United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 8S-IBR-26
May 1985
Air
Industrial Boilers
Emission Test Report
General Electric
New York State
-------
GCA-TR-84-183-G
EMB Report 85-1BR-26
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC
Contract No. 68-02-3851
Work Assignment No. 9
George Walsh - Project Officer
Dennis Holzschuh - Task Manager
EMISSION TEST REPORT
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
NEW YORK STATE
Final Report
May 1985
Prepared by
Edward F. Peduto, Jr.
David M. Moll
GCA CORPORATION
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
-------
DISCLAIMER
This Final Report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
the GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730, in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-3851, Work Assignment No. 9. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not
necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency or the cooperating
agencies. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an
endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables v
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary of Results 2
Emission Measurements 2
Relative Accuracy Test 8
3. Process Description, Operation and Sampling Location ... 10
Process Description 10
Operating Conditions 10
Measurement Location 11
4. Sampling and Analytical Test Approach 14
Overview 14
Measurement of Flue Gas Emission Rates 14
Measurement System Quality Assurance 18
Analytical Procedures 25
Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting 25
5. Program Quality Assurance 28
Measurement System Performance 28
Completeness 33
Deviations From the Quality Assurance Test Plan. ... 33
Appendices
A. 15-Minute Averaged Data for Test Conditions 1, 2 and 3. . . 35
B. Calibration Data and Data Reduction Calibration Equations . 41
C. Reference Test Method Field Data Sheets 55
D. Method 7 Analytical Data 81
E. Reference Method Data Reduction 87
F. Relative Accuracy Calculations 101
G. Emission Test Participants 109
111
-------
FIGURES
Number
Trend plot of NOX emissions and Q£ data for test
condition 1
Trend plot of NOX emission rate and excess C>2 for
test condition 2
3 Trend plot of NOX emissions and excess Q£ data for
test condition 3 8
4 Schematic of low NOX gas-fired boiler emission
measurement location 12
5 Stack sample point location 13
6 Data acquisition system schematic 17
7 Mobile laboratory flow schematic 19
8 Valve box configuration 20
9 Condensation/pumping system 21
10 Sample distribution system 22
IV
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Hourly Emissions Data for Test Condition 1—General Electric
Power Boiler, New York State 3
Hourly Emissions Data for Test Condition 2—General Electric
Power Boiler, New York State
3 Hourly Emissions Data for Test Condition 3—General Electric
Power Boiler, New York State 5
4 Relative Accuracy Test Results 9
5 Low NOX Boiler Test Program Measurement Parameter Summary 15
6 Sampling Parameters and CEMs Methodology 16
7 Calibration Gas Concentrations 23
8 Stratification Test Results 29
9 Relative Accuracy Test Results 30
10 Calibration Error Test Results 31
11 Calibration Drift Test Conditions 32
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed standards
for Industrial Boilers greater than 250 MMBtu/hr heat input on June 19, 1984.
Additional data gathering for NOX emissions is being conducted prior to
promulgation of these standards.
In support of the data gathering process, GCA Corporation was issued a
task by the Emissions Measurement Branch (EMB) of OAQPS to conduct a
short-term continuous monitoring program. The program was conducted on a
proprietary low NOX gas-fired steam generator owned and operated by General
Electric Company (G.E.) in New York State. Primary measurement objectives
were to quantify the NOX emission rates associated with three (3) different
process operating conditions.
This report summarizes emissions measurements conducted at G.E., NY
during the period of December 3-7, 1984. Section 2 presents a summary and
discussion of program results. A description of the process and sampling
location is presented in Section 3 and the sampling and analytical approach is
presented in Section 4. Section 5 includes the results of associated quality
assurance measures and the supporting documentation, raw field data and the
data reduction approach are included as Appendices A through G.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
During the period of December 4-6, three boiler test conditions were
monitored, ranging in duration from 4 to 8 hours each. These measurements
were conducted using continuous monitoring methods for acquiring the primary
measurement parameters which included NOX, 02, C02, and CO. To document
the performance of the monitoring system, manual reference test procedures
were conducted to assess the relative accuracy of the measurements.
EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
The data for each test condition were acquired on a continuous basis and
stored as a 15-minute average. These minimum averaged values were then used
to calculate 1 hour and test condition averages.
A summary of the hourly averages for each test condition is shown in
Tables 1, 2, and 3. Included in Appendix A are the 15-minute averaged data
used to assemble the data tables.
The data for test condition 1 indicate an average NOX emission rate of
55 ng/J (0.128 lb/106 Btu) and a standard deviation of 1.8 ng/J (0.00456 lb/
Btu). Values ranged from 53 (0.124 Ib/lO^ Btu) to 58 ng/J (0.136 lb/
Btu). Carbon monoxide concentrations adjusted to stoichiometric
conditions (STOICH CO) averaged 874 ppm and ranged from 435 to 1063 ppm.
Trend plots of the NOX emission rate and excess 02 are shown in Figure 1
to illustrate the variability of the 15-minute averaged data of these two
parameters for the test condition.
Data for test condition 2 are shown in Table 2 and the corresponding
trend plot of NOX emission rate and excess $2 i-s shown in Figure 2.
Oxides of nitrogen emission rates averaged 40 ng/J (0.093 lb/10^ Btu) and
exhibited a standard deviation (on an hourly basis) of 0.8 ng/J (0.00155 lb/
106 Btu). Values ranged from 39 (0.090 lb/106 Btu) to 41 ng/J (0.094 lb/
106 Btu). Carbon monoxide emissions at stoichiometric conditions averaged
1523 ppm and exhibited essentially no variability.
The results for test condition 3 are shown in Table 3 and the
corresponding trend plot is shown in Figure 3. Emission rates for NOX
averaged 65 ng/J (0.151 lb/106 Btu) and exhibited essentially no variability
on an hourly basis. Carbon monoxide emissions which averaged 45 ppm at
stoichiometric conditions were much lower than the two other test conditions.
-------
TABLE 1. HOURLY EMISSIONS DATA FOR TEST CONDITION I—GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER
BOILER, NEW YORK STATE
Day
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
Hour
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
NOX
(ppm)
97
92
92
93
92
92
92
02
(%)
4.3
5.6
4.7
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
C02
(%)
9.8
9.1
9.7
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.7
CO
(ppm)
760a
325a
622a
776a
783a
853a
812a
FO
ratio
1.693
1.677
1.671
1.695
1.689
1.700
1.724
Stoich
CO
(ppm)
959.4
435.2
801.5
967.8
976.4
1063.0
1010.1
NOX
(ng/J)
57
58
55
54
54
54
53
NOX
(Ib/MBtu)
0.132
0.136
0.128
0.126
0.125
0.124
0.124
aParameter exceeds top span concentration.
-------
TABLE 2. HOURLY EMISSIONS DATA FOR TEST CONDITION 2—GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER
BOILER, NEW YORK STATE
Day
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
Hour
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NOX
(ppm)
66
67
69
69
69
68
68
70
02
(%)
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
C02
(%)
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.3
9.0
9.2
9.4
CO
(ppm)
1209a
1212a
1212a
1211a
1208a
1211a
1212a
1208a
FO
ratio
1.800
1.785
1.756
1.753
1.781
1.842
1.809
1.764
Stoich
CO
(ppm)
1524.7
1527.0
1526.7
1524.6
1522.1
1523.0
1520.5
1515.8
NOX
(ng/J)
39
39
40
40
41
40
40
41
NOX
(Ib/MBtu)
0.090
0.091
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.093
0.093
0.094
Parameter exceeds top span concentration.
-------
TABLE 3. HOURLY EMISSIONS DATA FOR TEST CONDITION 3—GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER
BOILER, NEW YORK STATE
Day
341
341
341
341
Hour
10
11
12
13
NOX
(ppm)
99
98
99
99
02
CO
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.1
C02
(%)
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.9
CO
(ppm)
32
32
31
31
FO
ratio
1.836
1.859
1.845
1.876
Stoich
CO
(ppm)
45.3
44.7
44.2
43.8
NOX
(ng/J)
65
65
65
65
NOX
(Ib/MBtu)
0.151
0.150
0.151
0.152
-------
0
E
/ 5-
N
0
X
4-i
3-i
GENERAL ELECTRIC,NY
(»)=NOX
(NG/JJ/1B
TE5T=1
=02 U)
= Ibs NOx/MBtu
1200
1400
TIME
1600
1800
0.15
0.14
8.13
0.10
0.09
0.08
t
"
Figure 1. Trend plot of NOX emissions and 02 data for
test condition 1.
-------
?-;
6-:
0
2
/ 5-
N
0
X
4-1
3-
GENERAL ELECTRIC.NY
U)=NOX (MG/J)/1B
TEST=2
(+)=02 (X)
(O) =lbs NOy/MBtu
-k A
1808
1288 1488
TIME
1688
8.15
8.14
0.13
8.12 i
b
s
8.11 M
B
8.10 °
8.89
8.88
1888
Figure 2. Trend plot of NOX emission rate and excess 02
for test condition 2.
-------
GENERAL ELECTRIC,NY
(NG/J)/1B
TEBT=3
(+)=02 U)
(O) =lbs NO x/MB lu
800
-
7-.
.
.
6-1
-
0 :
2 :
' 5-
N :
0 -
X |
-
4-
3:
**^f^S»-^(f^~ 1
-
*,»-**+. • :
+++ ^+^ V+4--^ H-t -
•
0.15
0.14
0.13
i
0.12 b
s
/
0.11 M
B
t
u
0.10
0.09
0.08
1200
1400
TIME
1600
NON
1800
Figure 3. Trend plot of NOX emissions and excess 02 data
for test condition 3.
-------
KELATIVE ACCURACY TEST
The results of the relative accuracy test are shown in Table 4. The
relative accuracy for the NOX analyzer is 6.0 percent on a volume basis and
11.4 percent on an emission rate basis. Relative accuracies for the 02 and
CC>2 analyzers on an absolute concentration basis are 0.22 percent 02 and
0.24 percent C02, respectively. These results correspond to 5.1 percent and
2.5 percent relative accuracy when compared to mean reference test result.
TABLE 4. RELATIVE ACCURACY TEST RESULTS
Parameter
Mean
difference
Confidence
coef icient
Relative
accuracy
NOX (ppm) 2.4 1.4 6.0
NOX (ng/J) 1.6 2.6 11.4
02 0.09 0.13 0.22% 02
(5.1 RA)
C02 0.01 0.23 0.24% C02
(2.5% RA)
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION, OPERATION AND
SAMPLING LOCATION
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The power boiler at the General Electric facility is a gas-fired steam
generator outfitted with a proprietary low NOX burner system.
Since the unit is a proprietary design, all process information has been
requested by the host site to be held by EPA as confidential information.
Therefore, this section dealing with the process and its operating conditions
during the test has been placed in the confidential files of the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division (ESED), OAQPS, U.S. EPA, located in Durham,
North Carolina, where it will be maintained as "pending confidential" until
such time as a determination is rendered by the Office of General Counsel, EPA.
The following summarizes current ESED policies regarding release of
information held in confidential files:
• Information may be released to EPA employees only upon approval by
the Director, ESED.
• Requests from other Federal agencies, Congress, courts, etc. are
handled by the Office of the Director, ESED.
• Requests from the general public under the Freedom of Information
Act are handled in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 2, Subpart A.
Additional information regarding the handling, storage, and access to
confidential materials may be obtained by writing the Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, U.S. EPA, Mail Drop 13, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711.
OPERATING CONDITIONS
The boiler was monitored under three test conditions while firing natural
gas. Test conditions were conducted on December 4, 5, and 6 for approximate
time periods ranging from 4 to 8 hours. Two of the test conditions were
conducted at high load conditions and the third at reduced load conditions.
One of the high load conditions was conducted with preheated secondary
combustion air while the second was conducted using unheated secondary
combustion air.
10
-------
MEASUREMENT LOCATION
The emissions test program was conducted at the stack location of the
gas-fired boiler. Figure 4 show a schematic of the unit stack.
Figure 5 shows the dimensions of the stack cross section. The traverse
points noted are the test points used during the stratification test in order
to verify the presence of a homogeneous flue gas stream.
The continuous monitoring and reference method test probes extracted
sample gas from a single test point. Positioning points for each probe during
the test program are shown in Figure 5.
11
-------
POINT A
SAMPLE PORTS
LOW NOV
/\
GAS-FIRED BOILER
>20
12'
ROOF LINE
20'
Figure 4. Schematic of low NOX gas-fired boiler emission measurement location.
-------
Point
1
2
3
I*
5
6
Distance from wall (inches)
1.6
5.4
9.4
14.2
20.0
28.5
X CEM Probe Placement
Figure 5. Stack sample point location.
13
-------
SECTION 4
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL TEST APPROACH
OVERVIEW
The test program to monitor the emissions of the G.E. industrial gas
boiler was conducted utilizing both continuous and manual reference method
test procedures. During the test effort, the industrial boiler was
continuously monitored for NOX, CO, C02 and 02 emissions. During the
three (3)-boiler test conditions previously defined, flue gas emissions were
measured with continuous monitoring equipment using EPA Reference Methods 10
and 20 for CO and NOX as operating guidelines.
Continuous monitoring data were acquired on a of 15-minute basis for
measured concentrations of outlet NOX, 02, CO, and C02« Emission rates
were calculated using the F-factor method and published emission factors for
natural gas.
Table 5 presents a summary of measured parameters obtained during the
test program. Procedures used for measuring continuous flue gas emission
rates and measurement system relative accuracy are outlined in the following
subsections.
MEASUREMENT OF FLUE GAS EMISSION RATES
Flue gas emission rates were measured at the outlet of the boiler with
the EPA IERL/RTP Mobile GEM system. The EPA IERL/RTP Mobile GEM system is
housed in a 40 foot environmentally controlled bus. Installed in the bus are
the instrumentation and sample conditioning equipment necessary to continu-
ously monitor point source emissions.
The measurement sensors utilized are listed in Table 6. The data were
acquired on a continuous basis and stored by an onboard microprocessor.
Measured parameters were averaged and stored on a 15 minute basis during
continuous monitoring.
A schematic of the total data generation/acquisition system is shown in
Figure 6. This schematic depicts the interconnection of the sensors contained
in the mobile laboratory. All signals were acquired using the onboard data
logger. In addition to acquiring data and generating data reports, the data
logger also provided instantaneous readouts which were useful for setting
process conditions.
14
-------
TABLE 5.
LOW NOX BOILER TEST PROGRAM MEASUREMENT PARAMETER SUMMARY
Measurement
category
Boiler operating
parameters
Boiler operating
parameters
Boiler exhaust
measurements
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
17.
18.
20.
Specific measurement
Load
Fuel flow rate
Air flow rate
Exhaust temperature
Combustor inlet pressure
Ambient temperature
Ambient humidity
Ambient pressure
Steam flow rate for
NOX control
Fuel flow rate
Outlet temperature
Oxygen content
NO content
CO content
Measurement site
(see Figure 4)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
17.
18.
20.
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Point
Point
Point
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
A
A
A
control
control
control
control
control
control
control
control
control
control
control
room
room
room
room
room
room
room
room
room
room
room
Measurement method
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
17.
18.
20.
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
EPA Method
EPA Method
EPA Method
20
20
10
-------
TABLE 6. SAMPLING PARAMETERS AND GEMS METHODOLOGY
Parameter Model/measurement Data recording
02 MSA 802 Strip chart and Kaye Digistrip
(paramagnetic)
C02 Horiba PIR-2000 Strip chart and Kaye Digistrip
(NDIR)
CO Horiba PIR-2000 Strip chart and Kaye Digistrip
(NDIR)
NOX Teco Strip chart and Kaye Digistrip
(Cherailuminescence)
-------
MOBILE LABORATORY SIGNALS
TECO/CHEM NO
MSA 802 0,
HORIBA PIR 2000 CO
HORIBA PIR 2000 CO,
CONDENSER DRAIN
TIMER
SAMPLING CYCLE
TIMER
KAYE
DIGISTRIP III
DATA LOGGER
Figure 6. Data acquisition system schematic.
17
-------
A schematic of the flow system is shown in Figure 7. Figures 8, 9,
and 10 contain schematics of the valve switching box, the condensation/
pumping system, and the sample distribution system. The system was purged
manually once per shift to free the system of particulate matter from the
valve switching box to the probe filter. Calibrations were conducted by
closing the sampling valve and opening the calibration valve in the valve box,
allowing calibration gases to pass from the downstream side of the sampling
probe, through the sample line, and to the conditioning system and analyzers.
The sampling location is connected to the mobile CEM via multitube heated
sample line consisting of 3/8 inch OD thick-walled Teflon tubing.
Sample conditioning was accomplished utilizing filtration for particulate
removal and condensation for moisture removal. Particulate matter was removed
in the heated valve switching box using a low pressure drop glass fiber
filter. The particulate free stream was transported through heat-traced
Te-flon tubing to the moisture removal system.
Moisture removal was accomplished by passing the sample gas through a
dual pass condenser as shown in Figure 9. The first pass occurs under reduced
pressure in which the pump draws the sample through the coil, followed by a
second pass under pressure in which final moisture removal is accomplished.
At this point, the dry sample gas is passed through the valve distribution
system shown in Figure 10, which supplies a flow regulated sample stream to
the instruments shown in Figure 7.
Data acquisition was accomplished with a Kaye Digistrip III Process
Monitor. This unit is capable of accepting 48 analog signals at a scan rate
of 10 seconds. The microprocessor acquires and processes the data, printing
out interval reports and providing instantaneous responses. Data were
collected and averaged at 15-minute intervals.
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM QUALITY ASSURANCE
The data generated by the Mobile GEMS were validated and quality assured
using various manual test procedures and standard operating protocols.
Quality control activities included the conduct of stratification and relative
accuracy tests and the assessment of drift and precision as specified in
Reference Methods 10 and 20 and proposed Appendix F.
Sequence of Events
The CEMs was placed onsite in the area designated by plant personnel.
The sample transport lines were deployed between the sampling location and the
bus. The filter-valve boxes and reference method instrumentation were
installed at the sampling sites.
Upon completion of the installation, the instrumentation system was
activated and allowed to come to equilibrium overnight. The instruments were
calibrated and the stratification check conducted at the stack monitoring
location. The placement of the tip of the CEM probe and reference method
probe assembly was based on the results of the stratification check.
18
-------
COMPRESSED AIR IN.
I
CONDENSATION/
PUMPIN& SYSTEM
SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEH: SAMPLE. LOCAL
CALIBRATIONS, PROBE
CALIBRATIONS
HORIBA PIR 2000
CO
MSA 802
HORIBA PIR 2000
CO,
TECO/CHEH IOA
NO
EXHAUST
Figure 7. Mobile laboratory flow schematic.
-------
CONTROL
AIR IN
NJ
o
PURGE GAS IN
SAMPLE IN-
VENT
CONTROL
AIR IN
VENT
runwt TWWTt
- -
E
iACKUP
FIBER
FILTER
CALIBRATION
VALVE
c
VENT
-—-%3-<
CONTROL AIR IN
ISOLATION
VALVE
SAMPLE OUT
^ =SAMPLE GAS TEMP
CAL GAS IN
Figure 8. Valve box configuration.
-------
COMPRESSED AIR,
IN
FROM HEAT TRACE LINE
(SAMPLE GAS)
SV
CONDENSER
RESERVOIR
REFRIGERATION CONDENSER
-» TO
DISTRIBUTION
PANEL
CONDENSER
RESERVOIR
DRAIN
DRAIN
LEGEND
SV-SOLENOID VALVE
SP: SAMPLE PUMP
PG= PRESSURE GAUGE
VG^ VACUUM GAUGE
CS= MOISTURE SENSOR
BP BACK PRESSURE REGULATOR
Figure 9. Condensation/pumping system.
-------
NS
LOW
50% 02/C02 901
ZERO GAS
N2
50%
90%
TO ANALYZERS
SPAN GAS
o2, co2, co
NO
SPAN GAS
TO PROBE
SAMPLE OR
SPAN GAS
FROM PROBE
Figure 10. Sample distribution system.
-------
Calibration Gas Traceability
All calibration gases utilized during the test program were obtained from
Airco Industrial Gases with an analytical certification of concentration (NBS
traceable).
Two upscale span concentrations were used for calibrating the NOX and
CO instruments and three upscale spans were used for the 02 and (X>2
analyzers. Span gas concentrations are presented in Table 7. Pure nitrogen
was used as a zero gas for all instruments.
TABLE 7. CALIBRATION GAS CONCENTRATIONS
02/C02 NOX CO
Zero
Low
Mid
High
N2
3.18/4.10
8.84/11.5
12.6/19.0
N2
-
214 ppra
522 ppm
N2
30.1
-
251 ppm
Stratification Check
A stratification test was conducted at the sample location to determine
representative sample points for gaseous sampling. The stratification test
consisted of measuring pollutant and diluent concentrations at each traverse
point shown in Figure 5 for a sampling time of 1 minute plus the response time
of the measurement system. Data collected at the traverse points were
averaged and the standard deviation calculated. A relative standard deviation
of less than 5 percent was considered an indication of a homogeneous flue
stream.
Relative Accuracy
A relative accuracy test was conducted for the NOXj C02 and 02
sensors. The relative accuracy test consisted of 12 concurrent test
replicates in which the flue gas was measured using the GEMS at the same time
reference test procedures were conducted. Reference test procedures for
oxides of nitrogen and C02/02 are Methods 7 and 3, respectively. A
30-minute test replicate for NOX involved 3 grab flask samples collected
at 5, 15 and 25 minutes into each relative accuracy test period. Oxygen and
carbon dioxide samples were collected using an integrating bag type sampler
and analyzed onsite using an Orsat analyzer.
23
-------
Relative accuracy was not determined for the CO analyzer since no
performance specification currently exists for this analyzer. In addition, CO
was only being measured as an indication of combustion efficiency during each
test condition.
Response Time
Monitor response time is reported as the slower of the average of three
sets of upscale and downscale determinations. The upscale determination is
the time it takes the monitor to respond from a zero calibration gas reading
to a stable stack effluent reading. Conversely, the downscale determination
is the time it takes the monitor to respond from a high-level calibration gas
concentration to a stable stack effluent reading. The mean value of the
upscale and downscale response times are determined and the slower value is
reported. A response time of approximately 3 minutes is considered reasonable
and was used as a system response limit. This performance criterion has been
verified under previous programs and the result is 220 seconds.
Instrument Drift
Instrument drift was determined according to procedures outlined in the
performance specifications and EPA Reference Method 20 during the three test
conditions. To validate continuous emission data collected during these
periods, instrument drift was determined based on calibration checks conducted
before and after each test interval. The specification for this test is
+_ 2 percent of the span value.
Calibration Error
The calibration error test as specified in Reference Method 20 is based
on the response of the monitors to zero, mid level, and high level calibration
gases. For each test period, the instruments were zeroed with N£ and
calibrated with the mid-range calibration gas. The response of the mid and
high range calibration gases were determined and compared with the method
calibration error specification of +_ 2 of the span gas value.
GEMS Calibration
Calibration procedures and frequency for the CEMs were conducted in
accordance with procedures outlined in EPA Reference Methods 10 and 20 for CO,
NOX> C02 and 02« Continuous emissions monitoring data collected during
the test periods were validated with calibration drift determinations based on
calibration data generated before and after each test condition.
Calibrations were conducted by analyzing a zero and multiple upscale
concentrations covering the full scale measurement range. The standards were
injected through the total system (excluding the probe). A calibration
equation in the form of:
Concentration = m (response) +b
was constructed using a linear regression technique.
24
-------
The acceptance procedure (calibration error specification) for an initial
calibration involves inserting the responses obtained from the gas injections
into the calibration equation and solving for the concentration. The result
calculated from the equation was compared for difference to the accepted value
of the gas as follows:
»/ Obs-Acc , __
% error = x 100
Ace
where
Obs is the calculated value
Ace is the accepted value of the calibration gas.
If both upscale spans were within +2.0 percent error, the calibration is
acceptable. For cases where this criterion is not met, the instrument
linearity (for NDIRS) and/or span gas values must be checked.
The data obtained from calibrations conducted before and after.the test
periods were utilized to calculate instrument drift. These data indicate the
overall drift for each parameter at zero, mid, and high scale and also supply
information as to whether the drift is a result of random variation, absolute
bias, or a combination of both.
Reference Methods
Reference method testing equipment was calibrated in accordance with the
procedures outlined in the EPA Publication, "Quality Assurance Handbook for
Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume III, Stationary Source Specific
Methods."
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The Reference Method analytical procedure used during this project is
specified in the Federal Register, 18 August 1977, Reference Method 7 and
EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurements Systems.
DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION AND REPORTING
The data reduction methods are based on the requirements of the test
program and calculations in 40 CFR 60, Appendix A Methods. All monitoring
data, calibrations, calibration checks, and precision data were catalogued
according to date and time for each parameter.
The raw data were reduced and validated using the current calibration
presented in the Calibration Procedures section and emission calculation
procedures outlined below.
25
-------
Emission Calculations
A computerized data reduction system was used to process the reference
method and continuous monitoring test data. Monitored emissions data input
into the program included NOX) CO, C02, and (>2.
NOX emission rates were calculated on a ppm dry and Ib/MBtu bases for
stack, emissions based on measured emission and diluent concentrations and
published fuel parameters. Calculation procedures are outlined in the
following paragraphs. NO emissions were measured on a dry basis since the
flue gas NOX composition for a gas fired combustion unit is essentially all
nitric oxide. NOX emission rates were converted from the measured
concentration on a dry basis to Ib/MBtu based on the F-factor method.
NOX emission rates on a Ib/MBtu using the F-factor method were
calculated as follows:
Ib NO
E... = 1.1929 x 10 —=—- x NO , F
NO ,. J x ppmvd
x ft -ppm
/ 20.9 \
D l20.9-02 )
where
mass emission rate (Ib/MBtu)
NO , = Measured NO on a dry basis (ppmvd)
x ppmvd x J KH
0
= Measured 0 on a dry basis (percent)
Data Validation
Measured 02 and C02 were verified utilizing the fuel factor, FQ.
Fo values determined from measured 02 and C02 values were compared to
F0 values published in the Addendum to EPA Reference Method 3. The
established FQ can be determined from the fuel analysis with the following
equation:
, 0.209 Fd
o -
where
F =
3.64(%H) + 1.53UC) + 0.57(%S) + 0.14(%N) - 0.46(%0)
GCV
26
-------
F = 106 0.321 (%C)
° GCV
fr'o values were determined from measured 62 and CC>2 concentrations
with the equation:
_. 20.9 - % 00 dry
r — £.
° % C02 dry
Values should fall in the range" of 1.6 to 1.9.
27
-------
SECTION 5
PROGRAM QUALITY ASSURANCE
A detailed Test and Quality Assurance Plan was prepared and submitted for
use under this project. The following subsections document the results of the
various QA/QC procedures implemented during the test program.
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The mobile emissions laboratory utilized during the test program arrived
onsite December 3, 1984. At this time the system was set up, brought online
and the stratification test conducted. On December 5, the relative accuracy,
drift and calibration error tests were conducted. Testing continued through
December 6, 1984.
The results of the stratification test are shown in Table 8. The mean
values for Ports A and B were 54.2 and 53.1 ng/J, respectively. A comparison
of the variability of each port indicates that the flue stream was homogeneous
and that no stratification problems existed. Overall, the mean value was
53.6 ng/J with a 1.9 percent relative standard deviation.
Results for the relative accuracy test are shown in Table 9. The results
are presented on a volume basis for the NOX, 02 and C02 monitors and on
an emission rate basis for the NOX analyzer. As stated previously, relative
accuracy was not determined for the CO monitor.
The relative accuracies for the 02 and C02 analyzers on a volume
basis are 0.22 percent 02 and 0.24 percent C02, respectively. These
correspond to 5.1 percent and 2.5 percent relative accuracy, respectively.
The results for the NOX analyzer on a volume and emission rate basis are
6.0 percent and 11.4 percent, respectively.
Results for the calibration error test are shown in Table 10 for the
zero, mid and high span levels. Those entries footnoted with an "a" exceeded
the expected performance criteria of _+ 2 percent of the full scale measurement
ran^e.
Calibration drift test results for each test condition are summarized in
Table 11 for each of the three span levels. Drift results are presented in
terms of the relative percent difference between the predicted values of the
pre- and post-test calibrations. At the zero level, the drift is compared to
the full scale range whereas the span drift is relative to the respective span
28
-------
TABLE 8. STRATIFICATION TEST RESULTS
Port
Point ng/J NOj
Port
Point
ng/J
A
Mean
Std. Dev.
RSD
1
2
3
4
5
6
53.3
55.9
53.9
54.8
52.8
54.6
54.2
1.1
2.1%
B
Mean
Std. Dev.
RSD
1
2
3
4
5
6
53.5
53.9
53.2
52.5
52.8
52.5
53.1
0.6
1.1%
Overall
Mean
Std. Dev.
RSD
= 53.6
= 1.0
= 1.9?
29
-------
TABLE 9. RELATIVE ACCURACY TEST RESULTS
Parameter
02
CCH
NOX
(volume)
NOX
(emission
rate)
Mean
difference
0.09
0.01
2.4
1.6
Confidence
coeficient
0.13
0.23
1.5
2.6
Relative
accuracy
0.22% 02
(5.1% RA)
0.24% CO?
(2.5% RA)
6.0
11.4
30
-------
TABLE 10. CALIBRATION ERROR TEST RESULTS
Parameter
NOX
02
CO 2
CO
Test
Zero
0
0
0
072
1 (%
Mid
0.2
1.9
2.9a
0.2
F.S.)
High
0.8
2.0
1.0
0.2
Test
Zero
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
2 (%
Mid
0
2.3a
3.3a
0.0
F.S.)
High
0.2
1.3
1.9
0.0
Test
Zero
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.1
3 (%
Mid
0.2
2.3a
4.8a
0.1
F.S.)
High
0.6
1.3
3.8a
0.4
1 Exceeds expected performance criterion of -I- 2%.
-------
TABLE 11. CALIBRATION DRIFT TEST CONDITIONS3
Parameter
02
NOX
CO
CO 2
r
Zero
0.1
0
0.4
0
rest 1 (%;
Mid
0.7
0.9
2.7b
3.5b
)
High
0.8
1.1
0.8
0.5
T<
Zero
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
*st 2 (%)
Mid
0.6
0.5
1.3
7.0b
High
0.8
0.4
0.0
6.3b
r
Zero
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
rest 3 (%)
Mid
0.6
1.4
6.6b
12. 2b
High
0.8
1.0
1.6
11. 6b
aZero drift is in terms of percent full scale and span drift is stated in terms of
relative percent difference from the accepted value of the span gas concentration.
bExceeds expected drift criterion of 2.5%.
-------
concentration. Those entries designated with a "b" exceeded the expected
drift criterion of 2.5 percent. The primary emission parameters (NOX
and 02) conformed to the drift criteria.
COMPLETENESS
The completeness of the emissions monitoring data is based on the
15-minute data file. Completeness is defined as the total number of valid
observations relative to the total number of data quarters for each test
conditions. The completeness percentages for tests 1, 2 and 3 are 93 percent,
100 percent, and 100 percent, respectively.
Completeness for the reference test data was judged in terms of the
number of valid results obtained versus the number of runs conducted.
Similarly, the completeness of the relative accuracy test data pairs
(simultaneous monitor and reference method value) is based on the number of
valid data pairs available versus the number of reference test runs
conducted. The results for the reference test data completeness are
100 percent. Relative accuracy completeness is 100 percent.
DEVIATIONS FROM THE QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST PLAN
The following is a listing of the deviations from the quality assurance/
test plan:
• Pre- and post-test calibrations were conducted by injecting the span
gas directly to the analyzers instead of through the entire
extraction/conditioning system due to the low supply of span gases.
• Test condition 3 was only conducted for 4 hours instead of 8 hours
at the direction of the project officer.
• A four-point calibration approach was utilized for the 02 and
C02 analyzers instead of the three-point planned due to the slight
nonlinearity of these two instruments.
• Calibration standards for the CO analyzer did not cover the range of
measurements encountered during test conditions 1 and 2. GCA
anticipated CO data in the range of 0-300 ppm which is typical of
gas-fired steam generators. Based on the assumption, span gas
concentrations were selected accordingly.
The above deviations from the quality assurance plan are expected to have
no significant impact on the data. This conclusion is substantiated by the
relative accuracy results as well as those results obtained from a cylinder
gas audit conducted by the project officer.
The exceedance of the highest span value for CO measurements is not
anticipated to compromise the program. This conclusion is based on the fact
that CO was being monitored as a means of assessing relative combustion
efficiency among the three test conditions. Also, the analyzer is capable of
responding to concentrations in the range of 0-5000 ppm full scale. Estimated
calibration error (based on Table 10 results) is most likely less than
2 percent of full scale.
33
-------
APPENDIX A
15-MINUTE AVERAGED DATA FOR TEST
CONDITIONS 1, 2 AND 3
35
-------
BCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISI ON
12 20 1984 08s OS
GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER BOILER
NEW YORK
******
*
*
* DAY
******
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
•K- !3 -3 V
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
* 339
********
*
*
TIME *
************************************************
* STOIC * NOX *
NOX 02 C02 CO * FO CO * NOX LB/ *
PPM "/. 7. PPM * RATIO PPM * NG/J MBTU *
••it******************************************
1215
1 230
1 245
1 300
1 3 1 5
1330'
1345
1 400
1.415
1430
1445
1500-
1515
1530
1545
1 600
1615
1630
1645
1 700
1715
1730
1745
1 800
1815
1830
1845
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
99
98
98
93
83
1 00
93
—
86
95
95
94
92
94
93
92
93
91
93
93
92
91
93
92
92
91
4. 1
4.2
4 . 1
4.8
7.3
4.8
4.7
5.9
4. 1
4.2
4. 1
4. 3
4. 1
4. 1
4. 1
4. 1
4.3
4. 1
4. 1
4. 1
4.3
4. 1
4. 1
4. 1
4. 1
9.9
9.8
9.9
9.5
8.2
9.6
9.6
—
9. 1
1O.O
1 0 . O
1 0 . O
9.8
9.9
9.9
9.9
10.0
9.8
9.9
9.9
9 . 9
9.8
9 . 9
9.8
9.7
9.7
736-'-*
814-'-*
683---*
80S'""*
••-- CEM
188 *
162 *
625'-*
-- CEM
559-'-*
66O-*
647-'-*
809-'-*
717"'"*
717-'-*
86 O-'"*
886"'-*
684-*
781-'-*
779-'-*
784-'-*
925'-*
B94-'-*
809''-*
810-'-*
8O7"'-*
81 8--*
1 . 700
1 . 693
1.691
1.687
915.
1021.
852.
1O49.
6 *
1 *
0 *
1 *
******
57
57
57
56
0.
0.
0.
0.
OFF-LINE
1.656
1.681
1 . 695
288.
210.
806.
6 *
6 *
4 *
59
60
56
O.
0.
0.
...,-..,._. . - i. ii~.
Ur n U. 1 IMC.
1.648
1 . 683
1.681
1 . 684
1.696
1 . 698
1 . 703
1 . 696
1 . 682
1 „ 688
1 . 690
1 . 698
1. 701
1 . 7OO
1.701
1.716
1 . 730
1 . 726
777 .
819.
807.
1 OO6 .
901.
893.
1069.
1 1 OO .
852.
983.
969.
974.
1148.
1122.
1005.
1009.
1 OO4 .
1017.
0 *
7 *
8 *
7 *
6 *
4 *
5 *
6 *
3 *
4 *
3 *
7 *
9 *
9 *
3 *
0 *
1 *
3 *
55
55
55
54
54
54
54
53
54
53
54
54
53
53
54
53
53
53
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
0.
0.
O.
O.
*****
133 *
133 *
•| -Z1-) -B.
J. «->-!. TV
ISO *
™. __ ™ M.
138 *
14O *
129 *
- *
129 *
127 *
128 *
126 *
126 *
126 *
124 #
124 *
125 *
124 *
125 *
124 *
123 *
124 *
125 *
124 *
124 *
123 *
PARAMETER EXCEEDS TOP SPAN CONCENTRATION
37
-------
GOA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
12-20-1984 08:06
GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER BOILER
NEW YORK
****•«•###*•**#####*•»#•**#*######***#
* * * STOIC * NOX *
* * NOX 02 C02 CO * FO CO * NOX LB/ *
* DAY TIME * PPM 7. 7. PPM * RAF 10 PPM * NG/J MBTU *
**********************#***************************•»«*****•«•**
* 3-40
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* ".540
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 34O
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 340
* 34O
* 340
* 34O
* 340
* 340
* 34O
* 34O
* 340
* 34O
915
930
945
1 000
1015
1030
1 045
11OO
1115
1130
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1 30O
1315
1330
1 345
140O
1415
1430
1445
1 50O
1515
153O
1545
1600
1615
1 630
1645
1700
*
*
*
•X
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
•*
*
*
*
*
*•
*
*
*
65
66
66
66
66
67
67
67
68
68
69
69
69
68
69
69
70
69
69
69
69
69
67
68
68
68
68
68
7O
70
70
69
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.3
4 ,, 3
4 . 3
4 . 3
4.5
4.3
4. 2
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4 . 3
4.5
4,, 2
4 ,. 2
4.3
4,, 4
4.2
4,. 3
4. 2
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.2
9. 1
9.2
9.2
9.3
9.2
9. 3
9 „ 3
9.4
9.4
9.3
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.3
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.2
9.3
9. 1
9.0
8.9
9 . 0
9. 1
9.2
9.2
9. 2
9 . 3
9 „ 5
9.5
9.4
120.1
1212
1212'
1212
1211
1212
1212
1 212
1212
1211
1 2 1 1
1212
1212
1211
1211
1211
1 2 1 1
1211
1199
1211
1211
1211
1 209
1211
1211
1212
1212
1212
1 2 1 1
1211
1211
1200
•-*
•-*
•-•*
•"•*
•-*
•-••«-
•-- *
•-*
•-*
•-•*
•-•*
•--*
••"•*
•-*
•-•*
••-•#
-'••*
-x*
•-•#
•-• -K-
•-*
••-• •*
-'-*
-•*
•-•*
•-•• #
-•*
•-*
•"••*
•-*
-'-*
••-• •»•
1 . 800
1.802
1 . 8O2
1 . 796
1.796
1 „ 794
1 . 778
1 „ 770
1 . 765
1 . 758
1 . 747
1 „ 754
1 . 756
1 . 767
1.741
1 . 749
1 . 759
1 . 778
1 . 789
1 . 797
1.824
1 . 843
1 . 858
1 „ 843
1 „ 826
1 „ 807
1 . SO2
1 . 800
1 . 785
1 „ 750
1 . 745
1 . 778
1526.
1522.
1525.
1524.
1539.
1522.
1524.
1521.,
1522.
1541.
1523,.
1519.
1520.
1533.
1522,,
1 522 .
1524.
1521.
1525.
1517.
1519.
1 520 .
1533.
1518.
1520.
1518.
1519.
1522.
1517,,
1519.
1521.
1505.
0 *
7 *
8 *
3 *
6 *
2 *
5 *
6 *
1 *
9 *
5 *
3 *
1 .*
3 *
8 *
1 *
4 *
1 *
1 *
7 *
4 *
9 *
3 *
4. *
a *
9 *
9 *
5 *
1 *
0 *
4 *
6 *
38
38
39
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
4O
40
40
40
41
40
41
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
4O
4O
41
41
40
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0..
0.
0.
O.
0 „
0.
0.
0.
O .
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
O „
0.
0.
089 *
089 *
090 *
090 *
09O *
O9O *
091 *
091 *
093 *
094 *
094 *
093 *
093 *
093 *
094 *
094 *
095 *
094 *
O95 *
093 *
093 *
O93 *
092 *
092 *
093 *
O92 *
092 *
093 *
O94 . *
095 *
095 *
094 *
****************************************************************
---PARAMETER EXCEEDS TOP SPAN CONCENTRATION
38
-------
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 12-2O-1984 08s07
GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER BOILER
NEW YORK
#**#*•**##*****####****##*#####*#*#*###**#######**########«•*#
* * * STOIC * NOX *
* * NOX 02 C02 CO * FO CO * NOX LB/ *
•K- DAY TIME * PPM 7. 7. PPM * RATIO PPM * N6/J MBTU *
*###*##*#*####*####****########*####*#**#*####*##*########*#
65 0.150 *
65 0.151 *
65 0.151 *
65 O.151 *
64 O.149 *
65 O.152 *
65 0.ISO *
65 O.150 *
65 0.151 *
65 0.151 *
65 0.151 *
65 0.152 *
65 0.152 *
64 0.150 *
66 O.153 *
65 0.152 *
65 0.152 *
########***###*######*####**#***#*##*#####*###*###*#**##*##*
•"•^PARAMETER EXCEEDS TOP SPAN CONCENTRATION
*
*
•*
•H-
#
*
*
*•
•*•
*
#
•K-
*
•*
*
#
#
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
341
915
930
945
1 OOO
1 0 1 5
1 030
1045
110O
1115
1130
1145
1 200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
*
•K-
•K-
•K-
•K-
•*
#
#
*
*
*
•K-
#
*
*
#
#
98
99
99
99
97
99
98
98
99
98
99
99
1 00
98
99
1 00
1 00
6 . 2
6. 1
6. 1
6. 1
6.2
6.2
6. 1
6. 1
6,, 1
6.3
6. 1
6.1,
6. 1
6. 1
6.2
6. 1
6. 1
a . o
'8. 1
8.0
8 . 0
7.9
7.9
7 . 9
8.O
8.O
7.9
8.0
8.O
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.8
33
32
32
31
32
31
32
3 1
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
#
•K-
*
*
#
#
*
*
•*•
*
*
*
•*
*
•«•
•*
#
1.832
1.825 .
1 . 836
1 . 850
1 .. 873
1.851
1.861
1.852
1.848
1 . 850
1 . 839
1 . 842
1 . 854
1.896
1.869
1 . 884
1 . 894
46.
45.
44.
44.
45.
44.
44.
44.
44.
44.
44.
44.
43.
43.
43.
44.
44.
3 *
6 *
9 *
3 *
0 *
6 #
a *
3 *
2 *
4 *
3 *
0 *
5 *
7 *
6 *
3 *
5 *
39
-------
APPENDIX B
CALIBRATION DATA AND
DATA REDUCTION CALIBRATION EQUATIONS
41
-------
DEFINITIONS
(1) Composite Calibration Equation—The equation used to transform
monitoring voltage data into engineering units of ppm (v/v) or
% (v/v). This equation is in the form of:
C = m(V) + b
where: C is the concentration on a volume basis (ppm/%)
V is the monitor voltage
m is the slope
b is the intercept
The equation is constructed using a linear regression technique in which
all responses obtained before and after each test condition are used to
calculate the linear regression coefficients m and b. These coefficients are
used to reduce the voltage data for a given test condition.
(2) Monitor Concentration Initial—The concentration predicted from the
input of individual zero or span gas voltage responses into the
calibration equation. These voltages are those obtained from the
pretest condition calibrations.
(3) Monitor Concentration Final—Calculated the same as item 2 except
that voltages obtained from final test condition calibration are
substituted into the composite calibration equation.
(4) Difference—The difference between the initial and final monitor
concentrations.
(5) % Drift—The relative % difference between the initial and final
monitor concentrations compared to the actual span gas
concentration. For zero, the full scale span value is used instead
of the span gas concentration.
43
-------
Summary of Calibration Equations for Data Reduction
Day Parameter m b r
12/4
12/5
12/6
NO
X
°2
CO
co2
NO
X
°2
CO
co2
NO
X
°2
CO
C00
509
23.8
503
18.8
514
23.5
502
18.1
507
24.7
513
19.1
0.4
-0.2
1.0
-0.2
0.1
-0.2
0.5
-0.2
0.6
-0.2
2.1
-0.1
1.000
0.9991
1.000
0.9997
1.000
0.9991
1.000
0.9984
1.000
0.9990
1.000
0.9950
44
-------
Drift Data for December 4, 1984
NCL
Monitor concentration
CO
CO
Span
z =
214 =
522 =
Span
z
3.18
8.84
12.6
Span
z
30.1
251
Span
z
4.10
11.5
19.0
Initial
-0.1
213
518
Monitor
Initial
-0.1
3.23
9.12
12.3
Monitor
Initial
-1.0
29.3
250
Monitor
Initial
-0.1
4.17
12.1
18.8
Final
-0.1
215
525
Difference
0
-2
-6
/o
Drift
0
-0.9
-1.1
concentration
V
Final
-0.1
3.24
9.18
12.4
Difference
0
-0.01
-0.06
-0.1
la
Drift
0
-0.3
-0.7
-0.8
concentration
._ V
Final
0.9
31.0
252
Difference
-1.9
-0.8
-2.0
/o
Drift
-0.4
-2.7
-0.8
concentration
___ — v
Final
-0.1
3.98
11.7
18.7
Difference
0
0.19
0.4
0.1
/o
Drift
0
4.6
3.5
0.5
45
-------
ANALYZERS
DAILY 3-POINT CALIBRATION CHECK
I.
Analyser Data
A. 0- Analyser MFC
Zero Setting
B. SO, Analyser MFC
Coarse Zero Setting
C. GO* Analyser MFC
Zero Setting
D. NOX Analyzer MFC
Zero Setting
S/N
Span
S/N
Fine Zero Span
S/N
Span
S/N
Span
II. Data
Run
No.
1
2
3
*— ••
°2
Cone Reading
Zeeo
3.lS
S.&S
ii*
IO.T
o . ocxto
0.1440
0.3^15^
Q..53
-------
ANALYZERS
DAILY 3-POINT CALIBRATION CHECK
I. Analyzer Data
A. 0_ Analyzer MFC
Zero Setting
B. S02 Analyzer MFC
Coarse Zero Setting
C. CO,, Analyzer MFC
Zero Setting
D. H,,O Analyzer MFC
Zero Setting
S/N
Span
S/N
Fine Zero Span
S/N
Span
S/N
Span
•-N. A-& ,nnn &I&JJ itifr CAU&eA
T n.-o TiK^ofW , D£ceHi3>££- T" i l TOT itf^ro
Run
No.
1
2
3
°2
Cone Reading
2£RO
3.1%
8.8H
!XO>
A069
0, 003^
O.IW5"
0. 3932
o. S'aSg
CO
Cone Reading
"teto
v30,l
35«
-0,0003
0.0515"
0, W^"
co2
Cone Reading
zetfo
4 JO
n.5"
I9.0
0.003JL
o.aaii
0.^3,30
Loots' I
so2
Cone Reading
Cone Reading
Z£
-------
Drift Data for December 5, 1984
NOV Monitor concentration
CO
C02
Span
z
214
522
Span
z
3.18
8.84
12.6
Span
z
30.1
251
Span
z
4.10
11.5
19.0
Initial
0.3
214
523
Monitor
Initial
-0.1
3.23
9.18
12.4
Monitor
Initial
1.9
30.3
251
Monitor
Initial
-0.1
4.26
12.2
19.4
Final
0.2
213
521
Difference
0.1
1.0
2.0
/o
Drift
0.0
0.5
0.4
concentration
_ ~. af
Final
-0.1
3.22
9.13
12.3
Difference
0.0
0.01
0.05
0.1
/o
Drift
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.8
concentration
_ — — _ — "i
Final
0.5
29.9
251
Difference
1.4
0.4
0.0
/o
Drift
0.3
1.3
0.0
concentration
_ ___ __ *>f
Final
-0.1
3.92
11.4
18.2
Difference
0.0
0.34
0.80
1.2
/o
Drift
0.0
8.3
7.0
6.3
48
-------
ANALYZERS
DAILY 3-POINT CALIBRATION CHECK
1. Analycer Data
A. 02 Analyser
Zero Setting
B. SO. Analysar
Coarse Zero Setting
C. CO. Analyter
Zero Setting
D. NOX Analyzer
Zero Setting
MFC
MFC
MFC
MFC
S/N
Span
S/N
Fine Zero
S/N
Span
S/N
Span
Span
II. Data
OT2.O
Run
No.
1
2
3
°2
Cone Reading
C
3,16
ft. 6*1
ia,k
d ,C02.C\
C.1^^7
0.3^ g5
0.53^&
CO
Cone Reading
o
30,1
3£>l
-c.oozo
o. oe?cu:»
o, ^c&n
co2
Cone Reading
O
^MC>
11. £5
l^.O
O.OOoS
0.24>47
3.0.^30
i.c?eco
so2
Cone Reading
NOX
Cone Reading
6
J?H
^'22.
C ,CCO3
O.^i'i0!
t,o ie>o
III. Data Reduction
Calculate calibration equation using least square linear regression.
Y - me + b where:
Y " concentration v/v
m • slop* cqnc/mv
x " reading in mv
b • intercept concentration v/v
- 5,3. a 5 \'~? iq.o
CO
Moisture
a •
b
2
Corr. coeff. r -
0
n
O
o
Figure 8-14. Analyters, daily calibration check.
49
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
ANALYZERS
DAILY 3-P01NT CALIBRATION CHECK
1.
Analyser Data
A. On Analyser MFC
i ~
Zero Setting
B. 80, Analyser MFC
Coarse Zero Setting
C. GO* Analyser MFC
Zero Setting
D. NOX Analyzer MFC
Zero Setting
S/N
Span
S/N
Fine Zero Span
S/N
Span
S/N
Span
II. Data
5-,
1-702.
Run
No.
1
2
3
°2
Cone Reading
O
3 Mb
tfi64
\3>Q>
Q.003Z
Q. \^<~>O
0,2tffc<3
O. <=>?££>
CO
Cone Reading
o
3Q. i
35'
0,OOOO
O.GSftS
tiA^&O
co2
Cone Reading
0
4. (O
ll.S
iq.o
C5.0CCO
o,;PQ6O
O.u>^i5
1.014ft
so2
Cone Reading
NOV
A
Cone Reading
D
ZH
^22
O, cxxrz
O>'Hi^£>
ViO I 2> ^
III. Data Reduction
Calculate calibration equation using least square linear regression.
Y - one + b where:
Y • concentration v/v
m " slope conc/mv
x " reading in mv
b * intercept concentration v/v
u
b
Corr. eoeff
Figure 8-14. Analysers, daily calibration check.
o2 i
Q
ffijNOx 002
\*\ n, ^
-------
Drift Data for December 6, 1984
NCL
Monitor concentration
CO
C02
Span
z
214
522
Span
z
3.18
8.84
12.6
Span
z
30.1
251
Span
z
4.1
11.5
19.0
Initial
0.2
215
525
Monitor
Initial
-0.1
3.24
9.19
12.4
Monitor
Initial
0.6
30.8
253
Monitor
Initial
0.0
4.38
12.5
19.8
Final
0.4
212
520
Difference
-0.2
3.0
5.0
/o
Drift
0.0
1.4
1.0
concentration
.___ __ _ "V
Final
-0.1
3.23
9.14
12.3
Difference
0.0
0.01
0.05
0.1
/o
Drift
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.8
concentration
-------
ANALYZERS
DAILY 3-P01NT CALIBRATION CHECK
I. Analyser Data
A. 0, Analyser
Zero Setting
B. 80 2 Analyser
Coarse Zero Setting
C. CO, Analyser
Zero Setting
D. NOX Analyzer
Zero Setting
MFC
MFC
MFC
MFG
S/N
Span
S/N
Fine Zero
S/N
Span
S/N
Span
Span
II. Data
Hun
No.
1
2
3
°2
Cone Reading
O
3.16
0.64
1.2 ite
a OG 30
O- i3c^>
C>38CS
O.'oC^S
CO
Cone Reading
Q
3Q, 1
a^i
-c?, 002^1
O.OSOO
6,4060
co2
Cone Reading
O
^. vo
ll,5
iq.o
r^.oDoi
G, 2.330
0.^6q5
1.0315
so2
Cone Reading
NOX
Cone Reading
O
£W
S2,Z
-O,OCO"7
O.^zzs
1.033D
III. Data Reduction
Calculate calibration equation using least square linear regression.
Y - not + b where:
Y * concentration v/v
n " slope cqnc/mv
x " reading in mv
b * intercept concentration v/v
m
b
5
Corr. coeff. r
Figure 8-14. Analysers, daily calibration check.
"2
03,63
n
•***T> 'XH-Q( ^^9
O 0
viu nu^nuuic
O
52
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
eL-ec.Tp.ic
ANALYZERS
DAILY 3-POINT CALIBRATION CHECK
I. Analyzer Data
A. 0. Analyzer
Zero Setting
B. SO. Analyzer
Coarse Zero Setting
C. CO 2 Analyzer
Zero Setting
D. H_O Analyzer
Zero Setting
MFC
MFC
MFC
MFC
S/N
Span
S/N
Fine Zero
S/N
Span
S/N
Span
Span
II. Data
Run
No.
1
2
3
°2
Cone Reading
O
Mf>
t^f/t
a. Co
,OC3I
.i^ftfr
.^785
,5.073
CO
Cone Reading
O
?£>,!
35)
-,oo^
.G'VZO
,/4£>2O
co2
Cone Reading
O
^,10
u, ^>
i°i.O
-,OOZ
• ZOSCi?
.^6^5
-q^'S.o
Cone Reading
O
aw
57-7
-.r;CO3
,^l~7|
i.OZ^fo
Moisture
Cone Reading
III. Data Reduction
Calculate calibration equation using least square linear regression.
Y - me + b where:
Y ° concentration v/v
m =» slope conc/mv
x a reading in mv
b = intercept concentration v/v
KDv
oon
CO
Moisture
m
b
Corr. coeff.
O
0
Figure 8-14. Analyzers, daily calibration check.
53
-------
APPENDIX C
REFERENCE TEST
METHOD FIELD
DATA SHEETS
55
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
DATK:
W.O. NO.
CI.IKNT: £ P,A
I-IANT: rr£/0£^L f= I^CT$\C
SAMI'LINC LOCATION: P£V«2."T £S e(Ore sampling
KarmncLr Lc pressure
a 1 t c r s;unp] Iny
(ill ad.juytucl (9-12)
A
c\ 3O
n/3>2
•^
^n
+o.5
3,6^ .
M. I -
30. M
7 G -CZ/ -
•^C / . -^ '
/
B
Ci-^iO
n 3/o[
:^5
• — "v Ct^* i ^T"
*
. • — '
"~
s
-&=-
- .q-^O—
-^3^-
Q^-
^r~ -->
~~ f* • — / / < —
^o.z.
/ / /*
-i/t< >-
>
' /X-
/ / f '
y
/
r
•&= d.
qso
3~7/-i3
-P-l,^
^
"
57
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
COMMENTS:
SAMPLi: LOCATION _£
DATE
RUN '
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
ofeo
(C02)
READING 1
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
IIATK:
ci.i I-;NT:
W.O. NO.
SAMI'LINC LOCATION:
I'OU.IITANT: fH
SAMI'I.KR: ...... ^ >' j_Ju' j .4 ,
H £ £
FIELD DATA
KIIM NO. n ~^£ >^5
/ \«* U Li it
y- — • ^ ' *//
C lock. T Lmu
Kl.-i.sk No. /Valve No.
Volume of Fla.sk Ml .
Klask pressure
hi-lori' sampling in Hg
h'la.'ik pre.MHure
!•' la.sk \ einperal.uro i-FT*
bcl ore .samp I J ng
I1' lank Lompor.'i turc °F
a( Lev sampling
Itaromet. r Ic pressure
I'd on- .sampling
K/in imc trie pressure
al t'i r s.uiij)! ln^
pli ad.jusitecl (9-12)
A
10 05
2-1/2-1
?5
-^5,3
-1*1
. ^-> 'x->
«?-„• <^> . *5
. -~ — -* (x—*
•2 (," r;
^> r.i • -
3*3
./
3t;. -H
?<3 cr^l
2.^1 .DT ~
\T
B
/ <7 /5
/^/^
. ^5
-OS,-?'
-*- O - *f
T~ ^X |
/
=:'=.U.^-Ui-Jr-j==;^'^T^;=rzs-
C
/^7 ^^
/f/26
'5.tT
-,^^.C1
/ C
— / ^
/ * — '
VN
^
s~
, — ^
/
I/
D
•"4.
59
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
COMMENTS:
SAMPLi: LOCATION ^<
DATE
RUN '
/ /
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
(02)
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
NET
Net. Oj Heading = Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
Not en reading * Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
60
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
DATK:
CLIKNT:
PLANT:
W.O. NO.
SAMI'UNC LOCATION:
1'OU.IITANT: _ 'S_l' X
FIELD DATA
10111 No> _£ALZ
' ' • »*
(1 1 oek T Lnu;
Kla.sk Nn. /Valve No.
V.i hum- of Klusk Ml .
!•' lawk presaurc
lift oti' r;.nnpl.Jng in Hg
Kla.sk pri-HKurt!
, il lur .•i.unpl Ing (.11 Hg
Mask 1 ouiperalurc '^P-'c,
bi;l urc samp 1 j UK
Ma-Ik temperature "F
ait i.T saiupl ing
Harom(>t. f Ic pre.usuru
h<:l or i' H.-impllnK
liari'ine-Lr Lc pressure
at 1 1 r ;;anip 1 Ing
pli adjusted (9-12)
A
lO 3^
, — • / —> .'•.
^-T-itrft
"rzrTrrcs^r
j~L f -f- I—-'
'Vo
-.2^,3
-A3
3-3
if (4
/b ,f
3T-, -J^
•7 G C^ -
2L7 0 T
I/
B
\O -"15
/V/V5'
' // '
.^ib
-,05, I
-/.*
3. 5
30 . .^i
f
c
105^
/? /fO
1 /
~U3
-.:M/I
-/^
-^.7
— ^-
30. ^ •
y
— — -#
S
i)
61
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
SAMPLK LOCATION c
DATE
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
J/.z
COMMENTS:
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
NET
94
.c
.1*
Net. 02 aeading = Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
Not CO reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
62
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
W.O. NO.
C I.I KNT: SjpA
I'l-ANT: ;7£r-vH£AL t= i_£c JTfL 1 C. i
SAMl'UNC LOCATION: •: Y"; I^T" S i > "fA^- K-
I'OU.IITANT: NT'*
SAMI'I.KR: ' '> V L_\,' 1 /A j H Li M PM .OE SC -•
FIELD DATA
Run No. •#& ^|t/-
Clock T Lni«
l;la;ik No. /Valve Nu .
V..IUIIK.' of Klusk Ml .
I1' 1 auk p ru.su uru
hi/l on- r:iampl.Jng in Hg
.1 1 lur samp 1 in^ l.n Hg
!•' la.sk l. uiuper.'ilure ",1*^
Ijcl on* Mamp 1 J ng
l''la«tk (.cinper-'iturc °F
al I.I.T sampl ing
Haromi'l. r- 1<: prcuuure
I'd or c' .sampl iiiy,
hafi'iiiL-tr Lc pressure
al 1 «. r sampl Iny
pll adjusted (9-12)
A
i ! 0 5
30/Vtf
.&
- ^ , 1
-o.a
r.fc-
/7.V -
::c:-,<
J^ C it
£~ 1 . D f -
s
B
i 1 15
3J/V-
?o
_*-,.<,
~/.u'
3.^
TO-CH
v/
c
I/.^S
Z^/2
^^
.-.^,5
-o,^
3.1
^ ^'
/
\/
n
-•
63
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
SAMPI.K LOCATION ^
DATE
HUN
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
COMMENTS:
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
//CO
(C02)
READING 1
9-3-
9.2.
42
(02)
READING 2
ACTUAL
/3. t>
/$.(*
/3,(*
NET
/.^
44
W
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
/
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
DATK:
U.IKNT:
PLANT:
W.O. NO.
SAMl'LINC LOCATION:
I'OLLIITANT: _ jsjjj
SAMI'LKK:
A
f'l^£3-YL.
FIELD DATA
!<"" No. >& M 5
AS* mf.'if ~~~*^
('. 1 oc.k T Lme
I'l.-i.-ik No. /Valvo Nu.
Voliiini- ol" Flunk Ml .
Kl.iKk pru.su ure
iK'lori' Campling in Hg
Kla.sk priifisure
,il tci n.iinpl J.ng l.n Hg
Kla.sk l uinper/ituro '/f^
brl ofc samp 1 j ng
Klank Luiaper.'ilurc °F
a( UM sampl ing
ItaromrLr !c preusure
l'i;l or t- sainpl Ing
HarmnoLr Lc pressure
at (i r :;amp 1 In);
pi! adjusl.cc! (9-12)
A
\\ 3'3
3V /ft
/
•^b
-PH,'"1
~AJ
££^> v
3,^
/< 7 —
/o J>
"("', ^^i
2? . 54 -
S
B
*i -iL5
35/55
/
'^b
- :47 , J
-A7 .
3,5"
;>:-' -^
• '
/
c
i' 5S"
2.* /SO
~}b
-,;^,j
^O.^
r"W0g'>' *^
_"5.£S
>
^xT> . 'J^
^
/
D
65
A A A GCA CORPORATION
W WJ^ Technology Division
GCA
-------
PLANT
SAMPLK LOCATION
DATE
KUN
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
COMMENTS:
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
(02^
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
ACWAL
(CO)
READING 3
y
Net. 02 Heading = Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
Not Co reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
66
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
I'ATK:
CI.IKNT:
I1 1 AN! :
W.O. NO.
^[--lUt-P /\ L,
SAMI'UNC LOCATION:
I'OU.IITANT: N_OLx_.__
SAMI'I.KK: -^VL^V't J-\,
f U /i £ \ P I" 1 /-> I' 'V-
FIELD DATA
Kim No. -sK ^ cffu/
•w- /y
/
C lock TLmo
Kl;i;;k No. /Valvo Nu.
Vo 1 iiiiii.- of Klusk M 1 .
I1' lank pressure
hi'lon- sampling in Hg
h'lafik pri-tiKuro
.1 1 t or H.'impl IMK In Hg
!•' la.sk iwiiperaluro v-vc,-
lirtor*1 sampling
l''la«ik Lumper.:) lure °F
a( l.cc sampl ing
Karomi'Lr Ic preusure
I'd on- .sampling
HarnmolrLc pressure
al 1 1 r sampl t.n^
pll ail .justed (9-12)
A
r 3. c- 5
-tin
1^
-^3.3
-//
4. 5
y^y 4 -
/ / • /
"> ' . \ .
-\; / . I
JL • .^ i^
2-1.54--
S
B
\^\*5
2^/51
^
-3^.5
~/.tf
^^
•
•
/
^
c
I T 0
.
-^
v
/
/
i)
67
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
SAMPI.K LOCATION
DATE X
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
COMMENTS
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
(02)
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
NET
- 2
9,3.
Not. 02 Heading «= Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
Not co reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
68
A A A GCA CORPORATION
GCA
Technology Division
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
DA'I'K:
CI.IKNT:
I'I,ANT:
w.o. NO.
SAMI'LINC LOCATION:
I'OU.IITANT:
S AMI11,Kl<:
'(--f [.', 1///"V4
HUMpt-1 £
FIELD DATA
it. n> NO. /tyfly rj
(! I o«.:k T Lrm1
I' la.sk No. /Valvr Nu .
Vi> I uiiic of Fl usk M I .
Kl.'iwk prtLsaurc
l)i.'loi:i' :;,tmpl.ing in Hg
I1' I ii.sk |iri:fiKure
.1 1 lur s.ini|)l Jn^ in Hg
l''l.i;,k i t:iii|>tir;iluro ..'-^F*;
bi:l ore sampl J ng ^-'
Kl.mk Li'inpor.'.ilurc °F
;il t.i't sampl lug
llaromi't. r Ic prcuwure
I'd or c s.'impl In)/,
HartMiicLr Lc pressure
al 1 1 r s;unpl In).;
|iH ail.lusLud (9-12)
A
1 ^ 3-S
,, ^ / 1 1
So
-•^•4
4A3
5,3
A* / ^ ^ —
"y o O
30 -'-"/
-> cp ^^
Z 7 -~>7
y^
B
1-^-4^
-x'5 /•"->)
&
-,^. ^
— 0- a^-
^1 . fc.
^
s
c
n^>
3 i / n
P5
-..s-^."7
-0/7
^.^
, s.
'^~
..-~^
— x
s
r
D
69
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
COMMENTS:
SAMPU: LOCATION
DATE
RUN '
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
(02)
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
(CO)
READING 3
ACTOAt | REf1
.2.
Net. 02 Heading = Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
t^ot c<> reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
70
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
I>ATK:
CI.IKNT:
I'lANT:
W.O. NO.
SAMI'I,INC LOCATION:
I'OU.IITANT: f\) Q x_
SAMIM.KK: :."»N L-V'I
I 1 III1 iPH A ^ >' ^
FIELD DATA
Kun No.
;il 11'i ;;;i:
• ^ £
I1 Inn;
No. /Valve Ni>.
<.!' Kl.-uik Ml .
|MV,ssure
::.iin|)l ing in HR
pri'HHure
s.iiiip 1 IHK l'> Hg
1. 1 -III |) CT. 'It Urt.! •xM'i.y
K.'tmpl .1 dg
I cmpoi .uuro °K
;;;iuipl JDR
t ilc prt'.SHurt:
li.niip 1 j n^>,
i. r to pressure
ii.'iinp 1 i [in
«...•; U-..I (9- iv)
A
1305
i / i 5
^
-3H.S'
-AV
•3,^5
/ 9 7
/ D . -^
~7>-x' ) — % •
.3 ',_>/
7 *9 ^ 4-
Z_ /, O | —
S
B
\3\5
•-./ID
Q5
'.c?B,s
-/.f
5, 3
~— — .. . . - -
S
c
\3af>'
.1 /l(p
Pi>
- zv . 7
-/4
4.T-
^
^
X7
c
7
tx
1)
71
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
-t~
SAMPLM LOCATION
DATE
RUN
COMMENTS:
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
UEF
.2.
,3*
Net. Oj heading = Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actaal)
Not Co reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
72
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
W.O. NO.
CI.IKNT:
1 1 ANT:
SAMI'LINC LOCATION:
I'ou.irrANT: N
SAMIM.KK:
UV < A
FIELD DATA
UIIM No. Mfl/ £?
*f '*•+ I
•" ^- \
(I lock T tme
I'l, 'ink No. /Valvo. No.
Voluim.. of KhiHk Ml .
Flank presaurc
l)i-l on- sampling in Hg
Kla.'ik prt:fisurt»
.1 1 lor iiainp 1 Ing In II ).',
Fla.sk i. omper.-il.uro *Qt cf
Ix.'l ore .samp 1 J.ng
Fla.'ik unnperalure "SL
a( I.I.T sampl ing
ItaroiiH'f. r Ic pruusure
I'dort- nampling
harmiicLr Lc pressure
al « r iiampl Iny
pll ad.justud (9-12)
A
/33 3"
3t,-/^A.
*6
- %5. /
-D k
u, 1
//.o
3r\ A *-l —
Ot-1 • CA 1
29.5-4
^
B
13 l/ 5
^ 7.5-3
.?r
-«at,o
-0.2.
S, (t
y^
/
c
/3S'.^
9//}
35^
-ZS^
d, o
67,0
>
X
/
D
73
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
CCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
PLANT
COMMENTS;
SAMPLE LOCATION ;<,
DATE
V f
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
/33b
(C02)
READING 1
^
f/
^•/
(02)
READING 2
ACTUAL
/3.r
a.r
/3-r
NET
^.f
fl
44
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
^
/fa
//<&
NET
, 2-
,2-
• ^
Net 02 heading = Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
Net CO reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
74
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
W.O. NO.
CI.IISNT:
I'I.ANT:
SAMI'LINC LOCATION:
I'OU.IITANT: /^^
SAMI'I.KH:
f>
H UU £>H ?£•¥
FIELD DATA
Kim No. J/jjl' /A
. /
Clock '!' line
I'l.isk No. /Valve Nu.
Vi.l uinc of Kl j i -
^
B
i -i I '5
b/W
as'
-:^,-7
-0-^
^i.P>
^^
s
c
l--H2.^
M lai
}~^
-&,
^
J^r
/"
I)
/
75
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
n-1
-------
CCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
PLANT
SAMPLE LOCATION
DATE
RUN
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
COMMENTS:
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
(02)
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
NET
,2.
-2
Net 02 heading = Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
Net CO reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
76
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
W.O. NO.
CI.IKNT:
PUNT:
TP.1C
SAMI'I.INC LOCATION:
p. ---rAc
I'OI.MITANT: N.CU
SAMIM.KH:
•Ao Ul,
\-\ U
FIELD DATA
1(1111 N"- %&. 1 1
• - • T" " ~
Clock Time
Kl.-iwk N««. /Valve No.
Veil uiiic ill" Kl ;j'ik Ml.
1 .IK!< jirosanre
'in'! in c ::.imp 1 inj^ in llg
(•'l.i.sl' |iri'HHurc
.1 1 i.
-i 4.^-7
-|.(^
^i^
o
1 *D / i /•
J?J. V 6.
"T, f/ Qj,'.'
^- c * —
09 ^T^J
iX / . J T
X
fi
^M!?
C.IA
-^s
-?6.3
-/. X
X
I)
/
77
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
COMMENTS:
SAMPLK LOCATION
DATI
RUN
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
NET
Z
/*/.#
Net. 02 Heading = Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
NiM t'o reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
78
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
EVACUATED FLASK FIELD DATA
I)ATK:
W.O. NO.
I.:I,IL;NT
1'I.ANT:
IiAMI'1,1
SAMI'l.h
Umi No
Clock
Kl.-isk
,,rl ill i
!•' 1. •!.«;!•
.1 1 tor
n. -i.sk
I'd nil
• il in
l>. 1 1 oini
I'.-l 01 i
li t IM
pli .->.! |
: ^A
(.BIU^AL E,L&lT>2|C
NC LOCATION: pQ£.J |2> ST7.XJ- ^
ANT: NO*
K: MC'LL, HUMPHRY!
• fill /^
r Line
No. /Valve No.
of K!.-j«k Ml .
s.iinpl ing in II f;
liri'HHiji'e
:i.iiii|)l Ing In llg
t cMiipor.-ituro "^,-
K.-tinpl .1 tig
•i.iinpl J ng
1. 1 Ic prt'iii-iurr
:,.llllp 1 J il<^,
;;.-m)[> 1 1 iiy
..Mori (9-12)
FIEI
A
ibv>e>
on
1 lr>
~NT A
•- i^-t? '
-/^
£"> i ^~
q
F /^H
.J^
-^5 3
-/.5
'"S ^
3T7, 20
iS
C
l«>30
A/-2-
OEo
-«5
-0.5
^/ /^
'
v,-*>
~^ X
Y/
-,-B,™:,,,,,,,,,
79
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
PLANT
COMMENTS:
SAMPM: LOCATION
DATE
RU
U
OPERATOR
W. 0. NO.
SAMPLE
POINT
TIME
(C02)
READING 1
(02)
READING 2
ACTUAL
NET
(CO)
READING 3
ACTUAL
NET
Not 02 Heading «= Reading 2 - Reading 1 (Actual)
Not co reading = Reading 3 - Reading 2 (Actual)
80
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
APPENDIX D
METHOD 7
ANALYTICAL DATA
81
-------
NOX ANALYSIS
Contract 1-627-009
Analyst V. Howell
Date Analyzed 12-14-84
Date '12-17-84
Results Checked by Ed Mackinnon
Lab No.
42067
42068
42069
42070
42071
42072
42073
42074
42075
42076
42077
42078
42079
42080
42081
42082
42083
42084
Identification
Run 4-A
Run 4-B
Run 4-C
Run 5 -A
Run 5-B
Run 5-C
Run 6-A
Run 6-B
Run 6-C
Run 7-A
Run 7-B
Run 7-C
Run 8-A
Run 8-B
Run 8-C
Run 9-A
Run 9-B
Run 9-C
Mg N02
214
220
190
209
209
200
200
202
238
208
194
193
202
217
202
191
205
209
Comments
RA #1
RA n
RA #3
RA #4
RA #5
RA #6
Rev. 1/85
GCA/Technology Division
83
-------
NOX ANALYSIS
Contract 1-627*009
Analyst V. Howell
Date Analyzed 12-14-84
X
Date 12-17-84
Results Checked by Ed Mackinnon
Lab No.
42085
42086
42087
42088
42089
42090
42091
42092
42093
42094
42095
42096
42097
42098
42099
42100
42101
42102
Identification
Run 10-A
Run 10-B
Run 10-C
Run 11 -A
Run 11-B
Run 11-C
Run 12-A
Run 12-B
Run 12-C
Run 13- A
Run 13-B
Run 13-C
Run 14-A
Run 14-B
Run 14-C
Run 15 -A
Run 15-B
Run 15-C
Ug N02
234
193
201
197
185
183
184
202
193
207
187
171
195
179
187
185
195
187
Comments
RA #7
RA #8
RA #9
RA #10
RA #11
RA #12
Rev. 1/85
GCA/Technology Division
84
-------
NOX ANALYSIS
Contract
Analyst
1-627-009
Date Analyzed
12-14-84
V. Howell
Date
12-17-84
Results Checked by
Ed Mackinnon
Lab No.
42103
42104
Identification
Blank Run 1-9
Blank Run 9-12
yg N02
<2.00
<2.00
Comments
Rev. 1/85 GCA/Technology Division
85
-------
APPENDIX E
REFERENCE METHOD
DATA REDUCTION
87
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 ProR Card 1
Source/Run//
For Calculating:
34 O
Data Input/Check, yA
vi""** •*•••
Vac, N02 Ib/dscf, N0£ gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Emiss (l.b/106 BTU) , Emiss (ng/J)
A 15 C
1) Volume of flask and valve ml (VF)
2) Final abs. Pressure, of flask "HK (Pf) =
3) Final abs. Temp, of flask °F (TO =
4) Initial abs. Pressure of flask "11 >• (PI) =
5) Initial abs. Temp, of flask °F (Tl) =
6) Total Mass of N02 in Sample ug ( M) =
7) F-Kactor (dscf/106 BTU)
8) Percent Oxygen =
fflz.
3D. 0+
51,
3%J
aH
>+.(*
57,6
3S.3
Zo^o
Ifl
Nil!2 !)R', LOrCU. FT.
•".: ..-:ij::.-: -06
EHISS •::;..!-'..-libTU> =
H02
KV LB/CU. FT
••' . '?0i:j -06
NC.2-PFM
0,, 08S3
EriISS(HG.--.J
1 6 4 0. o 5
HQ2 .DRY LB/CU.FT
%*.' V^'^M
GCA
-------
Method 7 - Data Redt.K-tl.on Sheet
For TI-59 Prog Card 1
Source/Run// &L,
Date /£*_._
Data Input/Check fj).
For Calculating:
Vsc, N02 Ib/dscf, N02 gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Emiss (Ib/lO^ BTU), Emiss (ng/J)
ABC
.1) Volume of flask and valve ml (VF) =
2) Final abs. Pressure of flask "Hg (Pf) =
3) Final abs. Temp, of flask °F ftf) =
4) Initial abs. Pressure of flask "Hg (Pi) =
5) Initial nb.s. Temp, of flask °F (Ti) =
ft) Totn] Mass of NO2 In Sample iig ( M) =
7) F-Factor (dscf/106 RTIJ)
8) Percent Oxygen =
sn.o
V.V
S'l.o
5.3f
v-V
HD? ri^V !..::;xCU, FT,
3, :": '•'•" 0-06
;••!!],::• .--T'M
ND2
'
RV i..D.---CU. FT.
7: 693-06
ND2 DK'/ LB/CU. FT.
8. I1 76 -06
EM ! SS
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prop, Card 1
.Sou rco/Run//
For Calculating:
Date
34 o
Data Input/Check
Vsc, N02 Ib/dsef, N02 gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Emias (Lh/106 BTU) , F.roiss (ng/J)
A K C
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Volume of flask and valve
Final abs . Pressure of flask
Final abs. Temp, of flask
Initial abs. Pressure of fla
Initial nbs. Temp, of flask
Total Mass of NC-2 in Sample ug ( M)
F-Factor (dscf/106 BTU)
Percent Oxygen
3A
ml
"Hg
op
"» p.
°F
if?
&•
(VF) =
(Pf) =
(TO =
(Pi) =
(Tl) =
( M) =
__
„
•;•* ?u
3
mi
zg.av
to 1.5"
4/rt
37.1
loo
£710
^V
N)
6
IW
Z^.31/
(,l.b
5J4
3^,3
^o.X
?7JO
^•V
V1P
ww
z*.rt
^i>
5.3f
3^-7
^3«
81JO
V-V
®f
i'531, 39
•....';-. 5
1533= 7
MO 2
-CLU F'
HD2 BRV LPJ.-'CU. FT,
•.!' '"' ''I: i.: „. j""j -™
HO:: -PPM
kir
EHISS (I.B.
EillSS (NO;,- J
EM I S3
iHV LtS/CU. FT.
9,387-06
ND2-PPM
i.B/MBTU>
CU IDS!
E!1ISS(HG/J
46., 90
, 91
GCA
.
Technology Division
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prop, Card 1
Source/Run//
4
3HO
Data Input/Check
For Calculating:
Vsc, N02 Ib/dscf, N02 gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Emiss (lb/106 BTU) , Emiss (ng/J)
ABC
1) Volume of flask and valve ml (VF) =
2) Final abs. Pressure of flask "Hg (Pf) =
3) Final abs. Temp, of flask °F (TO =
4) Initial abs. Pressure of flask "Hg (PI) =
5) Initial nbs. Temp, of flask °F (Tl) =
6) Total Mans of N02 in Sample pg ( M) =
7) F-Factor (dscf/106 RTU)
8) Percent Oxygen =
3K.W
f3.3
S, M
63.3
S7/0
HD2 :OR:-' !..B--'CU. FT
EHISS
HO2 JLlRV L3.--CU. !:r
7, 970-06
HG2--PPM
EMISS
EMISS
:LB.--f15TU>
0.. 0879
'HD2 DRV LB/CU. FT
ND2-PPM
EMISS
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prop, Card 1
Sourcc/Run//
Date
T»M 34 £>
Calculating:
Vsc, N02 Ib/dscf, N02 gm/dscm, N02 PI
1) Volume of flask and valve
2) Final abs. Pressure of flask
3) Final abs. Temp, of flask
A) Initial nbs. Pressure of flask
5) Initial nbs. Temp, of flask
6) Total Mass of N02 in Sample
7) F-Factor (dscf/106 BTU)
8) Pprcent Oxygen
Data Inp
pm, Emiss (lb/1
ml (VF) =
"Hg (Pf) -
°F (TO =
"Hg (Pi) =
°F (Ti) =
yg < M) -
ut/CheckrtK TlfJf
O6 BTU)
A
303^
ZS.aV
C Q <
^J / • ^
5-34
3^,g
30 3L
J&M
, Emiss (ng/J)
B C
2o^V
**m
59.^
3,o^
|3g.3
a/7
•?i"
2o5S
3o.V>/-
^9.^
6,"f
3<£,3
a^
•?f
ND2 11RV '.e-'CU. FT,
56
ML]2 .DRV LB-'-'CLU pjn
7,. 351
ND2 JRT' LfVCUr FT,
-rif-"=
EillSS '.:!..B.-T1BTU,'
i I ,. i^ : :~! ""t ?j
93
N G ii' -•• P P N
60- ™:4
ENISSa-Mi/,1
3 4. 5
GCA
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prog Card I
Source/Run//
34O
Data Input/Check
For Calculating:
Vsc, N02 Ib/dscf, NC>2 gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Emlss (lb/1.06 BTU), Emiss (ng/J)
A B C
]) Volume of flask and valve ml (VF) =
2) Final abs. Pressure of flask "Hg (Pf) =
3) Final abs. Temp, of flask °F (TO =
A) Initial abs. Pressure of flask "HR (Pi) =
5) Initial abs. Temp, of flask °F (Tl) =
6) Total Mass nf N02 In Sample Mg ( M) =
7) F-Factor (dscf/106 BTU)
8) Percent Oxygen =
ST/o
57.^
(pf\
i'-"iAt ' 89
NO2-PPM
EMISS (LB/i'l&rU)
0, O'?0--*
EMISS (N •.;:••,.! >
94
HD2 .DRY LB.-'CU. FT
8. 1 16-OS
Nu^-PPM
'~>7 : 94
EI1ISS <;,..;V--nt:TU> "
0.0395
EM 1SS(NG. --.j
GCA
OCA (JORPORATION
Technology Division
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prog Card 1
Source/Run//
For Calculating:
Date
Data Input/Check
30.8^
Vac, N02 Ib/dscf, NC-2 gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Emlss (lb/106 BTU), Emfss (ng/J)
_ A B C
1) Volume of flask and valve ml (VF) =
2) Final abs. Pressure of flask "Hg (Pf) =
3) Final abs. Temp, of flask °F (ff) =
A) Initial ,-ibs. Pressure of flask "Hg (Pi) =
5) Initial nbs. Temp, of flask °F (Ti) =
6) TotnJ M.-iss of N02 in Sample ng ( M) =
7) F-Factor (dscf/106 RTU)
8) Percent Oxygen
STio
rjfl
ND2 'IJKr' L8.--CU,, frT,
8, 131-06
bill S3 (HG - J > -
M02 U'-?Y LB/CU. FT.
;••', 6 -.2-06
95
HE]2 HR1
• . o .-• i- ! I I- T
;_ : .' •' <_.- '..' L- I ! I!
308 -OS
HQ2-PPM
'b '•-! a •'.:• i'"!
EMISS:
0.0361
GCA
37, 04
Technology Division
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prog Card 1
rv
0
Source/Run//
For Calculating:
Date
Data Input/Check Q!•, (PI) =
Initial nbs. Temp, of flask
(Ti) =
Total Mass of N02 In Sample yg ( M)
7) F- Factor (dscf/106 BTU)
8) Percent Oxygen
55. ?
\°n
mo
66.%
5,6+
a. 3
£7/0
ilLJi- .'I
.L..--CU. FT,
'•-.''•• '-•.*K>. •' •
••.' >•"-•.-•...•••.,<»'.'<•.. '
• "*,-•' *" •' ^,-,; '-.•
ROfO
DRV LB-'-F^M,, FT.
'••' = 6 2 1. •- 0 6
kino
i'-'V L.B--'CU. FT
En JSS (i'-k"ixj
EM I PS
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prog Card 1
1
f.ource/Run//
For Calculating:
Date
Data Input/Check
Vac, N02 Ib/dscf, NOz gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Emlss (lb/106 BTU), Emiss (ng/J)
ABC
1) Volume of flask and valve ml (VF) =
2) Final abs. Pressure of flask "Hg (Pf) =
3) Final abs. Temp, of flask °F (TO =
A) Initial abs. Pressure of flask "Hg (Pi) =
5) Initial nhs. Temp, of flask °F (Tl) =
6) Tola] Mass of N()2 In Sample yg ( M) =
7) F-Factor (dscf/106 BTU)
8) Percent Oxygen =
si.?
V3.0
SI.*
Ylio
> ^ • *^
•/ 3 U
1650, 60
ND2 WRY LiJ-'OLi. FT.
G. 959-06
HG2-PPM
•...' O ;: :£. D
V 3 f".'
1761, 50
HD2 HRY I..B.--CU. FT,
7= 159-06
HD2-PPM '
59. 93
1681
NG2 DRY
""?
NO
f" 9
6 '-*
L.!f:.--CU. FT
165-06
2 -PPM
. 97
0763
0, 0790
EMISS (HG.-'J
97
0.0790
EMISS(NG/J
33. 99
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
GCA
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prog Card 1
jn
Source/Run// / (J
Date
Data Input/Check
For Calculating:
Vsc, NOo lb/dsrf, N02 gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Kmiss (lb/106 IJTU) , F.mlss (ng/.T)
A B C
1) Volume of flask and valve ml (VF) =
2) Final ab.s . Pressure of flask "Hg (Pf) =
3) Final ab.s. Temp, of flask °F (ff) =
A) Initial .ibs. Pressure of flask "Hg (PI) =
5) Initial abs. Temp, of flask °F (Tl) =
6) Tolal Mass of N02 Ln Sample ug ( M) =
7) F-Factor (dscf/106 BTU)
8)
Percent Oxygen
^057
55.9
3.1
•VOJ
B1
H0;::: .DRr' L.H.--'CUU FT,,
HD2 3 RV
'CU, FT,
3.'CU. FT.
EMISS
E
•€:'
EMISS =
H, 0816
ENISS (HG.-'J >-
35,,
"'•' 98
N02-PPM
EMISS (!.B/riBTU
0, 0"'22
EMISS (HG/J
GCA
Technology Division
-------
Mothod 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prog Card 1
Source/Run// Jj_
Date /d ~^:
VHC-. N0;> Ih/.bi.-l, NO;; ('in/d.srm, NO^ ppm, Kml.ss (li,/l()() I1TP) , ['.miss (ny/J)
1} Voluiiu' of fl.ii.sk and valve' nil (VF) -
2) Final nhs. Pn-ssure of flask "H>; (1'f) -
'}) Final ahs. Temp, .if flask °F (ff) =
ft) Initial .il-.s. Prrssurr of flasl; "llj', (I'l)
rO Initial ahs. Ti-inp. of flank °l' (Ti) =
d) Total Mass of NO? In Sample vig ( M)
7) F-K-irlor (dsrf/10h IVI'll)
H) T'c-rcnnt Oxygen =
4.90
?'7lo
|S7
Wio
(lo t^
)\A
!••!!..] 2 'Ki :....s/:J*J, FT.
HJ2-PPM
60, 1 9
Ei'lISS =
CL 0332
-------
Method 7 - Data Reduction Sheet
For TI-59 Prog Card 1
Source/Run//
Date
' Data Input/Check tf-^. /(/Ur£\
Calculating:
Vsc, N02 Ib/dscf, N02 gm/dscm, N02 ppm, Emiss (lb/106 BTU), Emiss (ng/J)
ABC
1) Volume of flask and valve ml
2) Final abs. Pressure of flask "Hg
3) Final abs. Temp, of flask °F
4) Initial abs. Pressure of flask "Hg
5) Initial abs. Temp, of flask °F
. 6) Total Mass of N02 in Sample yg
7) F-Factor (dscf/106 BTU)
8) Percent Oxygen
(VF) =
(Pf) =
(Tf) =
(Pi) =
(Ti) =
( M) ' -
S3
HM
,37.7V
tol.b
t.v
4/.¥
l?5
C[ fj t f\
^\ i 1 ^J
•V.A
W5
••) o- r\ iL
^ O «L/ /
(J\.L>
JLl Q
w.Y
1^5
^10
^2
W>
tf.o+
ti\.(o
5.7
-70. i.
IS7
£7/o
#<2-
, I ... J—.
', .' T. p*
15 3 8." 9 9
154-1. 94
.R/f:i.L FT,
HD2 DRV LB/CU. FT.
910 -06
HD2 DRY L..B.--CU, FT.
7, S57-06
HQ2-PPM
.
ND2-PPM
EMISSa.B/MBTU> =
fi., n;:!i-,?
EMISS (LB/nBTm
0, 0824
EMISSCNG/J
37, 08
•'gf-^^^l^^'t'V^K i^i I.-.'j
>T'' 100
EMISS (NG/J
) =
GCA
Technology Division
-------
APPENDIX F
RELATIVE ACCURACY CALCULATIONS
101
-------
RUN)
16
2A
ad.
3/1
36
L_M__
.iQ.Ot,
(#(«. 11
65.33
•31.3.1 ...
37. ^7
34.75- ...
31. "71
3*1.01
38:57
37. SI .(37,80
31?. oj
3.7.
3
6
76
_36_
__ic
.\oc
»»A...
.V\6_
_1!4.
67. 7S
59.93..
^1??_
5H.77
SSvotO S
AV6-
37.0*1
^JL«i3L_
33 «<
35J1
35.10_,\34-/.6H
31.0.1-
37.0^
3S..7?...
35",/c
•37. og
35,1?-.
103
-------
104
-------
GCA/fECHNOlOGY DtyiSKDNjffA
Bi.'Hir*:;toN GOAD. BEOKMKJ, viASSACHusms cmo / PHONE. «'.; 271-9000
/ „, V
JC««U.
1= ei=t:
Relative Accuracy Caiculat Ions Source
^ ppm S02 ays
PP.
.8"")
CM X »Y_
OATl CH'l
*'» CM'K. »T
Cl -
a^(n-
9 s^
CX - 0.0906 (
CI "
RA - -^
HM
RA •
RA -
Relative accuracy calculations.
105
-------
E.UtUNGTON «OAO. BIDfOM). (MSSACHUSfTTS 01730 / PMONi, 6I7-27S-MOO
BT_
JOB HO
MTI.
CM'K 8Y_
twwtcr.
Relative *\i:'._iiruey Oilcula t lorrs Source
o»rt CH'K. _.
Tast No.
1 1
5
6 7
7 «
8 1)
Rtt
E M
C (D2)
KM
t
UD]
l« fere ace
Method
3S.S
38,0
37.0-
-37JL
35.4?
35.1
334,7
/7
37,
/
ilonitor
31
40
40
x/
XXX
/XX
Dif fer«ace
0.5
3.
. /
. if
(Difference)2
EgM
9 9
RM
I 37.
9 9
M
M
31
CI -
CI -
CI -
CI "
,
O7S I T 5 71
._ •*_.,- [ / n [rfn 1 - frnl I
, IV U l*^U J I *• W J /
? inf. .~-~ ... , i - - \
A..JUO 1 ( l 73, ^}l.i - (3S"ft <^) 1
9>/8 V ' /
0.0906 ( 17. 7G? )
USD
(lo! * ci)
aS
( )•(/>! ) 4- (. <2ila^ }
DA " -...— «_. ' v , ., * _' -f 1 Ttft
^ ' ' ( 37, 4 ) •* l°°
RA - U.^^jJ
Relative accuracy calculations.
106
-------
GCA/TECHNOlGY DiViSlQNWA
BUIUNOTON «OAO. 8fWO«0. MMSACHUStm 01710 / JHONt. 417 37.VTOOO
J*.-, °*T«
joim __ ._-..
»HU»T (/5EN>6£/ll^ fe LJ£ CT£l 1
7 ^
8 II
9 3-
n
I RM
i: M
I D
1 (D2)
n IE(D)2J
RM
M
D
Uol2
lefarcoce
Method
H.fe
4.4
4.4
4.4
M.4
H.4
Hi(*
H.3L
H.3L
9
3°l.(j>
y////
/////
////
'/// /
H»*f
/ / //
/// /
// / /
Monitor
4 ^.
i_i i_j
4 • M"
4.^^
H-3
4-3
4,3
H-3
4.^
9
'///
•—*
-------
- 6i? 7^ man
JOCNO
>• IKMICT
MTI.
Relative Accuracy Calculations Source
CM'K rr
MTI CH'K..
>02 Sys NOX ppm N0y Sys C.02/02/HZ°-' I'K. CN'I »T__
e»t No.
1 1
2 JL.
6 7
8 II
r. RH
:; M
i: D
(D2)
RM
iro]
lafereaca
Method
3,3-
9.6.
83,*
Monitor
9,35
9.5"
Difference
O JO
0.10
0,30
-0.05"
0.0055
(Difference)2
(D2)
0.01
CI • •-••9^. (jn ll(D2J - [E
Ci - 2-306 pr—
^!_ ^^^m i i .
CI - 0.0906 (
CI -
ERM
9 9
RM
9 9
M - 1 9. J
RA -
CI)
RM
'- x 100
RA-
o£ 0.33^7^0.
Relative accuracy calculations.
108
-------
APPENDIX G
EMISSION TEST PARTICIPANTS
109
-------
A list of the personnel in the boiler emission test program is summarized
below:
EPA TASK MANAGERS
1. Dennis P. Holzschuh
2. Charlie Sedman
GENERAL ELECTRIC REPRESENTATIVE
1. Alan North
GCA TEST PARTICIPANTS
1. Edward Peduto, Project Manager
2. Richard Graziano, Test Team Leader
3. • David Moll, Test Team Member
4. Thomas Sylvia, Test Team Member
5. Sharon Humphreys, Test Team Member
6. Michael White, QC Coordinator
111
------- |