EPA TEST NUMBER 73-TRB-2
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
KEARNY MESA GAS TURBINES
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
EPA LIBRARY SERVICES RTP NC
EPA-EMB-73-TRB-2
TECHNICAL DOCUMENT COLLECTION
-------
EPA TEST NUMBER 73-TRB-2
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
KEARNY MESA GAS TURBINES
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SUBMITTED TO
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Programs
Contract No. 68-02-0225
Task No. 14
BY
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC,
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
March 1973
-------
PREFACE
The work reported herein was conducted by Engineering-Science, Inc.
pursuant to Task Order No. 14 dated November 11, 1972 issued by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency under the terms of EPA Contract No. 68-02-0225.
APPROVED FOR
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
Terrence A. Li Puma, Director
Air Pollution Control Department
28 March 1973
-------
SECTION I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
II
III
IV
V
VI
APPENDIX
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
I
TITLE
INTRODUCTION
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPLETE PARTICULATE RESULTS WITH EXAMPLE
CALCULATIONS
COMPLETE GASEOUS RESULTS WITH EXAMPLE
CALCULATIONS
COMPLETE OPERATION RESULTS WITH EXAMPLE
CALCULATIONS
FIELD DATA
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
LABORATORY REPORT
TEST LOG
PROJECT PARTICPANTS
OPERATING DATA LOG
PAGE
1
3
23
28
30
-------
! SECTION II
! INTRODUCTION
i
Source emission tests were conducted on the exhaust gases from two
gas turbine power generators at the Kearny Mesa plant of the San Diego
Gas and Electric Company, San Diego, California. The tests were con-
ducted to aijd in the establishment of federal emission standards for
sources in this category. The two identical units tested were manufac-
tured by the General Electric Company and have a peak load rating of
17.2 Mw. Th'e units were equipped with a water injection system designed
to reduce oxides of nitrogen emissions. A series of nine successful test
runs were completed during the period January 10 - 12, 1973. Continuous
samples were taken for the determination of hydrocarbons, oxygen, carbon
monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen. In addition, oxides of nitrogen were
also measured using grab samples. All samples were taken from the turbine
exit stack according to the recommended source test procedures of the
i
Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency. Some modifica-
tions of standard procedures were necessary due to the unique character-
istics of tHese facilities. This test was also of an experimental nature
in that extensive comparison of test methods was conducted.
Subsequent sections of this report include a summary of the analyses
i
performed and a brief narrative of the entire project; the location of
sampling ports; the sampling and analytical procedures; the process descrip-
tion; and the process operation. The appendices contain the analysis of
the data and experimental procedures in addition to all the raw data
collected during the tests. This report is written without specific views
i
of the test team regarding emission rates, compliance with air pollution
regulations or control techniques.
-------
Mr. Robert M. Martin, Office of Air Programs, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, coordinated the tests, arranged for sampling ports, elec-
tricity, and other test facilities. In addition, he provided valuable
guidance and technical advice on the actual conduct of the tests. Mr. James
Eddinger, Industrial Studies Branch, Environmental Protection Agency,
scheduled the tests and arranged for the desired operating conditions.
Mr. Tom Logan, Environmental Protection Agency, conducted oxides of nitro-
gen sampling using the PbOp method. Mr. Stanley Spruiell, Environmental
Protection Agency, assisted with the velocity, temperature, and paramagnetic
oxygen determinations. Mr. James Kelly, Environmental Protection Agency,
conducted the laboratory analyses of one-half of the PDS oxides of nitro-
gen samples. The remainder of the testing and analyses were performed
by Messers. Michael E. Lukey and Burke Bell of-Engineering-Science, Inc.;
Mr. C. McComis of Ultrasystems, Inc.; and Messers. John Chehaske, Daniel
Whimpey, and Douglas Epps of Commonwealth Laboratory, Inc.
-------
SECTION III
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The test team arrived in San Diego the night of Sunday, January 7,
1973. Monday morning was spent transporting the sampling equipment from
the Chula Vista plant and from the airport to the Kearny Mesa plant.
Monday afternoon and part of Tuesday morning were spent setting up and
calibrating! the sampling equipment. High humidity and occasional rain
showers forced cancellation of tests planned for Tuesday afternoon because
of the humidity effect on the formation of oxides of nitrogen and the
safety problem of working on the wet sloping metal roof of the turbine.
Testing'commenced on Wednesday, January 10, 1973 and terminated on
Friday afternoon, January 12, 1973. During this time, three tests (Runs
1 - 3) were conducted on turbine #GT-2A and six tests (Runs 4-9) were
conducted on turbine #GT-2B.
i
Test runs 1 - 5 were complete stack traverses (7 rows of 7 points each)
conducted at 16.2 + 0.2 Mw load. Test runs 6-9 were single-point runs
conducted at 18.5 Mw, 15 Mw, 10 Mw and 5 Mw, respectively. All traverses
were made in the same horizontal plane just upstream from the silencing
baffles.
Three 3/8 inch stainless steel sampling tubes, an S-type pitot tube,
and a ceramic sheathed thermocouple were encased in a 2 inch pipe to form
the sampling probe assembly. One of the sampling tubes was connected to
i
the EPA Paramagnetic oxygen analyzer with approximately 50 feet of Teflon
tubing. The second sampling tube was utilized for the oxides of nitrogen
determinations using the PDS method. The evacuated PDS flasks were connec-
ted directly to the sampling tube thus eliminating a long sample line.
-------
The third sampling tube was used for all the remaining sampling instruments
except the PbO~ which used a separate, nontraversing sampling probe. Stack
gases were drawn from this third tube through a heated teflon line by a
teflon lined diaphram pump and were fed via a glass manifold to the following
instruments:
i
' CO - NDIR (Ultrasysterns)
i HC - FID (ES)
NO - Chemiluminescence (Ultrasystems)
NO - Electrochemical (ES)
! /\
$2 ~ Polarographic (Ultrasysterns)
All original field data and observations are contained in Appendix D.
Tables III-l through III-6 summarize this data by test run and in addition
provide oxides of nitrogen values normalized for excess air to both 3% and
i
15% oxygen. The normalized NO values can be directly compared to existing
/\
regulations1and proposed standards. (The current San Diego County Regula-
tions are based on 3% 0^, while the proposed EPA standards are based on
15% 02.) Tables III-l through III-5 list the results of the first five
tests. These were complete traverse tests requiring approximately three
hours each.I Table 111-6 lists the results of the four single point tests,
numbers 6 through 9; these tests were of 10 minutes duration. The tabulated
PDS results are the average of two samples taken at each selected point.
i
The two samples were taken one immediately after the other; the analyses of
one sample was performed by the EPA and the second sample was analyzed by
Commonwealth Laboratory. Results of the Pb09 sampling runs are shown with
i *•
arrows to indicate the duration of each individual sample. The remaining
determinations are listed point by point for each of the 49 points comprising
a complete stack traverse.
The stack temperature throughout the entire stack was relatively con-
stant for each test; maximum variation observed was 150°F during test 2.
-------
TABLE III-I
KEARNY MESA, SAN 1)1 V.GO, CALIFORNIA
Summary of Results
Tost Run No. 1 - J.iiiunrv 10. 1973
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Snmi>] inf.
Point s
% 02
Correction
ppm) Electro
Clicm
PbO,
1C (ppm)
0, (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vol. (fpn)
NOX 1'DS
'ppm) Electro
Chcm
Pb02
1C (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vo.l. (fps)
NOX PDS
ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb°2
1C (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PBS
!ppm) Electro
Chem .
Pb02
HC (ppra)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp.(°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PUS
[ppm) Electro
Chem
phri
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem
"oi'.2
I1C (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
rcmp.(°K)
Vel. (fps)
N0v PDS
(ppm) Electro
Glicm
VfoOy
1C (ppm)
)2 (%)
CO (ppm)
I'omp. (°K)
VH . (fps)
JNC
53
44
1
1
1.5
47
51
1
1
26
47
54
1
1
23
50
55
1
1
12
54
58
1
1
2C
52
54
1
1
21
54
56
]
.
?.(
1
3
177
148
5.6 •
37
020
4.4
146
158
1.3
5.2
20
060
4.5
154
177
2.3
5.5
25
075
4.0
164
181
1.2
5.5
25
0.75
6.1
174
185
0.8
5.4
22
085
0.0
170
177
0.8
5.5
27
065
9.7
170
1.77
L5.3
27
060
>9.1
15
59
49
49
53
51
59
54
60
58
62
57
59
57
59
INC
53
44
1
1
13
\>
52
53
1
It
6'
54
57
1
1
9
56
52
56
1
1
14
54
57
1
1
26
58
54
54
1
1
10
54
55
1
1
1.4
2
3
177
147
3.6
30
320
5.8
97
159
162
1.2
5.1
30
)65
'i.2
177
186
L.5
5.5
25
360
3.5
182
170
182
L.I
5.5
22
)45
7.1
174
183
1.0
5.4
22
075
5.8
185
174
174
0.8
5.4
27
065
2.6
170
174
0.7
5.3
27 .
065
8. 1
15
59
49
33
53
54
59
62
61
57
60
58
61
62
58
58
57
58
UNC
50
45
1
1
13
53
55
1
1
6
58
54
58
1
1
4
53
56
1
1
56
55
56
1
1
2f
55
54
1
]
l
52
54
J
1.
3
3
164
1.46
5.5
30
030
7.3
164
172
1.4
5.2
30
055
6.0
190
177'
189
1.3
5.5
25
080
2.1
174
183
1.1
5.5
22
065
0
178
177
180
1.3
5.4
25
060
6.1
174
170
1.0
5.3
27
L075
2.0
164
170
0.8
5.3
27
070
L4.9
15
54
49
55
57
63
59
63
58
61
60
59
60
58
57
55*
57
NC
50
46
02
52
54
52
59
32
53
57
54
54
57
53
55
A A
52
53
4
3
IG/i
152
1.'
is.:
2<
10 2(
130..
194
161
167
i.;
is.;
3.
105f
93. ^
170
193
l.C
15.1
25
108C
163. C
104
170
184
2.5
15.-!
22
10 7(
lll.C
174
174
1.
15.
25
106(
162. (
177
164
171
l A C
15.
27
106
0
1.64
171
0.
15.
27
107
94.
15
54
50
)
)
bb
54
56
>
57
64
)
)
)
34
57
61
)
)
58
58
1
4
D
3
59
55
57
Aft
i
55
57
3 •
3
5
J
UNC
50
47
1
1
19
50
54
1
1
12
54
50 .
61
1
1
14
54
56
1
1
14
60
53
53
1
1
52
55
1
1
51
52
1
1
.1C
5
3
161
152
1.5
5.4
25
033
6.6
167
181
2.4
5.6
60
075
6.1
175
164
200
1.0
5;5
25
050
7.4
174
182
5.4
22
050
7.4
193
170
170
5.4
27
055
0
157
168
5.1
27
075
0
L64
168
0.8
5.4
27
080
3.1
15
54
51
56
60
58
55
66
58
60
64
57
57
•
53
56
55
56
UNC
47
48
2
2i>
50
54
1
60
1
54
51
59
•
51
55
53
51
53
50
50
1
6
3
151
153
1.3
15.4
25
1020
51.0
84
167
180
2.0
L5.6
35
L060
47.8
196.
.5.5
25
L050
L4.1
175
164
190
L5.4
22
L065
59.2
161
174
15.3
27
1060
0
167
161
167
0.5
15.3
27
1070
72.7
16 4
16 A
0.5
15.5
27
1070
87.7
15
50
5.1
U
56
60
65
58
55
63
54
58
56
54
56
54
54
UNC
40
46
1
1
29
46
52
1
1
25
48
42
1
1
3C
48
53
1
1
25
47
50
1
1
6
48
53
1
]
2;
47
50
1
3(
7
3
126
1.46
1.3
.5.3
25
020
9.0
153
173
2.7
5.6
37
045
4.8
157
138
1.2
5.5
25
060
3.0
154
171
0.5
5.4
22
045
9.8
163
173
0.8
5.8
27
.045
5.8
152
.1.67
0.6
.5.3
27
075
0.4
1.51
167
0.5
5.4
27
070
)2.f>
15
42
48
51
58
52
46
51
57
54
58
50
56
50
5f>
*S;impli: continued an iulilltJ.oii.il 7 mlnuti'S.
-------
TABLE II1-2
KKAKNY IICSA, SAN 1)1 KGO, CALIFORNIA
Summary of Results
Test Run No. 2 - January 10, 1973
G
F
E
D
c-
B
A
Sampling
Points
% o2
Correction
NOX PDS
[ppm)Electro
Che.m
PbO,
1C (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vol. (fps)
NOX PDS
[ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
1C ' (ppm)
0, (%)'
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
[ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
1C (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Electro
Chem '
Pb02 '
1C (ppm)
Oo <*>
CO (ppm)
Cemp. (°F)
Vfil. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
o2 m
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vol. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem ,
PbO-)
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Tomp. (°F)
Vt;1. (fps)
1
UNC
49
46
3
163
157
.15
54
52
0.5
15.6 -
22
1045
190.9
47
54
157
183
52
61
1.1
15.6
22
910
198.7
48
49
163
166
54
56
15.7
27
930
179.0
52
-
177
-
59
15.7
30
9-25
126.3
47
-
163
-
54
15.8
30
925
213.8
47
50
163
173
54
58
15.8
30-31
915
259.5
47
47
160
160
53
53
0.6
15.7
33
905
143.0
2
UNC
50
47
3
167
157
15
56
52
0.8
15.6
22
920
149.2
54
49
52
179
163
173
60
54,
58
1.1
15.6
22
925
109.4
48
50
163
170
54
57
0.6
15.7
27
930
228.2
53
50
180
170
60
57
15.7
30
915
154.2
-
49
-
170
-
56
15.8
30
925
101.9
54
49
50
183
166
170
61
56
57
15.7
30-31
925
79.9
47
47
163
163
54
54
0.5
15.8
33
920
1 .9 . 6
3
IMC
49
47
3
163
157
15
54
52
0.6
15.6
22
920
97.7
49
52
163
173
54
58
1.0
15.6
22
930
63.3
52
49
48
176
166
163
59
56
54
0.8
15.7
27
940
246.0
-
49
-
170
-
56
0.7
15.8
30
925
109.4
-
49
-
170
-
56
0.5
15.8
• 30
930
63.3
50
51
170
173
57
58
0.4
15.7
33
925
56.5
48
46
169
162
56
54
0.5
15.9
33
920
97.7
4
UNC
49
48
3
163
160
15
54
53
0.6
15.6 .
22
920
63.1
53
47
50
179
160
170
60
53
57
0.9
15.7
22
925
0
48
47
163
160
54
53
0.8
15.7
30
920
166.8
52
49
180
170
60
56
0.7
15.8
30
925
178.7
56
49
194
170
65
56
0.5
15.8
30
925
63.2
55
51
51
187
173
173
62
58
58
0.5
15.7
33
925
109.4
46
48
166
173
55
58
0.3
16.0
33
920
1 26 . 1
5
UNC
48
49
3
160
163
15
53
54
15.6
22
910
62.8
45
5.3
153
180
51
60
0.8
15.7
22-23
915
0
53
47
46
181
160
156
60
53
52
0.8
15.7
30
915
0
-
51
-
176
-
59
0.7
• 15.8
30
920
126.1
58
53
50
109
184
173
56
61
58
0.5
15.8
30
910
125.6
50
50
170
170
57
57
0.6
15.7
33
915
109.0
46
45
169
165
56
55
0.2
- 16.1 -
33
905
177.4
6
UNC
46
50
3
153
167
15
51
. 56
0.9
15.6
22
910
1.40 . 5
44
46
49
151
156
167
50
52
56
0.8
15.7
25
925
• o-
46
48
156
163
52
54
0.8
15.7
30
910
0
50
50
173
173
58
58
0.6
15.8
30
910
0
52
50
181
172
60
57
0.5
15.8
30
915
109.0
29
50
50
98
170
170
33
57
57
0.6
15.7
33
920
135.2
45
43
169
161
56
54
0.2
16.2
34
895
202.0
7
UNC
43
48
3
143
160
15
48
53
1.0
15.6
22
900
280.0
47
.7
160
160
53
53
15.7
25
915
188.8
44
46
149
160
50
53
0.8
15.7
30
915
188.8
-
47
-
163
-
54
0.6
15.8
30
890
187.1
44
48
152
170
51
56
0.5
15.8
30-31
910
251. 3
46
46
156
160
52
53
0.6
15.7
33
895
237.1
42
41
161
157
54
52
0.2
16.3
32
880
29 1 . 4
-------
TANLK Til-3
KEAKNY MKSA, SAN IUKCO, CALIFORNIA
Summary of Rt.'iHil.ta
Test Run No. 3 - January 11, 1973
Port
A
B '
D
E - '
F
G
Samp] ing
Points
% 02
Correction
NOX I'DS
(ppm) Electro
Chcra
PbO?
1C (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS ,
(ppm)Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem .
Pb02
IIC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
N0x PDS
(ppm)Electro
Chem
Pb62
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
IIC (ppm)
02 (%) •
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Elcctro
Chem ,
Pb02
IIC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm) ;
Temp. (°F) ,
Vol. (fps)
1
UNC
53
46
3
74
154
15
58
51
0.8
15.5-
20
925
112.7
50
48
167
160
56
53
0.5
15.6
22
950
220.2
50
51
164
167
54
56
0.10
15.5
27
960
168.7
52
54
167
174
56
58
0.6
15.4
30
910
125.3
54
58
170
183
57
61
0.4
15.3
32
955
170.8
51
56
164
180
55
60
0.5
15.4
31-32
950
220.2
58
183
61
15.3
32
9.85
182.0
2
JNC
52
47
3
170
1.54
15
57
51
0.4
15.5
20
925
97.6
51
51
49
171
L70
1.63
57
57
54
0.5
15.6
25
910
62.7
51
52
L64
167
55
56
0.15
15.4
27
965
70.0
56
52
55
180
167
177
60
56
59
0.7
15.4
30
915
186.2
53
59
167
186
56
62
0.4
15.3
32
965
239.1
34
51
56
108
164
180
36
55
60
0.5
15.4
32
950
89.9
57
180
60
0.7
15.3
32
975
99.3
3
UNC
51
48
3
If. 7
157
15
56
52
0.5
15.5
20
935
56.6
53
51
174
167
58
56
0.3
15.5
25
930
56.5
56
54
52
180
174
167
60
58
56
15.4
27
935
40.0
52
54
167
177
56
59
0.8
15.4
30
935
97.9
56
54
55
177
170
174
59
57
58
0.5
15.3
' 32
955
231.3
50
56
161
183
54
61
0.7
15.4
32
915
39.7
57
180
60
15.3
32
950
80.4
4
UNC
52
48
3
173
163
15
58
54
0.6
15.6
20
950
127.1
52
53
51
49
170
174
167
160
57
58
56
53
0.3
15.5
25
920
119.3
54
52
174
170
58
57
.15.4
27
960
139.7
63
53
56
202
170
180
67
57
60
0.8
15.4
30
955
180.1
52
53
164
167
55
56
0.5
15.3
32
945
106.2
58
52
57
53
182
1.64
1.80
170
61
55
60
57
0.8
15.3
32
960
0
56
183
61
15.4
32
930
69.1
5 .
UNC
56
48
3
187
160
15
62
53
0.6
15.6
20
950
196.9
52
52
170
170
57
57
0.2
15.5
25
920
108.9
58
53
54
186
170
174
62
57
58
0.20
15.4
27
930
126.2
53
56
167
177
56
59
0.8
15.3
30
960
127.6
58
51
54
183
161
170
61
54
57
0.5
15.3
32
935
0
53
56
167
177
56
59
0.8
15.3
32
900
0
58
1.86
62
15.4
32
905
108.3
6
INC
45
45
3
150
150
15
50
50
0.6
15.6
20
930
252.4
54
51
50
177
167
167
59
56
56
0.2
15.5
25
940
138.8
51
52
164
170
55
57
15.4
27
955
113.9
56
52
56
177
164
177
59
55
59
0.9
15.3
30
960
0
50
52
161
167
54
56
0.5
15.4
32
930
0
56
52
56
177
164
177
59
55
59
0.7
15.3
32
865
77.9
57
186
1
62
15.5
32
890
175.9
7
UNC
42
43
3
180
143
15
47
48
0.6
15.6
20
930
296.0
46
48
150
157
50
52
0.2
15.5
27
935
256.0
47
49
1.51
158
50
52
15.4
30
935
296.5
49
49
155
155
52
52
15.3
30
960
180.4
48
51
154
164
51
55
0.6
15.4
32
935
260.6
49
54
155
1.70
52
57
0.9
15.3
32
905
137.2
57
1.86
62
15.5
32
910
306.9
-------
TA1ILE 1IT-4
KEARNY MKSA, SAN WECO, CALIFORNIA
Summary of Results
Test Run No. 4, January 11, 1973
A
B.
c
D
E-
F
G
Sampling
Points
% 02
Correction
NCx PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chcm
Pb02
11C (ppm)
o2 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vol. (fps)
NOX PUS
(ppm) Electro
Chcm
Pb02
HC (ppm)
0, (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vol. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppra) Electro
Cliem
Pb02'
HC (ppm)
o2 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fns)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Klcctro
Chcm,
PbOi
HC (ppm)
02 <%) ,
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vc'l. (fprO
1
INC
51
50
3
167
164
15
56
54
0.5
15.5-
38
980
40.7
45
45
145
145
48
48
0.6
15.4
35
965
212.1
45
47
140
146
47
49
0.5
15.2
37
960
189.4
46
49
143
152
48
51
0.5
15.2
37
965
169.3
47
143
48
15.1
32
965
247.3
47
50
143
156
48
52
0.4
15.1
38
970
239.8
47
50
143
152
48
51
0.6
15.1
38
%0
H2.H
2
UNC
51
49
3
164
158
15
55
52
15.4
38
990
0
52
162
54
15.2
32
965
0
46
47
143
146
48
49
0.4
15.2
37
960
80.8
50
46
49
153
143
152
51
48
51
0.5
15.2
37-38
970
192.2
47
46
143
140
48
47
15.1
38
970
151.6
51
48
50
155
146
152
52
49
51
0.4
15.1
38
970
70.2
46
50
140
1.52
47
51
0.5
15.1
38
965
70.1
3
INC
50
50
3
158
161.
15
53
54
0.4
15.3
38
990
0
44
46
137
143
46
48
0.4
15.2
' 37
965
0
48
46
48
149
143
149
50
48
50
0.4
15.2
37
960
40.4
49
152
51
15.2
38
970
128.0
48
47
49
146
143
150
49
48
50
15.1
" 38
970
169.5
48
50
146
152
49
51
0.4
15.1
38
965
0
47
50
143
152
48
51
0.5
15.1
38
965
40.5
4
UNC
49
50
3
152
.55
1.5
5V
52
0.5
15.2
38
990
152.7
54
47
46
47
168
146
143
148
56
49
47
49
0.3
15.2
37
970
99.3
M7
48
146
149
49
50
0.5
15.2
37
965
99.1
-
-
-
15.2
970
181.2
47
50
143
152
48
51
0.3
15.1
38
965
145.9
52
48
49
39
158
146
L50
11.4
53
49
50
40
0.4
15.1
38
960
0
46
50
140
1.52
47
51
0.5
15.1
38
905
57.2
5
INC
48
50
3
152
158
15
50
53
0.5
15.3
38
990
215.9
47
46
146
143
49
48
0.4
15.2
37
970
134 . 4
54
47
48'
168
146
149
56
49
50
0.5
15.2
'37
970
169.5
52
46
49
160
140
150
53
47
50
0.6
15.1
38
157.0
46
47
50
140
143
152
47
48
51
0.3
15.1
38
965 ,
57.2
49
49
150
150
50
50
0.4
15.1
38
965
0
45
50
1.37
152
46
51
0.6
15.1
38
970
57.3
6
UNC
48
50
3
157
164
15
52
.5''
0.5
15.5
38
985
237.5
42
46
47
132
143
146
44
48
49
0.4
15.2
37
960
191.6
47
49
146
152
49
51
0.5
15.2
37
970
157.0
49
47
50
150
143
152
50
48
51
15.1
38
975
111.2
50
152
51
0.4
15.1
38 '
965
80.9
54
49
50
165
150
152
55
50
51
0.5
15.1
38
970
114.6
43
50
33
155
44
52
0.6
15.2
38
970
107.2
7
UNf:
4.1
45
3
139
153
15
46
51
0.6
15.7
38
930
246.3
45
47
131
146
47
49
0.4
15.2
37
940 •
246.3
46
48
143
'149
48
50
0.5
15.2
37
950
284.5
47
51
143
156
48
52
15.1
38
970
239.8
50
156
52
0.4
15.1
38
965
259.0
49
50
150
J.54
50
51
0.5
15.1
38
960
255.4
44
50
139
158
46
53
0.6
15.3
38
960
180.6
Sample continued an ailJitlnn.il 16 minute!!.
-------
TABLE III-5
KEARNY MESA, SAN DIF.fiO, CALIFORNIA
Summary of Results
Test Run No. 5, January 12, 1973
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
Sampling
Points
% 02
Correction
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vcl. (fps)
NOx PDS
(ppm)Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX' PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vcl. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Electro
Chem
Pb02
HC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm) Electro
Chem
Pb02
UC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp. (°F)
Vel. (fps)
NOX PDS
(ppm)Elcctro
Chem'
Pb02
UC (ppm)
02 (%)
CO (pnm)
Temp. (kK)
Vol. (fps^
1
UNC
51
47
3
161
148
15
54
50
0.8
15.3
26
975
128.3
51
46
158
146
53
49
0.8
15.2
26
985
240.9
49
50
152
158
51
53
15.2
28
985
232.1
48
50
146
152
49
51
15.1
30
970
0
48
51
144
153
48
51
15.0
30
985
203.6
48
51
142
150
47
50
14.9
30
985
244.3
48
48
144
144
48
48
0.4
15.0
32
955
08.7
2
UNC
52
50
3
164
161
15
55
54
0.8
15.3
26
985
128.8
88
50
48
278
158
152
93
53
50
0.8
15.3
26
985
91.0
49
50
150
152
50
51
15.1
28
980
257.1
48
49
51
L46
147
153
48
49
51
15.0
30
980
157.4
48
49
L44
L47
48
49
15.0
30
985
64.4
44
49
51
129
145
150
43
48
50
0.1
14.9
30
975
40.6
48
50
144
150
48
50
0.4
15.0
32
970
114.6
3
UNC
55
50
3
171
158
1.5
57
53
0.8
15.2
26
1010
41.1
50
48
158
152
53
50
0.8
15.3
' 26
980
0
42
49
50
124
147
150
42
49
50
0.4
15.0
28
980
213.2
48
49
142
144
47
48
14.9
30
975
111.1
42
49
50
124
145
148
41
48
49
14.9
30
980
40.7
48
52
142
153
47
51
0.1
14.9
30
970
40.5
49
50
147
150
49
50
0.4
15.0
• 32
960
133.9
4
UNC
54
50
3
171
161
15
57
54
0.8
15.3
26
1015
108.8
42
50
48
45
135
161
154
140
45
54
51
47
0.7
15.3
26
985
0
49
50
L47
150
49
50
0.5
15.0
28
975
128.3
47
49
49
142
147
147
47
49
49
0.4
15.0
30
980
J.92.8
49
50
L45
L50
48
50
14.9
30
980
26.7
42
49
50
126
145
148
42
48
49
0.2
14.9
30
980
81.3
48
50
42
144
150
127
48
50
42
0.4
15.0
32
960
189.3
5
UNC
54
50
3
174
161
15
58
54
0.8
15.4
26
1010
224.9
49
47
158
151
52
50
0.8
15.4
26-27
980
0
45
49'
49
135
147
147
45
49
49
0.6
15.0
30
980
0
49
50
147
153
49
51
0.5
15.0
30
980
134.8
52
49
50
148
145
153
49
43
51
14.9
30 ,
995
144.5
50
50
150
150
50
50
0.4
15.0
30
980
107.5
48
50
144
ISO
48
50
0.4
15.0
32
960
231.9
6
UNC
47
48
3
157
160
15
52
.53
0.8
15.6
970
239.6
48
48
47
156
157
154
52
52
51
0.8
15.5
28
985
128.8
48
50
146
152
49
51
0.7
15.1
30
985
64.4
41
48
50
124
144
150
41
48
50
0.4
15.0
30
980
70.4
49
52
147
153
49
51
15.0
30
975
157.2
43.
50
50
132
152
152
44
51
51
0.3
15.1
30 •
970
169.4
47
48
148
155
50
52
0.4
15.3
32
945
290.9
7
UNC
45
42
3
156
145
15
52
49
0.8
15.8
26
940
245.4
48
49
163
166
54
56
0.9
15.7
28
980
257.1
48
50
149
155
50
52
0.3
15.2
30
980
250.6
48
50
144
150
48
50
0.4
15.0
30
980
215.1
48
50
149
155
50
52
0.2
15.2
30
965
293.0
49
47
152
146
51
49
0.3
15.2
32
950
257.5
46
48
150
157
50
51' ;
• .• 1
0.4
15.5
32
940
283.4
Sample continued
nn .•ulilltion.il /I nil nut i-f
I
-------
TABLE II1-6
KEARNY MESA. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Summary of Results
Test Runs 6 through 9, January 12, 1973
Test No. 1 6
% 02
Correction
NOX (ppm)
Electro
Chem
HC (ppm)
o2 (%)
CO (ppm)
Temp (°F)
Velocity (fps)
Load (Mw)
' 1
UNC | 3%
; _ .
60 163
161 166
15%
54
56
2.5
i 14.4
20
1050
174
! 18
7
UNC
45
52
3%
162
187
15%
54
62
3.0
16.0
32
1050
—
15
8
UNC
31
39
3%
130
163
15%
43
54
7.5
16.7
75
—
—
10
9
UNC 3%
26 134
32 165
15%
45
55
9.5
17.5
235
625
27
5
All samples taken from traverse point number D-4.
10
-------
As expected,; velocity varied widely from point to point, ranging from 0
at some points to just over 300 fps at other points. The highest veloci-
ties were encountered near the stack wall which contained the sampling
ports. Since the stack static pressure was slightly higher than ambient
pressure there was no problem of stack gas dilution at the sampling ports.
Hydrocarbon results were uniformly low with most values less than 1 ppm (as
i
propane) at normal operating loads. As the load was dropped, the hydrocarbon
content increased, reaching a maximum steady state value of approximately
10 ppm at the 5 Mw load. During the 5 minutes or so required to shut down
the turbine, the hydrocarbon concentration increased rapidly to over 500 ppm.
Carbon monoxide concentrations, like the hydrocarbon values, were low
and reasonably constant from point to point and from test to test. Values
ranged from;20 ppm to 38 ppm for the normal load tests. At low load levels
CO concentration increased, reaching 235 ppm at the 5 Mw load.
The various methods of determining NO concentration did not yield
X
identical values, but did show the NO concentration to be uniform through-
A
out the stack and relatively constant with time. The NO concentration
i
i
varied in direct proportion with the load -- approximately 60 ppm at 18 Mw
and approximately 30 ppm at 5 Mw with no water injection.
A general comparison of the NO methods used shows the following trends:
: X
1. PDS yields the highest values but results are frequently erratic.
' Mean values range from essentially equal with electrochemical values
to 10% higher than electrochemical.
2. Electrochemical and Chemiluminescence yield results that are nearly
identical and are very stable.
3. PbOp yields the lowest values with somewhat more variability than
I
the continuous analyzers but not as much variability as the PDS.
Results ranged from essentially equal to the electrochemical to
approximately 10% lower than the electrochemical.
11
-------
In order to obtain a more definite comparison of the NOV methods used,
A
statistical analyses were performed on the PDS, electrochemical, and chemi-
luminescence results from tests 1 through 5. For the purpose of these
analyses, all NO values were corrected to 15% oxygen. No allowances were
A
made for deviant data points since the resulting correlations would reflect
the ability of the data analyst rather than the precision of the test method.
Table II1-7 shows the numerical difference in the results obtained by
the electrochemical and the chemiluminescence methods and also the electro-
chemical and PDS methods. The differences are given for each individual
point at which comparative data were taken. The electrochemical method was
used as the comparison standard because it yielded the most consistent stan-
dard deviation results of the methods used. PDS values used were the average
of the EPA and Commonwealth Laboratory results.
The arithmetic means and standard deviations of the temperature, velo-
city, and NO measurements are shown in Table III-8. Two additional types of
A
statistical analyses were performed on the NO data—the F test and the t test.
A
The F test compares the standard deviation or variance of each of the data sets
and determines if differences in the standard deviations can be attributed to
chance fluctuations or to a real difference in the standard deviations. The
t test compares means or averages of all the data recorded by each test pro-
cedure. Accounting for the standard deviations and an arbitrary confidence
level (in this case 95%), the t test determines whether the difference in
means between the two methods falls within the accuracy of the tests or if
a systematic difference exists.
In actuality, this is a comparison of the assumed normal population of
one sampling procedure with the normal population of another procedure. The
mean and standard deviation define one population. We then compare the mean
12
-------
TABLE III-7
COMPARISON BY DIFFERENCE (PPM) OF NO,, RESULTS CORRECTED TO 15% OXYGEN
. A
A-l
2
3
4
5
6
7
B-l
2
3
4
5
6
7
C-l
2
3
4
5
6
7
Test 1
E-C E-PDS
10
10
5
4
. ... 3
-1
-6
-4
-1 -13
-2
-2 -11
-4
-4 28
-7
-8
-3
-4 -4
-7
-11 -3
-
6
Test 2
E-C E-PDS
0
0
2
-3 -
1
2
2
-4
-1 -5
-1
0 -4
0
0 22
-1
-
-
-
-
3 -5
3
-5
Test 3
E-C E-PDS
7
6
4
. 4
5
0
-1
3
3 0
2
2 1
0
0 -4
-2
-2
-1
2 -2
1
-1 -6
-2
-2
Test 4
E-C E-PDS
2
3
-1
-1
-3
-2
-5
0
-
-2
2 0
1
-1 4 »
-2
-2
-1
-2 -7
-1
-1 -6
-2
-2
Test
E-C
0
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-3
-2
-4
-1
o-
0
2
-3
-1
-1
-2
-3
-2
-2
5
E-PDS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
-
-
6
-
-2
• .- •
—
-------
TABLE III-7 (cont'd)
D-l
2
3
4
5
6
7
E-l
2
3
4
5
6
7
F-l
2
3
4
5
6
7
Test
E-C
-6
-3
-3
-4
-2
-8
-6
-4
-3
-1
0
0
-4
-4
-2
0
1
-2
-3
-2
-6
1
E-PDS
-
-4
-
23
-
-3
-
-
-
-1
-
-7
-
-
-
-4
-
-4
-
-2
—
Test 2
E-C E-PDS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-2
-3
-2 -4
1
1 -7
-2
-3
-9
-4 -6
-4
-4 -7
-9
-4 2
0
Test
E-C
-2
-3
-3
-3
-3
-4
0
-4
-6 ,
-1
-1
.-3. .
-2
-4
-5
-5
-7
-5
-3
-4
-2
3
E-PDS
-
-4
-
-11
-
-5
-
-
-
-3
-
-8 *
-
-
-
19
-
-6
-
-5
_
Test
E-C
-3
-3
-
-
-3
-3
-4
-
1
-2
-3 .
-3
-
-
-4
-2
-2
-2
0
-1
-1
4
E-PDS
-
-3
-
-
-6
-3
-
-
-
1
-
2
-
-
-
-5
-
-6
-
-5
_
Test
E-C
-2
-2
-1
0
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
0
-2
-2
4
3
3
3
2
1
-2
5
E-PDS
-
-1
-
2
-
7
-
-
7
-
4
-
-
-
-40
-
9
-
6
_
-------
TABLE III-7 (cont'd)
Test 1
E-C E-PDS
G-l -2 -
2 -1 -
3 -2 -
4 -2 -
5 -1 -
60-
7 -6 -
Test 2 Test 3
E-C E-PDS E-C E-PDS
2 - - -
4 _
2
1 - - -
_! _
_5 _
-5 -
Test 4
E-C E-PDS
-3
-4
-3
-4
— 5 —
-8
-7
Test
E-C
4
1
4
4
4
-1
-3
5
E-PDS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOTE: E-C represents electrochemical vs chemiluminescent result.
E-PDS represents electrochemical vs phenoldisulfonic acid result (where there were
both PDS and Electro data points).
-------
If"
TABLE III-8
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF NO,, TEMPERATURE'AND VELOCITY
n A
(NO values are corrected to 15% oxygen)
Test
PDSEPA
(ppm)
PDS
Commonweal tt
(ppm)
ELEC
(ppm)
CHEM
(ppm)
ELEC where
both PDS &
ELEC data
pts. exist
(ppm)
Temperature
(°F)
Velocity
(fps)
Test 1
Mean
51.77
52.12
54.75
56.73
55.55
1058.5
147.9
Stand
15.87
22.09
3.29
5.39
2.41
17.74
83.66
Test 2
Mean
54.15.
54.14
54.34
55.62
55.87
919.3
133.7
Stand
3.58
15.14
2.65
2.20
2.85
21.51
78.99
Test 3 |1 Test 4
Mean
56.62
56.28
55.05
56.91
55.88
936.6
133.7
Stand
1.89
14.5
2.74
3.54
1.34
23.28
82.73
Mean
47.62
54.45
48.40
50.46
48.13
967.1
131.1
Stand
4.37
4.86
2.18
1.73
0.80
11.00
84.62
Test 5
Mean
48.83
48.35
50.25
50.86
49.71
976.7
144.4
Stand
13.50
13.90
2.69
1.57
1.96
15.12
89.60
16
-------
and standard deviation to another population to see if they are the same.
If, through the t test and the F test, we accept the hypotheses, then we
can easily conclude that the sampling methods are identical.
Table III-9 is a summary of the F tests performed. The "Hypothesis"
i
column shows which methods are being compared (PDS is Commonwealth Labora-
tory PDS data; PDSERA is EPA PDS data; ELE is electrochemical data; CHEM
is chemiluminescence data). Entries in the "Findings" column indicate
whether the standard deviations were equal as hypothesized (accept) or not
equal (reject).
Results of .the t tests are shown in Table 111-10. Again, the two
methods being compared are listed in the Hypothesis column, (col. 2),
and the results of the comparison test are listed in the Findings column,
(col 7). The two right hand columns (cols. 8 & 9) are included to show the
results of the corresponding F tests. As ah example, the first line of
Table 111-10 provides the following information: the methods being compared
were the PDS data generated by the EPA for Test 1 to the PDS data generated
by Commonwealth Laboratory for Test 1; the t test was accepted (col. 7);
the F test was accepted (col. 8); therefore, the results obtained with these
two methods for Test 1 can be considered equal within the accuracy of the
method.
The effect of standard deviation on the t test is very important and
must not be overlooked. As the standard deviations decrease, the t test's
acceptability range also decreases. Thus, if two methods each have a small
standard deviation the t test becomes much more stringent and small systematic
differences in methods can be detected. This is most dramatically shown by
the data from Test 1. Comparison of EPA PDS data to electrochemical data
was accepted as equal within the accuracy of the methods. The numerical
17
-------
difference in the means was 2.98 ppm. Similar comparison of chemilumi-
nescence data to electrochemical data was rejected even though the means
differed by only 2.02 ppm.
In summary, the electrochemical method produced the lowest average
standard deviation (2.71 ppm) followed closely by the chemiluminescence method
(2.88 ppm). These low standard deviations indicate both methods have good
precision. The electrochemical and chemiluminescence methods yielded nearly
I
identical results, the difference averaging only 2.8 ppm. This difference
was shown to be a real systematic difference. The PDS results from the two
laboratories compared favorably with each other and with the electrochemical
method. The standard deviations, however, were erratic ranging from a low
of 1.89 to a high of 22.09 ppm. If the extremely low PDS values are discarded
as deviant data points, the standard deviations would decrease and the means
would increase.
18
-------
TABLE III-9
F-TEST
COMPARISON OF TEST METHODS FOR DETERMINATION
OF NO,, CONCENTRATION
L " X
.05
95% Confidence
Test
1
2
3
4 .. .
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Hypothesis
.o2PDS = a2ELE *
2 2
CT PDS = o ELE *
a2PDS = a2ELE *
2 2
a PDS = a ELE *
a PDS = a ELE *
2 2
o ELE = cr PDS *
2 2
o ELE = a PDS *
2 2
a ELE = a PDS . *
a 2ELE = a 2PDS *
2 2
a ELE = a PDS *
a 2ELE = a 2CHEM
2 2
a^ELE = a CHEM
a 2ELE = a 2CHEM
a ELE = a CHEM
2 2
a ELE = a CHEM
F Calculated
84.01
28.22
117.04
36.9
50.29
43.36
1.579
1.999
29.83
47.46
.373
1.451
.599
1.588
2.936
Degrees of Freedom
Vl
12
8
12
11
12
12
8
12
11
12
50
50
50
50
50
V2
12
8
12
11
12
12
8
12
11
12.
50
50
50
50
50
F Book
Fl (1"a/2)
3.28
4.43
3.28
3.47
3.28
3.28
4.43
3.28
3.47
3.28"
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
F2 (a/2)
.305
.226
.305
.288
.305
.305
.226
.305
.288
.305
.568
.568
.568
.568
.568
Findings**
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
* Where both points exist.
** Reject HQ if F calc £ F (a/2, V^ V2) or if F calc >. F[(l - a/2),
-------
TABLE III-9 (CONT'D)
ro
o
Test
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Hypothesis
a2ELE = a PDS
2 2
a ELE = a PDS
a2ELE = a2PDS
a2ELE = a2PDS
a2ELE » a2PDS
2 2
a ELE = a PDS p.
2 2
a ELE = a PDS
2 2
a ELE = a PDS p
«> t*T f — • *» TOT^O
0 £jj_i£j = (J; rUo
2 2
0 ELE — 0' P DS—,-.
a2PDS__. = a2PDS
EPA
a PDS = a PDS
a2PDS£pA = a2PDS
a2pDSEPA = °2pDS
*2pDSEPA = °2PDS
F Calculated
.0221
.0306
.0357
.2012
.0374
.0429
.5483
2.0915
.2489
.0396
1.9374
17.898
58.57
1.2577
1.0596
Degrees of Freedom
Vl
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
12
8
12
11
12
V2
12
8
12
11
12
12
8
12
11
12
12
8
12
11
12
F Book
Fl (1"a/2)
2.87
3.81
2.87
3.03
2.87
2.87
3.81
2.87
3.03
2.87
3.28
4.43
3.28
3.47
3.28
F2 (a/2)
.450
.407
.450
.442
.450
.450
.407
.450
.442
.450
.305
.226
.305
.288
.305
Findings**
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Accept
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
** Reject H if F calc <_ F (a/2, V.^ V£) or if F calc >_ F[(l - a/2), V.^ V
-------
TABLE III-10
T-TEST
COMPARISON OF TEST METHODS FOR DETERMINATION
OF NO CONCENTRATION
. . Test
1
; 2
;3
*
;5
ii
•2
• ;3
i4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Hypothesis
yPDSEpA = yPDS
yPDSEpA = yPDS
yPDSEpA = yPDS
yPDS PA = yPDS
yPDS£pA = yPDS
yPDS = yELE *
yPDS = yELE *
yPDS = yELE *
yPDS = yELE *
yPDS = yELE *
yPDSEpA = yELE *
yPDSEpA = yELE *
yPDSEpA = yELE *
yPDSEpA = yELE'*
yPDSEpA = yELE *
t Calculated
.00445
.0018
.0805
-3.466
.0858
-0.5347
-0.3176
0.0951
4.2557
-0.3356
-.8159
-1.0631
1.1064
-.3807
-.2234
Degrees c
Vl
12
8
12
11
12
12
8
12
11 -
12 .
12
8
12
11
12
>f Freedom
V2
12
8
12
11
12
12
8
12
11
12
12
8
12
11
12
. .
t Book
2.074
2.3060
2.1784
2.086
2.074
2.2009
2.365
2.2009
2.2298
2.2009
2.1790
2.145
2.074
2.2009
2.1790
Findings**
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
.•
2 2
CT^ - a*
/
/
/
/
/
a2 t a2
'
'
/
/
/
/
/
/
'
7
* Where both data points exist.
** Reject if |t calc| > t (Book).
-------
TABLE 111-10 (CONT'D)
Test
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Hypothesis
yELE = yCHEM
yELE = yCHEM
yELE = yCHEM
yELE = yCHEM
yELE = yCHEM
yELE = yPDS
yELE = yPDS
yELE = yPDS
yELE = yPDS
yELE = yPDS
yELE = yPDSppA
yELE = yPDS
yELE = yPDS
yELE = yPDSEpA
yELE = yPDS
t Calculated
-2.1723
-2.574
-2.8786
-5.1282
-0.9564
0.4112
0.0372
-0.2925
-4.0367
0.4713
-.6472
-.1784
1.8707
-.5757
-.3625
Degrees of Freedom
Vl
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
V2
48
48
48
48
48
12
8
12
11
12
12
8
12
11
12
t Book
2.0079
1.987
1.987
1.987
2.0079
2.199
2.3631
2.1992
2.2183
2.1992
2.0098
2.000"
2.000
2.0184
2.0096
Findings**
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
02 » 02
/
/
/
/
/
02,02
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
'
/
ro
ro
** Reject if |t calc| >^ t (Book)
-------
SECTION IV
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The gas turbines located at the Kearny Mesa site were installed
in 1969 with the water injection system being installed in 1972.
These turbines were manufactured by General Electric Company and are
their Model LA-PG 5211. This model has at peak load a rating of 17.2 Mw
and a heat rate of 13,950 BTU/Kw (LHV). The base rating and heat rate
are 14.6 Mw and 14,500 BTU/Kw (LHV), respectively.
These gas turbines consist of a single shaft, two stage impulse
turbine driving a sixteen stage axial flow compressor with an electric
generator at the exhaust end of the turbine. The sixteen stage axial
compressor draws in air, and compresses it, thereby providing a con-
tinuous stream of high pressure air to the multiple (10) combustion
chambers where fuel is added and burned in an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
The resultant hot gases expand through the two stages of the turbine,
developing power to drive the axial compressor and to produce useful
shaft output for electrical generation. The turbines are started by
bringing them up to starting speed with the use of a starting device
which for these turbines were diesel engines. The units are also
equipped with an atomizing air fuel injection system, which can operate
on either distillate oil or natural gas.
These turbines are constant speed gas turbines, that is, the speed
of the turbine, compressor and generator are constant throughout the
load range. The load is varied, however, by changing the generator's
electrical field. This requires the fuel flow to also change in order
to compensate for this load change and maintain the unit's speed.
23
-------
ro
AIR
DEMINERALIZED WATER
COMBUSTION CHAMBER
COMPRESSED
AIR ..
COMPRESSOR
FUEL
HOT
GASES
EXHAUST
TURBINE
ELECTRIC
GENERATOR
FIGURE IV-1. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A SIMPLE CYCLE - SINGLE SHAFT GAS TURBINE
-------
The atomizing air system was installed to improve the combustion
process. The atomizing air system receives the air from the discharge
of the turbine axial compressor and increases it to a pressure level
required to obtain the proper energy for atomizing the liquid fuel. The
air from the atomizing air system is used to cool and purge the fuel
nozzle passages when gaseous fuel is burned. Air atomization has been
installed to reduce the opacity of the gas turbine exhaust. Although
during startup and shutdown a plume was slightly visible, the opacity
was less than 20 percent. There was, however, no plume visible during
operation at the various loads, but there was a heavy plume opacity, up
to 100 percent, during cutback on load when the control of the turbine
was switched from the control room at the site to the main dispatcher.
The water injection system was provided to reduce oxides of
nitrogen emissions. This system receives water from a water storage
tank and forwards it to the turbine at a pressure of up to 200 psig
and a flow rate of up to 15 gallons per minute depending on load. The
water, when injected, is evenly distributed through a specially con-
structed fuel nozzle directly into the reaction zone of the flame. To
control the water consumption rate for various loads the injection
system is modulated using the turbine exhaust temperature as the
parameter for the control of the quantity of water injected. The water
is first treated, however, by a demineralizing technique before it is
pumped into the storage tank. The quality of the water injected into
the gas turbine, as reported.by San Diego Gas and Electric Company,
is as follows:
25
-------
Total Dissolved Solids <5 ppm
Sodium <1 ppm
Potassium <1 ppm
Vanadium <1 ppm
Lead <1 ppm
Modifications were made to the combustion chambers to reduce N0>
by increasing the local air flow and extending flame profile.
During each test, the operating parameters (load, fuel flow,
water flow, etc.) of the turbine were held constant. The turbine
was operated at the same load for the first 5 tests. The load was
chanaed, however, for tests 6, 8, and 9 to determine its effect on
emissions. The water was injected at the same water-fuel ratio
throughout the tests except when the turbine was operated at 5 Mw
because the water injection automatically shuts off below 7.5 Mw.
The control panel meters were monitored throughout the testing
program. Table IV-1 summarizes this data.
26
-------
TABLE IV-1
SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA
Unit
GT-2A
GT-2A
GT-2A
GT-2B
GT-2B
GT-2B
GT-2B
GT-2B
Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
Output
(Mw)
16.2
16.0
16.4
16.1
16.16
18.5
10
5
Water
Rate
(gpm)
11.4
10.8
11.7
11.5
11.6
12.3
-
0
Fuel
Flow
(gpm)
31.0
30.0
31.3
31.6
31.1
33.8
19.0
15.0
Water-Fuel
Ratio
(W1b/F.lb)
0.43
0.42
0.43
0.42
0.43
0.42
-
0
Ambient
Temperature
( F)
60
64
62
62
66
69
69
69
These turbines were operated on No. 2 distillate oil during all
of the tests since natural gas was not available during any portion
of the tests.
NOTE: No data available for Test 7.
27
-------
SECTION V
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Seven 3" sampling ports were located along one side of the tapered
rectangular stack. The ports were approximately 18 inches above the
enclosure housing the turbine generator. At the horizontal plane of the
sampling ports, the stack inside dimensions were 103" x 129". The double-
wall insulated stack terminated approximately twenty feet above the
sampling ports.
The EPA project officer selected a 49 point traverse for these tests.
Figure V-l is a line sketch of the turbine generator enclosure and stack,
showing the location and configuration of the sampling ports and points.
The ports were labeled A through G from left to right and the points were
numbered 1 through 7, the first point located furthest from each port.
28
-------
•^5
r •
rf^w ^
s*
\
^K
g ! BAFFLES
>r 1 i
j BAFFLES j
/ |l 1
\ A
JTT^ /^
t
2i
i
r
18"
I
J.
1 'X-T-X ^ ^ \ r""A — j
\^ V*]^!^ t=~ -y-----JGENERATORj
^iiw*> ' ' . mJL.
SIDE VIEW
J
12
1
9"
111 A
iii A r
i ' * * ^
i < i A r
1 ' I V |
i A FA)
i ' ' i**i
Ilk A
POINTS
1 THRU 7
• A A A (
• Irfhl A fi~| |
1 A fA~l A " 1
i
1 A fil A 1
1 • l*J • '
i
• fail A fAl <
• A A A 1
7
/
>_- 7
/
>- - 7
>-- 7
/
k_ _ 1
dG
dc
dB
^1 u
_^ n
SECTION A-A npoints where PDS Were Taken
FIGURE V-l. LOCATION OF SAMPLE POINTS
29
-------
SECTION VI
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
A line diagram of the test apparatus used to draw representative
samples of the gas turbine exhaust gases to the various monitors is shown
in Figure VI-1. The stainless steel probes, S-type pitot tube, and thermo-
couple assembly were field constructed to obtain a tight fit in the ports,
j* •
thus reducing the amount of stack gases escaping or dilution air entering.
The Teflon tubing (1/4 inch) and Teflon-lined pump were used to prevent
the sample gases from reacting and changing their chemical characteristics.
The inline condensers were used to remove moisture from the sample gases
and prevent interference in the various monitors.
Three minute representative samples were drawn at each of the 49 test
points during the first three test runs but changed to a 2 minute period
during tests 4 and 5 to expedite the program. The last four tests (6 through
9) were conducted at a single sample point in the center of the stack. Four
methods were used for NO analyses: the grab sample phenoldisulfonic (PDS)
A
method from Method 7 of December 23, 1971 Federal Register; an experimental
integrated lead dioxide (Pb02) method; a continuous electrochemical analy-
zer; and a continuous chemiluminescent analyzer. Hydrocarbon emissions were
determined with a total hydrocarbon analyzer equipped with a flame ioniza-
tion detector (FID). Both a polarographic and a paramagnetic type oxygen
sensor were used to monitor 0~ emissions. Carbon monoxide was determined
using a double beam infrared analyzer. Calibrations were performed on
each of the continuous analyzers prior to and during sampling. For the
NO analyses, 204.0 ppm NO and 98.5 ppm N0? were used. The calibrations
" ^ .
of the FID hydrocarbon analyzer were performed with 459 ppm propane. Cali-
brations of the oxygen analyzers were accomplished by exposing the sensors
30
-------
STACK
2" DIA. SHEATH
1/4" STAINLESS TUBING
TO
SEPARATE
PROBE
NOX
(FbO,)
-1/4" HEATED TEFLON TUBING (50 ft)
WASTE 0.75 acfm
TEFLON LINED PUMP
GLASS MANIFOLD
NOX
(CHEM)
KE>
HC
(FID)
NOX
(ELECT)
STAINLESS STEEL PUMP
•1/4" HEATED TEFLON TUBING (16 ft)
ICE
FIGURE VI-1. DIAGRAM OF TEST APPARATUS
CONDENSER
-------
to clean, dry ambient air which contains 20.95% oxygen by volume, regard-
less of barometric pressure. The infrared CO analyzer was calibrated
with 207 ppm CO. All calibrations were performed in accordance with instru-
ment instructions. The 98.5 ppm N02 calibration gas was also used to
check the PDS method by drawing the calibration gas instead of sample
gas into one of the flasks. The resulting analysis yielded 70 ppm versus
the actual 98.5 ppm.
In addition to these analyses, exhaust gas flow rate and temperature
were monitored with an S-type pi tot tube and thermocouple, respectively.
For additional information concerning the analyses used in this test
program, refer to Appendix E of this report.
32
------- |