## NOX

## , CO, AND NMOC EMISSIONS TESTING REPORT North Carolina Ai r Permit No. 08634T03

UNITS 1 & 2 IREDELL TRANSMISSION, LLC STA TESVILLE , NORTH CAROLINA December, 2008ii

CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ .............................. IV 1. 0 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 2.0 SOURCE DESCRIPTION ................................ ................................ .................... 1 3.0 SAMPLING AND AN ALYTI CAL PROCEDURES ................................ ............. 2 3.1 STACK GA

S VELOCITY AND FLOWRA TES (USEPA METHODS 1 -2) ....... 3 3.1. 1 Sampling Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3 3.1.2 Method 2 Sampling Equipment ................................ ................................ ............. 3 3.2 OXYGEN AND CARBON DIOXIDE (USEPA METHODS 3A ) ....................... 3 3.2.1 Sampling Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3 3.2.2 O 2 / CO 2 Sampling Train ................................ ................................ ......................... 3 3.2.3 Sampling Train Calibration ................................ ................................ ...................... 4 3.3 MOISTURE DETERMINA TION (USEPA METHOD 4) ................................ ... 4 3.3.1 Sampling Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 3.4 OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND CARBON MONOXIDE (USEPA METHODS 7E AN D 10) ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4 3.4.1 Sampling Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 3.4.2 NOx, and CO Sam pling Train ................................ ................................ ................. 4 3.4.3 Sampling Train Calibration ................................ ................................ ...................... 5 3.5 METHANE (USEPA METHOD 18) ................................ ................................ .. 5 3.5.1 Sampling Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5 3.5.2 CH4 Sampling Train ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 3.5.3 Sampling Duration & Frequency ................................ ................................ ........... 6 3.6 TOTAL HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS (USEPA METHOD 25A ) ............. 6 3.6.1 Sampling Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 3.6.2 THC Sampling Train ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 3.6.3 Sampling Train Calibration ................................ ................................ ...................... 6 3.6.4 Sampling Duration & Frequency ................................ ................................ ........... 6 3.7 QA

/QC AN D POST TEST PROCEDURES ................................ ..................... 7 3.7.1 Quality Control and Assurance (O 2 , CO 2 , NOx, and CO) ................................ . 7 3.7 .2 Quality Control and Assurance (NMOC) ................................ ............................. 7 3.8 DA

TA REDUCTION ................................ ................................ ........................ 8 4.0 OPERA

TING PARAMETERS ................................ ................................ ............. 8 5.0 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9iii

6.0 CERTIFICA

TION STATEM ENT ................................ ................................ ........ 10 Result Table Emissions Testing Results: Unit 1 Emissions Testing Results: Unit 2 Fi gures 1 Units 1 & 2 Stack Drawing & Exhaust Sampling Point Location 2 USEPA Method 3A/7E/10 Sampling Train 3 USEPA Method 25A Sampling Train 4 USEPA Method 18 Sampling Train Ap pendices A NCD ER Test Plan and Approval Letter B Equipment and Analyzer Calibration Data C Example Calculations D Flowrate and Moisture Data E Raw Analyzer Data F Operational Data G Analytical Dataiv

DTE Energy Corporate Services, LLC (DECS) , a DTE Energy Company (DTE) performed emissions testing at Iredell Transmi ssion, LLC , located in Statesville , North Carolina . T he fieldwork, performed o n November 5 , 2008 was conducted to satisf y requirements of the North Carolina Air Permit No. 08634T03 and EPA Subpart JJJJ . Emissions tests were performed on Units 1 & 2 for oxides of nitrogen ( NOx) , carbon monoxide (CO ) , and non - methane organic compounds ( NMOC ) . The results of the emissions testing are highlighted below: Emissions Testing Summary Iredell Transmission, LLC Statesville , NC Units 1 & 2 November 5, 2008

(1) ppm , corrected to 15% O 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Unit 1 Load

(%) Oxides of

Nitrogen (1) (ppm) Carbon

Monoxide (1) (ppm) NMOC (1)

(ppm) Test 1 97.0 56.1 410.6 10.5 Test 2 96.7 55.9 403.6 12.2 Test 3 96.9 56.5 410.3 12.2 Average 56.2 408.1 11.6 Unit 2 Load

(%) Oxides of

Nitrogen (1) (ppm) Carbon

Monoxide (1) ( ppm) NMOC (1)

(ppm) Test 1 96.9 54.8 426.6 15.4 Test 2 97.1 55.1 429.4 13.9 Test 3 97.5 54.7 427.6 19.6 Average 54.9 427.9 16.3 Permit Limit

(1) 160 540 861

DTE Energy Corpo rate Services, LLC (DECS), a DTE Energy Company (DTE) performed emissions testing at Iredell Transmission, LLC , located in Statesville , North Carolina . The fieldwork, performed on November 5 , 2008 , was conducted to satisfy requirements of the North Caroli na Air Permit No. 08634T03 and EPA subpart JJJJ . Testing was performed pursuant to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Appendix A (40 CFR §60 App. A), Methods 1 -4 , 7E, 10, 18, and 25A . The fieldwork was performed in accordance with EPA Refere nce Methods and DECS Intent to Test 1 , which was approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCD ER) on October 27 , 2008 2

. T he following DECS personnel participated in the testing program: Mr. Mark Grigereit, Environmenta l Specialist , and Mr. Fred Meinecke , En vironmental Technician. M r. Grigereit was the project leader. Mr. Grigereit has 20 years of source testing experience testing for DTE Energy and private consulting firms and Mr. Meinecke has 15 years of source testi ng experience testing for DTE Energy and private consulting firms. M r. Thomes Durham , Environmental Engineer, DTE Energy Services, LLC , provided the process coordination for the testing program. Mr. Jeffery Johnson, DTE Biomass Energy, provided on -site operation of the units. M r. Gregg O’ N eal with the Technical Services Section of the NCDER reviewed the Test Plan . M r. Jim Westmoreland, NCDER- Mooresville Regional Office, observed the testing .

The Iredell Tr

ansmission, LLC power generating facility, located at 356 Twin Oaks Road, Statesville NC is a power generating facility. T he facility consists of two (2) landfill gas-fired internal combustion engines with associated electrical generators. The systems are Caterpillar G3520C – 1200 RPM 1600 kWG as Generator Sets. The purpose of the source is to utilize land fill gas fr om the Iredell County Landfill to produce energy to be sent to the electrical grid. 1 NCDER, Test Plan, Submitted September 22, 2008. (Attached -Appendix A) 2 NCDER, Approval Letter. (Attached -Appendix A) 1. 0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SOURCE DESCRIPTION2

See Figure 1 for

diagram s of the units’ sampling location s and stack d imension s . 3.0 SAMPLING AND ANAL YTICAL PROCEDURES DTE Energy obtained emissions measurements in accordance with procedures specified in the USEPA Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources . T he sampling and analytical methods used in the testin g program are indicated in the table below Sampling Method Parameter An aly sis USEPA Methods 1 -2 Exhaust Gas Flow rates Field data analysis and reduction USEPA Method 3A Oxygen & CO2 Instrumental Analyzer Method USEPA Method 4 Moisture content Fiel d data analysis and reduction USEPA Method 7E Oxides of Nitrogen Chemilumenecent Instrumental Analyzer Method USEPA Method 10 Carbon Monoxide NDIR Instrumental Analyzer Method USEPA Method 18 Gaseous Organic Compounds ( Methane ) GC Analytical Method (Tedlar TM Bag Sample) USEPA Method 25A Total Hydrocarbon Compounds FID Instrumental Analyzer Method3

3.1 ST

AC K GA S VELOCITY

AND FLOWRA

TES (USEP

A METHODS 1 -

2) 3.1.1 Sampling Method Stack gas velocity traverses were conducted in accordance with the procedures o utlined in USEPA Method 1, “Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources,” and Method 2, “Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flowrate.” Two (2) sampling po rts were utilized on each Unit’s exhaust duct , sampling at six (6 ) points pe r port for a total of twelve (1 2 ) points. Sampling was conducted in conjunction with the gaseous emissions testing . A Cyclonic flow check was performed prior to performing the fl owrate testing. Testing in the stacks demonstrated that no cyclonic flow i s present. D ata has been included in Appendix E demonstrating the absence of cyclonic flow. 3.1.2 Method 2 Sampling Equipment DTE Energy’s EPA Method 2 sampling equipment consisted of a 0 - 10” incline manometer, S -type pitot tube (C p = 0.84) and a type- K calibrated thermocouple . 3.2 OXYGEN AN D CARBON D IOXIDE (USEP A METHODS 3A

) 3.2 .1 Sampling Method Oxygen (O 2 ) and Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 3A, “Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air, and Dry Molecular W eight (Instrumental Analyzer Method)”. T he analyzer s utilize paramagnetic sensor s . 3.2 .2 O2 / CO2 Sampling T rain The DECS EPA Method 3A sampling system consisted of (1) a single- point sampling probe (placed in the center of the stack) , (2) a heated Teflon TM sampling line, (3) a Universal  gas conditioner with particulate filter, (4) a fl exible unheated Teflon TM sampling line, (5) a Servomax 1400 O 2/CO 2 gas analyzer, (6) appropriate USEPA Protocol 1 calibration gases, and (7) a ThermoWestronics Data Acquisition System.4 Refer to Figure 2 for a schematic of the O 2 , CO 2 , NOx, and CO sampling train. 3.2 .3 Sampling T

rain Calibration The O 2 and CO 2 analyzer s were calibrated according to procedures outlined in USEPA Method 7E. Zero, span, and mid range calibr ation gases were introduced directly into the analyzer to determine the instruments linearity. A zero and mid range span gas for each pollutant was then introduced through the entire sampling system to determine sampling system bias for each analyzer at the completion of each test. 3.3 MOISTURE DETERMINA TION (USEP

A METHOD 4) 3.3.1 Sampling Method Determination of the moisture content at the outlet each unit was performed using the method described in USEPA Method 4, “Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases”. Th e moisture was collected in g lass impingers , and the percentage of water was then derived fr om calculations outlined in USEPA Method 4. A 30 - minute moisture sample was collected during each test run. 3.4 OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND CARBON MONOXIDE (USEP A METHODS 7E AN D 10) 3.4.1 Sampling Method Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 7E, “Determination of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions fr om Stationary Sources”. The NOx analyzer utilizes a Chemilumenecent detector. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 10, “Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources”. T he CO analyzer utilizes a NDIR detector. 3.4.2 NOx, and CO Sampling T rain The EPA Methods 7E and 10 sampling system consisted of (1) a single- point sampling probe ( placed in the center of the stack), (2) a heated Teflon TM sampling line, (3) a Universal  gas conditioner with particulate filter, (4) a fl exible unheated Teflon TM sampling line, (5) a TECO 42i C hemilumenecent NO/NOx gas analyzer, and TECO 48i NDIR CO gas analyzer, (6) appropriate5 USEPA Protocol 1 calibration gases, and (7) a ThermoWestronics  Data Acquisition System. Refer to Figure 2 for a schematic of the O 2 , CO 2 , NOx, and CO sampling tr ain. 3.4.3 Sampling T

rain Calibration The Sampling train was calibrated according to procedures outlined in USEPA Method 7E. Zero, span, and mid range calibration gases were introduced directly into the analyzer to determine the instruments linearity. A zero and mid range span gas for each pollutant was then introduced through the entire sampling system to determine sampling system bias for each analyzer at the completion of each test. 3.5 METHANE (USEP A METHOD 18) 3. 5.1 Sampling Method Methane (CH 4 ) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 18 , “ Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography (Tedlar TM Bag Sampling )”. Th is method involves the collection of exhaust gas in a TedlarTM bag, which is then analyzed at an offsite laboratory by gas chromatography (GC). According to the test plan submitted to the NCD ER , DTE was originally going to test for non - methane organic compounds (NMOC), utilizing a methane/non - methane FID. Following discussions with the Agency, Method 18 was substituted as the method performed to collect the CH 4 . This modification to the test plan was agreed upon with the NCDER prior to the initiation of field activities. 3. 5.2 CH4 Sampling T rain The Method 18 sampling system consisted of (1) a single- point sampling probe ( placed in the center of the stack), (2) a n un - heated Teflon TM sampling line (kept to the minimum length required) , (3) a sampling lung with 15- liter Tedlar TM bag , and (4) a vacuum pump with regulator. Refer to Figure 4 for a schematic of the Method 18 sampling train.6 3. 5.3 Sampling Duration & Frequency Methane samples were collected simultaneously with the other gaseous pollutants measured. T he vacuum pump fl owrate was set to allow for a constant rate sample, collected for the duration of each test run. Analytical results for M18 are located in Appendix G. 3.6 TOT

AL HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS (USEP A METHOD 25A

) 3.6.1 Sampling Method Total hydrocarbon compound (T HC) emissions were evaluated using USEPA Method 25A, “Determination of Total Hydrocarbon Emissions fr om Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Method)”. T he THC analyzer utilizes a fl ame ionization detector (FID). The FID measures total hydrocarbon compounds. 3.6.2 THC Sampling T rain DECS ’ EPA Method 25A sampling system consisted of (1) a single- point sampling probe ( placed in the center of the stack), (2) a heated Teflon TM sampling line, (3) a JUM 109A THC gas analyzer, (4) appropriate certified calibration gases, and (5) a ThermoWestronics Data Acquisition System. Refer to Figure 3 for a schematic of the THC sampling train. 3.6.3 Sampling T

rain Calibration In accordance with USEPA Method 25A, a 4 - point (zero, low, mid, and high) calibration check was performed on the THC analyzer. T he analyzer was calibrated in the 0 - 1 ,600 ppm range. Calibration drift checks were performed at the completion of each run. 3.6.4 Sampling Duration & Frequency The THC gaseous emission testing was performed simultaneously with the O 2 , CO 2 , NOx, and CO sampling. D ata was recorded at 4 -second intervals and average over 1 - minute periods .7

3. 7 QA

/QC AND POST TEST PROCEDURES 3. 7 .1 Quality

Control and Assurance (O2, CO2, NOx, and CO) All sampling and analytical equipment was calibrated according to the guidelines referenced in Methods 3A, 7E, and 10. Calibration gases were EPA Protocol 1 gases and the concentrations were within the acceptable ranges (40 -60% mid range and span) specified in Methods 3A and 7E. Calibration gas certification sheets are located in Appendix B. DTE performed converter efficiency testing by directly challenging the NOx analyzer with a nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) calibration gas of 51.5 ppm. Results fr om the converter efficiency test demonstrated that the analyzer met the requirements of Method 7E (Eq. 1 )

. Eq. 1 % 5 . 91 5 . 51 1 . 47 2    v Dir NO C C Eff 3. 7 .2 Quality

Control and Assurance ( NMOC) The THC samplin g equipment was calibrated with propane (C 3 H 8 ) according to the guidelines referenced in Methods 25A. Calibration gases were EPA Protocol 1 gases and the concentrations were within the acceptable ranges (25-35% low range, 45-55% mid range and 80 - 100 span) . An analyzer response factor (RF) for CH 4 of 3 was applied to the CH 4 concentration i n the exhaust gas, as determined by Method 18. The CH 4 (as methane) is converted to CH 4 (as propane ) in order to subtract the CH 4 from the THC measured in the field (E q. 2 )

. Eq. 2 5 . 27 3 326 , 1 5 . 469 ) 4 ( 4 ) 8 3 (       

         

  RF

CH THC NMOC asCH ppm H asC PPM8 Calibration gas certification sheets are located in Appendix E . 3.8 DA

TA REDUCTION Data collected during the emissions testing was reported according to emissions limits specified in the facility’s Air Permit . N Ox, CO, and NMOC emissions are reported as parts per million, corrected to 15% O 2 . Emissions calculations are based on calculations located in USEPA Method 1 -4, 7E, 10, 18, and 25A. The results are located in the Results Tables . The test program included the collection of generator load (kW ) , engine speed (RPM), inlet manifold air pressure (psi), fuel upper heating value (BTU), fuel fl ow (scfm) and generator operating hours (k W- hour) . Operational data are located in Appendix F . 4.0 OPERA

TING P AR AMETERS9

5.0 RESUL

TS The Results of the testing indicate that Units 1 & 2 are in compliance with North Carolina Air Permit No. 08634T03 and EPA sub- part JJJJ.

. Emissions Testing Summary Iredell Transmission, LLC Statesville, NC Units 1 & 2 November 5, 2008

(1) ppm , corrected to 15% O 2

Unit 1 Load

(%) Oxides of

Nitrogen (1) (ppm) Carbon

Monoxide (1) (ppm) NMOC (1)

(ppm) Test 1 97.0 56.1 410.6 10.5 Test 2 96.7 55.9 403.6 12.2 Test 3 96.9 56.5 410.3 12.2 Average 56.2 408.1 11.6 Unit 2 Load

(%) Oxides of

Nitrogen (1) (ppm) Carbon

Monoxide (1) (ppm) NMOC (1)

(ppm) Test 1 96.9 54.8 426.6 15.4 Test 2 97.1 55.1 429.4 13.9 Test 3 97.5 54.7 427.6 19.6 Average 54.9 427.9 16.3 Permit Limit

(1) 160 540 8610

6.0 CERTIFICA

TION ST ATEMENT “I certify that I believe the information provided in this document is true, accurate, and complete. Results of testing are based on the good faith application of sound professional judgment, using techniques, factors, or standards approved by the Local, State, or Federal Governing body, or generally accepted in the trade. ”

_________________________________ Mark R. Grigereit, QSTI

This report prepared by: Mr. Mark R. Grigereit , QSTI Specialist, Stationary Source & Ambient Monitoring Environmental Management and Resources DTE Energy Corporate Services, LLC This report reviewed by: Mr. Mark Mullen Supervisor, Stationary Source & Ambient Monitoring Environmental Management and Resources DTE Energy Corporate Services, LLCRESULTS TABLE SFIGURESAP PENDIX A NCD ER TEST PLAN AND AP PROVAL LETTERAP PENDIX B EQUIPMENT AND AN ALYZ ER CALIBRA TION DA TAAP PENDIX C EXAM PLE CALCULAT IONSEXAMPLE CALCULAT IONS

Note: answers obtained by sample calculations may deviate from that presented within the report because of rounding differences. UNIT 1 – RUN 2 USEPA METHOD 4 Moisture Content

Wh ere: V

wc = volume of wate r vapor condensed in impingers at standard conditions (ft3 ) K 1 = 0.04707 ft3/mL water V 1 = volume of water collected in impingers (mL) V wsg = volume of water vapor collected in silica gel at standard conditions (ft3 ) K2 = 0.04715 ft3/g water V2 = mass of water collected by silica gel (g) For example, 72 g of water were condensed in the impingers and the silica gel. T he volume of water collected in each section of the sampling train, in ft3 , was calculated as follows: (Note: Impingers and silica gel we re weighed)

The total volume of water collected was 3.3948 ft3

.

1 1 V K V wc  

2 2 V K V wsg  



##   3

3 ft

0000 . 0 mL 0 mL ft 04707 . 0 

         wc V 

##   3 3 ft

3948 . 3 2g 7 g ft 04715 . 0 

         wsg VGas Volume Standardization

Wh ere: Vstd = volume of gas sampled at standard conditions

Vm = volume of gas measured by dry gas meter (ft3 ) Ym = dry gas meter correction factor (dime nsionless) Tstd = standard temperature (o R = 460 + o F) P std = standard pressure (“Hg) P b = barometric pressure (“Hg)  H = average orifice differential pressure (“H 2O) T m = average meter temperature (o R) For example, the volume of gas measured at the dry gas meter for of the moisture sampling was 22.990 ft3

. T he dry gas meter correction factor was 0.972. Standard temperature and pressure are 530 o R and 29.92”Hg, respectively. T he barometric pressure at the time of testing was 29.29”Hg. T he aver age orifice differential, and meter temperature were 1.70 and 532.72 o R, respectively. T he volume of gas sampled was corrected to standard conditions as follows:                        m b std std m m std T H

P P T Y V V 6 . 13



#     standard , ft 66 . 21 72 . 532 Hg

" O H " 6 . 13 O H 1.70" Hg " 29 . 29 Hg " 92 . 29 530 972 . 0 ft 990 . 22 3 o 2

2 3                              R R V o stdMoisture Fraction

Wh ere: Bws = exhaust gas moisture content For example, from p reviously calculated values, the exhaust gas moisture fr action was calculated as follows:
Absolute Stack Gas Temperature, Ts (o R)

s s 

### t T   460 Wh ere: ts = Measured stack gas temperature (o F) For example, the average stack temperature was 944.8o F. The average temperature in degrees Rankine is therefore 944.8+ 460 = 1,404.8 o R. Absolute Stack Gas Pressure, P s (in. Hg)

        6

. 13 stat bar s P P P Wh ere: P bar = Barometric pressure at test site (in. Hg)

P stat = Stack static pressure (in. Hg) For example, the barometric and stack static pressures were 29.29”Hg, and –0.76” H 2O, respectively. The absolute stack pressure is then: Hg P s " 23 . 29 6 . 13 76 . 0 29 . 29 

     

   std

wsg wc wsg wc ws V

V V V V B 

  

1355 . 0 ft 66 . 21 ft 3948 . 3 ft 3948 . 3 3 3 3    B wsStack Gas Molecular Weight, Dry Basis (lb/lb mole)



### ) % (% 28 . 0 ) (% 32 . 0 ) (% 44 . 0 2 2 2 

### CO

N O CO M d 

###     For example, the average O 2 content of the exhaust gas stream was 7.6%. The CO 2 content of the gas stream was 11.9%. T he CO content was assumed to be negligible, and the N 2 content is assumed to make up the balance of the gas content (i.e. 100 -7.6- 11.9-0.0 -0.0 = 80. 5%). The dry stack gas molecular weight is therefore: 

### mol lb lb 21 . 30 %) 5 . 80 ( 28 . 0 %) 6 . 7 ( 32 . 0 %) 9 . 11 ( 44 . 0     d 

### M Stack Gas Molecular Weight, Wet Basis (lb/lb mole) 

###             

  100

18 100 1 ws ws d s 

### B

B M M The stack gas moisture content for at the stack exhaust was 13.55%. Th e wet stack gas molecular weight is then: 

### mol lb lb 68 . 28 100 55 . 13 18 100 55 . 13 1 mol lb lb 21 . 30              

  s 

### M Stack Gas Velocity, V s (fpm)

s s s p p s 

### M

P T P C K V 

       min sec 60 Wh ere: Kp = Pitot tube constant equal to 85.49 ) . )( ( )

. )( / ( sec 2 O

H in R Hg in mole lb lb ft o  C p = Pitot tube coefficient, dimensionless  P = The average square root of the velocity head of stack gas (in. H 2O) M s = Molecular weight of the stack gas, wet basis (lb/lb mole)For example, fl owrate testing at the boiler stack exhaust, the average square root of

the velocity head of the stack gas was 1. 7148 ”H 2O. Using values already calculated, the average stack gas velocity was calculated as follows:



##    

#       

#     min 564 , 9 mol lb lb 68 . 28 . 23 . 29 8

. 1404 7148 . 1 84 . 0

. . mol lb/lb sec 49 . 85 min sec 60 2 

### ft

Hg in R O

H in R Hg in ft V

o o s



###                       

Average Stack Gas Volumetric Flo wrate, Qs (cfm) A V Q s s   Wh ere: Vs = Stack gas velocity (fpm)

A = Cross-sectional area of stack (ft 2 ) For example, the exhaust stack has a 1 6 ” diameter. T he cross-sectional area of the stack is calculated as follows:

2 2 396 . 1 ft R   T he stack gas volumetric flowrate was then calculated as follows:



#   min

354 , 13 396 . 1 min 564 , 9 3 2 ft ft ft Q s 

       
Standa rd Stack Gas Volumetric Flowrate, Qstd (scfm) 

###                  Hg

in P T R Q Q s

s o s std



### .

92 . 29 530 Wh ere: Ts = Absolute stack gas temperature (o R)

P s = Absolute stack gas pressure (in. Hg)For example, the standard stack gas volumetric flowrate was calculated as follows: 

### standard , min 922 , 4

. 92 . 29 . . 23 . 29 8 . 1404 530 min 354 , 13 3

3 

### ft

Hg in Hg in R R ft Q o o std 

###                   Dry Standard Stack Gas Volumetric Flowrate, Qstd,dry (dscfm) 

##   ws std dry std B Q Q

  1 , For example, the dry standard stack gas volumetric flowrate was calculated as follows: 

##   dry standard , min 256 , 4 1355 . 0 1 * standard , min 922 , 4 3

3

, ft

ft Q dry std    USEPA METHODS 3A, 7E, AND 10 An aly zer Drift Correction 

#   

      

   o

m ma o C C C C C C Wh ere: C = Effluent gas concentration, dry basis (ppm).

C = Average gas concentration indicated by gas analyzer, dry basis (ppm).

o C = Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses for the zero gas (ppm).

ma C = Actual concentration of the upscale calibration gas (ppm).

m C = Average of initial and fina l system calibration bias check responses for the upscale calibration gas (ppm). For example, the average of the initial and final NOx outlet zero gas calibration checks was 2.1 ppmv. T he average of the initial and fi nal NOx midscale gas calibration checks was 190. 85 ppmv. T he actual concentration was 191.8 ppmv. The average outlet NOx concentration indicated by the gas analyzer was 1 26.2 ppmv. The actual stack gas NOx concentration, corrected for analyzer drift, is then:

##   ppm

C 1 . 126 1 . 2 85 . 190 8 . 191 1 . 2 2 . 126       

   Conce ntration Standardization to 15% Oxygen

Wh ere: %O 2 = measured exhaust gas oxygen content (%)

C' NOx = NOx concentration (ppmv) For example, the measured exhaust gas oxygen content for Run 2 was 7.6 %. T he N Ox concentration (C’ NOx) was standardized to 15% oxygen as follows:

USEPA METHOD 18 & 25A

For example, the measured concentration of methane (per Method 18) was 1,326 ppm (as CH 4 ) . The results must be converted to parts per million (as C3 H 8 ).

Therefore, the non - methane organic compounds (NMOC) are determined as follows:
The NMOC concentration is then corrected for 15% O 2 following the same procedure used for Methods 7E and 10.        

  2

% 9 . 20 9 . 5 ' O C C NOx x NO

oxygen 15% @ NO ppmv 9 . 55 6 . 7 9 . 20 9 . 5 ppmv 1 . 126 ' x       

  NOx C

3 ' ) ( 4 ) ( 4 asmethane

CH aspropane CH C C 

0 . 442 3 326 , 1 ' ) ( 4   aspropane CH C

ppm ppm ppm NMOC 5 . 27 0 . 442 5 . 469 

 AP PENDIX D FLOWRA

TE AND MOISTURE DA TAAP PENDIX E RA W ANALYZER DA

TAAP PENDIX F OPERA TIONAL DA

TAAP PENDIX G AN ALYTICAL DA

TA