4,081 2,725 1,369

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Stack Flow Rate, Moisture and Temperature Volumetric Flow Rate, dscfm 14,364 10,653 5,860 Stack Gas Temperature, F 580.8 627.3 645.3 Stack Moisture Content, % 7.0 7.0 7.0 Stack Oxygen Content, % 12.7 12.8 12.9 Stack Carbon Dioxide Content, % 6.5 6.4 6.4

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 782.2 801.9 734.0 Emission Rate, lb/hr 80.49 61.20 30.82 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 8.95 10.19 10.21

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 151.0 235.0 Emission Rate, lb/hr 7.02 6.01 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 1.17 1.99

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, wet as propane 39.8 52.6 Concentration, ppmv, dry as propane 42.8 56.6 Emission Rate, lb/hr 3.13 2.28 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.522 0.755

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Concentration, %, dry 6.4 6.4 Emission Rate, lb/hr 4,665 2,551 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 776.7 845.0 SMALLER MAIN ENGINE # 5

6/5/2014 BLACK HAWKTABLE 5.5
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Target Load 90% 50% 30% Actual Engine Power Output, kW 8,236 4,614 2,775

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Stack Flow Rate, Moisture and Temperature Volumetric Flow Rate, dscfm 28,591 17,564 10,974 Stack Gas Temperature, F 669.5 693.4 744.5 Stack Moisture Content, % 7.2 7.4 7.6 Stack Oxygen Content, % 12.3 12.7 12.4 Stack Carbon Dioxide Content, % 6.8 6.4 6.8

Total Filterable PM Concentration, grains/dscf 0.00991 0.01661 Emission Rate, lb/hr 2.4279 1.5629 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.134 0.255

Total Condensable PM (adjusted for Field Blank) Concentration, grains/dscf 0.012384 Emission Rate, lb/hr 1.1651 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.190

Total PM (Filterable and Condensable PM) Concentration, grains/dscf 0.02900 Emission Rate, lb/hr 2.7280 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.446

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 776.7 790.8 757.6 Emission Rate, lb/hr 159.10 99.51 59.56 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 8.76 9.78 9.74

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 111.6 213.2 Emission Rate, lb/hr 8.55 10.21 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.84 1.67

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, wet as propane 41.3 51.7 Concentration, ppmv, dry as propane 44.6 55.9 Emission Rate, lb/hr 5.38 4.22 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.529 0.689

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Concentration, %, dry 6.4 6.8 Emission Rate, lb/hr 7,733 5,094 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 760.2 832.6 LARGER MAIN ENGINE # 7

6/4/2014 BLACK HAWKTABLE 5.6
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Target Load 90% 50% 30% Actual Engine Power Output, kW 8,199 4,543 2,635

Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Stack Flow Rate, Moisture and Temperature Volumetric Flow Rate, dscfm 28,736 17,518 11,004 Stack Gas Temperature, F 672.0 704.7 758.5 Stack Moisture Content, % 7.7 7.4 7.0 Stack Oxygen Content, % 12.3 12.4 12.0 Stack Carbon Dioxide Content, % 6.8 6.7 7.0

Total Filterable PM Concentration, grains/dscf 0.00937 0.02078 Emission Rate, lb/hr 2.3092 1.9601 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.128 0.337

Total Condensable PM (adjusted for Field Blank) Concentration, grains/dscf 0.011376 Emission Rate, lb/hr 1.0731 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.185

Total PM (Filterable and Condensable PM) Concentration, grains/dscf 0.03216 Emission Rate, lb/hr 3.0333 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.522

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 824.9 843.2 834.4 Emission Rate, lb/hr 169.81 105.82 65.77 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 9.39 10.57 11.32

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, dry 141.8 297.0 Emission Rate, lb/hr 10.83 14.25 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 1.08 2.45

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Concentration, ppmv, wet as propane 46.3 49.2 Concentration, ppmv, dry as propane 50.0 52.9 Emission Rate, lb/hr 6.01 3.99 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 0.601 0.688

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Concentration, %, dry 6.7 7.0 Emission Rate, lb/hr 7,993 5,242 Emission Rate, grams/kW-hr 798.1 902.4 LARGER MAIN ENGINE # 8

6/4/2014 BLACK HAWK