EMISSIONS TEST REPORT

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

1201 Lake Robbins Road

The Woodlands, TX 77380

Prepared by:

5540 Centerview Drive

Suite 100

Raleigh, NC 27606

(919) 256-6231

TRC Project No. 215228-0020

July 9, 2014
215228 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 LOCATIONS ..................................................................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 O2 & CO2 Concentrations (EPA Method 3A).................................................................................5

4.4 Moisture Content (EPA Method 4)................................................................................................6

4.5 Filterable and Condensable Particulate Matter 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 Calibrations – 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 O2 and CO2 Measurements (EPA Method 3A).................................................10

4.6.5.2 NOx Measurements (EPA Method 7E).............................................................11

4.6.5.3 CO Measurements (EPA Method 10)................................................................11

4.6.5.4 – VOC Measurements (EPA Method 25A).......................................................12

4.6.6 Gaseous Pollutant Sampling with 3 Point Traverse ..................................................... 13

5.0 TEST RESULTS............................................................................................................. 14
215228 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 O2/CO2 CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges .........................................................................10

4.6.5.2.1 TRC NOx CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges ...............................................................................11

4.6.5.3.1 TRC CO CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges.................................................................................12

4.6.5.4.1 TRC VOC CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges.............................................................................. 13

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 ....................................................................................... 17

5.4 Summary of Test Results – Engine # 5 .......................................................................................18

5.5 Summary of Test Results – Engine # 7 .......................................................................................19

5.6 Summary of Test Results – Engine # 8...................................................................................... 20
Anadarko

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 that 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 larger engines 

were tested.

Depending on the load and engine TRC measured 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 engines. 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 that were tested:

Table 1.2.1 – Source Identifications for Main Engines

ID DESCRIPTION MAKE AND MODEL RATING

DR-ME-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 the engines that were tested.

Table 1.3.1 – Scope of Work for BlackHawk

ID DESCRIPTION PARAMETER LOAD CONDITIONS COMMENTS

DR-ME-02 and 

DR-ME-03

Drillship Main Engine NOx, CO, CO2, VOC, PM 30%, 60%, 90% 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-ME-07 and 

DR-ME-08 Drillship Main Engine NOx, CO, CO2, VOC, PM 30%, 50%, 90% NOx and PM (Filterable) only at 90% and no PM at 50%

1.4 Test Schedule

Anadarko and TRC conducted the emission tests between June 3 and June 5, 2014. One engine 

was tested at a time. For the Particulate Matter test runs, each test run was 60-minutes in 

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

test run was 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 this 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 were tested on the BlackHawk. DR-ME-01 through DRME-06 are the six (6) drillship main engines each rated at 4,500 kW and DR-ME-07 and DRME-08 are the two (2) drillship main engines each rated at 9,000 kW. 

2.2 Emission Unit Load Levels

Each engine was tested at three operating loads. These engines will typically operate at 

relatively low loads. The target loads for the 9 cylinder engines were 30%, 60% and 90%. 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 was done under the direction of the BlackHawk

Engine Control Room personnel. 

2.4 Fuel Certification & Analysis

Anadarko provided 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–DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS

3.1 Smaller Engines (9 Cylinders) Stacks

For particulate sampling, the engine 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 Engines (18 Cylinders) Stacks

The 18 cylinder engines have stacks 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. The engine stacks were sampled for the gaseous pollutants 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 were based on procedures 

published by the EPA in accordance with the guidelines published in Title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, 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 Procedure) 

 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)

 Method 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 were

sampled for the gaseous pollutants at the centroid. For determining the PM emissions the 

engine stacks were traversed to determine the gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. The 

procedures specified by EPA Method 1, “Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources”

were used to select representative flow and pollutant measurement locations. A measurement 

site where the exhaust stream is flowing in a known direction was selected, and the cross section 

of the stack was divided into a number of equal areas. A traverse point was 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 with the 

actual traverse points are included in Appendix A of this Test Report. 

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 was determined from the gas density and 

from measurement of the average velocity head with a Type S (Stausscheibe or reverse type) 

pitot tube.

4.3 O2 & CO2 Concentrations (EPA Method 3A)

During each Method 5 test period, percent dry O2 and CO2 emission concentration data was

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 was calculated per Method 3 based on 

concurrent O2 and CO2 stack gas concentrations. 

4.4 Moisture Content (EPA Method 4)

The moisture content of the stack gas was determined gravimetrically from the weight gain in 

each impinger and the weight gain of the silica gel impinger from the Method 5/202 sampling 

trains. If PM sampling was not performed, then 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 were collected isokinetically from the stack using an EPA Method 5 sampling train. 

The sampling train consisted of a stainless steel or glass/quartz nozzle, and a stainless steel or 

glass-lined probe and a quartz fiber filter supported by a Teflon® frit and maintained at a 

temperature of 248oF ± 25oF, chilled impingers, and a metering console. Condensable 

particulate matter (CPM) emissions were determined using Method 202 procedures. 

This procedure for determining CPM involves recovering the back-half of the sampling train. As 

specified in EPA Method 202, the CPM were collected in the two empty impingers which were

maintained at 85°F or less by use of a chilled water recirculating pump and non-contact 

condenser. These two empty impingers were 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 was followed by two impingers in an ice bath which served to condense 

any remaining moisture so that the stack gas moisture content could be determined. Organic 

condensable PM and inorganic condensable PM were quantified per EPA Method 202 

procedures. Prior to sample train assembly, each of the impingers was weighed, 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 

was prepared by cleaning and baking as specified in EPA Method 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 sampling 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 train recovery blank (FTRB) was

recovered from a sampling train after it had been used to collect emissions samples and had

been rinsed in preparation for the second or third test in a series at a particular source. This 

FTRB train was purged with nitrogen. Prior to the purge, 100 ml of DI water was 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 was collected on the drillship. The FTRB 

value for the BlackHawk was 1.9 mg.

4.5.2 Sample Recovery

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

probe, and front-half of the filter holder were rinsed with acetone into a glass jar. The filter and 

the front-half acetone rinse were analyzed per Method 5 procedures to determine the filterable 

PM. Immediately following the test run, each of the impingers was 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 vapor collected in the silica gel were 

subsequently entered into moisture content calculations. 

The impinger trains were 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 was placed in a glass sample jar. The back-half of the filter holder, impingers, and 

connecting glassware were rinsed twice with DI water into the jar containing the back-half 

impinger catch. Next the back portion of the filter holder, the two impingers, and the connecting 

glassware were 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 were used to analyze the filter and front-half acetone rinse 

for filterable particulate. EPA Method 5 analytical procedures (gravimetric) were used to analyze 

the front-half PM catch, which consisted of the filter and acetone rinse of the nozzle, probe liner, 

and front portion of the filter housing. EPA 202 analytical procedures were used to analyze the 

combined DI water reagent/DI water rinses and the acetone/hexane rinses for condensable 

particulate matter. The water fraction was extracted with hexane to separate organic material from 

the aqueous phase. The aqueous phase (after solvent extraction) was dried down and the 

remaining residue weighed and reported as the inorganic condensable PM. The hexane rinse 

fraction and solvent extract were evaporated and the remaining residue weighed and reported as 

the organic condensable PM. Resolution Analytics, Inc. in Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, 

performed the Method 5 and Method 202 gravimetric analyses, sample extractions and 

separations.

4.6 TRC CEMS

Gaseous measurements were conducted with continuous emissions monitors (CEMS). Each 

TRC CEM system includes 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 on 

a dry basis. 
Anadarko

BlackHawk - GOM Drilling Program

Section 4 – Sampling and Analysis Procedures

8

215228

4.6.1 Instrument Checks and System Integrity; Setup Day

EPA Methods 3A, 7E, 10, and 25A include strict quality control performance specifications for 

the CEMS measurement system. EPA Methods 3A and 10 reference EPA Method 7E for 

applicable CEMS calibration specifications. Prior to the initiation of the field sampling, TRC 

conducted a “setup period” that involved a number of initial system checks, site evaluations, and 

general acceptance runs. All of these checks were guided by TRC Standard Operating 

Procedures and were completed prior to conducting the official test runs. 

4.6.2 CEMS Calibrations - Methods 3A, 7E, 10 & 25A

The following sequence of operations was conducted to calibrate each Method 3A, 7E, 10, and 

25A analyzer. This activity preceded 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 correct 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 bias of the sampling 

system for the specific source and setup configuration. This activity preceded the system 

calibration and was 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 records 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 is
Anadarko

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 was 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 were calculated by comparing 

the system response to the zero and upscale calibration gas from the system 

response during 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 providing 

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 

were averaged and corrected for calibration error and drift using 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 O2 and CO2 (EPA Method 3A), NOx (EPA Method 7E), 

CO (Method 10), and VOC (Method 25A) consisted 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 the individual gas analyzers at near atmospheric pressure and excess sample 

flow from the system is vented outside the system.

Calibration 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 injection 

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 O2 and CO2 Measurements (EPA Method 3A)

O2 concentrations were determined using a paramagnetic oxygen analyzer. The analyzer 

measures the paramagnetic 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 

greater 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 position. The current applied is 

linearly proportional to the percent oxygen concentration in the sample gas.

CO2 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 light 

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 the detectors.

The infrared light emitted backward is reflected by 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 infrared 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 correcting these chambers with each 

other.

The slight flow is converted into 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 O2/CO2 CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

RANGE O2 ANALYZER CO2 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 were reported within EPA Method 3A criteria. 
Anadarko

BlackHawk - GOM Drilling Program

Section 4 – Sampling and Analysis Procedures

11

215228

4.6.5.2 NOx Measurements (EPA Method 7E)

The analyzer used to measure NOx was a chemiluminescent NO/NOx monitor. The instrument 

operation is based on the principal of the chemiluminescent reaction of NO and O3. When NO 

and O3 react light is emitted 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 O3 in the instrument's reaction chamber. 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 band unique to this chemiluminescent reaction (detailed below) the filter 

assists and eliminates interferences in this wavelength:

NO + O3 → NO2 + O2 + hv

To measure NOx concentrations (NO plus NO2), the sample gas flow is diverted through a NO2-

to-NO converter. The chemiluminescent response in the reaction chamber to the converter 

effluent is linearly proportional to the NOx concentration entering the converter (sample gas). 

Table 4.6.5.2.1 - TRC NOx CEMS Zero and Span Gas Ranges

RANGE NOx ANALYZER

Zero-range Nitrogen gas

Mid-range 40 to 60% of calibration span

High-range equal to calibration span

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

NO2 to NO Conversion Efficiency Test per Section 8.2.4 of EPA Method 7E was conducted to 

verify that the analyzer accurately converts NO2 to NO in the NOx mode. All readings were

reported within EPA Method 7E criteria. 

4.6.5.3 CO Measurements (EPA Method 10)

An analyzer based on the principle of GFC was 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 absorption 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 N2 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 by 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 N2 side of the filter wheel is transparent 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 was utilized for the measurement of 

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

were used to simultaneously measure the total hydrocarbon emission concentration. The engine 

exhaust gas was transported to the analyzer through heated sample lines. The FIDs was a JUM 

Model 300 heated FID. The FID was calibrated with EPA Protocol propane calibration gases. 

Heated sample lines, designed to eliminate possible condensation of the gas stream, were utilized 

to transport the sample streams to the analyzer. The length of heated sample line from the 

sampling location to the TRC analyzer was approximately 100 feet. All of the exposed connections 

between the sample line and probe were insulated to prevent any cold spots in the sample transport 

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

The THC concentration data as measured by the FIDs were processed and gathered by a digital 

data logger and 1-minute averages were stored on a personal computer. The data logger recorded

the output from the FIDs at a rate of once per second and these 1-second values were used to form 

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

each one-hour test, the 60 separate one-minute averages were stored in a spreadsheet and output 

to a printer and the one-hour average THC concentration was computed for each sampling 

location. Method 7E equations were used to correct the VOC data for bias and drift. 

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

was established with ultra high purity (UHP) hydrocarbon-free nitrogen. The instrument 
Anadarko

BlackHawk - GOM Drilling Program

Section 4 – Sampling and Analysis Procedures

13

215228

response was established using propane EPA Protocol gases. Three calibration standards (zero, 

mid-range, and span) were used. The zero and span response of the THC analyzer was checked 

before and after the test program. The system bias was checked by introducing zero and span 

gas standards at the end of the sample probe. The entire sampling system calibration bias was

checked by routing the calibration gases through a separate Teflon line to the sample probe and 

back through the heated sample line to the FID. A calibration check was 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 provided in Appendix 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 stratification 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 was 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 particulate 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 engines. 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:

 Pollutant concentration (grains/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 HAWK
TABLE 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 HAWK
TABLE 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 HAWK
TABLE 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