United States Off ice of Air Quality EM B Report No. 80-OSP-4
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards June 1981
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
&EPA
On-Shore Production of
Crude Oil and Natural Gas
Sulfur Plants
Emission Test Report
Warren Petroleum Company
Monument, New Mexico
-------
DCN 81-222-018-04-26 EMB Report No. 80-OSP-4
EMISSION TEST REPORT
S02 TESTING
AT THE
WARREN PETROLEUM MONUMENT PLANT
MONUMENT, NEW MEXICO
Prepared by:
Jay R. Hoover
RADIAN CORPORATION
8501 Mo-Pac Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78759
Prepared for:
Winton Kelly
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESED/EMB (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3542
Work Assignment No. 4
June 1981
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2
3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 5
4 LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS 7
5 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 9
6 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 11
7 COMPLETE RESULTS AND EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 16
REFERENCES . 24
11
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of testing for sulfur dioxide, reduced
sulfur, and nitrogen oxides emissions from the Glaus incinerator stack at the
Warren Petroleum Monument Plant located at Monument, New Mexico. The testing
was performed by Radian Corporation on March 3 through March 27, 1981. This
work was funded and administered by the Emission Measurement Branch of the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The results of this testing will be
used to develop New Source Performance Standards for onshore production
facilities.
The following sections present a summary of results, a description of
the process configuration, location of sampling points, the testing method-
ology, quality assurance/quality control procedures, and complete results
with example calculations. A full listing of the data and other supplemental
information are included as appendices.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section presents a summary of the results of testing at the
Warren Petroleum Monument Plant. The complete test results and example calcu-
lations are presented in Section 7- All of the supporting data sheets are
included as Appendix A.
The results for the SOa, HzS, and TRS tests are summarized in
Table 2-1. This table also presents the liquid sulfur production data, the
calculated sulfur emission rate (SOa plus TRS), and sulfur recovery effi-
ciencies. Figure 2-1 graphically presents on a daily basis the sulfur re-
covery efficiency, the SOa emission rate, and the liquid sulfur production.
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF RESULTS - WARREN PETROLEUM, MONUMENT, N.M.
S02 (ppm) H3S
Date
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/17
3/18
3/19
3/20
3/21
3/22
3/23
3/24
3/25
3/26
3/27
Test
Period
Includes
Includes
Range
3040-3580
2900-3980
3550-3730
3800-4350
3390-4250
3190-3470
3250-3420
2540-3280
3730-5140
3640-3740
3230-3590
3070-3470
3390-3910
3430-3580
3380-4430
3140-3770
3440-3730
3510-3560
2520-2950
3150-3330
2520-5140
S02 plus TRS
S02 plus TRS
Avg (ppm)
3300 c
3550 <1
3640 <1
4010 <1
3820 <1
3330 <1
3340 <1
2800 1
4230 2
3690 <1
3440 <1
3250 <1
3580 <1
3500 <1
3770 <1
3450 <1
3550 <1
3540 <1
2800 <1
3230 <1
3490 <1
expressed as S02
expressed as S
TRS
(ppm)
c
21
34
32
c
22
56
27
24
c
22
35
26
c
48
35
25
17
19
15
29
S023 Out
Stack (Ib/hr)
172
184
195
202
181
167
161
138
220
188
186
162
179
197
195
178
188
186
143
170
180
Sulfur(s)b Out
Stack (LTPD)
0.92
0.99
1.05
1.08
0.97
0.90
0.86
0.74
1.18
1.01
0.99
0.87
0.96
1.06
1.04
0.95
1.01
0.99
0.77
0.91
0.96
Liquid Sulfur
Make (LTPD)
15.7
16.5
18.4
15.8
15.2
16.1
16.4
16.9
17.2
17.5
18.9
17.5
18.1
16.3
18.4
17.8
19.0
19.2
20.8
19.2
17.5
Plant %
Efficiency
94.5
94.3
94.6
93.6
94.0
94.7
95.0
95.8
93.6
94.6
95.0
95.3
94.9
93.9
94.6
94.9
94.9
95.0
96.4
95.5
94.8
Test not performed
-------
21
20.
Liquid Sulfur 19
18
Production
(LTPD)
17-
16 .
15.
Stack S02
Emissions
(Ib/hr)
220.
200
180
160
140
120
Sulfur
Recovery
Efficiency
97-
961
95
94.
93.
10
11 12 13 17 18
19
20 21 22 20 23 24 25 26 27
March Test Date
Figure 2-1. Summary of S02 emissions and sulfur recovery at
Warren Petroleum's Monument Plant.
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The Warren Petroleum Monument Plant is a gas processing facility
that combines natural gas liquids removal and gas sweetening. The feed gas
to the plant is newly produced gas from area gas wells. The natural gas
liquids are removed, then the natural gas is sweetened using an amine
scrubbing unit. Sulfur is recovered using a Glaus sulfur plant. The natural
gas processed is higher in COa than HzS, and since both are removed by the
amine scrubbing unit, the acid gas feed to the Glaus plant is relatively low
in HaS content (about 24 volume percent during the test period). The design
capacity of the plant is 89 MMSCFD of gas and the plant was treating approxi-
mately 60 MMSCFD of gas during the test period. The Glaus plant has a
capacity of about 32 long tons per day (LTPD) of liquid sulfur and was
operating at about 17 LTPD during the test period.
A simplified schematic of the process is shown in Figure 3-1. The
raw gas stream is first treated to remove and recover the natural gas liquids
which are present. The acid gases in the gas stream are then removed by an
ethanolamine scrubbing unit. The hydrogen sulfide (H2S) released during
regeneration of the scrubbing liquor is processed in a Glaus sulfur plant
to recover elemental sulfur. The Glaus plant is a three-stage catalytic
unit. Liquid sulfur from the Glaus plant is collected in a below-ground
storage tank and sold. The acid gases remaining in the Glaus plant tail
gas are routed to an incinerator to convert the E^S to SOa prior to emission
to the atmosphere.
Testing of the Glaus plant incinerator stack was performed to
determine the level of sulfur emissions, S02, HaS-and total reduced sulfur
(TRS), in the stack. In addition, the liquid sulfur production was monitored
to allow estimation of the efficiency of the sulfur recovery plant.
-------
SWEET
GAS
RAW
GAS
\
GAS LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
SOUR
GAS
B
S
0
R
B
E
R
X
<
>-
LIQUID
SULFUR
ACID
GAS
SAMPLING
'OINT
SULFUR
CONDENSERS
Figure 3-1. Simplified flow diagram.
-------
SECTION 4
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Gas-phase samples were collected on the incinerator stack that services
the off-gases from the Glaus unit. Sampling was performed on the 210°
sampling platform located approximately 50 feet off the ground. Two three
(3") inch ports were available for sampling. The location and orientation
of these ports are shown in Figure 4-1.
Only two ports were required to perform a velocity traverse due to the
relatively small stack diameter (4.58 ft). A six-point traverse of each
diagonal was performed. The proposed three-point sampling technique used to
collect the various gas-phase samples was eliminated in favor of a single-
point of average velocity. Since the sampling ports are located greater than
eight stack diameters from the nearest upstream or downstream disturbance
and the velocity profile was relatively constant across each diagonal, the
gas stream should be homogenous at the sampling points.
Both of the available ports were used to collect samples. The N port
was used to collect the SOz, HaS, TRS, and NOX samples. These samples were
taken at point N3, which is 16.3 inches into the N port. The moisture and
grab samples were taken at point E3, which is 16.3 inches into the E port.
The field data sheets in Appendix A, Volume II, indicate which point was us~ed
for each sample.
-------
EXISTING
STACK
EXISTING 210
PLATFORM
3"-125#
GATE VALVE
PROPOSED LOCATION OF
SUPPORT BOOM & PULLEY
ARRANGEMENT
3" 125#
GATEVALVE
70-2089-1
Figure 4-1. Location of sampling points.
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
To meet the objectives of this project, the following gas-phase
parameters were measured at the incinerator stack sampling platform:
• volumetric gas flow rate,
• molecular weight,
• moisture content,
• S02,
• NOX,
• H2S, and
• total reduced sulfur (TRS).
In addition to the above parameters, the liquid sulfur production rate was
also monitored. Whenever possible, referenced source sampling and analysis
methods were used during testing at the Monument Plant. Table 5-1 lists
the various parameters measured and the sampling and analysis methods used
to monitor these parameters. A description of the sampling and analytical
methodology is provided in Appendix B, Volume II of this report.
TABLE 5-1. SAMPLING/ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND METHODOLOGY
Parameter to be measured Methodology
Volumetric Gas Flow Rate EPA Method 2
Gas-Phase Molecular Weight EPA Method 3
Gas-Phase H20 EPA Method 4
Gas-Phase SOz EPA Method 6
Gas-Phase N0x EPA Method 7
Gas-Phase H2S EPA Method 11
Gas-Phase TRS EPA Method 16A
Liquid Sulfur Production No reference method
-------
Attempts were made early in the sampling program to collect both
and moisture samples with the same sampling train (EPA Method 6). By
weighing the impingers before and after sampling the mass of water collected
could then be related to the moisture content of the gas. But, because the
gas volume collected during SOz sampling was only 20 to 30 liters, the total
mass of water collected during sampling was 2.5 to 4.0 grams based on 15%
HaO in the gas. Small losses (^1.0 grams) in the recovery of the collected
H20 could have a large effect in the apparent moisture content of the gas.
To alleviate this problem, a separate sampling train (EPA Method 4) was set
up using larger impingers at a higher gas flow rate to collect the H20
samples. This sampling arrangement allowed a larger volume of gas (^150
liters) and a larger mass of water (15 to 20 grams) to be collected. Small
losses in the recovery of the collected water did not have as significant
effect on the moisture determination.
The proposed three-point traversing technique used to collect the
various gas-phase samples was eliminated during this testing period. Instead,
a single-point of average velocity was used to collect all gas-phase samples.
The decision to eliminate the three-point traverses was based upon two facts.
First, the sampling ports are situated approximately eight stack diameters
upstream from the nearest disturbance. Second, the velocity profile is
relatively consistent across each diagonal.
Because of the very low particulate concentration in the incinerator
gas, a decision was made to eliminate the glass wool plug from the probe
liner. This decision eliminated the systematic placement and removal of a
glass wool .plug from a 1200°F probe in-between S02 and H2S sample collection
runs. The glass plug is designed to remove particulate from the gas-phase
during S02 (EPA Method 6) and NOX (EPA Method 7) sample collection. However,
during H2S (EPA Method 11) and TRS (EPA Method 16A) sampling, the glass wool
plug is eliminated to minimize sorption losses of these gas species across
a particulate cake. By eliminating the glass wool plug, the probe did not
have to be removed from the stack in-between each sample. This minimized the
time that the extremely hot (1200°F) probe had to be haadled resulting in
increased personnel safety with a minimum of down time between runs.
10
-------
SECTION 6
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
A comprehensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program
(Radian DCN 81-222-018-04-09) was designed and implemented during this
program. The objective of this QA/QC program was to assess and document
the precision, accuracy, and adequacy of emission data developed during
sampling and analysis.
A summary of the QA/QC results obtained during activities at the
Monument Plant are presented in this section. A brief discussion of the
precision, accuracy, and data capture are also presented in this section
of the report. Copies of the equipment calibration forms and reagent
preparation/standardization forms are presented in Appendix B.
ASSESSMENT OF DATA QUALITY
Table 6-1 summarizes the estimated and measured precision, accuracy,
and data capture for each of the parameters monitored at the Monument Plant.
The measured precision and accuracy for each of the parameters fall within
the original estimates. Deviations from estimated data capture are dis-
cussed later in this section.
DISCUSSION OF QA/QC RESULTS
During this project, the precision and accuracy of a particular
measurement was determined by one or more of the following methods:
11
-------
TABLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AND MEASURED PRECISION, ACCURACY, AND DATA CAPTURE
FOR THE DATA COLLECTED AT THE MONUMENT PLANT
Measurement
Parameter
(Method)
Volumetric Gas
Flow Rate
(EPA 1 and 2)
Molecular Weight
(Gas Partitioner)
H20
(EPA 4)
S02
(EPA 6)
NOX •
(EPA 7)
H2S
(EPA 11)
Total Reduced
Sulfur
(EPA 16A)
Liquid Sulfur
Production
PRECISION
Estimated
(RSD)
20%
10%
11%
10%
10%
10%
51%
10%
Measured
Replicability
(RSD)
20%"
<1.0%
11%"
<0.5%
<7.0%
N/A3
<0.5%
-
Repeatability
(RSD)
20%"
<1.5%
11%"
<1.5%
<65%
N/A3
<1.5%
-
ACCURACY
Estimated1
+ 11%
+ 25%
± 10%
+ 20%
+ 20%
+ 20%
+ 15%
+ 5%
Measured
+ m11
<+ 10%
+ 10%"
<+ 0.5%
<+ 2.5%
N/A3
<+ 0.5%
-
DATA CAPTURE
Estimated
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
100%
Measured2
97% '
95%
61%
94%
98%
82%
76%
100%
'Expected range for bias of method.
2The valid data percentage of the total tests required in the scope of work.
3Refer to the text.
''The field performance audit showed no deviation from accepted procedure. Precision and accuracy should be
within the estimated values.
RSD = Relative standard deviation.
KSD = Mean relative standard deviation
-------
performance audit,
system audit, and
quality control procedures.
Precision is defined here as a measure of mutual agreement among
individual measurements of the same property. Precision can be qualified
with respect to the replicability and repeatability of a particular
parameter. Replicability is a measure of variability between measurements
of the same parameter by the same analyst using the same apparatus on the
same day and in the same laboratory. Routine duplicate analyses were used
to measure replicability during the course of the project.
Repeatability is similar to replicability but requires that one or
more of the following be different:
analyst,
apparatus, or
• the day.
Daily analysis of quality control standards by different analysts provided
a measure-of repeatability.
Accuracy is defined here as the degree of agreement of a measurement
(or average of measurements of the same sample) with an accepted reference
or true value. The accuracy data presented in Table 6-1 represents the
relative accuracy of the measured value', X, with respect to the reference
value, T, of a field audit sample.
All definitions and procedures used in calculating precision and
accuracy were taken from Appendices A and C of the EPA document 600/9-76-005,
Qaulity Assurance Handbook for 'Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,
Principles (1).
13
-------
Data capture can be calculated by several different techniques. The
data capture reported in Table 6-1 represents the valid data percentage of
the total tests required in the scope of work.
The following list summarizes the deviations, exceptions, and special
cases with respect to the precision, accuracy, and data capture data
presented in Table 6-1. These include:
• The titrations of the peroxide impinger in the H2S trains
are included in the data base used in calculating precision
for S02 analyses.
• The precision and accuracy reported for the TRS analyses
is based on data from the SOa analyses since the analytical
procedure (BaCla titration, thorin indicator) is the same
and comparable titrant volumes were used.
• Because of the lack of a suitably stable sulfide standard,
no sulfide QC standard was analyzed. Also, because of
the extremely low HaS concentrations, it was necessary to
titrate the whole sample for each analysis, precluding
duplicate analyses. Therefore, no precision data for
analyses is presented.
Accuracy data for EzS analyses are not presented because of
the dubious nature of data obtained at or very near the
detection limit of the method.
Repeatability data for the NO analysis are based upon
repeat analysis of two samples on different days. Because
of the low concentration (<15ppmNO ) of these samples, the
absorbance reading was less than 0.5% of full scale. There-
fore, sl'ight variations in either daily analyst or in-
strumental operation could have a significant effect on the
repeatability of the method.
Repeatability data for the molecular weight calculations
are based on analysis of QC standards (Oz, COz, and Na) from
11 March 1981 to 27 March 1981. Replicability data includes
all duplicate analysis 'from 2 March 1981 to 27 March 1981.
14
-------
The reported accuracy data for molecular weight, SOz , NO , and
TRS reflect only the analytical phase of the measurement, as
discussed in Sections 3.2.8, 3.5.8, and 3.6.8 of EPA document
600/4-77-027b (2) . The performance audit activities address
the sampling procedures.
Both the precision and accuracy of the flue gas flow rate and
moisture determination are based upon the performance audit
performed on site. Since the field performance audit showed
no deviation from accepted procedure, both the precision and
accuracy are expected to lie within the estimated values.
Further information concerning the field systems audit will
be discussed in the separate QA/QC report.
Data capture for HaO was relatively poor because the
sampling technique (EPA Method 6) used during the first
week on site did not yield adequate information. A
separate sampling train (EPA Method 4) was used for the
last three weeks and data capture during this time was
close to 95%.
The relatively low data capture for both H2S and TRS
was due to a number of problems. These ranged from leaking
trains, to improper sample handling, to inclement weather
conditions .
15.
-------
SECTION 7
COMPLETE RESULTS AND EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
This section presents the complete results and example calculations for
testing performed at the Warren Petroleum Monument Plant. All of the support-
ing data sheets are included as Appendix A.
The results for the velocity, gas composition, and SOz tests are
shown in Table 7-1. This table also presents the calculated flow rates and
S02 emission rates. Table 7-2 presents the test results for HzS, TRS, and
NO along with the calculated emission rates.
x
This section also presents example calculations which show how the
test results were used to obtain flow rates, emission rates, and sulfur
plant efficiencies.
16
-------
TABLE 7-1. COMPLETE RESULTS: S02, FLOW - WARREN PETROLEUM
Warren Petroleum
Date
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AVG
1
2
3e
AVG
1
2
3
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
Time3
0851
1310
1625
0802
1210
0805
1118
1430
0745
1045
1400
0840
1125
1405
0755
1008
1230
0910
1245
1555
0820
1115
1345
Dry Gas Comp.
02
NA
9.0
7.9
8.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.6
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.8
8.2
7.8
8.3
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.9
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.8
7.8
8.3
8.0
8.5
8.0
8.0
8.2
CO 2
NA
23.3
26.4
24.9
25.3
25.2
25.3
22.8
25.7
26.5
25.0
24.2
25.4
26.2
25.3
26.7
26.4
27.0
26.7
25.9
27.4
27.0
26.8
26.2
24.7
24.7
25.2
24.2
25.6
25.4
25.1
Stack
N2 Temp(°F)
NA
66.2
66.7
66.5
66.2
.65.3
65.8
67.3
66.3
65.7
66.4
67.8
66.0
65.2
66.3
64.3
65.5
65.2
65.0
66.2
65.0
64 '.8
65.3
65.8
66.1
67.3
66.4
66.9
66.1
66.3
66.4
1167
1162
1159
1163
1164
1152
1158
1161
1155
1158
1158
1165
1163
1146
1158
1141
1159
1161
1154
1156
1158
1163
1159
115QS
1150g
1150s
1150
1150s
11508
1150s
1150
Stark
Press ("Hg)
26.23
26.23
26.15
26.20
25.96
26.00
25.98
26.15
26.14
26.14
26.14
26.48
26.50
26.50
26.49
26.53
26.54
26.49
26.52
26.49
26.48
26.48
26.48
26.47
26.46
26.44
26.46
26.38
26.33
26.33
26.35
% H20
15. Ob
15.0°
15. Ob
15. Ob
15. Ob
15. Ob
15. Ob
15. Ob
15. Ob
15. Ob
15. Ob
15.0b
15.0°
15. Ob
15. Ob
15. Ob
15.0°
15.0°
15. Ob
15. Ob
15 -°K
15. Ob
15. Ob
15.0b
15.0?
15. Ob
15. Ob
15.1
16.4
14.0
15.2
Velocity
(Ft/S)
22.6
22.3
19.7
21.5
20.7
22.3
21.5
23.3
21.1
22.4
22.4
20.6
21.7
20.1
20.8
19.3
19.8
19.4
19.5
20.5
20.0
21.3
20.6
19.5
20.5
19.5
19.8
19.5
20.4
21.1
20.3
Flow
(ACFM)
22300
22000
19500
21200
20500
22000
21200
23000
20900
22600
22100
20400
21500
19900
20600
19100
19600
19200
19300
20300
19800
21100
20400
19300
20300
19300
19600
19300
20200
20900
20100
Flow
(DSCFM)0
5310
5260
4650
5070
4850
5240
5040
5490
4990
5400
5290
4860
5190
4860
4970
4680
4750
4640
4690
4910
4790
5080
4930
4690
4920
4680
4760
4670
4800
5110
4860
sba
(ppm.dry)
3050d
3340
3160
3040
3280
3460
3580
3540
3306
2900
3760
3980
3550
3550
3630
3730
3640
4350
3880
3800
4010
4250,
NAf
3390
3820
3190
3330
3470
3330
3250
3340
3420
3340
3280
2540
2580
2800
S02
(Ib/hr)
166
180
170
162
175
184
169
167
172
143
200
211
1C4
198
184
204
195
214
204
187
202
202
NA
159
181
159
162
179
167
154
166
162
161
155
124
134
138
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-1
Warren Petroleum
Date
3/13
3/17
3/18
3/19
3/20
3/21
3/22
3/23
3/24
Run
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
$
AVG
I
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVC
Time3
0825
1030
1325
0800
1020
1313
0800
1025
1305
0750
1000
1255
0802
0936
1315
0756
1103
0841
1050
1405
0755
1009
1320
0801
1015
1425
Dry Gas Comp.
02
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.5
7.6
7.7
7.9
8.5
8.1
7.7
8.1
8.0
8.2
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.5
7.6
8.1
7.8
8.4
8.1
8.3
8.1
8.3
8.3
7.7
8.3
8.0
8.0
7.8
8.1
7.9
7.9
C02
25.7
26.0
26.5
26.1
25.4
26.5
26.1
26.0
25.0
25.5
26.1
25.5
26.6
25.7
27.0
26.4
25.5
24.5
26.0
25.3
26.9
24.6
25.8
25.2
25.2
24.9
25.1
27.7
24.9
25.5
26.0
26.8
25.9
26.3
26.3
Stack
N2 Temp^F)
66.9
66.1
66.7
66.6.
66.2
65.7
65.5
66.1
67.4
66.7
65.9
66.7
66.4'
66.4
65.2
66.0
66.8
66.7
65.7
66.4
65.9
67.2
66.6
67.0
66.5
66.4
66.8
65.9
66.9
66.2
66.3
66.3
66.3
65.3
66.0
11508
1150g
1150g
1150
1145
1167
1168
1160
1150g
1150s
1150s
1150
1150
1157
1162
1168
1156
1157
1154
1156
1158
1159
1159
1146
1162
1160
1156
1163
1159
1159
1160
1158
1158
1159
1158
Stack
PressC'Hg)
26.25
26.24
26.24
26.24
26.06
25.94
25.94
25.98
26.27
26.27
26.24
26.26
26.38
26.32
26.32
26.34
26.07
26.07
25.86
26.00
25.90
25.88
25.89
26.39
26.39
26.39
26.39
26.43
26.43
26.40
26.42
26.31
26.31
26.23
26.28
(continued)
'/. H20
14.7
15.5
15.7
15.3
16.3
16.0,
15. Ob
15.8
13.4
15. Ob
13.4
13.4
14.0
13.7
14.3
14.0
15.0
13.5
14.4
14.3
13.9
13.6
13.8
14.3
15.5
12.6
14.1
14.7
12.2
13.1
13.3
14.6
15.1
13.9
14.5
Velocity
(Ft/S)
22.0
21.5
21.2
21.6
22.4
21.1
21.1
21.5
23.4
21.7
21.1
22.1
19.7
21.2
20.2
20.4
20.1
21.1
21.1
20.8
22.6
24.4
23.5
21.6
21.4
20.7
21.2
20.6
22.0
20.4
21.0
21.8
21.9
22.0
21.9
Flow
(ACFM)
21700
21300
21100
21300
22100
20900
20900
21300
23100
21500
20900
21800
19500
21000
20000
20200
19900
20900
20900
20600
22300
24100
23200
21400
21200
20500
21000
20400
21700
20200
20700
21500
21600
21700
21600
Flow
(DSCFM)C
5250
5100
5040
5130
5220
4870
4920
5000
5670
5180
5130
5330
4780
5130
4840
4920
4750
5060
4980
4930
5340
5780
5560
5240
5060
5070
5120
4920
5410
4970
5100
5190
5180
5260
5210
S02 S02
(ppm.dry) (Ib/hr)
5140
3730
3820
4230
3640
3740
NAfi
3690
3230
3510
3590
3440
3200
3070
3470
3250
3390
3450
3910
3580
3580
3430
3510
3380
3500
4430
3770
3770
3140
3430
3450
3490
3440
3730
3550
273
193
195
220
192
185
NA
188
186
184
187
186
155
160
170
162
163
177
197
179
194
201
157
179
179
228
195
188
172
173
178
183
181
199
188
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-1. (continued)
Warren
Date
3/25
3/26
3/27
Petrol
Run
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
eum
Time3
0800
1100
1400
0800
1000
1300
0747
0951
1255
Dry
02
7.8
7.5
7.6
7. .6
7.9
7.8
7.0
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.8
771
Gas Con
C02
26.2
27.2
27.0'
26.8
26.3
26.9
28.1
27.1
27.5
27.0
26.5
27.0
ip.
N2
66.5
65.8
65.3
65.9
66.3
65.6
64.2
65.4
64.9
65.1
65.3
65.1
' Stack
Temp(°F)
1156
1163
1160
1160
1158
1157
1155
1157
1152
1158
1155
1155
Stuck
Pruss("Hg)
26.37
26.37
26.39
26.38
26.16
26.16
26.16
26.16
26.07
26.07
26.49
26.21
% H20
15.0
14.5
16.1
15.3
14.6
14.8
15.6
15.0
15.1
15.2
15.0
15.1
Velocity
(Ft/S)
22.3
22.4
21.4
22.0
21.0
21.9
21.5
21.5
22.5
21.8
21.6
22.0
Flow
(ACFM)
22000
22100
21200
21700
20800
21600
213QO
21200
22200
21500
21400
21700
Flow
(DSCFM)C
5300
5340
5030
5220
4990
5110
5060
5050
5300
5100
5190
5200
'S02
(ppm.dry)
NAf
3510
3560
3540
2520
2950
2920
2800
3200
3330
3150
3230
S02
(Ib/hr)
NA
190
181
186
127
153
150
143
172
172
166
170
Footnotes :
NA - No data available.
a - The time reported is that at which the velocity traverse for that set of runs is begun.
b - Moisture was originally included with S02 train until 3/12 when it was decided that
data was too inaccurate. A value of 15% H20 is assumed for these runs and for those
runs in which moisture was lost.
c - DSCFM at 60°F and 14.7 psia.
d - SOz-1 to S02-3 were performed during the first set of runs, S02-4 to S02-6 with the
second set, and S02-7 and S02-8 with the third set.
e - Only S02-3 was performed; no other samples taken due to weather.
f - Sample lost.
g - Bad temp probe. Temp measured at 1150°F and assumed to remain constant.
h - This set was not performed due to weather.
-------
TABLE 7-2. COMPLETE RESULTS: REDUCED SULFUR, NO - WARREN PETROLEUM
ISJ
O
Date
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/17
Run
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVC
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
Time"
0851
1310
1625
0802
1210
0805
1118
1430
0745
1045
1400
0840
1125
1405
0755
1008
1230
0910
1245
1555
0820
1115
1345
0825
1030
1325
0800
1020
1313
Flow
(DSCFM)
5310
5260
4650
5070
4850
5240
5040
5490
4990
5400
5290
4860
5190
4860
4970
4680
4750
4640
4690
4910
4790
5080
4930
4690
4920
4680
4760
4670
4800
5110
4860
5250
5100
5040
5130
5220
4870
4920
5000
H^Sb
Cone, ppm Ib/hr
No sample taken
M ii ii
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.06
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
4 0.19
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
1 0.06
<1 <0.05
4 0.21
2 0.10
2 0.10
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
TRSb
Cone, ppm
No sample
21
21
34
34
32
32
No sample
22
22
56
56
27
27
24
24
No sample
NOxC
Ib/hr
taken
1.1
1.1
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.6
taken
1.1
1.1
2.7
2.7
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
taken
Cone, ppm
11.6
8.1
6.3
E.7
4.7
< 3.0
4.6
< 4.1
3.0
8.5
4,5
5.3
10.9
10.1
10.8
10.6
8.5
10.0
8. 5
9.0
11.2
9.4
11.5
10.7
10.9
10.6
10.7
10.7
13.9
14.4
13.7
14.0
9.4
10.3
9.4
9.7
13.0
12.2
11.1
12.1
Ib/hr
0.43
0.30
0.23
0.32
0.17
< 0 . 1 1
0.17
< 0.15
0.12
0.33
0.17
0.21
0.39
0.37
0.39
0.38
0.29
0.34
0.29
0.31
0.40
0.34
0.41
.0.38
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.49
0.51
0.48
0.50
0.35
0.38
0.35
0.36
0.47
0.44
0.40
0.44
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-2. (continued)
LUite
3/18
3/19
3/20
3/21
3/22
3/23
3/24
3/25
3/26
3/27
Itun
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
AVG
1
2
3
.AVG
1
2
3
AVC
1
2
3
AVG
Time'
0800
1025
1305 •
0750
1000
1255
0802
0936
1315
0756
1103
0841
1050
1405
0755
1009
1320
0801
1015
1425
0800
1100
1400
0800
1000
1300
0747
0951
1255
I'l.iw
(DSCFM)
5670
5180
5130.
5330
4780
5130
4840
4920
4750
5060
4980
4930
5340
5780
5560
5240
5060
5070
5120
4920
5410
4970
5100
5190
5180
5260
5210
5300
5340
5030
5220
4990
5110
5060
5050
5300
5100
5190
5200
H,Sh
Cone, ppm Ib/hr
< <0.05
< <0.05
< <0.05
< <0.05
< <0.05
< <0.05
< <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.06
No 3rd sample
<1 <0.06
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.()5
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
<1 <0.05
THS"
Cone, ppm
22
22
35
35
26
26
No sample
48
48
35
35
25
25
17
17
19
19
15
15
Ib/hr
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.3
taken
2.5
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.3
1.3
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
Cone ,
10.3
9.9
11.2
10.5
14.3
18.1
13.4
15.3
11.4
13.4
12.7
12.5
No s
10.7
13.9
12.4
12.3
13.7
14.3
14.0
14.0
12.2
11.4
10.8
11.5
8.9
8.6
12.3
9.9
11.1
12.6
12.3
12.0
12.0
11.0
10.3
11.3
NO/
}ptn Ib/hr
0.40
0.38
0.43
0.41
0.51
0.65
0.48
0.55
0.41
0.48
0.46
0.45
ample taken
0.40
0.52
0.46
0.46
0.51
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.46
0.43
0.41
0.44
0.34
0.33
0.47
0.38
0.41
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.46
0.42
0.41
0.43
a - Time at which velocity profile for that run was begun,
b - Ib/hr expressed as equivalents of S02
c - Ib/hr expressed as equivalents of N02J All 3 NOX samples were actually taken during Run 2.
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
FLOW RATES
•Actual Cubic Feet per Minute (ACFM)
ACFM = Velocity x Stack Cross - Sectional Area
Example: Based on 3/7 averages -
ACFM = 22.4 _ft_ x 4.58(ft) x H x 60 sec
sec 4 min
ACFM = 22,100 ftVmin
•Dry standard cubic feet per minute (DSCFM) @ 60 °F and 29.92 in.Hg
ncr-.-,\f _ APirM Barometric Pressure Standard Temp /, mole
JJoL»r IM — ALi-t rl X ~^T "~ - , _~ ~ ~ . . — y^ - - ••...-•*•- ^ i j_— f
Standard Pressure Stack Temp. I fraction
V H20
Example: Based on 3/7 averages-
- - (1-0.15)
DSCFM = 5,290 ft3/min
EMISSION RATES
•Emission Rates- S02, NOX> H2S, TRS (lb/hr)
. Concentration of Compound (ppm,dry) ncr™
Emission Rate = - r-p-g - - — c - " - ^ x DSCFM x
compound mole wt
molar volume
Example: Based on 3/7 averages-
S02 Emission Rate - 3640 (ppm SQ2,dry) x ^^ ^tm x 64 lb S°2 x
106 379 SCF
60 min
hour
S02 Emission Rate = 195 lb/hr
Note: H2S and TRS Emission Rates 'are expressed as equivalent S02;
NOX Emission Rate is expressed as N02;
Total S02 Emission Rate is the sum of'S02 -and TRS Emission Rates
22
-------
SULFUR PLANT EFFICIENCY
m ,. vff • Sulfur Recovered x 100%
•Plant Efficiency = . .. .
Sulfur Recovered + Emitted
where:
Sulfur recovered = liquid sulfur production (LTPD)
Sulfur emitted = SOa + TRS Emission Rates (expressed as
elemental sulfur) (LTPD)
Example: based on 3/7 averages-
Plant Efficiency =
18.4 LTPD x 102%
1C 4(LTrDl I T( 195 lb g°2 >- --~32"lbs LT X
lo.4(LTPD) + x x x
Plant Efficiency = 94.6%
23
-------
REFERENCES
1. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems,
Volume I, Principles, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, EPA-600/9-76-005,
January 1976.
2. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems, Volume III, Stationary Source Specific Methods, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, EPA-600/4-77-027b, August 1977.
24
------- |