P. 1



# OAR Box 1784 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 52 ) ll-B-1 1 Docket Number: 

# A--84-4 4

Printed 10/31/2008 8:05:40 AM Sheet 52 of 143P. 2



### ^ i 

### °> .

' o

\ PROl t 0 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic e o f Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1



### 6 MA Y198 6 MEMORANDU M SUBJECT : Hydroge nSulfid e Continuou s Emissio nMonitor s a t Refinerie s

(86CEM02 ) FROM : Fosto nCurtis , Tes t Suppor t Sectio n_ £ Emissio nMeasuremen t Branch , ESE D (MD-19 ) TO : Roge r Shigehara , Chief , Tes t Suppor t Sectio n

Emissio nMeasuremen t Branch , ESE D (MD-19 ) Th e availabl e dat a onhydroge nsulfid e (H£S ) continuou s emissio n monitorin g system s (CEMS ) ha s bee nobtaine dandreviewed . Th e Bay Are a Ai r Qualit y Managemen t Distric t (BAAQMD ) submitte dtes t result s o f eigh t CEMS' s unde r it s jurisdiction . Th e test s consiste do f cylinde r ga s audit s administere do

na quarterly

basis . Th e dat a covere dperiod s rangin g fro m 1 t o 5 year s an

dinformatio ndetailin g instrumen t dow ntim e wa s included . Testin g t o determin e instrumen t calibratio ndrif t wa s no t performed . Anothe r repor t discussin g th e certificatio no f a nH2 S CEM S a t a Tacom a refinery wa s obtaine dthroug hth e Industria l Studie s Branch . Th e CEM S wa s certifie dfollowin g th e procedure s o f Performanc e Specification s (PS's ) 2 an d5 ; Metho d1 1 serve da s th e referenc e method . A summary o f th e dat a i s show

ni nTable s 1 an

d2 . I nTabl e 1 , th e BAAQMD result s sho w

a wid e rang e o f accuracie s fo r th e tw o CEM S type s tested . Accurac y

wa s calculate da s percen t differenc e betwee nth e CEM S result s an

dth e audi t ga s value . Difference s greate r tha n2 0 percen t constitute da failure . Accuracie s determine di nthis manne r ar e les s stringen t onth e CEM S tha naccurac y determination s mad e a s prescribe di n th e PS's . Eve nso , th e averag e failur e rat e o f seve ncompanie s usin g a Traco r Atlas CEM S wa s 2 4 percen t fo r 3 8 tests . Th e on e company usin g a Genera l Monitor s CEM S average da 5 7 percen t failur e rat e fo r 2 3 tests . Th e instrumen t dow

ntime percentage s ove r th e data-gatherin g period s wer e 3. 1 fo r th e Traco r Atla s and0 fo r th e Genera l Monitor s CEMS's . Th e certificatio ntes t a t th e Tacoma refiner y evaluate da Traco r Atla s CEM S followin g PS' s 2 an dfiv e guidelines . Th e relativ e accurac y (RA ) wa s 9. 8 percen t (Tabl e 2 ) andth e 7-da y calibratio ndrif t (CD ) average d 1. 4 percent . Individua l drif t dat a fo r eac ho f th e 7 day s wa s no t reported , bu t th e C D wa s calculate db y th e procedur e i na forme r versio no f P S 2 wherei nth e averag e dail y drif t plu s th e confidenc e interva l wer e divide db y th e instrumen t spa nvalue .P. 3

Thes e dat a set s ar e to o limite d t o se t practica l PS's ; bu t the y show that , a t leas t i nsome cases , acceptabl e performanc e ca nb e obtaine d from some CEMS' s i nth e field . Accordin g t o th e sourc e review lea d engineer , BAAQMD contacts , and othe r personne l i nth e refiner y industry , very littl e dat a o

nCEM S calibratio ndrif t andR A testin g agains t standar d method s i s available . A meetin g wa s hel d t o discus s th e statu s and futur e activit y fo r thi s project . Sinc e availabl e dat a i s \ery limite dan

d contracto r resource s ar e unavailable , i t wa s decide dtha t n o futur e wor k shoul d be planned , and th e projec t shoul db e terminated . 2 Attachment s c : Larr y

Elmor e (MD-13 )P. 4

Tabl e 1

. Fiel d Dat a Summar y
Analyze r Tracor Atla s

*

Aver .
Genera l Monitor s Company

Tosc o Shel l Pacifi c Huntwa y Exxo n Unio n Chevron ig e Chevro n Tota l

CGA' s 7 7 6 4 7 4 3 5. 4 2 3 Faile d CGA' s U 1 1 1 2 2 2 1. 3 1 3 % •Faile d U 1 4 1 7 2 5 2 9 50 67 2 9 5 7 % Downtim e 1 1 3. 2 1. 1 0. 2 1. 1 1. 9

-_-__ - 3. 1 0 Yr s o f downtim e

dat a 5 2 3 2 4 4 0 3. 3 b

•Percen t differenc e > 2U %P. 5

a _

Tabl e 2 . Tacom a CEM S R

ADat a
Ru n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mea n 

### s d Metho d 1 1 Result s

bb. 3 bl. 3 60. 5 18. U 19. 6 lb. 7 i.2. 5 21. 8 19. 1 31. 5 CEM S Result s 63 . b bl. U 61 . U 2U. 0 2U. 0 22 . U 22 . b 22. 0 22. 5 33. 8 Differenc e

8. 2 '-U. 3 0. 5 2. 0

- U. 4 6. 3 U 0. 2 3. 4 2. 4 2. 9

C C = (2.3U6 ) (2.9 ) = 0.74 3

9

R A= (2.4 ) + (U.743 ) = 9#8 %

31 . b