United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 84-IBR-23
October 1984
Air
Industrial Boiler
Emission Test
Report
Tennessee Eastman
Company
Boiler No. 24
Kingsport, Tennessee
SUMMARY REPORT
-------
NSPS DEVELOPMENT
OXIDES OF NITROGEN TESTING
BOILER UNIT 24
TENNESSEE EASTMAN COMPANY
KINGSPORT, TENNESSEE
SUMMARY REPORT
JUNE 1984
PREPARED BY:
ENTROPY ENVIRONMENTALISTS, INC.
Post Office Box 12291
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
68-02-3852
Work Assignment No. 11
EMB Project No. 76/13
Task Manager:
Terry Harrison
Emission Measurement Branch
Emissions Standards and Engineering Division
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Summary and Discussion of Results 2-1
2.1 Stratification Test 2-1
2.2 NOX Emissions vs Boiler Operating Parameters 2-1
2.3 Emissions Tests 2-6
2.3.1 TCEMS and Reference Method Results 2-6
2.3.2 CO Results 2-9
2.4 Quality Assurance Results 2-9
3.0 Process and Control Equipment Operating Conditions 3-1
3.1 Process Equipment Operating Conditions 3-1
3.2 Control Equipment Operating Conditions 3-3
4.0 Sampling Locations 4-1
4.1 Description of Sampling Locations 4-1
4.2 Modifications to Existing Facilities 4-1
5.0 Sampling and Analytical Procedures 5-1
5.1 Reference Method Sampling Procedures 5-1
5.2 Non-Reference Method Sampling Procedures 5-1
5.2.1 Effluent Stratification Test 5-1
5.2.2 Continuous Monitoring 5-2
5.2.3 Coal Sampling 5-2
5.3 Process Monitoring Procedures 5-3
5.4 Sample/Data Chain of Custody 5-3
6.0 Quality Assurance 6-1
6.1 Reference Method Sampling Quality Control 6-1
6.1.1 EPA Method 3 6-1
6.1.2 EPA Method 7 6-2
6.2 Non-Reference Method Sampling Quality Control 6-2
6.2.1 TCEMS Sampling 6-2
6.2.2 Coal Sampling 6-2
6.3 Assessment of Sample Representativeness 6-3
7.0 Appendices
7.1 Results and Calculations 7.1-0
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Stratification Testing Results - No Preheat Boiler
Condition 2-2
Table 2-2. Stratification Testing Results - Full Preheat Boiler
Condition ~-.... 2-3
Table 2-3. NO Emissions vs Boiler Operative Parameters -
Continuous Emission Monitoring Summary 2-4
Table 2-4. Relative Accuracy Test Results for Beckman 951 N0x/Teledyne
320P-4 02 GEMS 2-7
Table 2-5. Reference Method Sampling Data Summary 2-8
Table 2-6. Run-by-Run TCEMS/Reference Method Results Comparison 2-10
Table 2-7. Audit Sample Analysis 2-11
Table 2-8. Validation of Orsat Analysis Data: 6/6-13/84..... 2-13
Table 3-1. Permutations of Boiler Unit 24 Operating Parameters 3-4
Table 7-1. Continuous Emission Monitoring Results 7.1- 5
Table 7-2. Accuracy Determination (NOX, 02, System) 7,1-14
TaSle 7-3. Fuel Sampling Results 7.1-15
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1. N0_ Emissions Derived from 9 Test Runs 2-5
X
Figure 3-1. Schematic of Boiler Unit 24 3-2
Figure 4-1. Effluent Sampling Location 4-2
Figure 4-2. Effluent Sample Port Locations. 4-3
Figure 7-1. Run No. 1 NOX Emissions 7.1-20
Figure 7-2. Run No. 2 NO. Emissions 7.1-21
A
Figure 7-3. Run No. 3 NOX Emissions 7.1-22
Figure 7-4. Run No. 4 NOX Emissions 7.1-23
Figure 7-5. Run No. 5 N0_ Emissions 7.1-24
A
Figure 7-6. Run No. 6 NOX Emissions 7.1-25
Figure 7-7. Run No. 7 NO Emissions 7.1-26
X
Figure 7-8. Run No. 8 NOX Emissions 7.1-27
Figure 7-9. Run No. 9 NO,, Emissions 7.1-28
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) of the EPA'3 Emission Standards and
Engineering Division performed N0% emissions tests on Boiler Unit 24 of the
Tennessee Eastman Company's Kingsport, Tennessee facility during the period of
June 5 to June 14, 1984. The purpose of the test was to determine the effects
of air preheat, heat release rate (load), and oxygen level upon NO emissions
from a spreader stoker boiler firing eastern coal.
Boiler Unit 24 of the Tennessee Eastman Company is a spreader stoker
industrial boiler fired with eastern coal for the cogeneratlon of process steam
and electricity; maximum production rate of the boiler is approximately 320,000
pounds of steam per hour (1450 psi). Effluent from the boiler is ducted
through an economizer, a combustion air preheater, an electrostatic
precipitator, an induced draft fan, and then into the stack, where it is
combined with the effluent from another boiler unit.
Emissions testing was conducted through four ports located in the 10* x 7*
duct between the ESP and the stack breeching. A transportable continuous
emission monitoring system (TCEMS) was used to evaluate the presence of gaseous
stratification and to monitor continuously the effluent concentrations of
N0_, 0-, and CO. In addition, reference method tests were conducted for
X £.
NOX (Method 7), 02 (Method 3), and H20 (alternate Method 4).
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (Entropy) performed all pre-test
preparations, including the organization of testing equipment. EMB personnel
conducted the on-site testing. Following completion of the field portion of
the test, Entropy performed all laboratory analyses and data reduction, and
compiled this final test report.
Mr. Terry Harrison of EMB led the on-site EPA field team. Mr. Charles
Sedman of ESED's Industrial Studies Branch (ISB) acted as liason to the
Tennessee Eastman Company. He also monitored the completion of boiler effluent
duct modifications and collected process operation data during the field
testing. Mr. Scott Shanklin of Entropy coordinated the Entropy team efforts
during the test program. Mr. Joe Davidson, Mr. George Seaton, and Mr. Roger
Hall of Tennessee Eastman Company provided assistance during the testing
program; their cooperation is gratefully acknowledged.
1-1
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section contains the results of the testing program at the Tennessee
Eastman plant to determine NO emission rates during 2-hour test runs at
various boiler operating conditions using a continuous emission monitoring
system. Reference method sampling was performed concurrently with the TCEMS
sampling to provide additional measurements for comparative results.
2.1 Stratification Test
The results of the stratification tests conducted for the no preheat and
full preheat conditions are shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. The
tables present, by traverse point: (a) the normalized, measured concentrations
of NOX and 02', (b) the calculated NOX emission rate; and (c) the respective
percentage deviations computed relative to the corresponding mean concentra-
tions. (The normalized values were computed to eliminate the effects of
temporal variations in the effluent concentrations.) The stratification
worksheets used to derive these results are presented In Appendix 7.1.
The results of the two tests indicate that there is no significant
stratification present at the sample location either on a dry concentration
basis (NOX - ppn»d, 02 - %d) or in units of the standard (Ib NOX/106 Btu) for
either of the preheat conditions. The finding of a non-stratified effluent
stream allowed for the use of single point sampling for the emissions testing.
The test procedures employed followed the stratification test protocol
detailed in Appendix 7.3, except that the number of traverse points sampled
from the 4x4 matrix layout was reduced to eight. (Figure 4-2 shows the
location of the traverse points chosen.) Also, in the case of the no preheat
condition, stratification sampling was not performed at the last two traverse
points (A2 and A4) due to an electrical storm which necessitated the termina-
tion of testing.
2.2 NO Emissions vs. Boiler Operating Parameters
Table 2-3 presents a summary of the NO emissions results by test run as
measured by the TCEMS, and the associated boiler operating conditions.
Individual test points (5-minute averages) derived from the TCEMS data are
plotted for each run in Figure 2-1 to facilitate comparison of N0_ emissions
X
among the nine test runs. Each run is also separately plotted in additional
figures located in Appendix 7.1 to show the stability of the boiler emissions
over the duration of each test period.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1.
STRATIFICATION TESTING RESULTS
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport Facility: Boiler Unit 24
Kingsport, Tennessee
No Preheat Boiler Condition
7 June 1984
Traverse
Point
No.
C2
C4
D2
D4
B2
B4
A2
A4
AVG.
Percent
Normalized
Trav.
NO Cone.
(ppmd)
242
243
234
237
244
244
*
^^^^^
241
Deviation =
Normalized
NO Trav. 0?
Dev. 0~ Cone. Dev.
(%) (%d) (%)
0.4 12.0 0.8
0.8 12.0 0.8
-2.9 12.2 2.5
-1.7 11.9 0
1.2 11.7 -1.7
1.2 11.5 -3.4
* * *
-
11.9
Normalized Trav. value - Avg.
Normalized
ENO_
Ratex
(Ib NOX/106 Btu)
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.62
0.63
0.62
*
*
0.64
Norm. Trav. value
E ^
2.4
2.4
0.8
-2.4
-0.8
-2.. 4
*
*
x 100
Avg. Norm. Trav. value
Test ended prematurely due to thunderstorm.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-2.
STRATIFICATION TESTING RESULTS
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport Facility: Boiler Unit 24
Kingsport, Tennessee
Full Preheat Boiler Condition
11 June 1984
Traverse
Point
No.
C2
C4
D2
D4
B2
B4
A2
A4
AVG.
Percent
Normalized
Trav.
NOX Cone.
(ppmd)
328
327
320
324
329
321
328
325
325
Deviation =
Normalized
NOx1 Trav. C^1
Dev. 02 Cone. Dev.
0.9 8.1 0
0.6 8.0 -1.2
-1.5 8.0 -1.2
-0.3 8.1 0
1.2 7.9 -2.5
-1.2 8.2 1.2
0.9 7.8 -3.7
0 8.3 2.5
8.1
Normalized Trav. value - Avg.
Normalized
ENO*
Rate*
[Ib NOX/106 Btu)
0.62
0.62
0.61
0.62
0.63
0.62
0.61
0.63
0.62
Norm. Trav. value
W.
0
0
-1.6
0
1.6
0
-1.6
1.6
« 100
Avg. Norm. Trav. value
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-3.
NOX EMISSIONS VS BOILER OPERATIVE PARAMETERS
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SUMMARY
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport Facility: Boiler Unit 24
Kingsport, Tennessee
Boiler Average Effluent Concentrations
Test
Run
No. Date Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6/6/84 1235-1435
6/6/84 1650-1850
6/7/84 1015-1215
6/7/84 1430-1630
6/11/84 1345-1545
o
6/12/84 0955-1155
6/12/84 1340-1540
6/13/84 0930-1130
6/13/84 1240-1440
Boiler Load
Test (% of rated NOX 02 CO Emission Rate
Condition load) (ppmd) (%d) (ppmd) (lb NOX/106 Btu)
High Load, Low Oo
No preheat 80.9 317 7.9 29
High Load, High 02
No preheat 81.9 323 10.1 72
Low Load, Low 02
No preheat 56.3 223 9.9 29
Low Load, High 02
No preheat 55.9 233 11.4 50
Full Load, Normal 02
Full Preheat 100 337 8.2 96
High Load, Low 02
Full Preheat 81.6 279 8.2 60
High Load, High 02
Full Preheat 81.3 330 9.3 40
Low Load, Low 02
Full Preheat 56.9 208 10.0 43
Low Load, High 02
Full Preheat 57.5 237 11.8 61
0.60
0.74
0.50
0.60
0.65
0.55
0.69
0.47
0.64
2-4
-------
0.80
0.75
0.70
3 0.65
i* 0.60
u
H
<
« 0.50
a
0.45
0.40
\
4 4-^. ^Ix*—\*>v^ .^-1 1
1-7MV-1 1 1 1^. .^l-^
4' \ ^4 4—4 l«i-4-^
\,
-8 8
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
, Load J 0,
» of rated load! *•
Full
100
Hifih
80.9
81.9
81.6
81.3
Low
56.3
55.9
56.9
57.5
Hij^h
X.
X
X
X
Low
X
X
X
X
X
Preheat
Full
X
X
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
Boiler
Z07
5.0
7.2
7.4
9.3
5.5
5.3
7.1
7.4
9.4
Stack
%0?
7.9
10.1
9.9
11.4
8.2
8.2
9.3
10.0
11.8
Air
Preheat
Temp.(°F)
144
149
137
146
320
308
314
305
310
Stack
Temp.(°F)
413
443
382
404
337
309
323
287
308
Steam
Flow
(Ib/hr)
259,000
262,000
180,000
179,000
320,000
261,000
260,000
182,000
184,000
FIGURE 2-1. NO EMISSIONS DERIVED FROM TCEMS DATA
AND ASSOCIATED BOILER CONDITIONS
2-5
-------
2.3 Emissions Tests
A series of 2-hour test runs was conducted during nine various boiler
operating conditions. Concurrent measurements of NOV were obtained by the
X
TCEMS and reference methods for the first seven runs. Oo was measured by
both techniques for all nine runs. Concentrations of CO were measured by the
TCEMS for all nine of the test runs.
2.3.1 TCEMS and Reference Method Results
In general, good agreement was observed between the TCEMS results and the
reference method test results (see Table 2-4). The overall system relative
accuracy for the TCEMS was 5.7%, and the relative accuracy computed for the
individual NOX and 0« channels was 4.2% and 7.7%, respectively. All of
these results are well within the relative accuracy limit of <^ 20% contained in
Performance Specifications 2 and 3. (See Appendix 7.1, Table 7-2, "Relative
Accuracy Worksheet," for the derivation of these relative accuracy values.)
The TCEMS data presented in detail in Table 7-1 (Appendix 7.1) are averaged
values over each 5-minute interval for the nine 2-hour test runs. Also pre-
sented is the NOX emission rate calculated for each time interval using:
(a) the individual N0_ and 0, data, and (b) an F-Factor determined by
X £,
analysis of fuel samples collected during each run. (The fuel analysis results
and the calculated F-Factor values are presented in Table 7.3, Appendix 7.1.)
No adjustment of the concentration data was made for analyzer drift, since'all
calibration drift values were less than 2 percent of analyzer full scale (as
specified in Reference Method 20). The calibration drift results, as
determined by injection of calibration gases before and after each 2-hour test,
are presented in Table 7-1 at the end of each test run. (See Appendix 7.2 for
the raw data pre-test and post-test calibration data sheets.)
Response time for the monitoring system was determined and accounted for in
the interpretation of the strip chart data in order to improve the correlation
of the sample times between the TCEMS measurements and the reference method
measurements.
Reference method sampling results are summarized in Table 2-5, including
data for Methods 3, 7, and alternate 4. Also presented in Table 2-5 are the
F-Factors calculated from the results of ultimate analysis of fuel samples col-
lected during each run, and the resultant NOX emission rates (Ib NOX/10° Btu).
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-4.
RELATIVE ACCURACY TEST RESULTS
FOR
BECKMAN 951 NOX/TELEDYNE 320P-4 02 GEMS
Tennessee Eastman Facility: Boiler Unit 24
Kingsport, Tennessee
June 6-12, 1984
Monitor
Channel
Reference
Method
Result
CEMS
Results
Mean
Difference
95 Percent
Confidence
Interval
Relative
Accuracy
(%)
NOX (ppmd) 290 ppm 292 ppm 2.1 ppm 10.2 ppm 4.2% '
02 (%d) 9.7% 9.5% -0.32% 0.43% 7.7%
System (Ib N0,./106 Btu) 0.60 0.62 -0.013 0.021 5.7%
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-5.
REFERENCE METHOD SAMPLING DATA SUMMARY
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport Facility: Boiler Unit 24
Kingsport, Tennessee
I
oo
Test
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
6/06/84
6/06/84
6/07/84
6/07/84
6/11/84
6/12/84
6/12/84
6/13/84
6/13/84
Alternate RM41 RM31
Moisture Oo
Time (%) (%d)
1235-1435
1650-1850
1015-1215
1430-1630
1345-1545
0955-1155
1340-1540
0930-1130
1240-1440
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.3
7.1
5.8
6.7
6.1
5.8
*
9.9
9.9
12.2
8.7
8.9
9.4
9.5
11.9
RM31 RM72
CO, NOX
(%d> (ppmd)
* 307
9.0 334
9.2 222
7.5 214
10.6 331
10.3 291
10.1 328
9.6
7.8
Calculated
F-Factor
(dscf/106 Btu)
9876
9967
9849
9749
9811
9926
9707
9801
9810
RM
Emission Rate
(Ib NOX/106 Btu)
*
0.76
0.50
0.60
0.66
0.60
0.69
*Suspected Orsat Bag Leak
Integrated sample
2
Average of six flask samples collected each 20 minutes over the 2-hour test
-------
On occasion, there were discrepancies between the reference method and
TCEMS results. For Test Run No. 1, triplicate Method 3 analysis yielded
unusually high 0~ concentrations. These results were attributed to a leak in
the sample bag; this theory is supported by the fact that the TCEMS results for
the same time period indicated lower 02 concentrations. The Tedlar sample
bag in question was not used again during the test program. The Method 3
results for Run No. 6 were atypically high with respect to the TCEMS results,
but for a reason not known. Results from two of the six Method 7 flask samples
collected for Run No. 4 were significantly low with respect to the concurrent
TCEMS data. No apparent reason could be determined for the observed bias
during those two time periods. Because no reasons were apparent, all results
for Runs No. 4 and No. 6 were Included in the relative accuracy calculations.
Tables 2-6 presents the individual reference method measurement data and
the corresponding TCEMS measurements for the same time period. Also presented
are the N0_ relative accuracies calculated for each test run using the
X
arithmetic mean of the difference between the reference method and TCEMS
concentrations, the 95% confidence interval, and the mean of the reference
method values.
2.3.2 CO Results
Carbon monoxide emissions, as determined by an NDIR analyzer in accordance
with the procedures of Reference Method 10, are presented in Table 2-3. The
Q
values presented in the table are corrected for the C02 volume removed by the
Ascarite II (90 to 92% sodium hydroxide on vermiculite). The CO concentration
for Test Runs No. 5 and 6 fluctuated, possibly due to boiler operation. In the
remaining test runs the CO concentration remained relatively stable, averaging
about 53 ppm.
2.4 Quality Assurance Results
The results from reference method analyses of NOX, 0~, and C02 quality
control samples are shown in Table 2-7. Also Included in the table are results
of the monitoring system responses to the audit gas injections. In general,
the TCEMS and reference method audit results conform with the applicable
quality control criteria. On two occasions, the C02 and/or 02 reference method
result exceeded the specified limit; however, the magnitude of the greater
deviation, when applied to the field sample results, alters those results by less
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-6. RUN-BY-RUN TCEMS/REFERENCE METHOD
RESULTS COMPARISON
RUN
NO.
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
AVG.
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
AVG.
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
AVG.
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
AVG.
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
AVG.
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
AVG.
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
AVG.
DATE
6/06/84
6/06/84
6/07/84
6/07/84
6/11/84
6/12/84
6/12/84
SAMPLE
TIME
1239
1255
1315
1335
1355
1415
1655
1715
1735
1755
1815
1835
1018
1038
1058
1118
1138
1158
1432
1452
1512
1532
1552
1612
1350
1410
1430
1450
1510
1530
1000
1020
1040
1100
1120
1140
1345
1405
1425
1445
1505
1525
TCEMS
NO
X
308
313
319
316
324
319
317
333
327
332
330
319
302
324
218
241
230
219
221
220
225
230
237
226
230
236
234
232
338
336
332
347
335
331
337
268
272
269
289
288
291
280
327
324
338
322
336
327
329
?2
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
8.0
7.9
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.9
11.4
11.5
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
7.9
8.2
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
- 9.3
9.2
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.4
9.3
REFERENCE METHOD
NO
X
(ppmd)
305
315
320
271
300
330
307
363
356
325
293
339
329
334
211
253
214
202
234
216
222
229
240
243
185
143
244
214
335
298
296
375
362
322
331
285
291
286
291
287
306
. 291
307
335
339
316
322
351
328
°2
Bag
Leak
XX
9.9
9.9
12.2
8.7
8.9
9.4
DIFFERENCE
N0x
(ppm^)
3
_ 2
- 1
45
24
-11
9.7
-30
-29
7
37
-20
-27
-10.3
7
-12
16
17
-13
4
3.2
1 •
- 3
-17
45
93
-10
18.2
3
38
36
-28
-27
9
5.2
-17
-19
-17
- 2
1
-15
-11.5
20
-11
- 1
6
14
-24
0.7
°2
XX
0.2
0
-0.8
-0.5
-0.7
-0.1
Relative
Accuracy
10.3%
11.6%
7.7%
29.4%
10.8%
7.1%
5.4%
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-7.
AUDIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport Facility: Boiler Unit 24
Audit
Sample Date
Reference Method
NOX 6/24/84
6/12/84
6/12/84
CO, 6/06/84
6/07/84
6/11/84
6/12/84
6/13/84
02 6/06/84
6/07/84
6/11/84
6/12/84
6/13/84
TCEMS
NO 6/06/84
0, 6/06/84
6/11/84
CO 6/06/84
Percent Deviation = Actual
Actual
Content
1552.8 yg
1114.8 yg
756.6 yg
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
12.3%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
294 ppm
3.5%
3.5%
106 ppm
Cone. - Measured
Measured
Content
1575.9 yg
1157.8 yg
777.4 yg
11.9%
12.1%
12.1%
12.1%
12.0%
8.3%
8.1%
8.0%
7.9%
8.0%
296 ppm
3.6%
3.6%
107 ppm
Cone.
Percent
Deviation/Di f f erence
3.9%!
2.7%*
-0.4%2
-0.2%2
-0.2%2
-0.2%2
-0.3%2
0.3%2
0.1%2
o%2 ,-
"S%2%"
D.7%1
0.1%2
0.1%2
Q.9%1
Actual Cone.
2
Percent Difference = Actual Cone. - Measured Cone.
2-11
-------
than 2%. Thus, the two exceedances of the quality control criteria during the
audit analyses had no significant Impact on the reference method sampling
results, a fact which Is also supported by the level of agreement between the
reference method results and the TCEMS results.
Table 2-8 presents the results obtained from the F quality control
technique that was applied to the CO* and 0~ concentration data afforded by
the eight Method 3 determinations (Runs No. 2-9). F values were calculated
from the Orsat data; these values were then compared to FQ values calculated
for each run using the ultimate analysis results of the fuel samples. Although
the percent deviation between the two sets of data exceeded the quality control
criterion of <_ 5% on three occasions (i.e., Runs No. 2, 3, and 8), all of the
FQ values calculated using the Orsat data fall within the FQ range of
acceptability for bituminous coal as specified in Method 3: 1.083 - 1.230.
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-8.
VALIDATION OF ORSAT ANALYSIS DATA: 6/6-13/84
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport Boiler Unit 24
°2
Test Concentration
Run (%d)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 Calculated
Acceptable
is 1.083 -
_3
9.9
9.9
12.2
8.7
8.9
9.4
9.5
11.9
FQ = (20.9 - %02
range of FQ for
1.230.
2
F was calculated for each
Fo
where:
Fd
Fc
= (->0 9) d
CO,
2 19
Concentration Calculated1 Fuel Factor*
<%d> Fo Fo
_3
9.0 1
9.2 1
7.5 1
10.6 1
10.3 1
10.1 1
9.6 1
7.8 1
)/(% CO, ), using field
d d
_3 __3
.222 1.121
.196 1.121
.160 1.120
.151 1.124
.165 1.128
.139 1.127
.188 1.119
.154 1.121
data.
Percent
Deviation
__3
9.0%
6.7%
3.6%
2.4%
3.3%
1.1%
6.2%
2.9%
"
bituminous coal as specified in Reference Method 3
run using the equation:
FC100
= 106(3.64%H + 1
.53%C + 0.57%S + 0.14%N -
0.46%0)
Gross Calorific Value (GCV)
= 106(0.321%C)
GVC
Concentrations were obtained from the source's ultimate analyses of the bituminous
coal samples collected during each sample test run.
Orsat bag leak.
2-13
-------
3.0 PROCESS AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT OPERATING CONDITIONS
The Unit 24 boiler is a rated 320,000 Ib/hr spreader stoker boiler
designed by Combustion Engineering Company to fire eastern bituminous coal.
The boiler produces high quality steam for the cogeneratlon of process steam
and electricity. Combustion air is normally preheated to approximately 320° F,
and the design grate heat release rate is substantially higher for boiler Unit
24 (i.e., > 700,000 Btu/hr/ft2) than it is for most boilers. The boiler
receives coal via eight Detroit Stoker rotograte feeders, and reinjects. flyash
via a flooded hopper return across the rear portion. A substanital effort was
made in late 1983 to seal up air leaks and to improve boiler operation; an 0«
trim system was also recently added. The boiler also features a burner which
periodically injects chemical by-product fuels with a high heat content above
the stoker bed. For the series of tests conducted for this testing program,
the by-product fuel burner was blocked and covered with insulation to eliminate
any air-inleakage.
3.1 Process Equipment Operating Conditions
The Unit 24 boiler was operated under a variety of conditions during the
NO emissions testing. Primarily, there were three operating parameters of
interest: (1) load; (2) 02 (excess air); and (3) availability of combustion
air preheating: these three parameters were varied by plant personnel to
achieve desired test conditions. The boiler load was varied (i.e., 50%, 80%,
and 100%) by adjusting the feedwater and fuel inlet flow rates (see Figure
3-1). The level of 02 in the combustion chamber (i.e., 5%, 7.5%, 9.5% 02)
was varied by increasing or decreasing, the level of excess air. Finally, the
availability of combustion air preheat was varied to test conditions at maximum
preheat (300°F) and no preheat (150°F).
The process variables monitored during the testing program included: (1)
steam flow (Ib/hr), (2) air flow (%), (3) steam pressure (psig), (4) steam
temperature (°F), (5) feed water temperature (°F), (6) air preheat temper-
ature (°F), (7) boiler 02 (%), and (8) stack opacity (%). This information
was obtained from chart recording devices located In the control room. The
data were read from the boiler charts and then recorded on logsheets at
15-minute Intervals during the testing program. The process data logsheets and
the boiler charts for steam load and 02 are included In Appendix 7.7. It
should be noted that documentation of the calibrations of the plant-operated
process measuring and recording devices were not available for inclusion into
the report.
3-1
-------
COMBUSTION AIR PRE-HEATER
AIR PREHEAT TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT
(plant operated)
COMBUSTION AIR
INTAKE
ECONOMIZER-
BOILER
02 ANALYZERS
(plant operated)
PREHEAT BYPASS
EFFLUENT EXHAUST OUTLET
COMBUSTION
AIR
BOILER UNIT 24
FUEL INLET
AS-FIRED
FUEL ANALYSIS
EFFLUENT
SAMPLING
LOCATION
TO
STACK
FEEDWATER
INLET
FIGURE 3-1. SCHEMATIC OF BOILER UNIT 24
-------
Initially, it was intended.that the preheat unit would be bypassed, by
modification of the effluent ductwork, to produce a no preheat condition.
Later, the preheat would be restored in the effluent outlet duct, and a series
of tests (duplicating the boiler conditions of the initial tests) would be
conducted under full preheat conditions. During the initial tests, it was
found that the boiler could not be operated at 100% load when the preheater was
bypassed, because the induced draft fan was drawing considerably more actual
volume of flue gas per steam load. As a result, "full" load conditions with no
preheat were limited to approximately 80% of boiler capacity. In order to
investigate the normal 100% rated load condition, one test run was performed
(Test Run No. 5) at 100% load with combustion air preheat systems operating,
and % 02 at its normal level of 5.5%.
Table 3-1 illustrates the permutations of load, 02, and preheat that
were evaluated during the on-site testing. Because it was imperative that the
impact of each of these, independent variables upon the boiler NOX emissions
be isolated and individually quantified, nine separate test runs were
conducted, each run containing a variation of only one of the three variables,
except as noted above.
3.2 Control Equipment Operating Conditions
The ESP operating parameters were not monitored, nor were they varied as a
part of the testing program, since the performance of the ESP would have, at
most, a negligible Impact on the NO emissions being investigated in this
X
testing program.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1.
PERMUTATIONS OF BOILER UNIT 24
OPERATING PARAMETERS
TEST RUN # % LOAD1
PREHEAT
AIR TEMP °F3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
80.9
81.9
56.3
55.9
100
81.6
81.3
56.9
57.5
144
149
137
146
320
308
314
305
310
1
Percent of full load is a function of fuel, air, and feedwater rates. The
boiler at full load is rated at 320,000 Ib steam/hr.
"O^ level is a function of the fuel and combustion air flow rates, an
average measurement obtained from three Oo analyzers at the boiler outlet-.
Preheat availability is determined by the use of the preheat bypass duct.
3-4
-------
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Sampling locations and modifications to existing facilities are illustrated
and discussed in this section.
4.1 Description of Sampling Locations
All effluent gas sampling was performed at the sample port location between
the ESP outlet (downstream from the Induced draft (ID) fan) and the stack
breeching. This site is on the roof of the boiler house, approximately 100
feet above ground (See Figure 4-1).
Reference method and TCEMS samples were drawn through separate probes
inserted in one of four 4-inch diameter flanged ports (Port "C") located in the
side of the 10' x 7'6" duct, on a downward angled duct section. Sampling
equipment was set up on a platform immediately beneath the four ports (See
Figure 4-2). Electrical power was available in the vicinity of the sampling
location, and sample lines for the TCEMS were run across the boiler house roof
and down to the EPA test van on the ground.
As-fired coal samples were collected at each of the eight feeders.
4.2 Modifications to Existing Facilities
Tennessee Eastman performed the modifications to the effluent duct system
necessary to bypass the combustion air preheater. These modifications
included: (1) installing a bypass duct around the preheater; (2) cutting into
the existing duct before and after the preheater; (3) bypassing the preheater;
(4) re-installing the preheater; and (5) disassembling the preheat bypass
system. The EPA reimbursed Tennessee Eastman for the costs of these modifica-
tions.
4-1
-------
ESP
I.D.
FAN
BOILER HOUSE
ROOF
-STACK
I
to
TOP VIEW
SAMPLING PORTS
/vlQO
GROUND LINE
ELEVATION VIEW
FIGURE 4-1. EFFLUENT SAMPLING LOCATION
-------
Stratification Test
traverse points (8)
7.5'
3.7'
1-3.7 5'-H 2.8'
L-r-i-jH
T"
f I
-\-n—*--
A 1.3
10.5'
Reference Method, TCEMS, and
Stratification Test REFERENCE
sampling point
FROM
I.D. FAN
TO STACK
FIGURE 4-2. EFFLUENT SAMPLE PORT LOCATIONS
4-3
-------
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Sampling and analytical procedures employed In the NO testing of boiler
Unit 24 are described and discussed in this section both for reference method
and non-reference method testing, together with process monitoring procedures
and the chain of custody of samples and data.
5.1 Reference Method Sampling Procedures
Reference method sampling procedures employed in the boiler Unit 24
testing included Method 3 (02>, Method 7 (NOX), and alternate-Method 4 (H20).
Appendix 7.3 of this document contains copies of all reference method proce-
dures used. Integrated samples were collected during the 2-hour test runs for
Method 3 and alternate Method 4. The Method 7 flask samples were obtained at
20-mlnute intervals for a total of six N0_ samples collected per run.
X
5.2 Non-Reference Method Sampling Procedures
Non-reference method sampling procedures included: (1) effluent strati-
fication tests; (2) continuous Instrumental monitoring of NO , 0~, and CO;
X £r
and (3) coal sampling. Procedures employed during the test program are
discussed in the following subsections, and copies of each protocol (except
coal sampling, since this sampling and analysis was performed by Tennessee
Eastman Company according to their standard procedures) are contained in
Appendix 7.3 of this document.
5.2.1 Effluent Stratification Test
Effluent stratification testing was conducted at the reference method
sampling location in order to evaluate the representativeness of the gas
concentration measurements made at that location. The goal of this test was to
establish that the reference method (and TCEMS) measurements of NO and 0,
X ^
concentrations at the sampling location were representative of the concen-
trations of these constituents in the total effluent stream.
The stratification test procedure involved the use of a transportable
continuous emission monitoring system (TCEMS) composed of two monitors to
measure concentrations of NOX and Oo in the effluent sampling ports. (See
Section 4.0, Figure 4-2.) Differences in the concentrations of these gases
were evaluated between a reference point (selected as the mid point of the
5-1
-------
traverse line "C," located 3.69 feet from the duct wall) and each of the
traverse sampling points. Differences of less than 10% are considered
indicative of a non-stratified sampling location. (See Appendix 7.3 for the
stratification test protocol.)
5.2.2 Continuous Monitoring
Boiler Unit 24 emissions of NO , 0~, and CO were continuously monitored
through the use of the same TCEMS employed in the stratification test with the
addition of a CO monitoring system, which was operated In accordance with the
procedures of Reference Method 10 in order to obtain reliable CO emissions
data.
Concentrations of NO (ppm - dry basis) in the effluent stream were
measured utilizing a Beckman 951 NO/NO chemiluminescence analyzer. The
measurement range used throughout the testing was 0-1000 ppm. A Teledyne
320P-4 0~ analyzer was used in conjunction with the NO analyzer in order
to compute NOV emission rates in units of Ib NO.,/10 Btu. A Beckman 864 CO
X X
NDIR analyzer was employed to continuously measure the levels of CO. The
concentrations of NOX, 02, and CO were displayed on a strip chart recorder.
Initially, the TCEMS was calibrated with certified gases having concentra-
tions of NOX, 02, and CO that corresponded to the typical ranges encountered in
the Boiler Unit 24 effluent. The calibration of the TCEMS was checked between
each change in operating parameters by flowing the calibration gases to each
monitor in order to quantify any calibration drift. (See Appendix 7.3 for the
TCEMS operational protocol.)
The NO calibration gases used were NBS-traceable (Protocol No. 1); the
02 gases were certified by triplicate reference method analysis. Each CO gas
concentration was certified by the EPA's Quality Assurance Division Laboratory
at Research Triangle Park. (See Appendix 7.5 for the certificates of analysis.)
5.2.3 Coal Sampling
Coal sample increments were collected from each of the eight feeders at
30-minute intervals by plant personnel during each emissions test run. Coal
sampling was initiated 30 minutes prior to each test run and concluded at the end
of the run, for a total sample time of 2-1/2 hours per run. The samples acquired
during each test period were analyzed according to the protocol currently employed
by the plant. In addition, the samples were split, and a portion of each sample
5-2
-------
was turned over to the EMB in order to allow for subsequent additional analyses,
should questions arise regarding the accuracy of the plant's results. The plant
analysis data are included in Appendix 7.1, Table 7-3.
5.3 Process Monitoring Procedures
Process (boiler) operating parameters were monitored during the test program
by ISB personnel. The procedures employed provided data to verify the status of
boiler load and 0~, based on the monitoring of combustion air', fuel, and
feedwater parameters. Existing plant data acquisition systems were employed to
monitor the following parameters:
Parameter Units
Steam Flow Ib/hr
Air Flow percent
Steam Pressure psig
Steam Temperature °F
Feed Water
Temperature F
Air Preheater
Of?
Temperature
Opacity % opacity
Boiler Oxygen % oxygen
5.4 Sample/Data Chain of Custody
All on-site source data were acquired by EMB and ISB personnel. Entropy's
off-site field representative took possession of all test (non-process) data
and samples as they became available.
Following the completion of the on-site phase of the test program, the
NOX reference method samples and the remaining test data were taken to the
Entropy home office, where the laboratory portion of the NO,, analyses was
X
conducted. The ISB representative provided Entropy with copies of necessary
process data, and both ISB and EMB personnel provided Entropy with notes on
testing activities and observations. The final data reduction and compilation
of the test results were performed by Entropy.
5-3
-------
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality assurance (QA) procedures incorporating quality assessment and
quality control are delineated in this section. QA activities associated with
reference method testing are described, as well as those associated with
non-reference method sampling.
6.1 Reference Method Sampling Quality Control
Quality control techniques employed by EMB and Entropy were designed to
verify both the validity of sampling techniques and the calibration of
analytical techniques. The following subsections describe the quality control
activities employed in the reference method sampling and analysis.
6.1.1 EPA Method 3
Quality control of EPA Method 3 was assessed before and during its
application in the field, employing two techniques.
The first technique was applied immediately before the analysis of field
samples and entailed determinations of a known concentration of a COo and
02 mixture. The concentrations of the CC^ and Q~ audit gases were
selected to be consistent with concentrations ordinarily encountered within the
effluent streams of industrial boilers. The cylinder concentrations of CO-
and 02 were established by Entropy personnel at the Entropy laboratory using
triplicate reference method analysis.
An audit sample containing C02 and 02 was analyzed prior to each series
of Method 3 sampling runs performed. These analyses were conducted by the person
who performed the analysis of the Method 3 field samples. The criteria for
acceptable quality are results within 0.2% C02 and 0.2% 02 of the established
concentration values.
The second technique for assessing quality control was applied during the
Orsat analyses of the individual field samples. The technique, termed the F
technique, is based upon the stoichiometries associated with the combustion of
specified fuel types. The F technique is a recommended procedure for assessing
quality control and is contained in Method 3, 40 CFR, Part 60, a copy of which is
contained in Appendix 7.3 of this document.
6-1
-------
6.1.2 EPA Method 7
Quality control of the analysis phase of EPA Method 7 was assessed through
the use of "Stationary Source Quality Assurance NO Reference Standards"
provided by the U. S. EPA, (QAD). Immediately before analysis of the NOX
field samples, N0_ reference standards were determined in a "blind" fashion
JV
by the person responsible for the reference method analyses using the
procedures prescribed by the QAD. The analysis phase of EPA Method 7 was
considered to be in a state of quality control if results of the N0_
reference standards determinations were within 10% of the nominal NO mass
value. Field samples were analyzed only after quality control had been
established.
6.2 Non-Reference Method Sampling Quality Control
The quality control activities employed during the Boiler Unit 24 non-
reference method tests are described in the following subsections.
6.2.1 TCEMS Sampling
Quality control of the TCEMS is based on the utilization of the proper
operational protocol and the proper calibration gases. The operational
protocol for the TCEMS was developed by the U. S. EPA Stationary Source
Compliance Division for the performance of stratification, source emission, and
relative accuracy tests. This protocol has been field tested and has been-
demonstrated to provide accurate, precise measurements of effluent gas
concentrations ("Transportable Continuous Emission Monitoring System
Operational Protocol: Instrumental Monitoring of S02, NOX, COj, and 02
Effluent Concentrations," EPA-340/1-83-016).
The utilization of certified gases in the calibration of the TCEMS employed
in the testing program ensures an adequate level of quality control. As an
additional quality control check, "blind" audit calibration gas injections were
conducted for each of the individual TCEMS analyzers on two occasions using
gases supplied by the QAD.
6.2.2 Coal Sampling
Quality control procedures employed by the plant in the coal analysis were
not available at the time of the preparation of this test report.
6-2
-------
6.3 Assessment of Sample Representativeness
The representativeness of effluent gas samples collected through reference
method and TCEMS testing were evaluated in the performance of the stratifi-
cation test. Fuel sampling techniques employed by the plant to ensure
representative coal samples were not available at the time of the preparation of
this test report.
6-3
-------
7.0 APPENDICES
7.0-0
-------
7.1 RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS
7.1-0
-------
t>£ dry-basis Jtttl jltcfar (fa ) - d^/fr
-facfarf fcy US/'/VL, Orsat
Wl
O.ZQ1
where :
-------
RELATIVE ACCURACY
CALCULATION PROCEDURES
Calculate the algebraic mean difference of the data set
as follows:
MD » 1/n Z D,
x
where: n = number of data points
D, » sample run (i) difference
(CEMSi - TCEMSi)
Calculate the 95% (two-sided) confidence interval (CI)
as follows:
'.975
n
where:
a
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
C.975
4.303
3.182
2,776
2.571
2.447
2.365
2.306
The values in this Cable are _
already corrected for n-1 degree!
of freedom. Use n equal to the •
number of individual values.
Calculate the relative accuracy (RA) of the data set
as:
RA
x 100
AVG
where: AVG = average Reference Method value for
all sample runs
7.1-3
-------
EXAMPLE REFERENCE METHOD 7 NITROGEN OXIDES TEST CALCULATIONS NO. 1-3
INITIAL ABSOLUTE PRESSURE IN FLASK "
Pa(i) - Pbar(i) + Pg(i) Pa(i) - 29.02 + (-27.90) = 1.12 in. Hg.
FINAL ABSOLUTE PRESSURE IN FLASK
Pa(f) - Pbar(f) + Pg(f) Pa(f) =29.04 + (-5.30) - 23.74 in. Hg.
VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED AT STANDARD CONDITIONS*
Vsc = 17.64 * (Vf-Va) * ((Pa(f) / (ts(f) + 460)) - (Pa(i) / (ts(i) + 460))
Vsc - 17.64 * (2,087 - 25.0) * KyT—-^) - ^T^'IeO^ = 1'545*2 ml
PARTS PER MILLION, DRY BY VOLUME
ppmd = — * 1,000,000
Vsc * Mol. Wt. '
24.056 * 946.8 * 0.001
ppmd = ;™r7c~^~r~7I * 1,000,000 = 320.4 ppmd
1 ,545.2 * 46
POUNDS PER MILLION BTU
. ppmd * Mol. Wt. . . 20.9
Lb/MMBtu = * FAC *
' 385.3 * 10E6 20.9 - 02%
Lb/MMBtu = * 9,876 * ~«~S~~~o~~y °* °-612 Lb/MMBtu
WHERE:
(i) = Initial (f) = Final
Pbar(i) = Barometric Pressure, in. Hg. Pbar(f) = Barometric Pressure, in. Hg.
Pg(i) = Evacuated Flask Pressure, in. Hg. Pg(f) = Gauge Pressure, in. Hg.
Pa(i) = Absolute Pressure, in. Hg. Pa(f) = Absolute Pressure, in. Hg.
ts(i) = Temperature, Degrees F. ts(f) = Temperature, Degrees F
FAC = F-Factor, DSCF/MMBTU @ 0% 02
%02 = Percent Oxygen, By Vol. Dry
Va = Volume of Absorbing Sol.
Vf = Volume of Flask, ml.
Vsc = Volume Sampled, Dry Std.* ml..
m = Mass Absorbed, micrograms
ppmd = Concent., PPM Dry by Vol.
Lb/MMBtu = Concent., Lbs/Million Btu
* 68 Degrees F ~ 29.92 inches Hg.
7.1-4
-------
TEST 1
TABLE 7-1.
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING RESULTS
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport Facility: Boiler Unit 24
Kings port, Tennessee
6/6/84
Time
1235-1240
1240-1245
1245-1250
1250-1255
1255-1260
1300-1305
1305-1310
1310-1315
1315-1320
1320-1325
1325-1330
1330-1335
1335-1340
1340-1345
1345-1350
1350-1355
1355-1360
1400-1405
1405-1410
1410-1415
1415-1420
1420-1425
1425-1430
1430-1435
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
(relative to
analyzer span)
NOX
Cone.
(ppn»d)
308
314
317
317
315
316
313
316
318
316
314
313
317
310
316
321
323
322
320
320
319
320
321
324
317
(300-330)
NOX
Mid Low
1.7% 0.7%
F-Factor calculated
r°2
Cone.
(%d )
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
: 7.8
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
(7.3-8.6)
°2
High Mid
-1.0% 0%
based on fuel
CO
Cone.
(ppmd)
27
28
27.
27
28
30
30
27
26
26
26
27
27
30
30
29
30
30
30
32
34
32
32
32
29
(26-41)
CO
Mid Low
-0.8% -0.8%
analysis = 9876
?NO*
Rat?
(Ib NO/106 Btu)
A
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.60 -
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.60
dscf/106 Btu
7.1-5
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued).
TEST 2 6/6/84
Time
1650-1655
1655-1700
1 700-1 705
1705-1710
1710-1715
1715-1720
1720-1725
1725-1730
1730-1735
1735-1740
1740-1745
1745-1750
1750-1755
1755-1760
1800-1805
1805-1810
1810-1815
1815-1820
1820-1825
1825-1830
1830-1835
1835-1840
1840-1845
1845-1850
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
(relative to
analyzer span)
NOX
Cone.
(ppmd)
333
333
329
329
325
325
325
328
333
332
334
333
331
331
326
324
318
317
316
315
307
300
297
299
323
(292-339)
NOX
Mid
0.7%
F-Factor calculated
r°2
Cone.
«d >
10.0
10.1
10.1
10. 2. _
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.1
(9.6-10.6)
°2
High
1.0%
based on fuel
CO
Cone.
(ppmd)
59
59
61
61
65
65
66
68
65
65
64
66
66
65
65
68
81
79
74
76
85
97
101
98
72
(57-106)
CO
Low
-0.6%
analysis = 9967
ENO
RatI
(Ib NOX/106 Btu)
0.76
0.77
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.74
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.71
0.69
0.68
0.70
0.74
dscf/106 Btu
7.1-6
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued).
TEST 3 6/7/84
Time
1015-1020
1020-1025
1025-1030
1030-1035
1035-1040
1040-1045
1045-1050
1050-1055
1055-1060
1100-1105
1105-1110
1110-1115
1115-1120
1120-1125
1125-1130
1130-1135
1135-1140
1140-1145
1145-1150
1150-1155
1155-1160
1200-1205
1205-1210
1210-1215
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
(relative to
analyzer span)
Cone.
219
217
214
216
234
242
241
230
225
229
226
221
219
218
218
219
220
219
219
220
220
220
219
218
223
(214-244)
NOX
Mid
1.0%
F-Factor calculated
°2
Cone.
«d >
10.0
9.9
9.9
9.9
10.0
10.2
10.0
9.9
9.8
9.6
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
(9.3-10.6)
°2
High
-0.8%
based on fuel
CO
Cone.
(ppmd)
31
33
35
37
32
31
29
27
27
26
25
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
27
27
27_
29
(25-41)
CO
Mid
-0.2%
analysis = 9849
Rat?
(Ib NOX/106 Btu)
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.53
0.56
0.54
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.50
dscf/106 Btu
7.1-7
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued)
TEST 4 6/7/84
Time
1430-1435
1435-1440
1440-1445
1445-1450
1450-1455
1455-1460
1500-1505
1505-1510
1510-1515
1515-1520
1520-1525
1525-1530
1530-1535
1535-1540
1540-1545
1545-1550
1550-1555
1555-1560
1600-1605
1605-1610
1610-1615
1615-1620
1620-1625
1625-1630
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
(relative to
analyzer span)
NOX
Cone.
(ppmd)
230
233
233
233
232
232
235
228
228
232
230
229
229
231
237
237
234
235
236
234
233
233
233
233
233
(225-242)
NOX
Mid
0.7%
F-Factor calculated
°2
Cone.
11.4
11.4
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.4
11.5
11.4
11.4
11.3
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.5
11.5
11.4
11.4
11.5
11.5
11.4
(11.0-11.8)
°2
High
-0.8%
based on fuel
CO
Cone.
(ppmd)
49
53
56
53
49
46
47
44
44
47
46
46
46
47
49
50
51
50
52
53
54 .
56
56
57.
50
(41-59)
CO
Mid
-0.2%
analysis = 9749
ENO_
Rat5
(Ib NOX/106 Btu)
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.60
. 0.60
0.59
0.61
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.61
0.61
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
dscf/106 Btu
7.1-8
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued).
TEST 5 6/11/84
Time
1345-1350
1350-1355
1355-1360
1400-1405
1405-1410
1410-1415
1415-1420
1420-1425
1425-1430
1430-1435
1435-1440
1440-1445
1445-1450
1450-1455
1455-1460
1500-1505
1505-1510
1510-1515
1515-1520
1520-1525
1525-1530
1530-1535
1535-1540
1540-1545
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
(relative to
analyzer span)
NOX
Cone.
(ppmd)
338
338
335
335
337
336
334
332
330
332
342
342
346
347
344
335
337
335
332
333
333
331
329
347
337
(326-357)
NOX
Mid Low
0.4% 0.2%
F-Factor calculated
r°2
Cone.
(%d )
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.2
(7.9-8.6)
°2
High Mid
-0.4% 0%
based on fuel
CO
Cone. .
(ppmd) (Ib
59
63
69
63
73
80
85
96
124
201
66
63
59
56
56
99
103
changed ascarite
136
126
129
135
180
98
96
(47-289)
CO
Mid Low
-0.2% -0.2%
analysis = 9811 dscf/1
ENO_
Rat!
NO /106 Btu)
X.
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.66
0.66
0.67
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.67
0.65
O6 Btu
7.1-9
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued).
TEST 6 6/12/84
Time
0955-1000
1000-1005
1005-1010
1010-1015
1015-1020
1020-1025
1025-1030
1030-1035
1035-1040
1040-1045
1045-1050
1050-1055
1055-1060
1100-1105
1105-1110
1110-1115
1115-1120
1120-1125
1125-1130
1130-1135
1135-1140
1140-1145
1145-1150
1150-1155
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
(relative to
analyzer span)
NOX
Cone.
(ppn»d)
272
268
266
268
264
272
264
260
265
269
266
269
282
289
294
297
298
288
283
286
286
291
294
295
279
(257-310)
NOX
Mid Low
0.4% 0.2%
F-Factor calculated
r°2
Cone.
«d >
8.1
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.3
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.2
(7.3-9.2)
°2
High Mid
-0.4% 0%
based on fuel
CO
Cone.
(ppmd)
70
59
57
64
63
55
62
59
48
74
100
77
74
47
40
36
35
39
42
65
91
75
62
56_
60
(34-146)
CO
Low
-0.2%
analysis = 9926
ENO_
Ratl
(Ib NOX/106 Btu)
0.53
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.52
0.53
0.55
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.55
dscf/106 Btu
7.1-10
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued),
TEST 7 6/12/84
Time
1340-1345
1345-1350
1 350-1 355
1355-1360
1400-1405
1405-1410
1410-1415
1415-1420
1420-1425
1425-1430
1430-1435
1435-1440
1440-1445
1445-1450
1450-1455
1455-1460
1500-1505
1505-1510
1510-1515
1515-1520
1520-1525
1525-1530
1530-1535
1535-1540
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
NOX
Cone..
(pP^d5
326
327
327
325
323
324
331
333
338
338
339
336
327
322
323
335
337
336
332
327
326
327
329
332
330
(320-343)
NOX
Mid Low
-0.6* 0.3%
r°2
Cone.
«d >
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.2
9.3
9.2
9.3
9.2
9.3
9.2
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.4
9.3
9.3
9.3
(8.9-9.7)
°2
High Mid
0.4% 0%
CO
Cone.
(ppmd)
37
38
38
38
38
39
38
39
39
39
-40
40
40
41
42
41
40
40
42
43
43
45
45
45_
40
(36-46)
CO
Mid Low
0.8% 1.0%
ENO,_
Rat?
(lb M/106 Btu)
X
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.67
0.67
0.69
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.68
0.67
0.67
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.68
0.68
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
(relative to
analyzer span)
F-Factor calculated based on fuel analysis = 9707 dscf/10 Btu
7.1-11
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued),
TEST 8 6/13/84
Time
0930-0935
0935-0940
0940-0945
0945-0950
0950-0955
0955-0960
1000-1005
1005-1010
1010-1015
1015-1020
1020-1025
1025-1030
1030-1035
1035-1040
1040-1045
1045-1050
1050-1055
1055-1060
1100-1105
1105-1110
1110-1115
1115-1120
1120-1125
1125-1130
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
(relative to
analyzer span)
NOX
Cone.
(ppmd)
203
203
202
199
199
200
204
205
202
201
203
207
210
211
213
215
216
217
216
214
214
214
214
214
208
(194-219)
NOX
Mid Low
-0.1% 0%
F-Factor calculated
°2
Cone.
«d >.
10.1
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.8
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.0
(9.2-10.7)
°2
High Mid
0% 0%
based on fuel
CO
Cone.
(ppmd)
42
42
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
44
44
43
42
42
42
42
41_
43
(41-46)
CO
Mid Low
0.2% 0.2%
analysis = 9801
ENO_
Rat?
(Ib NOX/106 Btu)
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.48
.0.48
0.48
0.47
dscf/106 Btu
7.1-12
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued),
TEST 9 6/13/84
Time
1240-1245
1245-1250
1250-1255
1255-1260
1300-1305
1305-1310
1310-1315
1315-1320
1320-1325
1325-1330
1330-1335
1335-1340
1340-1345
1345-1350
1350-1355
1355-1360
1400-1405
1405-1410
1410-1415
1415-1420
1420-1425
1425-1430
1430-1435
1435-1440
AVG.
Range
(High-Low)
Calibration
Drift
(relative to
analyzer span)
NOX
Cone.
(PP"»
-------
TABLE 7-2.
ACCURACY DETERMINATION ( »>x , ' o , SYSTEM )
Source and Location
> Q> '
Monitor &£l**cr M*/M VS. gtelx /T&^VX* -£2>/>-*- £2.
Test
.'Jo.
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
3
9
10
11
12
Mean
test
' / /
TIME
£/*/«$¥
/<&r-/43f
&b/84
/6SV - /g&
t/7/&
jOif-Wf
6/7/84
M3*-fc&>
(p/ii{24-
j$4*~/S4£'
bjlll**-
C*£S- JlSg
6M»
I34o - /r-^&
REFERENCE METHOD
NOX
(ppny)
3*7
.334
332.
£14-
&l
J1I
32Z
°2
( %rf)
*^^^^^^^
4.1
1.1
&+
$.7
8-1
1.4
SYSTEM
Lb/MMBtu
-frdf
O.lb
&$o
#.u>
C: (<&
&.&0
O.tf
ref. method ' ^_
value -2^' 1 ^-7 | ^-^
MONITOR
N'°x
(ppra^)
317
3&
<&*>
<&$
331
J71
33*
-.0-
( 7,j)
-?+
/o.t
1.1
JI.4
%.1~
f.z-
14
SYSTEM
Ib/MMBtu
^AyA
^fT^^
A 74
0. &>
O.bb
O.bZ'
^.
—
<9.2-
i>
*A?
-££
-A?
'^-/
JYSTE^
Ib/MMB
— .
-O.C&
&
0
-C.z:
-6.0$
0
O / I1-/"?''! • • ; "
— • / 1^ ^. ^*- |~-.<-. 'i
* b.:3-! lb/MMBt
, . f -
cfcs * Mean d^ference (absolute value) * 95* confidence interval »QO ,
•Xean reference nethod value
-r".2 %NO^ , 77 % 0, * r.7 % SYSTEM
" * % — - — : • *• i — —
7.1-14
-------
TABLE 7-3.
FUEL SAMPLING RESULTS
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport Facility: Boiler Unit 24
Test
Run
No.
1
2
3
r 4
s 5
6
7
8
9
% Moisture
4.40
5.10
6.30
6.40
2.05
4.15
3.75
3.55
3.35
% Ash
(dry)
11.11
12.72
11.91
11.64
9.01
8.60
8.16
11.41
9.62
% Sulfur
(dry)
0.83
0.87
0.96
0.84
0.72
0.88
0.87
0.79
0.86
% Carbon
(dry)
75.41
74.73
73.46
74.26
77.69
77.82
77.18
74.42
75.87
% Hydrogen
(dry)
4.76
4.47
4.63
4.62
4.83
4.90
4.95
4.59
4.70
% Nitrogen
(dry)
1.40
1.42
1.50
1.41
1.45
.1.65
1.74
1.62
1.81
% Oxygen
(dry)
6.49
5.79
7.54
7.23
6.30
6.15
7.10
7.17
7.14
Calculated
GCV F-Factor
(Btu/lb) (dscf/106 Btu)
13203
12906
12847
13107
13674
13581
13761
13055
13318
AVG.
9876
9967
9849
9749
9811
9926
9707
9801
9810
9833
-------
STRATIFICATION DATA SHEET
Source and Location
' (
Sample
Point
Reference Probe
Traverse Probe
Ave. Ref. P
f
robe
Temporal Change
Normalized Tr-av.
NOX
(ppm)
CO2/O
NOX
(ppm)
COV0
NOX
(ppm)
C02/00
NO
C02/02
NOX
(ppm)
7
.235T'
ll'l
M-l
244
C4-
0.4-
//f
-------
STRATIFICATION DATA SHEET
Source and Location
Temporal Change
Traverse Probe
/Y//Y/
Y////////
-------
Source and Location
STRATIFICATION DATA SHEET
>\ j5e)U-f
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(
1
Sample
Point
Reference Probe
Traverse Probe ;
Ave.
Ref. Probe
Temporal Change
Normalized Tray.
NOX
(ppm)
(ppm)
02/02
NO
NO
(*)•
NOX
(ppm)
222
222
222
222
322
331
-------
STRATIFICATION DATA SHEET
Source and Location
-------
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
VO
o
S
0.60
I
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
t •
10
20 30 40 50 ' 60
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 7-1. RUN NO. 1 NO^ EMISSIONS
70
80
90
100
110
12
-------
0.80
0.75
0.70
4-1
PQ
vO
O
y,
*
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 7-2. RUN NO. 2 NO EMISSIONS
x
90
100
110
120
-------
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
o
0.55
0.50
-Or
0.45
0.40
10
20 30 40 50 60 70
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 7-3. RUN NO. 3 NO EMISSIONS
A
80
90
100
110
120
-------
3
4J
M
o
2
• 0)
o
"Z,
w
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
•O
0.40
10
20 30 40 50 60 70
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 7-4. RUN NO. 4 NO EMISSIONS
80
90
100
110
120
Y
-------
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
10
20 30 40 50 60
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 7-5. RUN NO. 5
70
80
90
100
110
120
NO EMISSIONS
x
-------
3
4-1
pq
X!
fa
•z,
w
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
i • i
I |_
i §
10
20 30 40 50 60
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
70
80
90
100
110
120
FIGURE 7-6. RUN NO. 6
NO EMISSIONS
X
-------
vO
o
W
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
10
20 30 40 50 60
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
70
80
90
100
110
FIGURE 7-7. RUN NO. 7 NO EMISSIONS
X
120
-------
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
10
20 30 40 50 60
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
70
80
90
100
110
120
FIGURE 7-8. RUN NO. 8 NO EMISSIONS
x
-------
vo
O
O
I -~» a
I K) rH
' 00 ^
X
1 §
I «
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
10
20 30 40 50 60 70
TEST RUN TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 7-9. RUN NO. 9 NO EMISSIONS
x
80
90
100
110
120
------- |