United States EPA-600/7»81-122b
Environmental Protection
Agency July 1981
Research and
Development
COMBUSTION MODIFICATION CONTROLS
FOR STATIONARY GAS TURBINE
Volume H. Utility Unit Field Test
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA 600/7-81-122b
July 1981
COMBUSTION MODIFICATION CONTROLS FOR STATIONARY GAS TURBINES
VOLUME II. UTILITY UNIT FIELD TEST
by
R. Larkin and E. B. Higginbotham
Acurex Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94042
Contract No. 68-02-2160
Project Officer
J. S. Bowen
Combustion Research Branch
Energy Assessment and Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
ABSTRACT
This test report describes the methods and results of an
environmental assessment test program conducted at Houston Lighting and
Power's T. H. Wharton Generating Station, Unit 52. The purpose of the
test program was to measure changes in emissions as a result of applying
NO controls. Emissions of trace elements, organic materials, sulfur
X
species, and the criteria pollutants, SCL, NO , CO, and particulate
u, A
matter, were measured. Comparisons of these emissions under normal
operating conditions and controlled (for NO ) operating conditions were
A
then made. Source operating data were also analyzed so that changes in
operating parameters and efficiency could be assessed.
Unit 52 is a General Electric MS 7001C simple-cycle, single-shaft,
heavy duty gas turbine rated at 70.8 MW nominal electrical output. This
gas turbine may use either natural gas or distillate oil fuels. The test
program was conducted using oil fuel.
Water injection was used for NO control. A water-to-fuel ratio
A
of 0.42 resulted in a 58 percent reduction in NO from baseline levels.
X
Changes in other emissions were within the limits of the analyses.
Operating efficiency decreased with water injection. The unit heat
rate showed approximately 2 percent change in going from baseline to
controlled (for NO ) operation.
X
The test program concludes that using water injection for NO
X
control in this unit reduced NO and showed little effect on other
/\
emissions. Water injection implementation did reduce operating efficiency.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. C. E. Miller
and the staff of Houston Lighting and Power's T. H. Wharton Generating
Station and Mrs. Nancy Fitzroy and L. B. Davis of the General Electric
Company in conducting this field test program.
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 PLANT DESCRIPTION 2-1
3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES 3-1
3.1 Sampling Protocol 3-1
3.1.1 Feed Streams 3-2
3.1.2 Flue Gas 3-2
3.2 Analysis Protocol 3-8
3.2.1 Inorganic Analysis 3-8
3.2.2 Organic Analysis 3-8
3.2.3 Bioassay 3-8
4 TEST PROGRAM RESULTS 4-1
4.1 Unit Operation 4-1
4.2 Fuel Analysis 4-3
4.3 Exhaust Gas Emissions 4-3
4.3.1 Gaseous Emissions 4-5
4.3.2 Particulate Emissions 4-8
4.3.3 Trace Element Characterization and Emissions . . 4-9
4.3.4 Organic Analyses 4-10
4.3.5 Bioassay 4-15
4.3.6 Conclusions 4-15
5 SUMMARY 5-1
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A — FUEL ANALYSIS A-l
APPENDIX B - TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION -- ppm ... B-l
APPENDIX C -- TRACE ELEMENT FLOWRATES ~ kg/min .... C-l
APPENDIX D — TRACE ELEMENT FLOWRATES ~ MCG/Joule . . D-l
APPENDIX E — TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION ~
MCG/DSCM E-l
APPENDIX F - ORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS F-l
APPENDIX G - GENERAL ELECTRIC TEST RESULTS G-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Section Page
APPENDIX H -- ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES .......... H-l
APPENDIX I — BIOASSAY RESULTS ............ I'1
VI
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
2-1 Model Series 7001 Simple-Cycle, Single-Shaft Heavy-
Duty Gas Turbine 2-2
3-1 Exhaust Duct Configuration and Sampling Location . . . 3-3
3-2 Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) Schematic . . 3-6
3-3 SASS Analysis Protocol 3-7
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 NOX EA Field Test Program 1-2
2-1 Unit 52 Rated Operating Parameters „ 2-3
3-1 Instrumentation Used by General Electric 3-4
3-2 Sample Analysis 3-9
3-3 General Electric Calculated Operating Data 3-10
4-1 Unit 52 ~ Operating Conditions 4-2
4-2 Calculated and Measured Exhaust Gas Flowrates ~
m3/s (106 SCFH) 4-4
4-3 Gaseous Emissions Results ~ ppmv at 15 percent dry . . 4-6
4-4 Sulfur Species Emissions 4-6
4-5 Sulfur Balance 4-7
4-6 Particulate Emissions 4-8
4-7 Trace Element Partitioning ~ Solid Phase/Vapor
Phase 4-11
4-8 Trace Element Mass Balance ~ Outlet (g/min)
Inlet (g/min) 4-12
4-9 TCO and GRAV Analyses Results of the XAD-2 Extract . . 4-14
4-10 Infrared Spectra Analysis Results — XAD-2 Extract,
Baseline Test 4-16
4-11 Infrared Spectra Analysis Results — XAD-2 Extract,
Water Injection Test 4-17
4-12 GCMS Results -- XAD-2 Extract — Baseline Test .... 4-18
4-13 GCMS Results — XAD-2 Extract ~ Water Injection
Test 4-18
4-14 Compounds Screened for in GCMS Analysis of XAD-2
Extracts 4-19
vin
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report is part of a series of test reports resulting from the
experimental testing task of the "Environmental Assessment of Stationary
Source NO Control Technologies" Program (NO EA), being performed
!\ A
under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract 68-02-2160. The
NO EA is a 3-year program to: (1) identify the multimedia
A
environmental impact of stationary combustion sources and combustion
modification NO controls; and (2) identify the most cost-effective
A
environmentally-sound NO controls for attaining and maintaining current
/\
and projected N02 air quality standards to the year 2000.
During the first year of the NO EA a preliminary environmental
A
assessment (Reference 1) concluded that emissions and operating data
needed to perform adequate process engineering and environmental
assessment activities were severely lacking in several key areas. Most
noteworthy was the virtual absence of data on noncriteria flue gas
emissions and liquid and solid effluents. In response to these identified
data needs, seven field test programs were initiated. Source selection
was based on a source/control priority listing developed in the
preliminary environmental assessment. These test programs were designed
to provide information on changes in emissions and operation due to NO
controls. The NO EA Field Test Program is outlined in Table 1-1.
t\
The test program documented in this report was conducted on Unit 52
of the T. H. Wharton Generating Station of the Houston Lighting and Power
Company in Houston, Texas from April 21-24, 1978. Unit 52 was selected
because its design is typical of large scale simple cycle utility gas
turbines equipped with water injection and because of the possibility of
collaborating with the engine manufacturer in detailed process evaluation
tests. Unit 52 is a General Electric Model MS 7001C simple-cycle,
single-shaft, heavy duty gas turbine rated at 70.8 MW nominal electrical
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1.
N0x EA FIELD TEST PROGRAM
I
ro
Source Category
Coal -fired
Utility Boiler
Coal -fired
Utility Boiler
Oil-fired
Utility Boiler
Description
Kingston 16; 180 MU
tangential; twin
furnace, 12 burners/
furnace, 3 elevations;
cyclone, 2 ESP's for
participate control
Crist 17, 500 MW
opposed wall fired; 24
burners, 3 elevations;
ESP for part leu late
control
Moss Landing *6, 740 MW
opposed wall fired; 48
burners, 6 elevations
Test Points
(Unit Operation)
Baseline
Biased Firing (2)
BOOS (2)
Baseline
BOOS (2)
Baseline
FGR
FGR + OFA
Sampling Protocol
Continuous NOX, S02, CO,
C02, 02
Inlet to 1st ESP:
- SASS
- Method 5
— Method 8
— Gas grab (Ci-C6 HC)
Outlet of 1st ESP:
~ SASS
- Method 5
— Method 8
— Gas grab (Ci-C6 HC)
Bottom ash
Hopper ash (1st ESP,
cyclone)
Fuel
Operating data
Continuous NOX, CO
CO?. 0?
ESP Inlet
- SASS
— Method 5
— Method 8
-- Gas grab (Cj-C6 HC)
ESP outlet
- SASS
— Method 5
- Method 8
- Gas grab (C\-C6 HC)
Bottom ash
ESP hopper ash
Fuel
Operating data
Bioassay
Continuous NOX, CO,
C02, 02
Flue gas
- SASS
— Method 5
-- Method 8
— Gas grab (Ci-Ce HC)
Fuel
Operating data
Bioassay
Test
Collaborator
TVA
Exxon
New test
start
Status
Complete,
August 1977
Complete,
June 1978
Complete,
September 1978
EE-073
-------
TABLE 1-1. Continued
Source Category
Coal -fired
Industrial
Boiler
Coal-fired
Industrial
Boiler
Oil-fired
Gas Turbine
Description
Traveling grate spreader
stoker, 38 kg/s
(300,000 Ib/hr);
ESP for part leu late
control; wet scrubber
for SOX control
Traveling grate
spreader stoker,
25 kg/s (200.000 Ib/hr)
ESP for parti cul ate
T.H. Uharton Station,
60 MM GE MS 7001 C
machine
Test Points
(Unit Operation)
Baseline
LEA + high OF A
Baseline
LEA + High OFA
Baseline
water Injection
to meet proposed
NSPS
Sampling Protocol
Continuous NOX. CO,
CO?, 02
Boiler exit:
- SASS
- Method 5
- Shell-Emeryville
-- Gas grab (Ci-Cg HC)
ESP outlet:
- SASS
— Method 5
- Shell-Emeryville
-- Gas grab (Ci-C6 HC)
Bottom ash
Cyclone hopper ash
Fuel
Operating data
Continuous H0x> CO,
CO?, 0?
Boiler exit:
-- SASS
— Method 5
- Shell-Emeryville
— Gas grab (Ci-Cc HC)
ESP Outlet:
-- SASS
— Method 5
-- Shell-Emeryville
- Gas grab (CrC6 HC)
Bottom ash
ESP hopper ash
Fuel
Operating da,ta
Bloassay
Continuous NOX, CO,
COZ, 02
Exhaust gas:
~ SASS
- Method 5
-- Method 8
Fuel
Water
Operating data
Test
Collaborator
1
KVB
KVB
General
Electric
Status
Complete,
October 1977
Complete,
February 1978
Complete,
April 1978
EE-073
-------
TABLE 1-1. Concluded
Source Category
Oil -fired
Residential
Heating Unit
Description
Blue Ray low NO,
furnace, Medford,
New York
Test Points
(Unit Operation)
Continuous
Cycling
Sampling Protocol
Continuous NO., CO,
C02, Oz
Flue gas:
- SASS
— Method 5
— Method 8
Fuel
Test
Collaborator
New test
start with
EPA/IERL-RTP
Status
Complete,
November 1977
EE-073
-------
output. Through the cooperation of the Houston Lighting and Power Company
and the General Electric Company, this unit was made available for testing
in the NO EA Field Test Program.
A
The test program at the T. H. Wharton Station consisted of a
baseline (normal operation) test and a test with water injection being
used for NO control. The test program results will be used in both
A
process analysis and source assessment modeling, conducted as part of the
Environmental Assessment and Process Engineering Task of the NO EA.
A
1-5
-------
SECTION 2
PLANT DESCRIPTION
The field tests were conducted on Unit 52 of the T. H. Wharton
Generating Station of the Houston Lighting and Power Company in Houston,
Texas. Unit 52 is a General Electric Model MS 7001C (Figure 2-1)
simple-cycle, single-shaft, heavy-duty stationary gas turbine rated at
70.8 MW nominal electrical output and is one of six such units at the
Wharton Station. The Station also has eight GE 7001B combined cycle
units, one Westinghouse 15 MW unit and two conventional steam boilers
producing a total rated electrical output of 280 MW.
Unit 52 is fired with No. 2 distillate fuel oil with 0.11 percent
sulfur by weight and approximately 46.054 x 103 kJ/kg (19,800 Btu/lb)
heat content. Table 2-1 lists the rated operating parameters of the
unit. There is no flue gas cleaning equipment on a turbine of this type
due to the clean fuel used and the unit's inherent efficient combustion.
Unit 52 is, however, equipped with a water injection system used to
control the formation of NO within the combustion chambers. NO
J\ y\
formation is repressed when atomized water is injected directly into the
primary zone of the combustor resulting in reduced flame temperatures.
The degree of NO control is adjusted by altering the quantity of water
/\
injected — the more water injected the greater the degree of control.
The first test on Unit 52, a baseline test, was run with no water
injected. The second test was run while 2.52 I/sec (40 gpm) water was
being injected. This corresponds to a water to fuel mass ratio of
approximately 0.42, a ratio sufficiently high to bring NO emissions to
/\
within 75 ppm at 15 percent Og which is the level of the proposed New
Source Performance Standards.
2-1
-------
ro
TC-7509A
Figure 2-1. Model series 7001 simple-cycle, single-shaft heavy-duty
gas turbine.
-------
TABLE 2-1. UNIT 52 RATED OPERATING PARAMETERS
Output power 70.8 MW
Overall pressure ratio 10.5
Heat rate 11.44 MJ/kWh (10,847 Btu/Kwh)
Air flow 268 kg/sec (592 Ib/sec)
Fuel flow 5.2 kg/sec (11.5 Ib/sec)
2-3
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
The sampling and analysis procedures used in the test program
closely follow the procedures recommended in the IERL-RTP Level 1
Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual (Reference 2). The following
subsections will contain notations of where the procedures differ
significantly from the standard methods. Level 1 testing, according to
EPA's phased environmental assessment approach, is for screening
purposes. Through chemical and biological tests potential problem areas
and needs for further analysis are identified. Furthermore, Level 1
testing provides the basis for setting priorities for discharge streams,
components, and classes of materials for further consideration in an
overall environmental assessment. Thus, the results of the sampling and
analysis procedures used in Level 1 are semiquantitative, yielding an
accuracy factor of _+ 2 to 3.
All analyses for trace elements, organic species, particulates and
sulfur species in the Method 5/8 and SASS trains and water samples were
performed in the Acurex analytical laboratory. Commercial Testing and
Engineering Company analyzed the fuels and the bioassay analyses were
performed by Litton Bionetics, Incorporated.
3.1 SAMPLING PROTOCOL
In order to effectively evaluate how emissions of compounds and
pollutant species are affected by the use of water injection, all influent
and effluent streams must be characterized during the baseline and water
injection tests. The following streams on Unit 52 were sampled:
• Water feed (water injection system)
• Fuel feed
• Exhaust gas
3-1
-------
Ambient air was not sampled. Descriptions of the specific sampling
methods are given in the following paragraphs. Figure 3-1 shows the duct
configuration and the location of the sampling ports.
3.1.1 Feed Streams
Water Feed
Samples of the demineralized feed water from the water injection
purification system were periodically sampled throughout the five hour
duration of the NO control test. Samples were tapped off the inlet
A
lines preceeding the combustor section and then composited into one
integrated sample for each run.
Fuel Feed
Fuel oil samples were obtained for both tests. Samples were tapped
off the fuel inlet lines, collected throughout the test period and finally
composited into one integrated sample for each test. Sampling of the fuel
feed commenced one hour into the test run, then approximately once for
each 90 minute period throughout the test.
3.1.2 Flue Gas
The flue gas was monitored on a continuous basis during both test
runs for C^, CC^, NO, total NOX, total unburned hydrocarbons and
CO. The continuous monitoring was provided by General Electric (GE)
personnel and equipment. Table 3-1 lists the instrumentation used by
General Electric. All sample lines were of Teflon construction and heated
to 450 K (350°F) to assure the integrity of all sampled species. The
sample flow was filtered to remove particulate matter and then split into
two streams. One stream supplied the nitrogen oxides instrument and the
total hydrocarbon monitor, while the other supplied the nondispersive
infrared (NDIR) instruments and the paramagnetic oxygen analyzer. The
latter stream was further conditioned in a saturator and refrigerated
dryer before connecting to the C02, CO and 02 analyzers. All monitors
were frequently zeroed and calibrated with certified gases.
All continuous gaseous sampling was done through a single point
probe located in the center of the exhaust duct approximately 1m (40 inches)
upstream of the main row of sampling ports used for the SASS and Method
5/8 sampling.
3-2
-------
CO
CO
M ft/ft
Figure 3-1. Exhaust duct configuration and sampling location.
-------
TABLE 3-1. INSTRUMENTATION USED BY GENERAL ELECTRIC
Instrument Technique Measuring Range
Unburned hydrocarbons: Flame ionization 5 ppm - full scale to
Beckman Model 402 detector 25% - full scale
NO and N02: Chemiluminescence 0-10 ppm 0 - 1,000 ppm
Beckman 955 0 - 25 ppm 0 - 2,500 ppm
0 - 100 ppm 0 - 10,000 ppm
0 - 250 ppm
02'. Paramagnetic 0 - 15%
Beckman Model F3 13% - 18%
16% - 21%
0 - 25%
CO: Nondispersive 0-50 ppm
Beckman 315B infrared 0 - 200 ppm
0 - 500 ppm
C02: Nondispersive 0-5%
Beckman 364 infrared 0 - 10%
0 - 15%
3-4
-------
Particulate and Sulfur Species
Particulate and sulfur species in the flue gas were collected
simultaneously with one sampling train ~ a combined EPA Method 5 and
Method 8 train. Such a system collects particulate samples on a filter
heated to 394 K (250°F) in a conventional Method 5 arrangement. But
rather than the conventional Method 5 water filled impinger train, the
modified train employs a Method 8 impinger train containing isopropanol to
remove SO^ and hydrogen peroxide to remove SC^. Particulate sulfate
(S04 ) is also collected with this system. One run was completed for
each test.
Cg-Cg Hydrocarbons
Flue gas grab samples were collected in evacuated glass grab
flasks. These samples were chroma to graphed onsite to determine C-, to
Cg hydrocarbon compounds. A Carle Model 8500 portable gas chromatograph
with a flame ionization detector was used for this analysis.
Source Assessment Sampling System
A Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) train was used to sample
the gas turbine exhaust gas. The SASS train was conventional in every way
except that cyclones were not used to classify the particulate by size. A
single fiberglass mat filter was used to collect the small amounts of
particulate produced. A special oil cooled probe was used to maintain the
sample tube temperature at 394 K (250°F). This SASS train arrangement
generates the following samples:
Particulate: filter 99.99 percent efficient for particulate
greater than 0.2 m.
Vapor phase: 1) XAD-2 porous polymer resin sorbent cartridge
2) Aqueous condensate
3) Hydrogen peroxide impinger
4) Ammonium persulfate-silver nitrate impingers
These samples were analyzed for trace elements and organic species to give
both vapor and condensed phase composition.
A schematic of the SASS train is shown in Figure 3-2. The analysis
protocol is given in Figure 3-3.
3-5
-------
GO
I
FILTER
CAS CCKXCR
OA5
UMPERATURf
l.C.
cyclones
(not used
for tests)
IMP/COOUR
TRACI
COLUCIOR
CONDfNSATf
COtllCIOR
DRY CAS MfUR ORIFICE Mf Iff!
CfHIRAllZfO HMPlRAT'Jtt
AND PRtSSUSC RfAOOUT
CONIROL MODUU
TWO ian3/mm VACUUM PUMPS
Figure 3-2. Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) schematic.
-------
IU* CYCLONE
MOM. AMD
NOULf WAJM
1
ORV AND
WtlOH
tfl*i CYCLONE
oust
1
DESICCATE
AND WClOH
JttCVCLONC
WASH
1
DRY AND
WEIOH
3,1 CYCLONE
OUST
1
oestccAif
AMD WEiOH
I* CYCLONE
WASH
1
DHY AND
WEIGH
ItiCTClUNt
SAMPLE
1
DESICCATE
AND WEIGH
flllER HOiOtH
WASH
1
DRY AND
WCtGH
rttifn
1
OESICCAIE
AND WEIGH
CO
1
ORGANIC
WODULE
nmsc
INC
AGIO OH
PAW)
OlOESTKM
CMLUTE TO
III OR IW**
AA
ANALWlB
\Hf
03*
ET
T»ON
b
1
1
COUtWtt
ID
coMfcrtf IK
AND * llTEII
1 1
PROCEED AS
(NOtCATEO
[
1
ACtO OR
PARA
OtOESTION
|
DILUTE TO
M OH MOrai
AM
AA
U.Y9H
COUtMNE
EKCCS5 rtLIEH
KTASH WITH
Oflif D WASH
|T|
OH Of
ASH*
1
AGIO on
fJUVt
DIGESTION
FH.IEH
|
PAHM
ototsriON
RLTER
—
OMJTC lo
ID Of) 100ml
HEM
HOMOGeNIZE
1
UMOER
|
»OAMLEI
CXTKACTKM
OtaCb
MEASUflE
VOiUME
ICO
AMALTSW
C»CM
COMBINE
-
)-4g REMOVED
•
PARA ACtO
CHGCSriON
AA
ANALVStS
COMCCNTRATE
A3 NECESSARY
(K-DI
ICO
AHALVS
c.-c-
OHO
LA
COUBHC
5
-
IR
ANALYSIS
-
ALIQUOT
ton IR
i
EVAPORATE
S-lO (U
wflOH
DISSOLVE IN
CHiCti
1C
-
ALIQUOT
FOR ic d
—
SOLVENI
eUCHANCE
TO HEXANt
SECOND AND
THIRD
IUPINGER
i \i i r
DH.UIE EACH
TO KNOWN
VOLUME
EACH fflACIMJ
ICO ANO GAAV
IR ON ORAV SAMPLE
LHAtS BT 8ATCM AMD PROBE
Figure 3-3. SASS analysis protocol
-------
3.2 ANALYSIS PROTOCOL
Table 3-2 lists the analyses performed on the samples collected
during both tests. Descriptions of these analyses are given in the
following paragraphs.
In addition, machine operating data were collected by General
Electric personnel. Sufficient data were taken during both tests so that
airflow rates and the operating condition of the machine could be
established. A detailed field test report submitted by General Electric
is contained in Appendix G. In summary, GE treats operating data,
information on gaseous emissions, fuel composition, machine geometry and
internal flow splits, using a data analysis program which calculates
machine operational characteristics. Table 3-3 illustrates the kind of
information that can be obtained. This program proved an excellent means
of crosschecking actual flue gas measurements as well as checking
calculation methods against each other.
3.2.1 Inorganic Analysis
Trace element analyses for 23 selected trace elements were
performed on the fuel, injected water, flyash, SASS XAD-2 and SASS
impinger solutions. The procedure used to determine each trace element is
outlined in Appendix H. Proximate and ultimate analyses were done on the
fuel samples.
3.2.2 Organic Analysis
Organic analyses were performed in accordance with EPA Level 1
protocol (Reference 2). These analyses included C,-Cg hydrocarbons in
the flue gas, organic material condensed on the ash samples, and organic
material caught in the XAD-2 sorbent trap and condensate trap.
3.2.3 Bioassay
Bioassays were performed on the SASS train XAD-2 extract sample
from the water injection test. Microbial mutagenesis and cytotoxicity
assays were performed by Litton Bionetics, Incorporated.
3-8
-------
TABLE 3-2. SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Baseline Low NOX
Test/Analysis no water injection with water injection
Fuel
Proximate and ultimate X X
Trace elements X X
Water
Trace elements X
Organic material X
SASS train - outlet
Trace elements X X
Organic material X X
Method 5/8 — outlet
Particulate X X
Sulfur species X X
Flue gas
02, C02, NOX, NO, CO X X
and total unburned hydrocarbons X X
Cl-Cs hydrocarbons X X
3-9
-------
TABLE 3-3. GENERAL ELECTRIC CALCULATED OPERATING DATA3
Calculation
Method
Measured
Calculated
Factory test flow Fuel flow and composition,
airflow during factory
test, inlet guide vane
position, ambient
conditions
Choked flow
Oxygen
concentration
C02
concentration
Compressor discharge
pressure and temperature,
first stage nozzle area,
fuel flow and composition.
02, fuel flow and
composition
C02, fuel flow and
composition
Machine airflow, 02,
C02, water in
exhaust, turbine inlet
temperature.
Machine airflow, 02,
C02, H20, turbine
inlet temperature.
Machine airflow, C02,
H20, turbine inlet
temperature.
Machine airflow, 02,
H20, turbine inlet
temperature.
aSee Appendix G
3-10
-------
SECTION 4
TEST PROGRAM RESULTS
Data from the test program provided information on unit operation,
effluent gaseous composition, particulate emissions, trace element
emissions, sulfur species emissions and organic material emissions.
4.1 UNIT OPERATION
Unit 52 operated under steady-state conditions at rated continuous
load and with operating parameters nominally the same for both the
baseline (no water injection) and the NO control (with water injection)
3\
test. The load for each test was approximately 62 MW electrical generator
output. Table 4-1 lists the process operating conditions and parameters
during each test. The only significant difference between Test 1 and
Test 2 is that Test 2 had water injection while Test 1 did not. Since it
is fairly easy to duplicate engine operating conditions in a gas turbine,
one can be reasonably confident in comparing emissions from tests where
only the one variable, water injection rate, was changed.
The operating variable readings were recorded on an hourly basis
throughout the tests. The results shown in Table 4-1 are an average of
those values. The actual data sheets can be found in Appendix 6.
One of the most significant penalties resulting from the use of
water injection for NO control is the reduction in unit thermal
^
efficiency or increased heat rate manifested as increased fuel consumption.
As indicated in Table 4-1, the unit heat rate increased 2.4 percent with
water injection at a water/fuel ratio equal to 0.42. This is because a
portion of the fuel is required to vaporize the injected water. These
effects on heat rate and fuel consumption are quite typical (Reference 3).
Most users have reported heat rate penalties ranging from 2 to 5 percent,
depending on the water to fuel ratio.
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. UNIT 52 -- OPERATING CONDITIONS
Ambient barometric pressure - mm Hg (in. Hg)
Ambient temperature -- dry bulb — K (°F)
Relative humidity
Compressor discharge pressure PCQ ~
kpa (psia)
Compressor discharge temperature Trn --
K (OF)
Speed (rpm)
Inlet guide vane angle (IGV degrees)
Load (MW)
Turbine exhaust temperature — K (op)
Water injection rate -- liters/sec and (gpm)
Water/fuel ratio
Fuel temperature ~ K (°F)
Fuel flow — liters/sec and (gpm)
Atomizing air pressure — kpa (psia)
Atomizing air temperature — K (OF)
Combustion efficiency (%)
Exhaust flow — m3/s (10^ SCFH)
Compressor inlet flow ~ kg/s (Ibm/sec)
Fuel/air ratio
Heat rate — MJ/kWh (Btu/Kwh - based on LHV)
Baseline
755 (29.74)
295 (71.2)
83.6
593 (607)
3600
77
61.9
809 (997)
0
0
295.4 (71.7)
5.93 (94.0)
1372 (199)
473 (392)
99.9
Injection
756 (29.79)
301 (82.0)
58.7
915 (132.7) 901 (130.7)
602 (624)
3600
77
61 = 5
813 (1000)
2.52 (40)
0.42
298 (76.4)
6.03 (95.6)
1372 (199)
471 (387)
99.9
205.4 (26.14) 200.9 (25.52)
253 (556.7) 255.7 (562.7)
0.0190
0.0196
12.55 (11,892) 12.84 (12,173)
4-2
-------
As noted in Section 3.2, 6E personnel recorded operating data and
monitored unit operation throughout the test program. In addition 6E also
evaluated recorded data using an in-house data analysis code. This
program can be used to calculate inlet airflow and exhaust gas flow (in
addition to other parameters -- see Table 3-3) using gaseous emissions
data and other operating information. Four different calculational modes
are possible, as outlined in Table 3-3. Calculated exhaust gas flowrates
for each test, using the program, are listed in Table 4-2 for each of the
calculation methods. Agreement among the methods is excellent (within one
percent). Also shown in Table 4-2 are measured exhaust gas flowrates
obtained by performing an EPA Method 5 velocity traverse across the
exhaust duct. As indicated, measured rates are approximately 55 percent
greater than calculated rates. This was not unexpected, though. The
exhaust duct configuration was such that gas flow obstructions (i.e.,
bends) were very close to the sampling location, thus accurate velocity
measurements were very difficult to obtain. In an attempt to equalize the
effects of a poor sampling location, 42 sampling points were sampled.
Nevertheless, measured gas flowrates were still unreasonably high due to
the highly variable velocity readings.
Thus all exhaust flowrate values reported herein, including those
noted in Table 4-1, are calculated values, averaged over the four possible
calculational methods.
4.2 FUEL ANALYSIS
Duplicate proximate and ultimate fuel analyses were performed by
General Electric and Commercial Testing and Engineering (CT&E). General
Electric's results are reported in Appendix G. CT&E's analysis is
reported in Appendix A. Results from both analyses were very similar and
typical of distillate fuel oil. In addition, a trace element analysis of
the fuel oil was performed as part of the mass balance and reported in
Concentration and mass flowrate units in Appendices B-E.
4.3 EXHAUST GAS EMISSIONS
Exhaust emissions were tested for gaseous species, particulate
emissions, sulfur species, trace elements and organic material emissions.
Gaseous species were measured by General Electric personnel on a
continuous basis throughout both tests. A combined EPA Method 5/8 train
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-2. CALCULATED AND MEASURED EXHAUST GAS FLOWRATES — m3/s (106 SCFH)
Test No.
1
2
GE -- Calculated Values3
Factory Test Choked Oxygen C02
Flow Flow Concentration Concentration
203.8
(25.9244)
199.3
(25.3136)
205.3
(26.1206)
201.0
(25.5280)
207.2
(26.3644)
202.5
(25.7149)
205.8
(26.1828)
220.5
(27.9991)
Average
205.4
(26.1481)
200.9
(25.5188D)
Measured
316.4
(40.2632)
311.4
(39.6247)
aSee Appendix G for explanation of calculations
^Exhaust gas flowrate calcualted by the C02 concentration scheme
not included in average. COg values believed to be affected
by moisture in flue gas.
EE-074
-------
was used to simultaneously sample particulates and sulfur species. A
Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) was used to collect samples for
analysis of trace elements and organic material. This section presents
the results of these analyses.
4.3.1 Gaseous Emissions
Total NOX, NO, 02, C02, CO and total unburned hydrocarbons
(UHC) were measured at a single point in the exhaust duct. Supporting
tests conducted by General Electric, reported in Appendix G, have
concluded that emissions of NOX and 02 can be reliably and accurately
measured from a single sampling point. However, species that are present
only in very low concentrations, UHC for example (ppmv <2), require a
traverse of the duct when sampling.
Table 4-3 presents gaseous emissions data in a form summarized from
the General Electric report in Appendix G. With regard to the proposed
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for stationary gas turbines, there
are two things of importance to note from this information. First, with
water injection operating at a water/fuel weight ratio of 0.42, NO
J\
emissions were reduced by 58 percent from the baseline levels ~ from
177.5 to 74.2 ppm at 15 percent 02 dry. This controlled level is within
the NSPS proposed level of 75 ppm. The second item to note is that S02
emissions are substantially below the proposed NSPS level of 150 ppmv at
15 percent 02< The S02 values for Unit 52 were calculated directly
from the fuel sulfur content assuming 100 percent conversion. The
calculated value for S02 concentration, which assumes all fuel sulfur is
converted to S09, is reasonably close to the measured total SO emission
£ A
concentration (within 30 percent) as determined by the Method 8 analysis.
The results of the sulfur species analysis are shown in Table 4-4.
The data show that the actual emission levels of sulfur species, as well as
the S02/S0.j ratio, are not significantly affected by the use of water
injection for NO control. Table 4-5 shows the results of a sulfur
x\
balance across the gas turbine. The quantity of sulfur recovered in the
flue gas was approximately 70 percent of the inlet sulfur. Duplicate fuel
oil sulfur analyses gave a sulfur content of approximately 0.11 percent, so
inlet sulfur calculations should be correct. Consequently, the source of
the inconsistency probably lies in the Method 8 sampling train and
subsequent analysis.
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-3. GASEOUS EMISSIONS RESULTS -- ppmv at 15 percent 02 dry
Baseline Water Injection
NOX
CO
C02(%)
SO? ^
UHCb
175.5
5.6
4.1
19.5
2.3
74.2
8.1
4.3
20.5
3.5
Calculated from fuel sulfur assuming
100 percent conversion to S02
bppmv wet as CH4
TABLE 4-4. SULFUR SPECIES EMISSIONS
Test
Baseline
Water Injection
Species
SOa
S03
S04
S02
S03
S04 a
Emissions
ppmv dry
11.7
1.1
1.2
12.7
1.8
--
yg/m3
3.12 x 104
3.48 x 103
4.61 x 103
3.37 x 104
6.04 x 103
—
kg/mi n
0.385
0.043
0.057
0.407
0.073
—
y9/J
0.029
0.003
0.004
0.030
0.005
—
aSample destroyed
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-5. SULFUR BALANCE
Baseline
Water Injection
Sulfur Input
Fuel feedrate (kg/s)
Fuel sulfur content (% by wt.)
Total sulfur input (kg/s)
4.85
0.11
5.33 x 10-3
4.96
0.11
5.50 x 10-3
Sulfur Output
S02 (kg/s)
S03 (kg/s)
S04 (kg/s)
Total sulfur output (kg/s)
6.42 x 10-3
0.72 x 10-3
0.95 x 10-3
3.83 x 10-3
6.78 x 10-3
1.22 x 10-3
3.83 x 10-3
Sulfur recovery at outlet
72%
70%
An increase in emissions of unburned species due to lowered peak
flame temperatures, is generally associated with the use of water
injection for NO control. During the NO control test on Unit 52
A X
average emissions of CO and UHC increased 54 and 52 percent respectively.
While the increases seem significant, the actual emission concentrations
for CO and UHC are still very low (<10 ppm) when water injection is being
used.
Onsite analyses of C, to Cg exhaust gas hydrocarbons were
conducted for both the baseline and the water injection tests. The test
results show that in the baseline test, C, to Cg hydrocarbons were
6.5ppm at 15 percent Q^ wet* characterized as methane. In the water
injection test, C, to Cg hydrocarbon emissions were Ippm at 15 percent
Og wet, characterized as methane. These results are in general
agreement with the total unburned hydrocarbon emissions measured by the
continuous monitor.
4-7
-------
4.3.2 Participate Emissions
Particulate emissions for Unit 52 are shown in Table 4-6. As
expected from a gas turbine burning distillate fuel oil, particulate
emissions were very low, on the order of 0.0037 to 0.0042 kg/s as measured
by the EPA Method 5 train. However, correlation between particulate
emission rates from the EPA Method 5 train and the SASS train is poor.
SASS measurements are almost a factor of 10 lower. This is not surprising
however, when one considers that a SASS train is run at a single point in
the exhaust duct. In a duct such as that of Unit 52, where flow patterns
are irregular due to the duct configuration, particulate matter can be
highly stratified. Furthermore, since particulate matter generated in a
gas turbine will be very small in size, it will have a greater tendency to
stratify with a strong bias to high velocity regions. Since the SASS
train is required to operate at a point of average velocity, away from the
high velocity regions, particulate capture is expected to be considerably
lower in the SASS train than in the Method 5 train, which fully traverses
the duct cross section, as this gives representative results.
TABLE 4-6. PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Method
Method
SASS --
SASS —
Test
5 — Baseline
5 — Water injection
Baseline
Water injection
Particul
kg/s
4.2 x 10-3
3.7 x 10-3
0.45 x 10-3
0.97 x 10-3
ate Emissi
yg/ Joule
.019
.016
.002
.004
ons
yg/DSCM
572
509
63
137
While according to the Method 5 measurements, particulate emissions
dropped with water injection, the reduction was not significant. Water
injection then appears to have little effect on particulate emissions.
This is supported by data presented in Reference 3.
4-8
-------
4.3.3 Trace Element Characterization and Emissions
Fuel oil, injected water and flue gas samples were collected and
analyzed for selected trace elements for the baseline and water injection
tests. Grab samples were taken for the oil and water. The flue gas was
sampled by using a SASS train. The detailed results of these analyses are
presented in Appendices A through F.
The probe wash and the filter have been combined into one sample,
as have the aqueous condensate and the first impinger. The XAD-2
cartridge was analyzed independently and the second and third impingers
were combined into one sample as outlined in the Level 1 procedures manual
(Reference 2).
Solid And Vapor Phase Trace Element Partitioning
The SASS train allows determining both solid phase and gas phase
composition. Solid phase species are collected in the probe, cyclones,
filter and interconnecting tubing, while the vapor phase species are
collected in the organics module or the impinger portions of the SASS
train. All SASS train components up to the filter are maintained at
394-478K (250 - 400°F). From there, the flue gas goes to the organics
module, where it is cooled to approximately 293 K (68°F) and passed
through a cross linked porous polymer resin (XAD-2) cartridge. From this
section, two samples are generated: the condensate and the XAD-2 sorbent
extract. From the organic module, the flue gas goes through an impinger
train. The first impinger contains hydrogen peroxide and the second and
third impingers contain silver nitrate-ammonium persulfate solutions. For
trace element analysis, the organic module aqueous condensate sample is
combined with the hydrogen peroxide impinger sample to form one sample for
analysis. Thus three samples representing vapor phase composition are
analyzed: the XAD-2, the aqueous condensate and hydrogen peroxide
impinger solution, and the combined silver nitrate-ammonium persulfate
impinger solution.
To determine whether a particular trace element was concentrated in
the solid or vapor phase, trace element flowrates (kg/s) were compared.
In order to partition the samples as to whether they were solid or vapor,
the following partitioning criterion was used: trace elements were
4-9
-------
considered to be preferentially concentrated in the vapor phase if their
vapor phase concentrations were at least twice their solid phase
concentrations. The partitioning results are shown in Table 4-7 for
elements where sufficient data to determine partitioning were obtained.
Elemental Mass Balance
A trace element mass balance was performed across the gas turbine
system using emissions flowrate data from Appendix C. Table 4-8 presents
the results of the mass balance. In general and where sufficient data are
available, the element mass balances are within the reliability of the
Level 1 sampling and analysis procedures which are assumed to be
quantitative within a factor of 2 to 3. Zinc and copper are somewhat
outside of these boundaries but not significantly so. Iron, as measured
at the outlet for both tests, far exceeds the amount entering the turbine
as contained in the fuel oil and injected water. It is possible that the
source of this excess iron is rust and scale coming loose from the
internal gas turbine ductwork and being captured in the SASS train. The
analysis of the fuel for iron was supported by a duplicate analysis
performed by GE (Appendix G).
Effects Due to NO Control
/\
It appears that the use of water injection to control NO
A
emissions has an insignificant effect on trace element emissions. Outlet
emissions of all trace elements analyzed remained within a factor of three
when comparing the baseline and water injection emission flowrates. Also,
water injection has an insignificant effect on trace element emissions
with respect to solid/vapor phase partitioning. For those elements where
sufficient data were available, the solid/vapor partitioning remained
virtually the same.
4.3.4 Organic Analyses
Organic analyses were performed on selected samples according to
the EPA Level 1 protocol (Reference 2). Any differences from the Level 1
protocol will be noted in the following discussion. The analytical
laboratory data are reported in Appendix F.
As recommended by Level 1 analysis procedures the samples were
first extracted with methylene chloride in a Soxhlet apparatus. A Total
Chromatographable Organic (TCO) and a gravimetric (GRAV) analysis were
then performed on the sample extracts. This analysis separates each
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-7. TRACE ELEMENT PARTITIONING — SOLID PHASE/VAPOR PHASE
Baseline Water Injection
Arsenic X V
Barium X V
Beryllium X V
Cadmium V V
Chromium V EQ
Copper V V
Iron V V
Lead V EQ
Manganese X V
Mercury V X
Nickel V S
Thallium X V
Vanadium V V
Zinc X S
EQ -- Material partitioned equally between vapor and solid phase
S ~ Material preferentially concentrated in solid phase
V — Material preferentially concentrated in vapor phase
X — Insufficient data
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-8. TRACE ELEMENT MASS BALANCE — OUTLET (g/min)/INLET(g/min)
Baseline Water Injection
Boron <1 1.2
Cadmium .62
Chromium .24 >3
Cobalt -- <1
Copper >5 >7
Iron >100 >100
Lead .26 44
Mercury .16 1.4
Nickel >.7 >2
Selenium <.l
Vanadium >.3 >.6
Zinc 3.5 4.6
4-12
-------
sample extract into two separate samples having definite boiling point
ranges. The TCO fraction contains species with boiling points in a range
from 373 K to 573 K. Those species with boiling points above 573 K are
contained in the gravimetric sample.
An infrared spectrophotometric (IR) analysis was also performed on
the total sample extracts. This aided in the identification of functional
organic groups within the complex sample mixture. The organic material in
the sample extract was not sufficient to warrant separation by liquid
chromatography with further analyses of the fractions eluted. The total
sample extracts were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
(SCMS) for specific polycyclic organic molecules and priority pollutants.
C^ to Cg hydrocarbon compounds were analyzed onsite by gas
chromatography. The same set of organic analyses was performed on the
samples from the baseline and the water injection test. A discussion of
the analytical results follows.
Total Chromatographable Organics (TCO) and Gravimetric Analyses (GRAV) of
Organic Extracts'
Total Chromatographable Organics (TCO) and Gravimetric Analyses
(GRAV) were performed on the XAD-2 resin extracts from the baseline and
water injection tests. The extract samples were combined with the organic
portion of the sorbent module condensate. The results from these analyses
are shown in Table 4-9. Three conclusions can be drawn from these
results. First, virtually all of the organics in the flue gas can be
found in compounds with the boiling point ranging from 373 K to 573 K.
Second, there is little effect on the distribution of compounds, with
regard to the boiling point, between the baseline and water injection
test. Third, the use of water injection has a very small effect on the
total amount of organics in the sample extract, decreasing the quantity by
approximately 6 percent.
Infrared Spectra of Total Extracts
The results of the infrared spectral analyses done on the total
XAD-2 sample extracts for the baseline and water injection test are shown
in Tables 4-10 and 4-11 respectively. Comparison of the wave numbers and
assignments (as well as the spectra themselves) indicate that the organics
were almost identical for both tests. Both spectra indicate that the
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-9. TCO AND GRAV ANALYSES RESULTS OF THE XAD-2 EXTRACT
1
Test
Baseline
Water
injection
Sample Type
XAD-2
extract
XAD-2
extract
Gravimetric
Result (mg)
0.6
<0.1
TCO
Result (mg)
27.5
26.3
Total Organics
in Extract (mg)
28.1
26.3
Total Organics
Concentration (mg/m^)
1.33
Lib
I
I—•
-fc.
aBased on sample volume = 20.9
on sample volume = 23.2
EE-075
-------
principal constituents were an ester or a carboxylic acid and an alcohol.
Unsaturated compounds and/or aromatic groups were also present although
the intensity of the bands suggest that they may not be part of the
principal constituents.
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (6CMS) Analysis of Total Extracts
Liquid column separation and low resolution mass spectrometry were
not performed on the sample extracts because an insufficient sample volume
remained after concentration. However, the sample extracts were analyzed
by GCMS. Specific compounds were identified and quantified with this
technique.
Tables 4-12 and 4-13 show the GCMS results for the baseline and
water injection tests. Table 4-14 lists the specific compounds which were
analyzed with the GCMS.
4.3.5 Bioassay
Mutagenicity and cytotoxic evaluations were performed on the XAD-2
extract sample from the water injection test. Results from the Ames
salmonel la/microsome plate test show the sample nonmutagenic. Results of
the cytotoxicity assay indicate the extract has low toxicity to WI-38
human cells and that the viability index showed an EC50 value would be
obtained at approximately 152 liters gas/ml. Complete results and
supporting data are located in Appendix I.
4.3.6 Conclusions
The use of water injection for NO control on Unit 52 appears to
A
have little effect on organic emissions. Neither the total organics, as
reported in the TCO and GRAV analyses, nor the species and classes of
organics charged significantly from the baseline test to the water
injection test.
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-10. INFRARED SPECTRA ANALYSIS RESULTS - XAD-2 EXTRACT,
BASELINE TEST
Wave Number
(cm-1)
3400-3500
2960, 2920,
2850
1720-1700
1600
1450
1370
1260
1070-1090
800
710
Intensity3
S
S
S
w
M
M
S
M
W
W
Assignment
0-H
C-H
C=0
c=c
-CH3 bending
-0- bending
Unassigned
Unassigned
Unassigned
Comments
Broad peak
Aliphatic
Carbonyl possibly ester
Unsaturated, aromatic
Methyl groups
Possibly methyl
Ether/ester
Broad peak
Possibly aromatic
Substitution bands
Possibly aromatic
Substitution bands
Intensity: S - strong, M - medium, W - weak
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-11. INFRARED SPECTRA ANALYSIS RESULTS -- XAD-2 EXTRACT,
WATER INJECTION TEST
Wave Number
(cm-1)
3400-3500
2960, 2920,
2850
1690-1720
1600
1450, 1460
1380
1260
1070-1100
800
710, 700
Intensity3
S
S
S
W
M
M
S
S
M
M
Assignment
0-H
C-H
C=0
C=C
-CH3
-0-
Unassigned
Unassigned
Unassigned
Comments
Broad peak
Aliphatic
Carbonyl broad
Unsaturated, aromatic
Methyl band
Possibly methyl
Ether/ester
Broad peak
Possibly aromatic
Substitution bands
Possibly aromatic
Substitution bands
Intensity: S - strong, M - medium, W - weak
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-12. GCMS RESULTS -- XAD-2 EXTRACT -- BASELINE TEST
Compound
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatea
Other phthalates
Phenanthrene/anthracene3
Dlphenyl ether
Phenol
Concentration (ug/m3)b
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
Confirmed by comparison with standard
^Based on sample volume = 20.9 nH
TABLE 4-13. GCMS RESULTS - XAD-2 EXTRACT ~ WATER INJECTION TEST
Compound
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaiatea
Other phthalates
Phenanthrene/anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Terphenyl
Diphenylcyclohexane
(2 isomers)
Phenol
Naphthalene
Concentration
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
5.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
aBased on sample volume = 23.2
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-14. COMPOUNDS SCREENED FOR IN GCMS ANALYSIS OF XAD-2 EXTRACTS
Compound
Representative
m/e Values
Compound
Representative
m/e Values
7,12 dimethyl benz (a) anthracene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene*
Benzo (c) phenanthrene
3-methyl cholanthrene
Benzo (a) pyrene*
Dibenzo (a,H) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,1) pyrene
Dibenzo (c,g) carbozole
Fluoranthene*
Pyrene*
Anthanthrene
Benz (a) anthracene*
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene*
Benzo (e) pyrene
Perylene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Diphenyl ether
Dibenzofuran
Fluorenone
Naphthoquinone
Xanthone
Xanthene
Quinoline
Phenol
256
278
228
268
252
302
302
267
202
202
276
228
276
252
252
128
152
154
166
170
168
180,152
158,130
196,168
182,181
129
94,65
Methylnaphthalene
Biphenyl
Phthalic Anhydride
Nitronaphthalene
Dibenzothiophene
Alkanes
Decalin
Anthracene*
Phenanthrene*
42,127
154
148,104
173,115
184,139
57,71
67,138
178
178
Contained in standard mixture.
EE-T-057
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY
Exhaust emissions sampling and analysis was performed on Houston
Lighting and Power's Unit 52 at the T. H. Wharton Generating Station in
Houston, Texas from April 21-24, 1978. Unit 52 is a General Electric
Model MS 70001C simple-cycle, single-shaft, heavy-duty gas turbine rated
at 70.8 MW nominal electrical output and fired with distillate oil fuel.
The unit is equipped with a water injection system for controlling NO
A
emissions. The purpose of the tests was to determine the effectiveness of
water injection in reducing NO and to assess the effects that water
A
injection has on emissions other than NO . In addition, operating
A
parameters were recorded so that effects on turbine operation due to water
injection could also be observed.
One baseline test (without water injection) and one water injection
test, under nominally similar operating conditions, were performed. A
summary of the results is presented below.
Unit Operation
The use of water injection did not appear to have any significant
impact on unit operations other than an increase in heat rate of
approximately 2 percent. This results from some of the fuel heat content
being used to vaporize the water. A water/fuel weight ratio of 0.42 was
used to reduce NO emissions to a level just below the proposed New
X
Source Performance Standard (NSPS) of 75 ppm for stationary gas turbines.
A higher or lower water/fuel ratio would respectively raise or lower the
resulting heat rate. No other significant operational effects were
observed as a result of water injection.
Emissions
Exhaust emissions were measured for changes resulting from the use
of water injection for NO control. Gaseous, particulate, sulfur
A
species, trace element and organic species emissions were evaluated.
5-1
-------
Total N0x, NO, CO, 02> C02 and total unburned hydrocarbons
were measured by continuous monitoring. With water injection operating at
a water/fuel weight ratio of 0.42, NO emissions were reduced 58 percent
A
from the baseline levels — from 177.5 to 74.2 ppmv NO at 15 percent
A
0? dry. S0~ emissions are wholly determined by the fuel sulfur
content and are not affected by water injection. Changes in emissions of
CO and total unburned hydrocarbons were within the limits of the
analyses. Particulate emissions were very low due to the clean fuel and
efficient combustion and did not change significantly with the use of
water injection.
It appears that the use of water injection to control NO
A
emissions has an insignificant effect on trace element emissions.
Furthermore, water injection was found to have little effect on trace
element emissions with respect to solid/vapor phase partitioning.
Comparisons of organic species emissions between the baseline and
water injection test indicate that water injection has little effect on
these emissions. Neither the total organics nor the species and classes
of organics changed significantly.
Bioassay tests on the XAD-2 extract from the water injection test
showed the exhaust gas to be nonmutagenic and of low toxicity as determined
by the Ames Salmonella/microsome plate test and the WI-38 cytotoxicity
test respectively.
5-2
-------
REFERENCES
R-l
-------
REFERENCES
1. Mason, H. B., et al_., "Preliminary Environmental Assessment of
Combustion Modification Techniques: Volume II, Technical Results,"
EPA-600/7-77-119b, October 1977.
2. Lentzen, D. E.f et al., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1
Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)," EPA-600/7-78-201, October
1978.
3. Goodwin, D. R. e_t ^1_., "Standard Support and Environmental Impact
Statement. Volume 1: Proposed Standards of Performance for
Stationary Gas Turbines, EPA-450/2-77-017a, NTIS-PB 272 422/7BE.
R-3
-------
APPENDIX A
FUEL ANALYSIS
A-l
-------
PART III - Section No. 1
Table
Parameter
Moisture
Vnlatilp Mattpr
V U 1 u U 1 1C (Id l> UCI
Ash
P ay»Kr>n
Out L/WII
Sulfur
BTU (per Ib.)
Specific Gravity at
Table
Parameter
Moisture
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Chlorine
Sulfur
Oxygen (by diff.)
TOTAL
No. 1 - Proximate Analysi;
Concentration in Wt. %
Baseline
10.01
0.01
0.10
19849
6QOF 0.833
No. 2 - Ultimate Analysis
Concentration in Wt. %
Baseline
10.01
0.01
81.98
13.16
0.11
0.14
0.10
4.5
100.00
s
Water
Injection
10.01
10.005
0.12
19751
0.831
Water
Injection
10.01
0.005
84.91
13.25
0.17
0.13
0.12
1.42
100.00
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS — ppm
B-l
-------
Symbols appearing in the tables:
DSCM Dry Standard Cubic Meter
ESP Electrostatic Precipitator
kg Kilogram
MCG Microgram
min Minute
ppm Part per million by weight
< Less than
* Sample not analyzed for the particular element/or ionic
specie
N Sample not analyzed
Concentration in the sample less than the concentration in
the blank
B-3
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - IPPM> - FUEL
DO
I
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO WATER
< .600
< i.oo
< .700
< .300-01
< .too
69.0
.900
2.90
< .200-01
< .too
< .300-01
13.0
< .100*00
.700
< 1.00
< .100-01
3.00
< .600
< 2.00
< 3.00
< 7.00
< 1.00
< 3.00
a.70
< 15.0
WATER INJECTION
< .800
< 1.00
< .700
< .300-01
< .MOO
53.0
< .600-01
< .lOOtOO
.500-01
< .too
< .300-01
2.20
< .100+00
.600
< 1.00
< .100-01
< 2.00
< .600
< 2.00
< 3.00
< 7.00
< 1.00
< 5.00
7.10
< 17.0
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - ippn» - WATER
CD
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO WATER WATER INJECTION
.700-02
.200-01
.400-02
.200-03
.200-02
3.00
.HOO-03
.600-03
.100-03
.300-02
.300-03
.190
.100-03
.660-02
.160
.100-03
.200-01
.600-02
.900-02
.200-01
.600-01
.000
.200-01
.760-01
.000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
-------
(JAS TUKBINt
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (PPM» - UNIT OUTLET
DUST SAMPLE
oo
cr>
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE) NO WATER
< 10,0
30.0
< 7.00
,600
< 2.00
< .400+04
6.50
260.
.500
160.
21.0
150.
< .100+00
< ,900
< 9.00
3.00
< 30.0
< 10.0
< 20.0
< 300.
< 60.0
* .000
S7.0
.540+05
* .000
WATER INJECTION
< 10.C
40.0
36.0
2.90
< 2.00
< .300+04
7.10
210.
6.60
77,0
190.
660.
.400
< ,900
< 7.00
33.0
20.0
a.oo
30.0
.2604-04
50.0
.000
45.0
.630*05
.000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - tPPH) - UNIT OUTLET
XAD-2 CARTRIDGE
co
l
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE. NO WATER
< .700
< 2.00
< .600
< .200-01
< .300
< 370.
< .400-01
< .500-01
< .600-02
2.60
11.0
15.0
< .600-02
.440
< .900
< .800-02
< 2.00
< .600
< 2.00
< 2.00
< 5.00
* .000
4.00
< .600
* .000
WATER INJECTION
< .600
< 2.00
< .600
< .200-01
< ,400
< 360.
< .400-01
< .600-01
< .600-02
6.60
19.0
2.40
< .600-02
4.30
< .900
< .800-02
< 2.00
< .600
< 2.00
< 2.00
< 6.00
* .000
10.0
4.00
* .000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (PPM) - UNIT OUTLET
FIRST IMPINGER
CO
i
OO
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE! NO WATER
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
*
<
*
.600-02
.300-01
.500-02
.200-03
.100-02
3.00
.200
.200
.100-03
.390
.210
.300-01
.700-01
.700-03
.150-01
.210-02
.100-01
.600-02
.500-02
.200-01
.400-01
.000
.700-02
.560
.000
WATER INJECTION
< .500-02
< .300-01
< .100-02
< .200-03
< .500-02
< 3.00
.370-02
.630-01
< .200-03
.370
.210
.160-01
< .100-03
< .100-02
< .600-02
.210-02
< .100-01
< .600-02
< .600-02
< .200-01
< .500-01
* .000
< .100-01
.530
* .000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION -
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
•ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINEi NO WATER
<
<
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* •
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.500-02
.300-01
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.500-02
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
WATER INJECTION
.600-02
.300-01
.000
.000
,000
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.300-02
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
-------
APPENDIX C
TRACE ELEMENT FLOWRATES -- kg/min
C-l
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (KG/MINI - FUEL
i
to
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINEi NO WATER
< .235-03
< .294-03
< .206-03
< .883-05
< .118-03
.203-01
.265-03
.853-03
< .588-05
< .118-03
< .883-05
.382-02
< .294-04
.206-03
< .294-03
< .294-05
.883-03
< .235-03
< .588-03
< .£83-03
< .206-02
< .294-03
< .147-02
.256-02
< .441-02
WATER INJECTION
< .236-03
< .296-03
< .207-03
< .887-05
< .118-03
.157-01
< .177-04
< .296-04
.148-04
< .118-03
< .887-05
.650-03
< .296-04
.177-03
< .296-03
< .296-05
< .591-03
< .236-03
< .591-03
< .867-03
< .207-02
< .296-03
< .148-02
.210-02
< .502-02
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (KG/MINI - UATER
o
t
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
UERYLLIUN
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANAOIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO MATER
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
UATER INJECTION
< .103-05
< ,295-05
< .591-06
< ,295-07
< .295-06
< .'113-03
< .591-07
< .866-07
< .118-07
< .113-06
.281-01 f-
.118-07
.130-05
.236-01 \-
,118-07
,295-05
.606-06
.133-05
.295-05
,886-09
.000
.295-05
.115-01
.000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (KG/HIM) - UNIT OUTLET
OUST SAMPLE
o
i
en
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINEt NO WATER
< .165-05
.494-05
< .115-05
.989-07
< .330-06
< .659-03
.140-05
.429-04
.824-07
.264-04
.346-05
.247-04
< .165-07
< .148-06
< .146-05
.494-06
< .494-05
< .165-05
< .330-05
< .494-04
< .989-05
* .000
.939-05
.890-02
* .000
WATER INJECTION
< .143-05
.571-05
.542-05
.414-06
< .265-06
< .428-03
.101-05
.300-04
.942-06
.110-04
.271-04
.126-03
.571-07
< .128-06
< .999-06
.500-05
< .285-05
< .114-05
.428-05
.400-03
< .714-05
* .000
.642-05
.899-02
* .000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (KG/MIN) - UNIT OUTLET
XAU-2 CARTRIDGE
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO WATER
< .450-04
< .129-03
< .386-04
< .129-05
< .193-04
< .236-01
< .257-05
< .322-05
< .515-06
.160-03
.708-03
.965-03
< .515-06
.263-04
< .579-04
< .515-06
< .129-03
< .386-04
< .129-03
< ,129-03
< .322-03
* .000
.257-03
< .366-04
* .000
WATER INJECTION
< .459-04
< .115-03
< .344-04
< .115-05
< .229-04
< .206-01
< .229-05
< .344-05
< .459-06
.376-03
.660-03
.136-03
< .459-06
,246-03
< .516-04
< .459-06
< .115-03
< .344-04
< .115-03
< .115-03
< .344-03
* .000
.573-03
.229-03
* .000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION • (KG/MINI - UNIT OUTLET
FIRST IMPINGER
O
i
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IKON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURT
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINEi NO WATER WATER INJECTION
.470-05
.239-04
.390-05
.159-06
.319-05
.239-02
.159-03
,159-03
.797-07
.311-03
.167-03
.239-04
.550-07
.550-06
.120-04
.191-05
.797-05
.470-05
.390-05
.159-04
.319-04
.000
.550-05
.446-03
.000
.456-05
.274-04
.365-05
.102-06
.456-05
.274-02
.337-05
.575-04
.102-06
.337-03
.192-03
.146-04
.912-07
.912-06
.547-05
.192-05
.912-05
,547-05
.547-03
.102-04
.456-04
.QUO
.912-05
.403-03
.000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (KG/MINI - UNIT OUTLET
2ND 8 3RD IttPINGER
o
I
oo
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
OISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IKON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO UATER WATER INJECTION
<
<
*
*
*
*
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.537-05
.215-04
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.537-05
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
<
<
*
*
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<
*
*
*
*
*
4i
»
*
*
»
*
.I9t-05
.2M7-04
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.2H7-03
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
-------
APPENDIX D
TRACE ELEMENT FLOWRATES ~ MCG/Joule
D-l
-------
GAS TURBINE:
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (MCG/JOULE) • FUEL
O
CO
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO WATER
< .171-01
< .216-01
< .152-01
< .653-06
< .871-05
.150-02
.196-01
.631-01
< .135-06
< .671-05
< .653-06
.263-03
< .216-05
.152-01
< .216-01
< .216-06
.653-01
< .171-01
< .135-01
< .653-01
< .152-03
< .216-01
< .109-03
.169-03
< .327-03
WATER INJECTION
< .175-01
< .219-01
< .153-01
< .656-06
< .875-05
.116-02
< .131-05
< .219-05
.109-05
< .675-05
< .656-06
.161-01
< .219-05
.131-01
< .219-01
< .219-06
< .137-01
< .175-01
< .137-01
< .656-01
< .153-03
< .219-01
< .109-03
.155-03
< .372-03
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (MCG/JOULE) - WATER
o
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTinONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BOHON
CADMIUM
CHROniUH
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VAMAOIUH
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINEt NO WATER WATER INJECTION
.765-07
.219-06
.137-07
.219-08
.219-07
.326-01
.137-06
.656-06
.109-06
.326-07
.328-06
.206-05
.109-08
.962-07
.175-05
.109-08
.219-06
.656-07
.961-07
.219-06
.656-06
.000
.219-06
.653-06
.000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - JMCG/JOULE» - UNIT OUTLET
OUST SAMPLE
O
l
en
TRACE CLEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROniUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAO
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE. NO WATER
< .122-06
.366-06
< .855-07
.732-08
< .244-07
< .488-04
.104-06
.317-05
.610-08
.195-05
.256-06
.183-05
< .122-08
< .110-07
< .110-06
.366-07
< .366-06
< .122-06
< .244-06
< .366-05
< .732-06
* .000
.696-06
.659-03
* .000
WATER INJECTION
< .106-06
.423-06
.402-06
.307-07
< .211-07
< .317-04
.751-07
.222-05
.698-07
.814-06
.201-05
.930-05
.423-08
< .951-08
< .740-07
.370-06
< .211-06
< .846-07
.317-06
.296-04
< .529-06
* .000
.476-06
.666-03
* .000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - JMCG/JOULE> - UNIT OUTLET
XAD-2 CARTRIDGE
O
cr>
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
tJISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
2INC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO WATER MATER INJECTION
.334-05
.953-05
.286-05
.953-07
.143-05
.176-02
.191-06
.238-06
.381-07
.133-01
.521-04
.715-04
.381-07
.210-05
.129-05
.381-07
.953-05
.286-05
.953-05
.953-05
.238-01
.000
.191-04
.286-05
.000
.340-05
.819-05
.255-05
.819-07
,170-05
.153-02
.170-06
.255-06
.310-07
.280-04
.637-04
.102-04
.340-07
.183-04
.362-09
.340-07
.849-05
.255-05
.619-05
,819-05
.255-01
.000
.125-04
.170-04
.000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - «HC6/JOULE) - UNIT OUTLET
FIRST IMPINGER
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINEt NO WATER
< .354-06
< .177-05
.295-06
< .118-07
< .236-06
< .177-03
.118-04
.116-04
< .590-06
.230-04
.124-04
.177-05
< .413-08
< .413-07
.685-06
.142-06
< .590-06
< .354-06
< .295-06
< .118-05
< .236-05
* .000
< .413-06
.330-04
* .000
WATER INJECTION
< .338-06
< .203-05
< .270-06
< .135-07
< .336-06
< .203-03
.250-06
.426-05
< .135-07
.250-04
.142-04
.106-05
< .675-06
< .675-07
< .405-06
.142-06
< .675-06
< .405-06
< .405-06
< .135-05
< .336-05
* .000
< .675-06
.358-04
* .000
-------
GAS TUHBINt
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (MCG/JOULE> - UNIT OUTLET
2ND S 3RD IMPINGER
O
00
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO MATER UATER INJECTION
<
<
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.398-06
.159-05
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.396-06
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
<
<
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.366-06
.183-05
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
,oou
.000
.000
.000
.000
.183-06
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
,000
.000
.000
.000
.000
-------
APPENDIX E
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION — MCG/DSCM
E-l
-------
GAS TUKBINC
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION -
OUST SAMPLE
(MCG/DSCM) - UNIT OUTLET
i
CO
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINEi NO WATER WATER INJECTION
.133
.400
.934-01
.600-02
,267-01
53.4
.113
3.47
.667-02
2.13
,2flO
2.00
.133-02
.120-01
.120
.400-01
.400
.133
.267
4.00
,600
.000
.760
720.
.000
.110
.473
.449
,343-01
.236-01
35.4
.839-01
2.48
.760-01
.910
2.25
10.4
.473-02
.106-01
,827-01
.414
,236
.945-01
.354
33.1
.591
.000
.532
744.
.000
-------
GAS TUKBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (MCG/DSCM)
XAD-2 CARTRIDGE
- UNIT OUTLET
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
UARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MEHCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO WATER WATER INJECTION
3.64
10.4
3.12
.104
.193 + 04
.206
.260
.417-01
14.6
57.3
76.1
.417-01
2.29
4.69
.417-01
10.4
3.12
10.4
10.4
26.0
.000
20. ft
3.12
.000
3.60
9.49
2.65
.949-01
1.90
.171+04
.190
.265
.360-01
31.3
71.2
11.4
.360-01
20.4
4.27
.360-01
9.49
2.65
9.49
9.49
26.5
.000
47.5
19.0
.000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION -
FIRST IftPINGER
(MCG/OSCM) - UNIT OUTLET
en
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BOKOrt
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
CODALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAO
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE. NO WATER
< .387
< 1.93
.322
< .129-01
< .258
< 193.
12.9
12.9
< .645-02
25.1
13.5
1.93
< .451-02
< .451-01
.967
.155
< .645
< .367
< .322
< 1.29
< 2.58
* .000
< .451
36.1
* .000
WATER INJECTION
< .378
< 2.27
< .302
< .151-01
< ,378
< 227.
.279
4.76
< .151-01
27.9
15.9
1.21
< ,7b5-02
< .755-01
< .453
.159
< .755
< .453
< .453
< 1.51
< 3.78
* .000
< .755
40.0
* .000
-------
GAS TURBINE
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATION - (MCG/DSCM) - UNIT OUTLET
2ND H 3RD IMPINGER
m
i
cr>
TRACE ELEMENT
CATIONS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
URANIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
TEST CONDITION
BASELINE, NO WATER WATER INJECTION
<
<
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
*
.135
1.71
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.135
,000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
<
<
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.109
2.05
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.205
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
-------
APPENDIX F
ORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
F-l
-------
TABLE F-l. IR ANALYSIS REPORT
Camnctor
J- Simple Aequiwion Om
Typt of Seurn .
Tea Number .
Simple 10 Clamber.
Simple Description
Responsible Analyst flf-^i^utei /tt/C^-^ (,,„ A(uly7td C? ~ ^'
blculations and Report Reviewed By
Imminent f*lfc*^ ' vt'w^fci
P^l\ He/LS* ->»~X Report Date .
Sanplt Ctll Typt
S-Vv«-co-\.
UtiCztd Mix/VBn Sgnal Inuoiitv Values
Oontvitioin ft{lts\P
Wn< Number
- (cm'1)
Inttmity
Assignment
Comments
34 00- 3SOO
S
fi 1.0.
/72.0- HOO
to.i'^4, AiTev
-^
J2&0
- O -
/OlO'lOfO
/<^u^. t?, ^ ^ -*:"*+ ^«
F-3
-------
TABLE F-2. IR ANALYSIS REPORT
Cotdncur
Sample Stt
Typ« ol Sourct .
Tut Number .
YAK)-2
Sinple Oeioiptian
Analyst
Report Reviewri By
tastnnitnt
Utilized Max/Mja Sgnal loteasity Values
Obiervniou.
S~).^
£inpk 10 Bomber.
Din Analyied
Report D«e
Su,pliUlType
on.
Wn* Number
Um'1)
Initnjiiy
Alignment
Commenu
3400-3,500
C-H
C~o
ISSO
/ (770-1/00
&OC
710.700^1
->,
F-4
-------
3 16l44lM
HLP-I-X 2 MLS. COHC. EXTRACT 7^12x78
CHLIl C42779 «33
t.e BASCl U 20.
Figure I. Total Ion Current
Chromatogrtm - Houston Test 1
XAO Extract
RIC
I
cn
11712.
1288 SCAN
48i<» TIME
Figure F-l. Total ion current chromatogram -- Houston test 1 XAD extract.
-------
CTi
RIC
(JHTH: HLP2X *l
CflLl: C42779 OS
MC
kM'27'79 I3|4S:UO
SAMPLE! HLP-2-X CONC EXT 4 MLS 7^12^78
RftNOEi C 1.1200 LA6ELI H 1.20.0 OUAHl ft »• 1.0 BflSEl U 20. 3
3S1
SCrtMS I TO 1288
Figure ?. Total Ion Current
Chromatogram - Houston Test 2
XAO Extract
600
20100
80a
26140
ii»0a
331 2B
1200 SCAN
4e.ee TIME
Figure F-2. Total ion current chromatogram -- Houston test 2 XAD extract.
-------
APPENDIX G
GENERAL ELECTRIC TEST RESULTS
G-l
-------
GENERAL ££ ELECTRIC
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ONE RIVER ROAD, SCHENECTADY, N. Y., U.S.A. 12345
Phone (518) 374-2211, Telex 145354
GAS TURBINE
PRODUCTS DIVISION
July 13, 1978
Mr. Brent Higginbotham
Acurex Aerotherm
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA. 94042
Dear Brent:
Five copies of General Electric's report on the Acurex-GE joint test
at Houston Lighting and Power are attached. These should provide suffi-
cient data for your analysis, but don't hesitate to contact us if you
have further questions.
Working with the Acurex test team was a pleasant experience.
there will be other opportunities for such tests.
Sincerely yours,
Perhaps
-
L. Berkley Dfevis, Ertajneer
Combustion Development-LGT
Bldg. 53 - Rm. 322
Attachments
LBDirhb
cc: Nancy Fitzroy, 500-224
M. B. Hilt, 53-323
G-3
-------
MS7001C FIELD TEST RESULTS
UNIT 52, HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
APRIL 1978
During the recent field test of a MS7001C gas turbine, Unit 52, at
Houston Lighting and Power, personnel from General Electric's Gas Turbine
Division were responsible for measuring gaseous emissions and assessing tur-
bine operation.
This report details the results of these tests and fulfills General
Electric1s reporting requirements to Acurex under contract RB68439A.
1. RESULTS
Some nineteen test points were run over a period from April 21 to 24,
1978. As indicated, these were spread over three days, with the first day
DATE TEST
APRIL 21 PRELIMINARY TEST, VELOCITY TRAVERSE
APRIL 22 BASE LOAD, NO WATER INJECTION
APRIL 24 BASE LOAD, WATER INJECTION
devoted to a preliminary test to establish the velocity profile in the exhaust
duct.
At each test point, gaseous emissions (0?, C07, NO , NO, unburned hydro-
£• £ /\
carbons (UHC), and CO were measured at a stngle point in the exhaust duct.
Machine operating data, sufficient to establish the airflow rate and
operating state of the machine, were also recorded.
The subsequent discussion in part III of this report will address the
quality of results expected from single point sampling, as compared to those
from a traverse.
G-4
-------
Tables (.1-2) list the data points for each of the three days. Data from
a point a-re Input to a data analysis program called FIRCAL9.
This program utilizes machine performance data,gaseous emissions, fuel
composition, and machine geometry and internal flow splits to predict machine
operational characteristics. For example, compressor inlet airflow is cal-
culated using four methods; refer to Table (3) for an output sheet from
FIRCAL9.
Each column of results (e.g., FT. TEST FLOW) makes use of certain of the
data to calculate machine airflow, turbine inlet temperature and exhaust
composition. This is illustrated in the table given below.
COLUMN
FT. TEST FLOW
CHKD. FLOW
OXYGEN CONC.
CO- CONC.
MEASURED
fuel flow and composition,
airflow during factory test,
inlet guide lane position,
ambient conditions
compressor discharge
pressure and temperature,
first stage nozzle area,
fuel flow and composition.
02» fuel flow and composi-
tion
KL, fuel flow and composi-
tion
CALCULATED
machine airflow, 0« COp,
water in exhaust, turbine
inlet temperature.
machine airflow/turbine
inlet temp., 02, C02, H20
machine airflow, C02> H20,
turbine inlet temperature
machine airflow, turbine
inlet temperature, 02> H20
Gr.5
-------
Turbine temperatures are proprietary to General Electric and are not
included in the results.
Results tables for each test point are interpreted as described in
Table (3). The complete sets of results are given in Tables (3-17).
II. DISCUSSION
The core of the test results is contained in the test points 6-11 and
14-18. The first set is at base load with no water injection, while the second
is at base load with 40 gpm water injection. The main points to note are the
NO, NO (ISO), 09, and airflow rates.
A A C.
Emissions of nitrogen oxides from a gas turbine are strongly affected
*
by ambient humidity. This is taken into account using the relationship
NOY(ISO) = NO(MEASURED) £ 23.2(H-.0063)
•A A
While measured NOX varied considerably during the course of the dry test
(pts.6-11) in response to a cold front moving through, NO (ISO) changes about
A
+. 1 percent. A similar statement applies to results from the water injection
test (pts. 14-18).
*
_ The constant 23.2 appearing in the exponential is derived from General
Electric data. It gives numbers 2.7 percent higher than the EPA constant
»of 19.0.
G-6
-------
N0¥ EMISSIONS
^ _ _
OPERATING MEAN MEAN
POINT NOx(ISO) ppmv 02 (« by Vol.,dry)
BASE, DRY 159.1+1.0% 15.30 *^J
BASE, 40 gpm 67.7 ±1.1% 15.12 ±1%
*
The variation in 02 measurements during the dry test is somewhat larger
than that in NOX(ISO). This is apparently an outright measurement error in
one point (pt. 8) that was taken during the period of severe weather.
Airflow in a gas turbine is directly affected by ambient variations and
as the numbers in the tables vary by some +_ 2.5 percent with time. The mean
levels (for, say, FT. TEST FLOW) are representative of the expected perform-
ance of the MS7001C axial compressor.
A comparison of the compressor inlet airflow values from each of the
four calculation schemes (CHKD. FLOW, etc.) reveals excellent agreement
(±1.0%) between airflow from FT. TEST FLOW, CHKD. FLOW, and OXYGEN CONC.
Note that pt. 8 is an exception (+_ 2.2%).
The atrflow calculated from measured CO^ (C02 CONC.) shows relatively
poor consistancy and agreement with the other values. This is particularly
apparent in the water injection test, where the airflows predicted from
measured.CO? concentration are approximately ten percent higher than expected.
»This variation is calculated as a deficit from 21 percent atnospheric 02-
6-7
-------
large amounts of water vapor 1n the exhaust obviously affect the Instrument.
The S02 values in the tables are calculated assuming one hundred percent
conversion of fuel sulfur. This 1s consistent with General Electric's
experience.
Two fuel analyses are given in Table (18). The variation in measured
hydrogen is typical of that found from repeated measurements of distillate
fuels. The ash content is, in both cases, higher than expected for distillates.
Table (19) gives a breakdown of the ash, with the primary constituent
being an oxide of zinc. The hydrogen values in Table (19) are determined
usfng the Galbraith method and are not as accurate as those in Table (18)•
III. SUPPORTING TESTS
Subsequent to the Acurex tests, considerable effort was put into obtaining
-yery accurate hydrocarbon measurements. In preparation for these tests, the
stainless sampling probe was washed with acetone and methylene chloride,
passivated with nitric acid, and washed again with methylene chloride.
In addition, an abbreviated stack traverse (18 pts.) was made.
There are two aspects of this portion of the testing of interest to
Acurex: the hydrocarbon readings themselves, and the variation of Nov and 0?
A £•
over the cross section of the exit duct.
Figures 0-3) give the results taken from a base load point with 40 gpm of
water being injected. Each figure shows a definite profile across the stack,
with a 3 NOx variation of ± 5.9% (+_ 3.3 ppmv). The point customarily used
Go
- O
-------
for single point sampling is just above position D-4. These data indicate
that the NOx is approximately 2.2% lower than the mean value at that point.
Thus, the readings reported in the previous section would be within two
percent of the true mean.
Oxygen readings have a +. Stfvariation of+.4.5% (referenced to 21 - Og)»
and verify the trends observed in NOx. Unburned hydrocarbons are quite low
« 2 ppmv); they show a very wide spread(3CTis ^ 79 percent).
Other points presented in the tables give supporting data. For example,
points 12 and 19 are at base load, dry; they were taken just before and just
after the water injection test. Note that NOx(ISO) values are in excellent
agreement with those previously obtained.
Machine performance and emissions measurements taken from Unit 52 at
Houston Lighting and Power are both self-consistent and in agreement with
data acquired from other machines of this class.
Close agreement between airflows from different methods of calculation
give considerable confidence in the airflow levels. Any discrepancy between
these values and that obtained during a stack traverse should be carefully
reviewed.
Single point sampling should give adequate results for gaseous emissions
such as NOx and 0£. Measurement of species present at very low concentrations
requires a traverse.
6-9
-------
TABLE 1
To Acurex
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. SCHENECTADY.N.Y.
GAS TURBINE TEST DATA
POIHT
$•'
*M
y*j-£
"•'^* »
.#•"' )
• * \
(
-
r
•5%-f
r-y
ywx>f .
^•M
/^
/^
'l<.
*rj , T.
^L-y^.
HTM'. HoupTpv tXMrr 52.
TIONS
&MCET
BATE *t'2.\-7ft
• ID. fl f°
•A«. TIME
1-z.i-s
17=35
\
t)3.C
3&.00
'•7.4-
11
•• .
^76
O
0
TZ?
h»-n
I/JP»
-\°ik
2.^0
4-li-ig
••2.
11'
5^.0
q-j^
4-1I-7S
3
lit. A
U)S
30=03
7-7*
fcO.O
q-;,
o
O
(D
•ets!
)8--oo
7
lit 4
koi
3^03
79*
fol.O
a^c,
Q
77.V
J:04 1
100
>»;&
4-«--7{
to-.oo
fl
12*. i.
3J,OC>
77°
Oise;
ft
1/F
2.-ObS
•Z.OO
2.0 o
3qs
^
2.1 -.00
\VL 0
UOT
3UOO
77*
10,0=
o
0
7D*F
2.*. B" 3
2.0P
2jOO
3°ia
OB SERVE 8
IV- ao
132 1
(oOft
77°
^e\
0
7r%
2/OTS
2J30
^^
3«t7J
111 S
UO^
SfeOC
77'
(ol.O
q^o,
G>
-7?°F
J.-07-
2.CO
Is! R
,
1
6-10
-------
TABLE 2
To Acurex
Ift M ATBS
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. SCHEHECTAOY.N.Y.
GAS TURSINE TEST DATA
UJUTT51.
CONDITIONS.
•-IA _____
SMCST.
Ml.
•«». TIMS
1KTE
TIWE
IS: 00
_____
Tifri
I1--OO
l8-.e-j
JLZ
IV-OO
_/S_
J-UL
_-U_l
Vc
c
•
TJ
&y_
12.U
1001 ISO!
*'•
J_L
"<«*:••
S-C
*
iLUZ
IU.-..
iOS.
•JJ-T-.
_S£.
ft
G-ll
-------
TABLE 3
CD
I
OV22//" li!1S2HQUH'>
MKC/U'/ '.UL.Oi»
to^ x VOL nu
to JIT
tx po pprp
ir.z PPHV HRV
CRY TO
COMB, oc/r
-------
TABLE 4
06/29/76 9.19HUOHS
PTPrALV PCVI^IU
TESI PT
OATt
BAKUMETtR
T (URY)
T (WFTl
KLL.HUK.
A6b»HUi-U
cor
l.fa.V.
LOKu.tM.
:J«U"T;*-
HOAtlSU)
Ml* 1 V.j ;,
ur;« uf.i"-iT j
tl I-OX I'PTP
t i nnx i i iii
URtj.NU.x. 1'JO
U2 ttlf"t 'wi/^
30-6 IK.u
7b0422
] fcS7
2*. 740
74.4
77. C
612. U
. 7 7 . 0
CK/-1-:
j '•* . a
"u. '
0.01 51
bCi.C-
17T.7
11.2
| 4 * ^
3.1
lb.^.C
v. 1,
b.d
0.2R
2^7^
UbHlNG (, HQk:
APK1L 197b
l-.l'X
f> ,- \ f f
t.J
r.c ( i $
o;
Cv
Ul-.C
Pl.tL
f'rt. 1. .
0.
t-.'b.lr
17(1.1
L . *i7
C.e9
11.3
1 - f.
3.1
«.. 12
b.6
0.2t
19. S
l.Pe
-------
TABLE 5
HOUSTON LlCsHlUS £, ^OktK
MS7001C APKIL 1976
Uil PI
UATt
1 IMt
BAKUMETtR
T (URY)
T (WFT)
.1«.^'V..
CU''L . c (• f .
1KLX 1 Dt-'Y ) S5
A «
H?U io OF
HOX
UO* 13 '-a '.
KfjA LiL --.T I
i<0* ( I iU) Pf
tl .- Hijx-b
2>*.78U 1NS.H5.
71.2 DEG.F.
M^.h CFG.F,
b ? *^ ^~
1 -. £, . b K- > I <•
7 £ . i, p jj.fr'.
f- T. 1 1.'- r
FU"«
tH/.n^. 25.^*^1
k -• S s ». t. . 7
5.0V1. " U.
J • 0 1 T ..
•Jr'-. 5.':.*:
t U". 1 1 ? ? , t'
l.'ii. .1 L.57
1 r. 1 J 0 . fc -i
KiJliL 11.2
1 3. 'J
'.; Yul 5.1
L L)-1 -.13
LO AT IS*-, it1 D-iY 5.B
tl (.0 PPTP FuuL 0,^^
bO^ ppv.v 'JrVY ID.L
JkY TO V'£T
MM*' 1 tXMMJSl
V JL 1.06'"!
CUTPt.,
NCA
NU
NO (IS
02
C1-
Ut C
FutL
wil f 1-
H-...
26.C55S
<»7 1 O
""t"." "
0 . L 1 ^ i.
177.*-'
C .b7
C.6S
11.2
13. b
3.1(
<.. 1 1
5.t
0.29
19. «,
1 62.00
130.3
bO) 157.5
U) 150.*
50
2. 1
U.
/ Y ; ,fi_ (J .
b.'Ji. •••
^e." 'Lb
' *-' 1 . /
of"
u . i.' 1 1 r
5 Jt . 3
I .'. i
U. ? J
11.*
13.*
3.'
15."-
5.V
IV. I
t S ! M
PPi-.V t«tT)
PP/V ('"k.T )
PPf-.V (*tT )
H^i^iic,,
S's
C-? ...
- _. 57*. 3
5 '/ 5 • 5
w •
C « ^ 1 o ^
*3S.5
531.3
I 7 e . 9
0 = •> r
11.3
13.6
3."
15.3?
i • u-J
5.9
2ft. 73
G-14
-------
TABLE 6
06/29/78 9.19HUuRS
cTorAI Q _o r i/ T <
HOUSTON LI6HING & PQwbK
M57001C APKIL 1978
TE.it PT iO-t2K.-.
OA1L 7B0422
1 | M£ jri-ii
bAHUMETtK 29. tOG
f (DKY) 67.0
T fhiVfT* fc 4 *
KEL.HIH. «3.«.
t nu ] *. * - >••
«.L>1 605. t1
.l.b,V.. 7/.C
UUriD.b^. V*;«l> !
U: il UtJ *
NQX Hl'rt
r.u>. isr, '^i 0- T
I.UX wJi.iil , J.'.K . r
tl I.OX PPTi- FJ;.L
t 1 IMI1X M =,"ll
upoti'r T 1
PBI--V ("liT)
PPKVl»"tT)
pp' '>•' ("tT ) (-1"1*
G?;.
PPb
:. L.> *t.
CO"*..
25.991B
Shi -'
563.0
• o.
4^, 1 . i.
174.0
0.67
11.6
13.3
3. i
15. 2b
5.1
19.9 .
28. 'b
G-15
-------
TABLE 7
HOUSTON LlfaHlNG (, HQhtK
MS7001C APKIL 197b
TEST PT
UAlt.
1 ] (.,{
' BAKUMEtLft
T (DRY)
KEU.HUH.
U1V 1
6l3-fe2Kfc
7B0422
ji ni
29.620
71.0
gfr.l
o.oi4<:
4fc . 'j
U>1 607. C
j *• '- ' * ' —
LU'-iL. . t F (• - 9V. SO
-w£X(OY! Si<
MA
WA I lit.:)
H2U * OF
uox
IMGA 15C.: ;
NDX L-un.Tj
LI f'UX kTTr-
UhCj.MJ* 100
tO AT J »?„ 0
tl CO ^PTP
DRY TU V'£l
MHn (LXMAiJST
;F /HR
p.'i
.,-.
? L' - Y
If.!.' ,1
Tiu
--- YLl
L Uf. Y
i l)KY
FJtL
V DKY
VJL
)
*
1HS.HG.
1
I'sl A
PT. It- ',T
F-'LC*.
b A b . w
\l t 1 . 6
'"c.-
517.5
^ • 5 1-
0.67
11.1
13. •*
3.1
4. 1 b
5.4
0.27
19.6
1.06?
28.74
MX
MIX I ^bUl
NC
NOIISU)
07
HiU
FLLL
WAI fU_yhb
H-.l.
ft-. •: .
2t.09U?
5«1:.'.i
G.C169
0.57
1U2
1 l.u
3.1
15.37
4.11
5.5
0.27
15.5
2k. 74
62.00
129.0
123.1
147.9
lb.31
4.U
2.1
0.
r L 0.
O.'JUb
CU'^C .
^5.H**06 *
0.
0.0191
43U . V
5 1 T . >.
1/4.4
0.55
U.t /
U.I
f 3.3
15.31
4.14
u.27
19. 1
I . 0 0 2
PP,-1Vt"tT)
^E;iiL_
VOL. (Or(Y )
PP;.V(LhY)
PPS
ib CY M.
CU2
^J^;,2
0.
0.0190
434.5
522.1
175-9
0.57
0.6b
3.1
15.3o
4. 1 1
5.5
0.^7
19.5
1.062
2b.74
G-16
-------
TABLE 8
06/29/78 9.19HOU&S
AI Q prut c.i n n 4j 3n/ rH
HOUSTON U&HING (, POWtK
MS7001C APKIL 1976
TEST PT 70-e3K«
UATL 7bOn,
BAKUMEUS 29.720
T (DRY) 70.0
T fkPT) AH n
KtL.HUf.. 90.5
ABb'HLH* O.Ol't*
t DP 1 4> -7
(.01 60b.l-
..l.fa.V. .J7.0
Ws'-.tFI-. 9V.VO
•WEXIORY) MbCF'/-(K
WA PPS
• A(J^'J) P»'S
"«2ti "' ft OF tCSi. .
h/*-
AfiX P^n
NtiXUS'v) fi'f
ISCA IbiH ^2 li-iY
f^jj r op'. f • J ^--p .T
NUX(ISU) Pi :••.£!«
tl NOX PPTt- FU-iL
^ j fv.n* ( i ^'if
UPb.'JOX I0'.'« Yi.1?
U2 LONC. fcv-L.U'-Y
Cp2 «i, v/L£9.6 .
'"•JT""
&.01V1
1.^9. a
530. B
1 7 7 . .1
('• . "s ?
C.69
11. i
1 ^.S
3«1
lb.il
i
0.
10.6VO
i. pj. . .
O.Oi-ti
'5XYC,t •(
V.UNC.
^6.2352
i ^TH
5^5.5
0.""
O.f'ii-9
d'.'r.k'
53fc.'j
1 '9."
Ij.^B _^
U.r.V
11. -1
13. /
3.1
15,30
<< . L 1
5.7
U.2H
IV. 5
l."ei;
*B.73
Kri
PPr v(w£T)
PPI'U (»tT 1
PPrtV(»LT)
PPWV(*ET)
VIL.lfKY)
VDL.(^KY)
PPl.V (Llr:'Y)
PP.-.V("tTjCM*,.
GPr
P3b
.LriS/L" .. . ..
i, bY »T.
CU2 _ ...
CO^.
26.6B73
58^.5
(.05.6
""(j,
C.01b6
-A5.1 s 5 . .
54A.9
IrZ.^
_C.bf.
0.71
11.5
1-1.3
3'iJ
15. *o
4 •!_;<•
5.6
0.^6
19.2
1.061
28.73
G-17
-------
TABLE 9
HOUSTON UJGH1NG & POWtK
MS7001C APRIL 1976
TESI PT
OAlt
BAROMETtR
T (WRY)
T (WET)
KEL.HUM.
1.0. V.
W-.D.f.F-.
MA
"H2U ' * OP'
C/A
NQX( ISt-l
NHX ur-. rtTj
NOXdS'J) ?P
t: NOX ^PT=
8D-62MW
7b0422
??•!«
29.760
73.8
68. b
76. b
0.0136
l«.fr.i
ioy.n
77. U
CF/hJf
P>"-
zS-n
FJtL
UKU.KUX iOOi YLl;
U2 H.1NC "j«/«L.J,-.Y
LO AT I5«i C
tl C.O POT?
bU^ ??X
JKT TC *'F.T
MMWJIEXMAJbT
2 J-^Y
FJiL
VJu
)
U
INS. HO..
DEG.F.
DFG.F.
ic
SES:?:
L
FT. 1 1 rjT
FLd*
5*4 .O
t &'•>.<•
0.
O.J192
517. U
173*6
C.58
0.67
11.1
13.2
3.1
• l».2o
4.17
b.K
19.8
1.062
2U.75
NOX
NCX(IbU)
NO
NOdSU)
02
C02
UhC
H20
FUcL
Fb"
?7C - «;
t.
4^7. fe.
1 75-3
O.S7
0.6fc
11.2
3.1
U-.3"
4 . 1 t.
0,?9
IV. fc
l.OM
62.00
125.1
15!*0
5.6
- o.
10.«b6
• . 0.
O.'.H'H
'J/YGi- t
^6.3419
S ^fc. 7
0.
U.blnti
4<«47.fc
13. b
3.'J
15.40
4 . Ort
6.U
IV. 3
l.Oel
^0 . '4
PPKVftT)
PPMV("ET)
V5L. (URY)
PPMV (WRY)
PPMV(»tT)CM4
6PK
PPS
•is tlY '-T,
co^c.
26«OB4l
?71.2
' 0«
0.0190
0.57
0.66
11.2
13.4
3.1
4. 12
5-9
1.061
28.74
G-18
-------
TABLE 10
06/29/76 10.37hUUf..S
i&r L IQ u r v f M t> ft y /11* i / /
HOUSTON Ll&HJNG 6 POkt.x
MS7001C APUL 1976
UA1L
ttAHUME.1
T JURY)
1 (WET)
*Bb*HUf''i
C liM
cor
l.fa.V.
HEX (DRY
H2U Ho
f«yx ( Ibo
Nf)< LJUI
tl N(JX
tl f.fj> (
u^ciJ-c
9U-60r>x
LK 2S.HbO
83.0
70.7
1 /.<. . 1
61V. C
77. U
) *1b(.F/HK
p> 'JY
tl CU ^PTP FUtL
bO^ PP^-V L5><>
URY TO r.'£1 VJL
Hhw (tXHMJSI )
to.
lNl».Hi.
CE6.F.
Crti.F-
Lbj/LL
l/LOj.F.
f T . 1 e 'i F
JrS.j^,3i;
', ^ X - "•
0 . (.' 19 ,
'-!',. \,
l:':.-
11. t
— li-t
5 . 1
i i . '. ;•
<,. 17
5.V
lC.3
1.C6.J
OUPOT
U( A
l.t
Nt USD
a:
L't 4
60.00 M.-.
135.8 PP-V(*LT)
1-5P,/ PP.-,\l(*t1J
130.1 PPr-VC-tT)
1S2.1 PPl-V("l£T)
3. V* VjL. l^KY)
5.9 Pri V (l»r.Y)
«,. 1 \>V, \! ("tl > Ci'i'i
H/Li U. . '-; 3 * . Z
c . f. ) C • C i
(J . / !J C « 1* i
U. v 12«^
13 1 9 I*'*
S.V 6« 1
U.2S C-.3C
"~1 .1 9S " 1.059
G-19
-------
TABLE 11
HOUSTON LlbHlNG fc POrtK
MS7001C ApKIL 197S
TEbl PT 100-60MW-200PM \"i
OAT£ 7BO<.2<>
BAKOMETtP. 29.830 1NS.HG,
T (t>RY) 8*. 5 DEG.F.
T i wn i T i ^ r.r (i r
KEL.HU'-i. 53.fo *
f r\ u ] i. *. t t'C]/.
CUT 62*. C DE6.F.
(.0Kb. tH . 9V. ',(. i
f T . 1 t -,T
*o^ ut-^ ^t^r^
. i«A.( IbC) i--:^ ic5*.'.
(•/A O.Ul^b
MHX PV-r^ >•_ 3.1
NOX I I Si-)) ri i- 3tl, . t<
NOX 15';s Ct U'.Y U7.'j
Nnx IJU'-''T i j M: T C . 'i/
NOXIJSyi Pt-^bl'j O.fcfc
tl NOX PPT? KJtL 7.0
tl f.Hi I 1 VO g.r,
URto.NUX 10C:s Y^f 3. 1
_cn^ », w:,i ::•- v 4. ^s
(.0 *T 1S5, 0^ DI'Y 6.3
tl (.0 PPTP FJtL O.sl
i»n/.__. PPK\. Di.'Y 5IJ» 1
DRY TO WEI VJL J.071
MMW(tXhAUbT) 2t.t&
OUIPU'1 60. UO MM
NCx b9.' PP'"V (*"tl )
i-.f.t t isi.i] icj^.h P?,;vc-.£IU
NO 84. U PPCV(*'tT)
NO(ISO) 99.8 PPHV C-fcT )
C02 3.b5 VOL.I^^Y)
C.'-'' *>« A PPi'V (I'^Y )
i it f v.-j PP.'V, (*LI^ Lf'A
H?U 20. u Gt.
KULL lO.'tB Pfb
Fli-. 0. J( B 4 i-Y k'T .
rt-.i.. -IAV.V < f^2
^J» <-ONC.« COr>C.
ti.6333 ^b.7*»23 27*829^
^*1^ Sa'^^f-' aOf"7-.
O.tC " O.^V ' 0.*»6
0.01V2 L.'USl C.J17/
3b".l 3»'j.«. 3r3.U.
11 9 . 3 li^.K IPy.C"
0 . 4 1 0 . <» ' O.SO
7.7 /.7 f.3
3.1 i. 1 ? • 6
1 'j . 2 7 i -j . / -y 1 i • 7 2
c . 1 s «t . i o 3 • B "J
0.32 U.32 O.J*
1 «. . K 1 <• . 7 16.2
1.U7U l.L'/L 1.0o6
2U.t.i; < fc . b t, i.h.07
G-20
-------
TABLE 12
06/29/78 10.37HIWS
Tgbl PT UU-MM
UATt 7b042.4
T J M*- 1 SIM
BAKUMETtR 29.810
T (WRY) gb.O
T IWPTI i\.y
KEL.HUI-,. 51.4
COT 627.0
J.fa.V. ... 77. 1
COMb.LFh. 99.90
HEXIDKY) MJ>CF/HK
MA PV<,
.WAUbL) PV-i
M2U fc OF C0"»ii'7"
NfjX PPh
NQX(ISU) tiPri
NOX isfc 02 O..Y
NLJX OPl-'.IlT i | hit- iT
NOX(ISO) PPKBTU
tl l<*OX fPTF FULL
h J NOY M =,11
URO.NUX 100* YLL
CO AT ISfc 32 O^Y
tl CO ^PTP FUtL
bO^ PPv.v DRY
ORY TO WET VOL
MMWJ EXHAUST)
p \or
HOUSTON
MS/001C
.H.406PM V
INS.HG.
OE&.F.
!o
P M *
UF?:':
9.
FT.lt r,T
FLOk.
iS'i.i
— i.ci"
0.01V9
7s!b
0.29
4.6
«».7
3.1
15.03
4. ^
7.9
0.40
70. fe
1.080
26.5t
LlbHlNG t POWtK
APK1L 197fc
NLX
1 f;» f 1 bui
f.u
NL(ISU)
u^ (.
h2«J
FULL
^l^/,Tt;f-'/^ut
( f.'.
r n< L.-
FLOV.
SSc 3
i,5b.2
O.M96
192. 1
C; . 2 (j
C.29
4.9
^ .7
3.1
is. a
b.O
.0.40
20.3
1.07V
61. UC
b7.S
ts7 H
62^V
15.14
7^
4. i
40.0
_ o!si
O.UtH
LONC.
«>6l- 7
f,00.f
U.9V
O.U195
!•*?.«
"•!v
0.?5
4.9
3.1
1 t) . 1 «»
H.U
U.41
l.U'V
PPMV(*tT)
POi'v 1 *ET 1
PPMV<"£T)
PPhV("tT)
V3LT (UKY)
VOL, (UKY)
PP'-:v(*LT}C.ni,
GPr.
_ L3S/L? ,
•* C.Y '-T.
Cuif
27.3753
64J. I
0.93
0.0183
205.1
241. 7
79. 1
C.31
5.2
fc. 1
2.9
15. bl
4.00
8.6
0.43
18.9
1.07s
28.59
G-21
-------
TABLE 13
HOUSTON L1&H1N& fc POWtK
MS'OOIC APKIL 197ft
TEiT PT li!D-61''.W
DATE 7ttO<«2<.
TJMI- IMlfl
BAROMETER 39.790
T (D«Y> 83.5
T (WFT) 70.',
KEL.HJJM. 53.1
AB5.HUM. U.0131
COT 626.0
l^Cj.V. _. 77.0. _
COMu.EFF. 99. 9C ?•
WEX(OKY) M3CF/HP
MA PPS
H2U~ * Of 'CO'li-'. ~
NOK pui^
NOX(ISU) Ht-'n
NOX 15% 02 IJ-'Y
Nfix DOr.-KT i i i.L i .T
NOX(ISO) P^f.oTU
tl NOX PPTP FULL
t-l wnv / i 5-11
URU.UOX loos. YLI'-
CO/! * \/3L L).;Y
CO AT I5»i 02 Or!Y
tl CO PPT? FUEL
iD^ . _ PPMV D^Y
UKY TO WET VJu
MMrt (EXHAUST)
-<»OC:PM VS"
iNi.HG.
DEG.F.
•i
LPS/Lb
P«, I f
DE&.F.
FT. 1 t c,T
FLv*
T.c'i
0.0199
1 Q f i . Q
2 2 3 . s-
U . x"i
0.29
t,. 7
3.1
15.03
H.i',
8.1
70. fe
1.079
OUTPUT
NCXI TbLl
HO
MC(ISU)
02
C02
CO
UhC
H2U
Ft^tL
k/,1 K t /Hlf
FL.;
r (,,<• i .
FLC>
S% t Q
l.Ct
0.0197
1 Q " "*
7-!l
0.29
3.1
1 ii.Ot
b.i
20.5
1.C7V
61.UO
57.8
63. y
IS. 19
3.92
b. 1
«o.u
L 0-51
O.UOb
":.X YC.lh'1
S •> 2 , 0
0.9V
0.01S5
2*7.3
U . /• 3
15^ 1J
b. J
-------
TABLE 14
06/29/7b 10.37HOUPS
TEST PT iay-61'
UATt 780424
TT M^ i Tnr.
BAKUMETtR 29.780
1 (DRY) 83. 3
T f UP T \ TO <*
K EL. HUM. &i,t
COT 62B.O
l.Ci.V. 7/.C
COMa.tH-- 9S.*0
kh A V J *.
H2U *" OF CGNr1'.
MCIX PPh
NO* I ISO) Pp'r'
UOA Iss :,2 U-iY
NClX OCf, f'.T j IM- il
NOX(ISO) PHM£TJ
ti r»ox ypn~ FUUL
H f N.'IK ( 1 «.-.»
uRCi.NOX lot*. YLU
02 C.UNC *vC.'L«L"iY
to AT is* 02 UHY
tl CO PPT? FUtL
hO2 PPKV DKY
t>RY TO WET VJL
MMWttXHAuST )
HOUSTON
MS7001C
U.-40GMK \(
HI- IMS
INS.HG.
OE&.F.
£
PCI t
tK:f?:
Ve
r T r r ' , T
«i r, i< . o
r. o i
O.OlSb
loG. L
Ci • ir ^.
b. 7
3.1
1'J . 1 3
e.u
0 • **U
1 • 'w 7 ^
APKIL 1976
• OUTPUT
I lf 'X f 1 SLJ 1
MO
NO(ISU)
COi!
Ill.t-
H2:J
FUtL
f t. .
f LOk-
^e,/, ?
' l.U
0 . 0 1 V 7
1 c; 1 . 2
L . /• 'j
0.2V
3.1
Ib.OV
7.9
0.40
1.07V
61. 00
57.6
53.6
62. V
3.V3
7.d
L.. 1
40. U
if ' • 0.51
">X Yl^h .i
LOHC..
049.3
O.Q1
0 . 0 1 & U
iObtS... .
HO.'J
0.27 _
0.32
5.3
1 5 . o 1
B.7
IB.o
1.074
28. cU
G-23
-------
TABLE 15
TEbl PT 14U-61.!
l>ATt 7S0424
1 1 M t l y ' r r'
8AKOMETE.R 2S.7faO
T JURY) bl.2
*Bb»HUf',« U.I' 1*1
CDT 62<.. C
I.O.V. 77. C;
tOMr..EH. •»•,.«<.
*£X(D,Y, ,,,F,H.
NOX ton
HJA IV] Ji IXY
lil.X DP! .. .T • 1 .".LI .T
tl IVJA. PPTi fJLL
i- | r.ny i 1 «.-. i
Lfi,
26. by
G-24
-------
TABLE 16
l£bl PT 1SD-63'
OATE 7bO*2<,
BAKUMETtR 29.780
7 (DRY) 77.0
T IklfTl TO M
KEL.HUfs. 7*. 2
*8b«HUM. O.Ol^S
t ^K 1 ut , ><
CDT 616.0
J.fa.V. 77.0
COfib.tF... 9V. 9',
WEX(DkY) MbCF/^K
WAI 150) . ?»
~M2l.' '?« OF Cb'-'r\
NUX Pt-K
NOXClbU) fSJ>.
ND^ DfXTliT J 1 I.I". .1
NO* (ISO) P^HUTu
tl NOX >'PTP FJLt
Ukij.nux IOL% YLL
f f 'i S f,\ t in it
DEQ.f. H2U
DEw.P. FUtL
WtTPt. /t-l IF,
4. M.TJ
SiStHT 2^321
.'je^.i. b93. 3 !
U • f ' 9 0 * *i h
u • u 2 0 0 0«01*^9
7*1." t7««!3
'J.t'9 0.29
S. 7 S -7
i.: 3.2
is. ut. is. o:
*,.*«) 4.37
8.0 7.9
O.^U 0.^0
?U. S 20. 7
63.00
bo.l
bl.v
63.*
1 S 07
7^V
7. M
40.0
11.2*4
O.UOK
(.ONC.
0.9'
O.IUS '
'*•!*'
»lT
3.1
B.U
U.41
BOI.'W l»tT»
PPK,V(»tT)
PPMV(»LT>
wii (U^Y)
VOL. (1
-------
TABLE 17
/
06/29/78 10.37HUUP.S
r13 / •> ri / n;
HOUSTON L10HJNG (, fQWtK
MS7001C APRIL 1978
tfcai PT
UAIt
T rut
BAKUMETbR
T
T (WfT!
KEL.HUM.
*Ob«HU''.
l.fa.V.
16D-62NW
7MIX.24
29.820
73,5
S9-3
U.U145
6, 1 i. . t
77.0.
M-VJPS
INS.H5.
DE&.F.
LBS/LJ
DEC.F.
.DE&.F.
CO'-'.J.tFf . 9V. 90 *.
F T.li «,T
W£.X(OKY) MSCF/"iK
w/-. (lift)
11 2 U Is' C>P
f»OX lbr, j
f.'r,x SI.'I.'HT 1
tl .NOX ypTP
H iM,">yM=.-M
UZ t'JI.C 4,^'-'
co AT is% 3
tl CO HPT?
blV PP«
UftY TO WET
MMV. (j-XHAiJSl
co^••'.
P.'H
i;.w T
Fw't
'-. YLP
FULL
Y. DKY
VJL
)
25.P436
0.
U.Ol^l
4V.,.!
i'r.2
Cj. i 7
C.69
11.2
It). 31
4. IS
6.0
0.29
19.7
1.063
26.73
r.ox
MlXMbL!)
KO
no tiso)
c?
H/U
FUtL
FH.
26.0124
570 1
S9:.4
0.
/. 1 1 . fe
17r!-
(i c 7
O.t1*
11.2
3.1
IS. 3"
4.1-
6.0
0.30
1.06^
2b.73
62. UO M*i
130.8 PP;-w(«ETi
123,6 PPKV(»fcT)
1^9.6 PPMVt*tT)
15.35 V^L-(UkY)
3,a2 VJU.tfi-Y)
5. / Pui v (ukY)
1.3 PPJ- V ("LT ) CHi
o. C.P;'
10.«32 PPi
O.^Oh :J» bY ^-T.
^AYCt ^ C^*1
COKC. CO|--C.
^6.0477 2h.OnlB
•} tU > 614. b
b^.l 63S.6
0. 0.
0 . l: 1 'i u 0 • 0 1 7 3
4 i (-'.I. 471«4
1 ' t- . 'j 1 '•> 1 . S
O . LJ / 0 . o 1
U.t'J 0.74
11.2 12« 1
ib.35 l« . 7fc
6 . u 6 • i
u.30 0.32
IV. S 16.1
1 . ub2 1 >ObG
<:fc.Vi 28.73
G-26
-------
TABLE 18
MATERIALS AND PROCESSES LABORATORY
SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK
ANALYSIS REQUEST-REPORT
REglVCT 5/24/78 UB. f|Q. 78C-1068
QfOraD 5/31/78 SPECTRUM NO.
REC'JESTEC BY *•*• Klsfcanln BLOC. 262 RH. 105 £XT.
SO.
SHO? oncza saic-uaorq-iM OEPT. cc..
OF «*TtaiAl 'G?s Turb. lab '
Fuel TVoe ?2 f4-261 HLiP
SN 2C9
*"gay Spectra . Part.
Wet AA -enriss aiff quT! quint Probe Orcanlc Thermal Gas Stwv Cfi*p
" D in n n n n a n
Vet:
HW, ash. f! X-rav:
• vater
S Evpn&ile: H PVBride: Sn"C. Grav fi "isr p 100'F
?10*F. C rcsidu°t Oist^ll^tion cnrv«
Ealbraith: C/li ratio aniline ot.
RESULTS
0.
,
...
....
HW (8n'/lb)
oom zsh
I II
S S
S H
I H,0
Sp. fir. 3 100«F
'•• Sp. Gr. 9 210"F
Viscosity 9 100'F
Viscosity 9 210*
• Aniline Point 'F
Carbon Residue (1C"
Distillation
Initial Point
10S Distilled
20S
SOS
405
19,730
32
0.008
0.11
13.55
<0.02
O.E20
0.782
2.TS
1.07
156
Cottons) 0.18
!r 'F
326 SOS Distilled 482
396 601 " 502
422 70S " 5Z6
440 80V. ' b!>0
464 90S ' 576
Inquiries should ie dlreeled_te: [)isk Nlrtlrrr ,JP>eb Ur.6rt.-/f* F.xt. 5-2113
G-27
-------
TABLE 18 CONCLUDED
RECEIVED 5/2V78
UB. HO. 78C-1069
5/31/78
REQUESTED 3Y R.A. Hiskanin
PROJECT ;iO.
SHOP ORDER
SPECTRA H0._
SLUG. 262_W.1G5 EXT.
5818-440-300-113
DESCRIPTION CF MATERIAL Gas Turb. lab
DEPT.
CC.
Fuel Tyoe ?2 (4-221 HliP
SN 288_
X-Ray Soectro P»rt.
Vet AA smiss- diff qual quant Probe Ortjntc Tharnal Gas Study Otft«r
p pi im
_Hct: HHV. ash. N X-ray: S Evendale: H Kcgride: Sprc. Gray. 4 Vise. 9 IQO'F
Analysis
Requested
I water
210*F. C rtsidue. Distillation curvt.
Galbrath: C/H ratio aniline ot.
RESULTS
HHV (8TU/1b)
19,665
t.
ppm ash
0.009
0.11
IH
13.10
IH,0
<0.02
Sp. Gr. 9 100°F
. 0.323
Sp. Sr. P 210'F
0.782
Viscosity 9 100'F
2.59
Viscosity * 210*F
1.03
Aniline Point
ISS'F
Carbon Residue
Distillation
Initial Point
101 Distilled
(10S bottoms) 0.29
•F
32<
401
50? Distilled
601
•F
487
scs
201
428
70t
523
301
448
to.
552
431
466
901
550
Inquirie; should be dirnctod to: n,',t- H/, rlf,,-er /BtL tl-I\r,-J<, Ext. 5-2113
G-28
-------
TABLE 19
MATERIALS AND PROCESSES LABORATORY
SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK
ANALYSIS REQUEST-REPORT
* '. / * "/ ^8
** ' won
r .••-•! OF n«cRiAi
BUW. ?r.?
r"5 DEPT.
> Eos Tiro, lab
Fuel Type 12 (4-26)
LAS. !!0. 75C-10GR
SPeCTRlM MO. OF1
RM. in-i CXT.
CC.
HUP
— •
—
SN 289
-.
" .' i .
)i-"av Ssectro Par*.
Met AA enrfss' diff qua! quant Probe Organic Thermal Gas Study '.t!i«p
D D D D CD D D D CU DLZJ^i
.,_ 6*1bra1th: C/H ratio
OSULTS
Zn major
Fb
Sn
Si
Fe
Cu
Ca
aoprox. 1 in ash
>10
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.04
Cg 0.02
V
Ho
Al
Tl
I'ji
Hi
C
II
o.oi • .
0.01
0.009
0.003
0.004
0.003 __
8S.07
13.23 - • *
"
^ —
_^««
Inaulries should &• directed to:
-------
TABLE 19 CONCLUDED
RECEIVED 5/21/70 USB. MO. 73M069
REPORTED 6/7/78
REQUESTED BY R.A. Mlskjnln
? ADJECT '10.
SHOP ORDER S818-440-300-113
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL Gas iurb.
8LDG. 262
' SEPT.
L3b
SPECTRUM NO. 8F1
W. 105 EXT.
CC.
Fuel Type n (4-22) HUP
SM 288
,
^ D U D LJ [
IJLJLJ II L_J LjL_J'_LJ
Galbralth: C/H ratio
RESULTS approx
. I In ash
Zn major >10
' Pb 0.2
ft
Sn
Cu
V
Si
Ca
Ni
Ml
MO
Al
Hn
C
H
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.006
0.005
0.002
84.03
13.07
Inqulr-ss should be directed to: /
3 /•/• ic — r£tr tit. 5-2113
G-30
-------
via
1- 1.10
'•••a,— °«
t>
£
i r
- \i.n^
wx%
Hi —
,C*W}
u%
-- 0,1
J-JS-T- |.\« — \,us —inn
.UTO
CAH1
Pttsu
0?
oat,—• o,t> — —
jt«N»J j^rt'"! I .
VL i
Figure 1. M57001C total hydrocarbon emissions at base load with water injection,
G-31
-------
— \r,t»Q —ir.os
Figure 2. M57001C oxygen concentration in exhaust at base load with
water injection.
G-32
-------
-y -
tea
»
•HHI^lB^^^""^^
Figure 3.
G-33
I
^
-------
APPENDIX H
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
H-l
-------
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS FLOWSHEET
i
CO
FUEL, XAD-2
I
PARR BOMB
FUSION Na2C03
COLORIMETRIC
BORON'(FUEL ONLY)
HF
T
FLUOROMETRIC
PARTICULATES
FILTERS
IMPINGERS
HN03, HC1
A.A. ANALYSIS
NiN
~l
As,
URANIUM
GRAPHITE
1
Sb
Ba
Be
Bi
03 B
— Cd
Se Cr
(FUEL ONLY)
FURNACE FLAME COLD* VAPOR
Zn Hg
Co Sn
Cu Te
Fe Tl
Pb Ti
Mn V
Mo Zr
N1
-------
APPENDIX I
BIOASSAY RESULTS
1-1
-------
LSI ASSAY NO. 3986
LSI SAFETY NO. 3643
MUTAGcMICITY EVALUATION CF
OIL FIRED GAS TURBINE NO. 1 SASS TRAIN
XAD-2 EXTRACT (IN METHYLENE CHLORIDE)
IN THE
AMES SALHONELLA/MICROSCME
PLATE TEST
FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED TO:
ACUREX CORPORATION
485 CLYDE AVENUE
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA.
94042
SUBMITTED 5Y:
LITTGfl 3ICNETICS, I.'JC.
55'5 'IICHCLSON LAVE
KENSINGTON, ,'iARYLANO 2079;
L3I PROJECT MO. 20933
REPORT DATE: JUNE 1979
3IONET1CS
Litton
1-3
-------
PREFACE
This report contains a summary of the data compiled during the
evaluation of the test compound. The rspor- is organized to present
the results in a concise ana easily intarpretaole manner. The
first part contains items I-IX. Items I-IV provide soonsor and
compound identification information, ;ype of assay, and the protocol
reference number. All protocol references indicate a standard pro-
cedure described in the Litton Bionetics, Inc. "Screening Program
for the Identification of Potential Mutagens and Carcinogens.'' Item V
provides the initiation and completion dates for the study, and
Item VI provides identification of supervisory personnel. Item VII
identifies the tables and/or figures containing the data used by tna
study director in. interpreting "he test results. The intaroretaticn
itsslf is in Item '/III. Item IX provicas the conclusion and evalua-
t-cn.
"he saconc part of the report, a.ntitled .:c.C~CCCL, cascri'ces t.ie
•ratarials ana procedures employed in ccncuct'ng the assay. This ;a.-t
of the resort also contains evaluation criteria used :y the study
Director, and any appendices. The evaluation criteria are irclucec
to acquaint the sponsor with the metnods used to develop and analyre
the test results.
All test and control results presented i'n "his reoor~ are suoocrtec
:y fully do current ad raw daza '.vm'ch are permanently -aincairec in
the files of tne Ceoartment of Genetics and Cell aiolocy or in che
archives of Litton 5ionetics, Inc.,'5515 :iicnolson Lane", Kensinc-pn
Mary!ana, 20795.
3ICNETICS
Lrton
1-4
-------
I. SPONSOR: Acurex Corporation
II. MATERIAL (TEST COMPOUND): LSI ASSAY NUMBER 3986
A. Identification: Oil Fired Gas Turbine No. 1 Sass Train
XAD-2 Extract (in Methylene Chloride)*
3. Data Received: Febnjary 2^ lg7g
C. Physical Description: clear yel]ow liqui(j
III. TYPE OF ASSAY: Ames Salmcnel1 a/microsomg Mutagenesis Assay
IV. PROTOCOL NUMBER: 401
V. STUDY DATES:
A. Initiation: May 18, 1979
3. Completion: June 8, 1979
VI. SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL:
A. Study Director: D.R. Jagannath, Ph.D.
3. Laboratory Supervisor: Sibyl Goode
VII. RESULTS:
The results of this assay ara prasantad in Tables 1 and 2.
VIII. INTERPRETATION C? RESULTS:
The tast compound was examined for rnutacanic activi-y in a
series of in vitro microoial assays amcloying Sa'~onella
indicator organisms. The compound was tested directiy and
in the presence of liver rrricroscrnal enzyme prscara-ions
from Aroclor-induced rats.
The compound was tested a'-t four concentrations according
to the IERL-RTP procedures Manual: Level I (1977). The
compound was tested for its mutagenic activity as well as
for its toxicity at 0.01 mg, 0.1 mg, 1.0 mg and 10 mg per
plate.
The toxicity results presented in Table 1 indicate that
the test compound was not toxic at the doses employed in
these studies both in the presence and absence of meta-
bolic activation systems.
*See Sample Preparation and Handling.
1-5
-------
VIII. IJITESPRE7A7ICN OF RESUL'S (continued):
The mutagenicity results presented in Table 2 indicate that
the test compound did not induce any genetic activity in any
of the test organisms employed in these assays. The results
of tests conducted on the test compound in the presence of
a rat liver activation system were also negative. The test
with TA-1537 was repeated in nonactivation and activation
assays because of high solvent values in the initial test.
The repeat tests were also negative.
IX. CCNCl'JSIGNS:
The test compound, Oil Fired Gas Turbine No. 1 Sass train
XAD-2 extract (in methylene chloride) did not demonstrate
genetic activity or toxicity in any of the assays conducted
in this evaluation and was considered as not mutagenic under
these test conditions.
Submitted cy:
St-dv jiractor
u.3. -Jacannat.-,, ,:'i.;.
Section diaf
Sufcmarnnal ian 2=revc3
anc Cel" £ic":cy
• =•/• e-,-/ec ~'- '.
3ICNE71CS
1-6
-------
V. RESULTS
TAIILE
A.
It.
C.
0.
t.
mm;:
MANE C)K COOL DtSIGflATlUN OF THE IIS) LOMI'OUNl): UIL I I KH> (.AS TUHHINE N01 SASS TRAIN XAO-2 EXTRACT (IN METIIYLENE CHLORIDE I
SCI Vf M : CMSIJ
TCST INITIATION IJATES: 05/1(1/79 (J5/3C/79
TfSl CUMPLCIIUN »ATr:06/Ca/?9
S-9 LCT*: CII02'.
(.UNCLNTK ATKINS ARb GIVLN IN MILLIGRAMS (MG) PER PLATE.
IMDICATCIl ORGAN
SMS (POPULATION/106)
ItST
NUN ACT
1 VAI
SPECIES
ICN
SOLVENT CONTHtlL
POSIIIVl CtJMKUL**
It SI COMPOUND
0.010000 MG
0. 100JOO MG
1.000000 MG
10.COOOOO MG
AM IV AT ION
SOI VEN1 f.n
I'll SMI
VI C
NIRMl HA)
(JNIKIJI *** RAT
TISSUE TA-1535 IA-1537 TA-98 TA-100
1 2 1
393 26'.
315 159
341 i-00
362 244
346 2U2
3?6 267
LIVLR 37U 3H
LIVLR 551 191
21212
167 290 1053
91 29U 1649
153 221 440
194 200 391
125 305 353
1 fl 354 353
149 351 400
101 312 331
ItST {.(WOUND
I A-
1 A-
r A-
IA-
l'i 1 5
I V.I 7
91)
100
o.cioooo MG HAT
0. 100000 MG RAT
1. C 00000 MCi RAT
lO.IIOOOOO Ml, KAI
SlIIHUH A/IHE
9- AMINUAC.KIOINE
2-NI1l<(ll LIJUhL'NF
SODIUM A/ IDE
1 IVER 437 ?U5
LIVEK 38C 299
LIVIH 383 29/
LIVIR 116 270
1 UG/I'LAir
50 UG/I'LAII
10 UG/I'LAII
1 UG/PLAII
153 300 389
I'>H 341 348
IH6 402 350
161) 370 346
IA-1535 2-ANIIIRAMINE
TA-1537 2-ANTHKAM1NE
1A-9M 2-ANTIIRAMINE
IA-100 2-ANIIIRAMINE
2.5 UG/I'LATE
2.5 UG/1'l.AIE
2.5 UG/I'LATE
2.5 UG/PLAIE
-------
v. KTSUI is
I AIM I 2
CO
i\.
II .
L.
0.
C.
NilfL:
• nA"t IJK curse DEsiGNAiiriH OF mi nsi COMPOUND; mi MRFI> GAS luKiiiHf NOI SASS IRAIN XAii-2 EXTRACT (IN METHYLENE CIILURIDEI
sin VIM ; ucso
irsi INITIAIIUM KAILS; O'j/ltt/7')
riSI LLIMPILllON UAI t: 06/08 / 79
S-9 LLIV:
CdUCEMI I*AI KINS AKE GIVEN IN MILLIGIiAMS (MG) PER PLATE
INDICATOR ORGANISMS (REVERTANTS/PLATE)
IES i
MUM AC
S(JL Vl;
POSIT
1ESI
SPECIfcS TISSUE
1 1 V A 1 1 C N
Nl f. UN I HOI.
I VE CUNTIUU **
(.uPPOUND
O.C 10000 MG
0. 100000 MG
1.000000 MG
IO.COOOOO MG
IA-
1
20
1023
20
10
21
1 1
1535 T A - 1 5 J f
2 I
45
352
41
34
25
25
2
1 I
265
6
fl
7
"•
TA-')8 TA-100
1212
55 124
13(14 1923
46 140
45 106
42 UO
60 IOB
AC 1 IVAI ION
SOLVENT CONTROL I'AT LIVER
POSH
I L S 1
* *
1 A
1 A
1 A-
1 ;\-
SOI
IVt f.UMKOL*** KAI I.JVIR
COMPI1IJNU
0.010000 MC, ItAT LIVER
0. 100000 MG RAT LIVfR
1 . L'OOOOO MG RAT L 1 VIR
IO.COOOOO MG RAI L IVH(
-\'j\'j S"i)IUM A i1 IDE
-l'i)7 'i- A^ IN()i\CK ID IM
-'III 2-NI IKOI I UDI'LIIL
-100 SliDIUM A/ IDE
VfNT ')C UL/PIAIL
16
4 14
14
7
13
16
r T
272
43
53
f.
42
1 OG/P1AIF
50 or. /PL ATI:
10 UG/PLAIE
1 UG/PLAIE
11
110
15
11
7
H
65 112
?926 2046
5(1 91
75 100
55 U9
63 109
*< *
T A- 153 5 2-AN1HKAMINE
TA-1537 2-ANTHRAMINE
TA-93 2-ANTHRAMINE
TA-100 2-ANTIIRAMINE
2.5 UG/IUATE
2.5 UG/PLATE
2.5 UG/PLATE
2.5 UG/PLATE
5 coniAMINAI IUN
-------
SAMPLE PREPARATION AND HANDLING
The test material was received as a solution in 1.2 ml
of methylene chloride and was stored at 4°C until solvent
exchanged. The entire sample was exchanged into DMSO by first
adding 2 ml DMSO and reducing the volume to 2 ml under a
stream of nitrogen in a warm water bath (33°C). Then 0.5 ml
DMSO was added and the solution evaporated again to 2 ml.
This last process was repeated once more, leaving the sample
in a final volume of 2.0 ml. This sample was stored at 4°C
until use in the cytotoxicity assay. Since the original test
sample represented 307 ft3 of exhaust gas, the solvent exchanged
sample corresponded to 153.5 ft3 gas/ml or 4346.5 L gas/ml.
A solvent exchanged DMSO blank was also prepared by the
above procedure, starting with 1.2 ml methylene chloride (same
volume as the original test material). Since the test material
did not exhibit any mutagenic or toxic effect on the indicator
organism in these assays, solvent exchanged DMSO blank was not
tested separately.
BIONETICS
Litton
-------
PROTOCOL MO. 401
AMES SALMQNELL.VMICROSCME PLATE ASSAY
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to evaluate a test material for mutagenic
activity in a bacterial assay with and without a mammalian S9 activation
system.
RATIONALE
The Salmonella typhimurium strains used at LSI are all histidine
auxotrophs by virtue of mutations in the histidine operon. _When these
histidine-deoendent calls are grown in a minimal media petri plate con-
taining a trace of histidine, only those cells that revert to histidine
independence (his-*-) are able to form colonies. The trace amount of
histiaine allows all the plated bacteria to undergo a few divisions;
this growth is essential for mutagenesis to occur. The his+ revertants
are easily scored as colonies against the slight background growth. The
spontaneous mutation frequency of each strain is relatively constant;
but when a mutagen is added to the agar, the mutation frequency is
increased 2- to'lQO-fold. Cells which grew to farm colonies on the
minimal media petri plates are therefore assumed to have reverted,
either spontaneously or by the action of a test substance to his-
genotype.
MATERIALS
A. Indicator Micrcorcanisms
The Salmonella tychimurium strains
from Or.
used in this assay were obtained
Bruce .Ames, University of California at Berkeley.1 "3 The
following 5 strains are routinely used.
Strain
Designation
TA-1535
"A- 1337
TA-98
TA-100
Gene
Affected
his G
his C
His D
his G
Addi
Repai r
1 uvr 3
l uvr 3
A uvr B
A uvr B
tiona 1
L?S
<"fa
rf a
rfa
rfa
Mutations
R Factor
-
-
pKMlOl
pKMlOl
Mutation Type
Detected
3ase-oair
substitution
Frames hi-t
Frameshift
Base-pair
substitution
CB
Utton
3IONETICS
1-10
-------
All the above strains have, mutation in the histidine opercn, mutation
(rfa") that leads to aefective lipopolysacchan'de coat, a deletion that
covers genes involved in the synthesis of vitamin biotin (bio') and in
the repair of ultraviolet (uv) - induced DMA damage (uvr3"). "he rfa'
mutation makes the strains more permeable to many large molecules.
The uvr5" mutation decreases repair of seme types of chemically or
physically damaged CNA and thereby enhances the strain's sensitivity
to some mutagenic agents. The resistant transfer factor plasmid
(R factor) pKiMTOl, in TA-93 and TA-1CO is believed to cause an increase
in error-prone QNA repair that leads to many more mutations for a given
dose of most mutagens". In addition, plasmid p&MlGl confers resistance
to the antibiotic ampicillin, which is a convenient marker to detect
the presence of plasmid in the cells.
All indicator strains are kept at 4°C on minimal medium plates supole-
mented with a trace of biotin and an excess of histidine. "he plates
with plastic-carrying strains contain in addition aiuDicillin (25 _g/ml),
to ensure stable maintenance of plasmid pKMlOI. New stock culture
plates are made every r.vo months from the frozen master cultures or from
single colony reisolates that were checkec for "heir genctypic character-
istics (his, rfa, uvr3, bio) and for the presence of plasmid. "or each
experiment, an inoculum from the stock culture plates is grcv/n overnight
at 37CC in nutrient broth (Qxcid CM67) and used.
3. Media
The bacterial strains were cultured in Gxoid Media =2 (nutrientjroth).
The selective medium was Vocel 3cnne.- Medium E with 2" glucose.* r'ne
overlay agar will consist of G.5:o purifiac agar witr; C.5 ~M hisf'cir.e,
O.Gc rift bictin anc 0.1M MaCl according to tne -ethccs of Ames at j]T.'5
C. Activation System
(1) 59 -cmocenate
A 9,COO x £ sucernatant prepared from Sprague-Cawley adult "ale
rat liver Tnducad by Araclor 12:- (cescribed by Ames ;t ;'. '• }
was purchased from Sionetics Lacoratory Prccucts, Littcn iionet'cs,
Inc. and used in this assay.
(2) S9 Mix
Concentration per Ml I*:liter
Components S9 Mix
'•IAC? (sodium salt: - -~c1=s
2—i 1 uccse-c-oficsoha'e
McC"!;
KCl" 32 '.moles
Sociurn :nosphat= buffer
pH' 7.i ICO .mo'as
Organ hcircgenata frcm rat
1 ivsr '39 fraction) 'GO .'itan
LU SIONE7ICS
Urtcn
1-11
-------
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
A. Dosage Selection
The tests are run at four concentrations according to the
EPA Level I Manual. The recommended doses are 0.01,
0.1, 1.0 and 10 mg per plate. Both mutagenicity
testing and toxicity testing are performed using
these four doses.
3. Mutagem'city Testing
The procedure used is based on the paper published by Ames
et_ a_L5 and fs performed as follows:
(1) Nonactivaticn Assay
To a Stsrile 13 x ICO mm test tube placed in a 43°C water
bath the following is added in order:
(a) 2.00 nil of 0.6" acar containing O.G5 rnM histidin.e
and G.05 rr,M biotin.
(b) 0.05 ml of a solution of the test chemical to
give approximate dose.
(c) 0.1 ml - 0.2 ml of indicator organisn/s.
(d) 0.50 ml of 0.01M phosphate buffer, pH 7.4.
This mixture is swirled gently and then oourec into mini-3!
agar plates-(see 33, Media). Aftar the top acar has set,
the plates are incuDated at 37^0 for approximately 2 days.
The number of his+ revertant colonies growing in the plates
is counted and recorded.
(2) Activation Assay
The activation assay is run concurrently with the nonactiva-
ticn assay. The only difference is the addition of 0.5 ml
of 39 iix (see 3C:2, Activation System! to tr:e tuces in
place of 0.5 7.1 cf pncspnate buf~er wnich "is acc'ec in
nonactivation assays. All other cetails are similar tc
the procedure -or nonactivation assays.
1-12
-------
A detailed flow diagram for the plats incorporation assay
is provided in Figure 1.
C. Control Ccmcounds
A negative control consisting of che solvent us3d for the tsst
material is performed in all cases. For negative controls,
step 'b' of iNonactivation Assays is replaced by Q.Q5 ml of the
solvent. The negative controls are employed for each inaicator
strain and is performed in the absence and presence of S3 mix.
The solvent used to prepare the stock solution of the tast
material is given in the Results section of this rscort. All
dilutions of the tast material- made using this solvent.
Specific positive control comoounds known to revert eacn strain
are also used in the assays. The concentrations and soecificities
of these compounds to specific strains are given in the follcw-
ina table.
Concentration
per Plata SaiircnelTa
Assay Chemical Solvent (:-?) Strains
'lonactivation Sodium aziaa Viacer 1 TA-1E35, TA-1CC
2-Nitroflucrene Oi~etnyl- 10
(MF) sulfoxide
5-aminoacricire cthane 1 50 TA-1327
(9AA)
2-anthramine Dimethyl- Z.I "or all strains
(ANTH) sulfoxide
D. Toxicity Test
To a sterile 13 x 100 mm test tube placed in a 43°C water bath
the following is added in order:
(a) 2.0 ml of 0.6% agar containing 0.05 mM histidine
and 0.05 mM biotin.
(b) 0.05 ml of a solution of the test chemical to give
approximate dose.
(c) 0.1-0.2 ml of indicator cells (approximately 200 cells
from an overnight culture appropriately dilute)
(d) 0.50 ml of 0.01M phosphate buffer, pH 7.4 (for nonactivation
assays) or S9 mix (see 3c:2) (for activation assays)
This mixture is swirled gently and then poured over the surface of
nutrient agar plates. After the top agar has set, the plates are
incubated at 37°C for 2 days. The number of colonies growing on the
plates is counted and recorded.
1-13
-------
FIGURE 1
REVERSE MUTATION ASSAY
[Agar Incorporation Method]
PROTOCOL NO. 401
Aliquot of 0.5 ml
buffer —
-39
Molten [43 to 45'Ci overlay agar
appropriately supplemented
0.05 ml
0.1 ml to 0.2 ml
Tast article, positive
control or solvent control
Aliquot of an overnight
culture of bacteria
0.5 ml S3 mix [hepatic
•* homogenats from
PCS pretreated rat
plus necessary
cofactors!
Overlay poursd on selective
bottom agar medium
Plates incubated at 37°C for approximately 2 days
I
Number of revertants per plate counted
7
Data entered onto preprinted forms
I
Interpretation/ conclusion
1-14
-------
5. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Statistical methods are not currently used, and evaluation is based on
the criteria included in this protocol.
Plata test data consists of direct revertant colony counts obtained frcrn
a sat of selective agar plates seeded with populations of mutant calls
suspended in a sanisolid overlay. Because the test material and the
calls are incubated in the overlay for approximately 2 days and a few call
divisions occur during the incubation period, the test is seirricuantita-
tive in nature. Although these features of the assay reduce the
quantitation of results, they provide certain advantages not contained
in a quantitative suspension test:
The small number of call divisions permits potential
mutagens to act on reolicaticn ONA, which is often -ore
sensitive than nonreplicating CNA.
The combined incubation of the test article and the cells
in the overlay permits constant exposure of the indicator
cells for approximately 2 days.
A. Survivina Pooulations
Plata tast procedures do not permit exact .quantisation or the number
of cells surviving chemical treatment. At lew concentrations of the
test material, the surviving copulation on the treatment plates is
essentially the sana as that on tr.a negative control plate. At hign
concentrations, the surviving population is usually recucac by sc.ma
fraction. Cur protocol will normally eroloy several coses ringing
over tv
-------
H
C. Control Tests
Positive and negative control assays will be conducted witn eacn
experiment and will consist of direct-acting rojtagens r'or nonactiva-
tion assays and rnutagens that require metabolic biotransfortation
in activation assays, Negative controls will consist of tna tast
material solvent in the overlay agar together with trie other
essential ccmoonentj. The negative control plate for each strain
will give a reference point to which the tast data will be comoarec!.
The positive control assay will be conducted to aemcnstrate tnat
the test systems are functional with known rnutagens.
0. evaluation Criteria for Ames Assay
Secause the procedures to be used to evaluate the mutage.iici ty of
tne test material are semi quantitative, the criteria to be used to
cetarmine positive effects are inherently subjective ana are based
primarily on a historical data base, tfcst oata sets will be
evaluatad using the following criteria.
(1) Strains TA-1535, TA-1337
If the solvent control value is within the normal range, a tes:
material that produces a positive dose response over three con-
cantrations viith the hi onest increase ecual to three t'~es the
solvent control value will be considerec to be -utagenic.
(2! Strains TA-93 and TA-ICQ
If the solvent control value is within the nor-al range, a *as:
material that orocucas a positive acsa resoonse over three
concentrations with tne highest increase ecual to r.vica tr.e
solvent control value for TA.-5S ana TA-1GG will oe considered
to be "utagenic.
(2} Pattern
aecause TA-1335 and TA-1GO are both derived •y*orr the sa~e
parental strain (G—16} and because "A-1533 and TA.-93 are :ctn
cerivea from tne same parental strain (33G52), to some extant
there is a built-in redundancy in the -nicrocial assay. In
general, the tv/o strains of a sat resoona to the same mutacen
and such a pattern is scugnt. Generally, if a strain ,-asoonds
to a mutagen in nonactivation tasts, it'/nll do so in activa-
tion tests.
BICNETICS
Lrtcn
1-16
-------
fl
(4) Reproducibility
If a test material produces a response in a single tast that
cannot be reproduced in additional runs, the initial positive
tast data lose significance.
The preceding criteria are not absolute, and other extenuating factors
may enter into a final evaluation decision. However, these criteria
will be applied to the majority of situations and are presented
to aid those individuals not familiar with this procedure. As the
data base is increased, the criteria for evaluation can be mere
firmly established.
E. Relation between Mutacenicity and Carcinccenicity
It must be emphasized that the Ames Salmona!la/Mlcrcsorna Plate Assay
is not a definitive test for chemical carcinogens. It is recognized,
however, that correlative and functional relations have been demon-
strated betv/een these r.vo andpoints. The results of comoarative
tests on 300 chemicals by McCann e^.aj_.: shew an extremely good
correlation between results of rnicrcbial mutagenesis tests anc
in vivo rodent carcinogenesis assays.
AIT evaluations and interpretation of the data to be presented in
the final racort will b* based only on Che cemonstraticn, or lack,
of mutacenic activity.
SICNcTlCS
Litton
1-17
-------
REFERENCES
J. MeCann, E. Choi, E. Yamasaki, and 3.M. Ames. Oecaccion of
carcinaaens as ."ucagans in the Salmons!la/fnicroscme Case: Assay
of 200 chemicals. ?roc. .Mac. Acaa. Sci. USA 72_, =135-5139 (1?75).
3.M. Ames, E.G. Gurney, J.A. Miller, ana H. Sarcsch. Carcincga.ns
as frameshift rnutagens: Macaco! ices and derivatives of 2-
acatylaminofluorene and other aromatic amine carcinogens. ?roc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69., 3123-3132 (1972).
B.M. Ames, P.O. Lee, and W.E. Curstcn. An improved bac~ar:ai
test syscsm for the deraccion and classification of -ucagens and
carcinogens. Proc. Mat. Acad. Sci. USO 70_, 732-736 (1573).
3..'I. Ames, W.E. Ourszon, E. Yamasaki , and P.O. Lee. Carcinogens
ara mutagens: A simple test system combining liver homogenacas
f*r activation and bacteria for detection. Froc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
USA 70, 2231-2285 (1973).
J. McCann, N.E. Springarn, J. Kcbori, and 3.,'!. A-as. Oetscvion of
carcinocens as "utagens: 3acterial tascer strains wit.n S factor
classics. =rac. Mac. Acad. Sci USA 7_2, 979-933 (1975;.
3.M. Ames, -j. McCann, and E. Yamasaki. Mechocs fcr iacactinc
carcinogens ana -utacens '.vich the Saimonel 1 aynamai 1 ian-micrcscma
^ucagenicicy cesc. '••ucacion °,as. 31 , 3^7-3=^- ;*975'/.
-.J. Vogal anc D.M. Sonner. Acecylornichinasa of E_. c;;: :ar"ia:
purification and seme orccercies. J. 3ioi . Cham., 213, 97-105 ("955;
LJ—I SIONET1CS
Uttcn
1-18
-------
LBI ASSAY NO. 3986
LBI SAFETY NO. 3643
CYTOTOXIC EVALUATION OF
OIL FIRED GAS TURBINE NO. 1
SASS TRAIN XAD-2 EXTRACT
IN THE
WI-38 HUMAN CELL
CYTOTOXICITY ASSAY
FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED TO:
ACUREX CORPORATION
485 CLYDE AVE.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94042
SUBMITTED BY:
LITTON BIONETICS, INC.
5516 NICHOLSON LANE
KENSINGTON, MARYLAND 20795
LBI PROJECT NO. 20993
REPORT DATE: JUNE, 1979
BIONETICS
Litton
-------
PREFACE
This report contains a summary of the data compiled during the
evaluation of the test compound. The report is organized to present
the results in a concise and easily interpretable manner. The
first part contains items I-IX. Items I-IV provide sponsor and
compound identification information, type of assay, and the protocol
reference number. All protocol references indicate a standard pro-
cedure described in the Litton Bionetics, Inc. "Screening Program
for the Identification of Potential Mutagens and Carcinogens." Item V
provides the initiation and completion dates for the study, and
Item VI provides identification of supervisory personnel. Item VII
identifies the tables and figures containing the data used by the
study director in interpreting the test results. The interpretation
itself is in Item VIII. Item IX provides the conclusion and evalua-
tion.
The second part of the report, entitled PROTOCOL, describes the
materials and procedures employed in conducting the assay. This part
of the report also contains evaluation criteria used by the study
director, and any appendices. The evaluation criteria are included
to acquaint the sponsor with the methods used to develop and analyze
the test results.
All test and control results presented in this report are supported
by fully documented raw data which are permanently maintained in
the files of the Department of Genetics and Cell Biology or in the
archives of Litton Bionetics, Inc., 5516 Nicholson Larre, Kensington
Maryland, 20795.
Copies of raw data will be supplied to the sponsor upon request.
Ltd BIONETT1CS
LJtton
1-20
-------
I. SPONSOR: ACUREX CORPORATION
II. MATERIAL (TEST COMPOUND): LBI ASSAY NUMBER 3986
A. Identification: Oil Fired Gas Turbine No. 1, SASS Train XAD-2 Extract
B. Date Received: February 23, 1979
C. Physical Description: Light yellow solution in DMSO
III. TYPE OF ASSAY: ^.33 Human Cell Cytotoxictty Assay
IV. PROTOCOL NUMBER: Special Protocol
V. STUDY DATES:
A. Initiation: May 29, 1979
B. Completion: June 5, 1979
VI. SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL:
A. Study Director; Brian C. Myhr, Ph.D.
B. Laboratory Supervisor: Robert Young
VII. RESULTS:
The data are presented in Table 1 on page 3 and in Figures 1 and 2
on pages 4 and 5.
VIII. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:
The methylene chloride extract of the test sample on XAD-2 resin,
after solvent exchange into DMSO, appeared to remain soluble in the
culture medium at the highest assayed concentration of 20 ul/ml.
Higher concentrations could not be tested because of the introduction
of greater than 2% organic solvent by volume. As shown in Table 1,
1% DMSO reduced the viability index, total protein, and total ATP to
about 70-80% of the untreated negative control; 2% DMSO reduced
these parameters even further to about 40-65%. The corresponding
concentrations of solvent exchanged DMSO were somewhat less toxic
to these assay parameters, showing that residual methylene chloride
does not contribute to the solvent toxicity. Because of the solvent
toxicity, the effect of the test material was measured relative to the
assay parameters obtained for the appropriate solvent exchanged DMSO
negative control.
LIJ BIONET1CS
Litton
1-21
-------
VIII. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS (continued):
The most responsive assay parameter appeared to be the viability
index, although the protein and ATP contents started to decrease
similarly at the highest dose of 20 yl/ml. The percent viability
and ATP per 106 cells parameters gave no indication of any
toxicity. A 50% reduction was not achieved for any assay
parameter, but the curve for the viability index (Figure 1)
indicated that an EC50 would occur near 35 yl/ml. In terms of
the volume of exhaust gas represented by the DMSO test solution
(4346.5 L gas/ml), this EC50 corresponds to 152.1 L gas/ml.
Therefore, on the basis of the viability index and expectations
for the ATP and protein parameters, the test material appears to
yield EC50 values in the low toxicity region (100 L/ml to
1000 L/ml).
IX. CONCLUSIONS:
The test material, SASS train XAD-2 Extract, Oil Fired Gas
Turbine No. 1, is evaluated as having low toxicity to WI-38
human cells. The viability index indicated an EC50 value
would be obtained near 152 L gas/ml, and the ATP and protein
contents were decreasing in the same toxicity range.
Submitted by:
Study Director
Brian Myhr, Ph.DTU date
Section Chief
Mammalian Genetics
Department of Genetics
and Cell Biology
Reviewed by:
David J.,iurusicK, Ph'.O." 'date~
Director^
Department of Genetics
BIONET1CS and Cel1
LJtton
1-22
-------
Test Date: MAY 29, 1979
LB1 Assay No.: 3986
Test Material Identity: Oil Fired Gas Turbine No. 1,
SASS Train XAD-2 Extract
TADI t 1
UI-38 HUMAN CELL CYTOTOXICITY ASSAY
Initial Cell Viability: 97.2%
Viable wi-38 Cells Seeded/Flask: 2.0 x 10s
Passage number: 28
Vehicle: UHSO/growth medium
TEST RESULTS
Average Values per Culture Flask
Sample Concentration^
,,1 /ml
NEGATIVE CONTROL —
1% DMSO BLANK S.E.**
IX DMSO^
2% DMSO BLANK S.E.**
.-. 2% DMSO
i
co TEST 0.5
TEST 2.0
TEST 5.0
TEST 10.0
TEST 20.0
Viable Cells Total Cells Cellular Protein
10r> Units 10G Units ,,20.0
Viability Index Protein ATP
100.0
74.4
74.1
76.9
65.9
104.2
101.1
93.8
91.7
70.2
(35)
100.0
69.7
67.6
55.2
37.9
99.0
101.0
90.1
78.2
76.3
>20.0
100.0
85.9
77.2
65.7
54.2
100.0
90.1
91.0
89.8
83.1
>20.0
/
ATP Per
100.0
116.7
105.6
83.3
01.4
94.9
89.1
96.2
96.1
120.1
>20.0
iAverage of 2 flasks
Toxicity
Classification: Low toxicity
-------
FIGURE 1
EC50 DETERMINATION FOR
PERCENT VIABILITY (0) AND VIABILITY INDEX (I)
OIL FIRED GAS TURBINE NO. 1
SASS TRAIN XAD-2 EXTRACT
120
1 10
CONCENTRATION, yl/ml
1-24
-------
FIGURE 2
ECSO DETERMINATION FOR
PROTEIN (I), ATP (0), and ATP/106 CELLS (4)
OIL FIRED GAS TURBINE NO. 1
SASS TRAIN XAD-2 EXTRACT
> '--H-f- -yH—j— h-t
EEEdEtt
20
CONCENTRATION, pi/ml
1-25
-------
ASSAY PROTOCOL
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this assay is to determine the concentrations of
test material that reduces by 50% the number of viable cells, the
cellular protein, and the ATP content after a 20 hour exposure.
These concentrations are referred to as the EC50 values for
each measured parameter.
MATERIALS
A. Indicator Cells
The indicator cells used for this study were WI-38 human
embryonic lung fibroblasts obtained from Flow Laboratories, Inc.,
Rockville, Maryland. The cells were supplied as confluent mono-
layers at passage numbers 23 or 24 in Eagle's Minimum Essential
Medium. This test system is specified by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency's Level 1 Environmental Assessment Program.1
B. Medium and Cell Maintenance
The cells were maintained and treated in Basal Medium Eagle
(BME) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 2mM L-glutamine,
100 units/ml penicillin, 100 yg/ml streptomycin, and 1.0 ug/ml
amphotericin B (Fungizone). Subcultures were prepared twice
weekly at a 1:2 split ratio using 0.25% trypsin. Cultures were
discarded after the 35th subculture (passage).
C. Negative Controls
Five sets of negative control cultures, each in triplicate,
were carried through the same experimental time period as the
treated cells. One set was an untreated negative control con-
sisting of cultures exposed only to BME culture medium. Two sets
were solvent controls-containing 1% and 2% of the solvent-exchanged
DMSO blank, prepared as described below. In addition, two solvent
control sets containing 1% and 2% pure DMSO were assayed in order to
determine whether residual methylene chloride in the solvent-
exchanged blank was contributing to solvent toxicity. The average
viability, ATP content, and protein content of the solvent-
exchanged negative controls provided the reference points for
determining the effects of different concentrations of the test
material on the assay parameters. The 2% solvent-exchanged control
was the reference for the highest assayed concentration (20 yl/ml)
and the 1% solvent-exchanged control was the reference for the
remaining test concentrations.
LD BIONETICS
Litton
1-26
-------
2. MATERIALS (Continued)
D. Sample Preparation and Handling
The test material was received as a solution in 1.2 ml
of methylene chloride and was stored at 4°C until solvent
exchanged. The entire sample was exchanged into DMSO by first
adding 2 ml DMSO and reducing the volume to 2 ml under a
stream of nitrogen in a warm water bath (33°C). Then 0.5 ml
DMSO was added and the solution evaporated again to 2 ml.
This last process was repeated once more, leaving the sample
in a final volume of 2.0 ml. This sample was stored at 4°C
until use in the cytotoxicity assay. Since the original test
sample represented 307 ft3 of exhaust gas, the solvent exchanged
sample corresponded to 153.5 ft3 gas/ml or 4346.5 L gas/ml.
A solvent exchanged DMSO blank was also prepared by the
above procedure, starting with 1.2 ml methylene chloride (same
volume as the original test material).
3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
A. Dose Selection
The solvent exchanged sample was tested from 20 ul/ml
to 0.5 ul/ml in five dose steps. The 20 ul/ml treatment was
the maximum dose because of the introduction of 2% DMSO in
the growth medium. All other concentrations were obtained by
1:100 dilutions of the test sample and dilutions thereof (using
DMSO) into the growth medium to give a 1% final concentration
of solvent.
B. Culture Preparation
Stock cultures were subcultured into 100-mm plastic culture
dishes 24 to 72 hours prior to use. This procedure provides a
population of actively growing, sub-confluent cells to initiate
the assay.
The cells were then suspended in BME culture medium by
treatment with 0.25% trypsin for 3-5 minutes and the cell number
determined by hemocytometer. A series of 25-cm2 culture flasks
were seeded with 20 x 1Qk cells and 4 ml culture medium per flask.
The cultures were incubated overnight at 37°C in a humidified
atmosphere containing 5% C02 to allow attachment of the cells and
resumption of growth.
BIONET1CS
Litton
1-27
-------
3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (Continued)
C. Treatment
The medium was aspirated from the cultures and 4 ml of BME
culture medium containing the test sample was applied. Three
cultures were exposed to each test concentration and solvent
exchanged DMSO blank. The flasks were then placed on a rocker
platform in a 37°C incubator with a humidified atmosphere contain-
ing 5% C02. The flasks were slowly rocked for a 20 hour exposure
period. Any color changes in the culture medium caused by the
test material were noted and the pH determined in additional
treated flasks.
D. Cell Viability Assay
At the end of the treatment period, the medium containing
unattached cells was decanted into a centrifuge tube on ice.
The cell monolayer was washed with 1 ml 0.05% trypsin/versene
and this wash combined with the decanted media. The attached
cells were then removed with 2 ml of 0.25% trypsin at 37° C and
the suspended cells combined with the decantate. The cells from
each flask were thereby resuspended in 7 ml volumes for subsequent
analysis.
A 1.0 ml aliquot was removed for cell count and viability
determination. The aliquot was combined with 0.2 ml or 0.5 ml
of 0.4% trypan blue and counted by hemocytometer about 5 to 15
minutes later. Between 60 and 154 cells were counted per flask
and the number of live (colorless) and dead (blue) cells were
recorded.
E. ATP Assay
ATP was immediately analyzed by extraction of a 0.1 ml cell
suspension sample with 0.9 ml of 90% DMSO. After 2 minutes at
room temperature, 5.0 ml cold MOPS buffer (0.01 M morpholinopro-
pane sulfonic acid) at pH 7.4 was added and the extract was
vortexed and placed on ice. Aliquots of 10 ul were injected into
a cuvette containing a luciferin-luciferase reaction mixture in a
DuPont Model 760 Luminescence Biometer. The Biometer was cali-
brated with standard ATP solutions to provide a direct read-out
of the ATP content. Each test sample was assayed three times to
demonstrate consistent readings.
F . Lowry Protein Assay2
A 3.0 ml aliquot of the cell suspension was taken for protein
analysis by the Lowry method. The aliquot was centrifuged at 365 x g
for 10 minutes, the medium decanted, and the cell pellet resuspended
in 3 ml PBS. After two additional centrifugation washes with PBS,
the pellet was resuspended in 1.5 ml of PBS and frozen at -20°C or
analyzed immediately. A 1.0 ml aliquot was used for the Lowry assay.
1-28
BIONET1CS
Litton
-------
3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (Continued)
At the end of the color development period, the tubes were centri-
fuged to remove any particulate test material prior to making
absorbance readings at 750 nm. Lowry protein standard curves
were constructed with bovine serum albumin for each assay.
4. REFERENCES
MERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level I. EPA-600/7-77-043, April 1977.
2Lowry, O.H., Rosebrough, N.J., Farr, A.L., and Randall, R.J.:
Protein Measurement with Folin Phenol Reagent. J.Bio.Chem.,
193:265-275, 1951.
BIONETICS
Litton
1-29
-------
ASSAY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
The assay will be considered acceptable for evaluation of the test
results if the following criteria are met:
1. The passage level of the cells (number of subcultures) prior to
use in the assay does not exceed 35.
2. The percent viability of the WI-38 cells used to initiate the
assay is 95% or greater.
3. At least 1.5 x 105 cells are seeded per flask. The untreated
negative control cultures must increase in cell number by at
least 2-fold over the 20 hour treatment period.
4. A sufficient number of data points (for five test concentrations
or less) are available to clearly locate the EC50 of the most
sensitive test parameter within a toxicity region as defined under
Evaluation Criteria.
5. The data points critical to the location of the EC50 for the
most sensitive parameter are the averages of at least two treated
cultures.
6. If all the test parameters yield EC50 values greater than 1000
yg/ml or 600 vl/ml, the plotted curves for any parameter will not
exceed 120% of the negative control.
Ltj BIONETICS
Litton
-------
ASSAY EVALUATION CRITERIA
The EC50 value represents the concentration of test material that
reduces an assay parameter to 50% of the negative control value.
EC50 values are determined graphically by fitting a curve by eye
through the data points associated with each test parameter plotted
as a function of the logarithm of the applied concentration. Each
point normally represents the average of three culture flasks for
each treatment. Statistical analysis is unnecessary in most cases
for evaluation.
The evaluation of the test material is based upon determinations of
the EC50 values for five parameters: percent viability (ratio of
viable cells to total cells x 100% for each treatment), viability index
(ratio of viable cells for each treatment to viable cells in the nega-
tive control x 100%), cellular protein, total ATP content, and ATP
per 106 cells. Except for the ATP content, these parameters are
specified in the EPA Procedures Manual.1 The ATP content will gener-
ally be a more sensitive parameter than ATP per 10s cells because any
cell loss due to treatment will increase the latter parameter. ATP
released into the growth medium by disrupted cells contributes to the
ATP measurement.
The toxicity of the test material is evaluated as high, moderate, low
or nondetectable according to the ranges of EC50 values defined in the
following table. The actual concentration of extract at the EC50 is
converted to the equivalent volume of exhaust gas per milliliter of
culture medium prior to the evaluation. The assay parameter yielding
the lowest EC50 will classify the test material.
Toxicity* EC50 Values
High EC50 < 10 I gas/ml
Moderate EC50 range of 10-100 L gas/ml
LOW EC50 range of 100-1000 L gas/ml
Nondetectable EC50 > 1000 L gas/ml
*Formulated by Litton Bionetics, Inc., under contract to the
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-2681.
LLJ BIONETICS
Li+tnn
1-31
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing]
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-81-122b
2.
i. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Combustion Modification Controls for
Stationary Gas Turbine: Volume H. Utility Unit Field
Test
5. REPORT DATE
July 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOH(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
R. Larkin and E. B. Higginbotham
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Acurex/Energy and Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE624A
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2160 and
68-02-3176, Task 12
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 7/78-7/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ffiRL-RTP project officer is JoshuaS. Bowen, Mail Drop 65,
919/541-2470.
is. ABSTRACT
repOrt gives methods and results of an environmental assessment test
program at Houston Lighting and Power's T.H. Wharton Generating Station, Unit 52.
The aim of the program was to measure emissions changes resulting from applying
NOx controls. Emissions of trace elements, organic materials, sulfur species,
SO2, NOx, CO, and particulate matter were measured. These emissions, under
normal and controlled (for NOx) operating conditions , were compared. Source oper-
ating data were also analyzed so that changes in operating parameters and efficiency
could be assessed. Unit 52 is a General Electric MS 7001C simple-cycle, single-
shaft, heavy duty gas turbine, rated at 70. 8 MW nominal electrical output. This gas
turbine may use either natural gas or distillate oil fuels. The test program was con-
ducted using oil fuel. Water injection was used for NOx control. A water-to-fuel
ratio of 0. 42 reduced NOx by 58% from baseline levels. The unit heat rate showed
about 2% change in going from baseline to controlled (for NOx) operation. Test re-
sults indicate that using water injection for NOx control in this unit reduced NOx
and showed little effect on other emissions. Water injection reduced operating
efficiency.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTlFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Gas Turbines
Combustion Control
Utilities
Nitrogen Oxides
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Combustion Modification
13 B
13 G
21B
07B
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
I. SECURITY CUASS (This page)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
167
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
1-32
------- |