&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-600/7-86-013a
April 1986
Research and
Development
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF AN
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY STEAM
GENERATOR EQUIPPED WITH AN EPA
HEAVY OIL LOW-NCx BURNER
Volume I. Technical Results
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-86-013a
April 1986
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF AN
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR
EQUIPPED WITH AN EPA HEAVY OIL LOW-NOX BURNER
Volume I
Technical Results
by
C. Castaldini, L. R. Waterland, and R. DeRosier
Acurex Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue
P.O. Box 7044
Mountain View, California 94039
EPA Contract 68-02-3188
EPA Project Officer: 0. A. McSorley
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
Comprehensive emission measurements and 30-day flue gas moni-
toring were performed on a 16-MW (55 million Btu/hr) enhanced oil re-
covery steam generator equipped with the EPA low-NOx burner firing
high-nitrogen crude. The 1-day comprehensive measurements included
quantification of semivolatile organics and 73 trace elements; volatile
organic sampling train (VOST) quantitation of volatile organic priority
pollutants; EPA Method 5/8 for particulate and SOX; controlled conden-
sation for SOX; Andersen impactors for particle size distribution; grab
samples for NgO; and continuous flue gas monitoring. NOX emissions
during the comprehensive tests averaged 70 ppm at 3 percent O£, well
below the target level of 85 ppm. CO emissions were below 30 ppm, and
SO2 averaged about 550 ppm. Solid particulates were emitted at about
27 ng/J (96 mg/dscm); condensible particulates were about half that
level. Volatile organics (benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene) were mea-
sured in the 0.4 to 20 ppb range. Semivolatile organics (naphthalene
and phenol) were detected in the 0.3 ppb range. Subsequent continuous
monitoring of flue gas criteria emissions showed NOX below 80 ppm at
3 percent O2 with an average of 70 ppm. CO emissions were generally
less than 30 ppm.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables v
Acknowledgment vii
1 Introduction 1-1
2 Source Description and Operation 2-1
3 Emission Results 3-1
3.1 Sampling Protocol 3-1
3.2 Criteria Pollutant and Other Gas Phase Species
Emissions 3-3
3.3 Trace Element Analysis Results 3-12
3.4 Organic Emission Results 3-16
3.4.1 Volatile Organic Emissions 3-17
3.4.2 TCO, GRAV, GC/MS, and IRS Analyses of Sample
Total Extracts 3-21
3.5 Extended Continuous Emissions Monitoring 3-21
4 Test Quality Assurance and Quality Control 4-1
4.1 NOX Monitor Certification Test Results 4-1
4.2 Duplicate Analyses 4-5
4.2.1 Trace Element Analyses 4-5
4.2.2 Organic Analyses 4-5
4.2.3 Particulate, S02, and $03 Emission
Measurements 4-7
4.3 Analytical Recovery of Blind Spikes 4-9
4.4 Reference Method Audit Samples 4-9
5 Summary i 5-1
Appendix A ..... A-l
Appendix B B-l
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 EPA low-NOx burner 2-2
2-2 Low-N0x burner retrofit arrangement 2-5
3-1 Test activity schedule 3-4
3-2 Particle size distribution ..... 3-11
3-3 Flue gas Q£ and C02 for the extended test period .... 3-25
3-4 Flue gas NOX and CO for the extended test period .... 3-26
3-5 Flue gas S02 for the extended test period 3-27
A-l Schematic for continuous extractive sampling system . . . A-2
A-2 Source assessment sampling train schematic A-5
A-3 Flue gas analysis protocol for SASS samples A-6
A-4 Flue gas sample analysis protocol A-7
A-5 Organic analysis methodology A-9
A-6 Schematic of volatile organic sampling train (YOST) . . . A-10
A-7 Particulate and SOX sampling train (EPA Method 5 and 8) . A-12
A-8 Controlled condensation system A-14
A-9 M20 sampling system A-15
iv
-------
TABLES
Number
1-1
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
4-1
4-2
Completed Tests during the Current Program
EPA Low-N0x Burner Design Characteristics
Steamer/ Burner Operation
V
Sampling Analysis Test Matrix3
Criteria Pollutant and Other Gas Species Emissions --
Comprehensive Tests
Flue Gas Parti culate Measurement Results
Sulfur Species Emissions By EPA Method 5/8a
Sulfur Species Emissions by Controlled Condensation3 . .
Particle Size Distribution Results3
Summary of Parti culate Loading Measurements
Trace Element Flowrates
Volatile Organic Compounds Sought in GC/MS Analysis . . .
Compounds Sought in the EPA Method 625 GC/MS Analysis
and their Detection Limits3
Volatile Organic Species Emissions
Total Organic and Sertii volatile Organic Priority
Pollutant Emissions
IR Spectra Summary
Method 7 Certification Results: January 24, 1984 ....
Method 7 Certification Results: February 8, 1984 ....
Page
1-4
2-3
2-7
3-2
3-5
3-7
3-9
3-10
3-10
3-13
3-14
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-22
3-23
4-2
4-3
-------
TABLES (concluded)
Number
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
A-l
Method 7 Certification Results: February 24, 1984. . . .
Duplicate SSMS Analyses of Test Fuela, ppm
Results of Duplicate GC/MS Analyses of the SASS Organic
Sorbent Module Extract3
Results of Duplicate Particulate, $03, and 503
Measurements .
Duplicate Method 5 Condensible Particulate Analysis
Results
Spike XAD-2 Resin Analysis Results
EMSL Audit Sample Analysis Results
Continuous Monitoring Equipment in the Mobile Laboratory
Page
4-4
4-6
4-8
4-8
4-10
4-10
4-11
A-3
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This test was performed 1n cooperation with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. and the
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation (EERC). Appreciation is
greatly extended to Rich Podgers of Chevron U.S.A., and Glenn England and
Yul Kwan of EERC. Special recognition and thanks are extended to the Acurex
field test crew of Curtis Beeman, Regan Best, Bruce DaRos, Pete Kaufmann,
Gary Milburn, and Martha Murray.
vu.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report describes and presents results for a set of environmental
assessment tests performed for the Environmental Protection Agency's
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory/Research Triangle Park
(EPA-AEERL/RTP) under the Combustion Modification Environmental Assessment
(CMEA) program, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3188. The CMEA started in 1976 with a
3-year study, the NOX Control Technology Environmental Assessment (NOX EA,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-2160), having the following objectives:
o Identify potential multimedia environmental effects of stationary
combustion sources and combustion modification technology
e Develop and document control application guidelines to minimize
these effects
o Identify stationary source and combustion modification R&D
priorities
« Disseminate program results to intended users
During the first year of the NOX EA, data for the environmental
I
assessment were compiled and methodologies were developed. Furthermore,
priorities for the schedule and level of effort to be devoted to evaluating
the various source/fuel/control combinations were identified. This effort
revealed major data gaps, particularly for noncriteria pollutants (organic
emissions and trace elements) for virtually all combinations of stationary
1-1
-------
combustion sources and combustion modification techniques. Consequently, a
series of seven environmental field test programs was undertaken to fill
these data gaps. The results of these tests are documented in seven
individual reports (References 1-1 through 1-7} and in the NOX EA final
report summarizing the entire 3-year effort (Reference 1-8).
The current CMEA program has as major objectives the continuation of
multimedia environmental field tests initiated in the original NOX EA
program.
Table 1-1 lists all the tests performed in the CMEA program, outlining
the source tested, fuel used, combustion modifications implemented and the
level of sampling and analysis performed in each case. Results of these test
programs are discussed in spearate reports. These new tests, using
standardized Level 1 sampling and analytical procedures (Reference 1-9) are
aimed at filling the remaining data gaps and addressing the following
priority needs:
• Advanced NOX controls
• Alternate fuels
• Secondary sources
• EPA program data needs
— Residential oil combustion
— Wood firing in residential, commercial, and industrial sources
— High interest emissions determination (e.g., listed and
candidate hazardous air pollutant species)
• Nonsteady-state operation
Within these priority needs, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) steamers were
1-2
-------
accorded high ranking because of their emerging importance as an emission
source in California.
The petroleum reserves which can be recovered through primary production
methods have been essentially exhausted in the oil fields in Kern County,
California. These fields still contain significant reserves, although the
remaining crude is too heavy (viscous) to be produced by normal means. This
crude is currently being produced using what has been termed enhanced oil
recovery (EOR). In this process, near saturated (80 to 90 percent quality)
crude is currently being produced using what has been termed enhanced oil
recovery (EOR). In this process, near saturated (80 to 90 percent quality)
steam is injected into a field. This steam heats the oil, thereby decreasing
its viscosity and allowing it to be pumped.
The steam for injection is raised by crude-oil-fired steam generators
(often termed steamers) which have uncontrolled NOX emissions of 300 ppm and
greater. Since Kern County is only in borderline attainment of the N0£
ambient air quality standard, EOR steamers have received close regulatory
attention with respect to reducing NOX emissions.
One approach to reducing NOX emissions from these steamers incorporates
a low-NOx emission burner design. One such burner was developed by the
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation (EERC) under EPA sponsorship.
The EERC development program,'which spanned a period of 6 years, called for
the field demonstration of the low-NOx burner having the capability of
meeting the program goal of 85 ppm NOX, 45 ppm CO (at 3 percent 02), and
acceptable smoke and particulate emissions while burning high nitrogen fuel
oil.
1-3
-------
The EOR steamer equipped with the EPA low-NOx burner was tested in the
current CMEA program. These tests, described in this report, were conducted
to augment the emissions measurements by EERC required under their field
^
demonstration program.
In addition to the tests described in this report, another EOR steamer,
this one equipped with a Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) low-NOx burner
marketed by CE-Natco (a steamer manufacturer), was also tested. Results from
these tests are documented in Reference 1-10.
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1. COMPLETED TESTS DURING THE CURRENT PROGRAM
Source
Description
Test points
unit operation
Sampling protocol
Test collaborator
Spark-ignited, natural -
j gas-fueled reciprocating
j internal combustion
I engine
Large-bore. 6-cy Under.
opposed piston, 186 kW
(250 Bhp)/cy1, 900 rpm.
Model 38TDS8-1/8
Baseline (pre-NSPS)
Increased air-fuel
ratio aimed at
meeting proposed
NSPS of 700 ppm
corrected to 15
percent 02 and
standard atmospheric
conditions
Engine exhaust:
~ SASS
~ Method 5
— Gas sample
— Continuous . X
' • C02, 02, CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Lube oil
g HC)
— Continuous NO. NOX, CO,
Fairbanks Morse
Division of Colt
Industries
Ul
i Compression-Ignition,
1 diesel-fueled
reciprocating Internal
combustion engine
Large-bore, 6-cylinder
opposed piston, 261-kW
(350 Bhp)/cyl, 900-rpm.
Model 38TDD8-1/8
Baseline (pre-NSPS)
Fuel injection retard
aimed at meeting pro-
posed NSPS of 600 ppm
corrected to 15 per-
cent 0? and standard
atmospheric conditions
Engine exhaust:
~ SASS
~ Method 8
— Method 5
— Gas sample
HC)
s
— Continuous NO, NOX, CO,
C02, 02, CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Lube oil
Fairbanks Morse
Division of Colt
Industries
Low-N0x residential
condensing heating
system furnished by
Karl sons Blueburner
Systems Ltd. of Canada
Residential hot water
heater equipped with
M.A.N. low-NOx burner,
0.55 ml/s (0.5 gal/hr)
firing capacity, con-
densing flue gas
Low-N0x burner design
by M.A.N.
Furnace exhaust:
~ SASS
~ Method 8
— Method 5
— Gas sample (Ci-Cg HC)
-- Continuous NO, NOX, CO,
C02, 02, CH4, TUHC
Fuel
Waste water
New test
Rocketdyne/EPA
low-NOx residential
forced warm air furnace
Residential warm air
furnace with modified
high-pressure burner and
firebox, 0.83 ml/s
(0.75 gal/hr) firing
capacity
Low-N0x burner design
and integrated furnace
system
Furnace exhaust:
— SASS
— Method 8
— Controlled condensation
~ Method 5
— Gas sample (CI-CK HC)
~ Continuous NO, NOX, CO,
C02, 02. CH4, TUHC
Fuel
New test
-------
TABLE 1-1. (continued)
Source
Description
Test points
unit operation
Sampling protocol
Test collaborator
Pulverized-eoal-fired
utility boiler.
Conesville station
400-MW tangential 1y
fired; new NSPS
design aimed at
meeting 301 ng/J
N0y limit
ESP inlet and outlet,
one test
ESP Inlet and outlet:
-- SASS
~ Method 5
~ Controlled condensation
— Gas sample (C^-Cg HC)
— Continuous NO, NOX, CO,
C02. 02
Coal
Bottom ash
ESP ash
Exxon Research and
Engineering (ER&E)
conducting cor-
rosion tests
Nova Scotia Technical
College industrial
boiler
•jl
en
1.14 kg/s steam
(9.000 Ib/hr) firetube
fired with a mixture
of coal-oil-water (COW)
— Baseline (COW)
— Controlled SO?
emissions with
limestone injection
Boiler outlet:
--SASS
— Method 5
— Method 8
— Controlled condensation
~ Gas sample (Cj-Cg HC)
— Continuous 0?, CO?,
CO, NOX
Fuel
Envirocon per-
formed parti culate
and sulfur
emission tests
Adelphi University
industrial boiler
1.89 kg/s steam
(15,000 Ib/hr)
hot water
firetube fired with a
mixture of coal-oil-
water (COW)
Baseline (COW)
Controlled SO?
emissions with
injection
Boiler outlet:
~ SASS
~ Method 5
— Method 8
— Controlled condensation
— Gas Sample (C^Cg HC)
-- Continuous 0?, CO?, NO*,
CO
Fuel
Adelphi University
Pittsburgh Energy
Technology Center (PETC)
Industrial boiler
3.03 kg/s steam
(24,000 Ib/hr) watertube
fired with a mixture of
coal-oil (COM)
Baseline test only
with COM
Boiler outlet:
— SASS
— Method 5
-- Controlled condensation
~ Continuous 0?, CO?, NOX,
TUHC, CO
— N?0 grab sample
Fuel
PETC and General
Electric (GE)
-------
TABLE 1-1. (continued)
Source
Description
Test points
unit operation
Sampling protocol
Test collaborator
TOSCO Refinery vertical
crude oil heater
2.54 Ml/day
(16,000 bbl/day) natural
draft process heater
burning oil/refinery gas
Baseline
Staged combustion
using air injection
lances
Heater outlet:
-- SASS
~ Method 5
— Controlled condensation
Gas sample (Ci-Ce HC)
' " ' "
— Continuous 02,
C02, HC
— N20, grab sample
Fuel oil
Refinery gas
CO,
KVB coordinated
the staged com-
bustion operation
and continuous
emission
monitoring
Mohawk-Getty Oil
industrial boiler
8.21 kg/s steam
(65,000 Ib/hr)
watertube burning
mixture of refinery gas
and residual oil
Baseline
Ammonia injection
using the noncatalytic
thermal deNOx
process
Economizer outlet:
— SASS
— Method 5, 17
— Controlled condensation
— Gas sample (Ci-Cs HC)
— Ammonia emissions
-- N20 grab sample
— Continuous 0?, NOX,
CO, C02
Fuels (refinery gas and
residual oil)
Mohawk-Getty Oil
Industrial boiler
2.52 kg/s steam
(20,000 Ib/hr) watertube
burning woodwaste
Baseline (dry wood)
Green wood
Boiler outlet:
~ SASS
~ Method 5
— Controlled condensation
— Gas sample (Cj-Cs HC)
~ Continuous 02, NOX, CO
Fuel
Flyash ,
North Carolina
Department of
Natural Resources,
EPA IERL-RTP
Industrial boiler
3.16 kg/s steam
(29,000 Ib/hr)
firetube with refractory
firebox burning woodwaste
— Baseline (dry wood)
Outlet of cyclone particulate
collector:
~ SASS
~ Method 5
— Controlled condensation
— Gas sample (Cj-Cg HC)
— Continuous 02, NOX. CO
Fuel
Bottom ash
North Carolina
Department of
Natural Resources,
EPA IERL-RTP
-------
TABLE 1-1. (continued)
Source
Enhanced oil recovery
steam generator
Pittsburgh Energy
Technology Center
(PETC) Industrial
boiler
Description
15-MH (50 million Btu/hr)
steam generator burning
crude oil equipped with
MHI low-NOx burner
3.03 kg/s steam
(24,000 Ib/hr) watertube
fired with a coal-
water-slurry (CHS)
Test points
unit operation
— Performance mapping
— Low-N0x operation
~ Baseline test only
with CHS
Sampling protocol Test collaborator
Steamer outlet Getty Oil Company,
— SASS CE-Hatco
— Method 5
— Method 8
-- Gas sample (Cj-C6 HO
— Continuous Oy, NO.. CO,
CO;
— NjO grab sample
Fuel
Boiler outlet PETC
« SASS
-- Method 5
— Method 8
-- Gas sample (Cj-C* HC)
-- Continuous 03, NOX, CO,
GO
to,, TUHC
— N2D grab sample
Fuel
Bottom ash
Collector hopper ash
Spark-Ignited, natural-
gas-fueled reciprocating
Internal combustion
engine — nonselectlve
NOX reduction catalyst
610-kH (818-hp) Haukesha
rich-burn engine
equipped with DuPont
NSCR system
Low-N0x (with catalyst) Catalyst Inlet and outlet
15-day emissions ~ SASS
monitoring -- NHj
— NjO grab sample
-- Continuous 0?, CO?. NO.
TUHC
Lube oil
Southern California
Gas Company
Industrial boiler
180 kg/hr steam
(400 Ib/hr) stoker fired
with a mixture of coal
and plastic waste
Baseline (coal)
Coal and plastic
waste
Boiler outlet
— SASS
— VOST
— Method 5
~ Method 8
— HC1
— Continuous 0?, NO.,
CO,, TUHC
— N?0 grab sample
Fuel
Bottom ash
Cyclone ash
Vermont Agency of
Environmental
Conservation
CO.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1. (continued)
Source
Description
Test points
unit operation
Sampling protocol
Test collaborator
Industrial boiler
7.6 kg/s steam
(60,000 Ib/hr watertube
retrofit for coal water
slurry firing
Baseline test
with CWS
30-day emissions
monitoring
Boiler outlet
~ SASS
~ VOST
~ Method 5
— Method 8
— Gas sample (Ci-Cs HC)
N20 grab sample
EPRI, DuPont
— Continuous NOX, CO, C02,
Fuel
02, TUHC, S02
Enhanced oil recovery
steam generator
15-MW (50 million Btu/hr)
steam generator burning
crude oil, equipped with
the EPA/EER low-NOx
burner
— Low-N0x burner
~ 30-day emissions
monitoring
Steamer outlet
-- SASS
— VOST
-- Method 5
— Method 8
— Controlled condensation
— Andersen impactors
— Gas sample (Ci-Cg HC)
— N20 grab sample
— Continuous NOX, CO, C02,
02, S02
Fuel
Chevron
EERC
U.S.A.,
Spark-ignited,
natural-gas-fueled
reciprocating
internal combustion
engine — selective
NOX reduction catalyst
1,500-kW (2,000-hp)
Ingersoil-Rand engine
equipped with Engelhard
SCR system
— Low-N0x (with catalyst) Catalyst inlet and outlet
15-Day emissions
monitoring
~ SASS
— NH3
~ HCN
— N20 grab sample
~ Continuous 02, C02, NOX
TUHC
Lube oil
Southern California
Gas Company
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
1-1. Larkin, R. and E. B. Higginbotham, "Combustion Modification Controls
for Stationary Gas Turbines: Volume II. Utility Unit Field Test,"
EPA-600/7-81-122b, NTIS PB82-226473, July 1981.
1-2. Higginbotham, E. B., "Combustion Modification Controls for Residential
and Commercial Heating Systems: Volume II. Oil-fired Residential
Furnace Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-123b, NTIS P882-231176, July 1981.
1-3. Higginbotham, E. B. and P. M. Goldberg, "Combustion Modification NOX
Controls for Utility Boilers: Volume I. Tangential Coal-fired Unit
Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-124a, NTIS PB82-227265, July 1981.
1-4. Sawyer, J. W. and E. B. Higginbotham, "Combustion Modification NOX
Controls for Utility Boilers: Volume II. Pulverized-coal Wall-fired
Unit Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-124b, NTIS PB82-227273, July 1981.
1-5. Sawyer, J. W. and E. B. Higginbotham, "Combustion Modification NOX
Controls for Utility Boilers: Volume III. Residual-oil Wall-fired
Unit Field Test," EPA-600/7-81-124c, NTIS PB82-227281, July 1981.
1-6. Goldberg, P. M. and E. B. Higginbotham, "Industrial Boiler Combustion
Modification NOX Controls: Volume II. Stoker Coal-fired Boiler Field
Test — Site A,* EPA-600/7-81-126b, NTIS PB82-231085, July 1981.
1-7. Lips, H. I. and E. B. Higginbotham, "Industrial Boiler Combustion
Modification NOX Control: Volume III. Stoker Coal-fired Boiler Field
Test — Site B,* EPA-600/7-81-126c, NTIS PB82-231093, July 1981.
1-8. Waterland, L. R., et a!., "Environmental Assessment of Stationary
Source NOX Control Technologies — Final Report," EPA-600/7-82-034,
NTIS PB82-249350, May 1982.
1-9. Lentzen, D. E., et al., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1
Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)," EPA-600/7-78-201,
NTIS PB293795, October 1978.
1-10. Castaldini, C., L. R. Waterland, and H. I. Lips, "Environmental
Assessment of an Enhanced Oil Recovery Steam Generator Equipped with
a Low-N0x Burner," EPA 600/7-86-003 a/b, February 1986.
1-10
-------
SECTION 2
SOURCE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
The tests were performed on an enhanced oil recovery steam generator
(EOR steamer) owned and operated by Chevron U.S.A. The steamer, located in
the Kern Front oil field near Bakersfield, California, was retrofitted in
1984 with the EPA low-NOx burner. The retrofit was part of the field
verification of the commercial prototype 16 MW (55 million Btu/hr) low-NOx
burner developed and fabricated by the Energy and Environmental Research
Corporation (EERC) under EPA-sponsored programs (References 2-1 and 2-2).
The goal of the field demonstration was to validate the low-NOx capability
and thermal performance of the burner firing high nitrogen (X).7 percent)
Kern County crude.
Figure 2-1 illustrates the low-NOx burner design. The burner utilizes
the staged air combustion concept in which a primary fuel-rich zone is
separated from a fuel-lean zone where secondary combustion air is injected.
The fuel-rich zone is established in a large refractory lined combustor.
i
Primary combustion air is preheated using a regenerative combustor shell
design. Secondary (unpreheated) combustion air is injected radially and
axially in the transition zone connecting the combustor to the steamer.
Table 2-1 summarizes the design and operating characteristics of the EPA
commercial prototype burner. The important operating parameters for the
advanced low-NOx burner are a low first-stage stoichiometric ratio (SR) in
2-1
-------
ro
Ceramic Fiber
(external
insulation)
Tile Support
King
Primary
Register
Insulating
Firebrick
90* Aluuliw
Brick (Greenal 90)
Figure 2-1. EPA low-NOx burner.
-------
TABLE 2-1. EPA LOW-NOX BURNER DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
e
e
Capaci ty
Overall combustor length
Combustor L/D
Combustor volume
Combustor lining
Temperature in the combustor
at full load
Gas residence time in the
combustor at full load
Design burner stoichiometry
Primary air temperature
Secondary air injection
Performance goals:
— Fuel/oil nitrogen content
— NOX at 3 percent Og
— CO at 3 percent 02
~ Smoke
— Sound mechanical and
thermal performance
— 16 MW (55 MBtu/hr) heat input
-- 5.5m (18 ft)
— 2.6
— 13m3 (460 ft3)
~ alumina refractory
— about 1,430°C (2,600°F)
— about 0.6 sec
— 0.60 to 0.65
— preheated up to 250°C (480°F)
— combination of radial and axial
injection ports
— >0.7 percent
— 85 ppm maximum
— 45 ppm maximum
— Bacharach number 4 maximum
2-3
-------
the range of 0.60 to 0.65, high combustor temperature of ^1,430°C (2,600°F),
near the adiabatic flame temperature, and a long first-stage residence time
of about 0.6 sec. This combination of long gas residence time and high gas
temperature promotes the decay of total fixed nitrogen (TFN) species {HCN and
NH3) to Ng formed early in the ignition zone from fuel nitrogen under very
fuel-rich conditions. Low TFN concentrations at the first-stage exit result
in low-fuel NOX conversion. In the second stage, temperature and fuel/air
mixing are important to minimize thermal NOX while keeping CO, smoke, and
particulate in check. Efficient fuel/oil atomization and fuel/air mixing in
the ignition zone of the combustor are also beneficial to the decay of TFN in
the combustor.
The goals of the low-NOx burner development were to achieve NOX levels
at or below 85 ppm at 3 percent 03, with low CO, smoke, and particulate when
burning Kern County crude with a typical nitrogen content of 0.7 percent or
greater. Subscale burner prototypes tested by EERC had shown that NOX levels
as low as 45 ppm could be achieved using this design approach almost
independently of the nitrogen content of the fuel oil. Figure 2-2
illustrates the overall layout of the low-NOx burner retrofit. Preliminary
tests by EERC of the full-scale retrofit had demonstrated that the burner was
capable of meeting the EPA program goals.
The objective of the CMEA tests were to augment emission tests performed
by EERC as part of the field verification program. The CMEA tests consisted
of 30-day continuous monitoring of steamer flue gas emissions {03 C02, CO,
NOX, and $03) during typical unattended steamer operation. In addition, a
comprehensive emission test program was performed over a 1-day period, during
which burner operation was adjusted to achieve emission goals set by the EPA
2-4
-------
ro
en
RETROFITTED STEAMER
-92'-10" —
ORIGINAL STEAMER
79'-9"
Figure 2-2. Low-N0x burner retrofit arrangement.
-------
for the field verification program. Table 2-2 summarizes the burner/steamer
operation during this 1-day comprehensive testing period. The burner fired
Kern County crude with a nitrogen and sulfur content of 1.04 and
1.06 percent, respectively. Total firing rate during this test period
averaged approximately 24 1/min (215 bbl/day), corresponding to a heat input
rate of nearly 17 MW (57 x 106 Btu/hr). Measurement of primary and secondary
airflow indicated a first-stage combustor stoichiometry in the range of 0.61
to 0.65, with an estimated gas residence time of 0.65 sec.
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-2. STEAMER/BURNER OPERATION
Range
Average
Fuel flow, 1/min (bbl/day)
Heat input, MW (10^ Btu/hr)
Fuel temperature, °C (°F)
23.4 to 24.1 (212 to 218)
16.4 to 16.8 (55.8 to 57.4)
129 to 132 (264 to 269)
23.8 (215)
16.6 (56.6)
130 (267)
Feedwater flow, 1/min (10^ bbl/day) 380 to 400 (3.4 to 3.6) 390 (3.5)
MPa (psig) 7.03 to 9.10 (1,020 to 1,320) 8.41 (1,220)
Steam pressurej
Steam temperature, °C (°F)
Stack temperature, °C (°F)
Burner primary airflow, m^/s (scfm)
Secondary airflow, m3/s (scfm)
First stage stoichiometry
First stage residence time,'5 sec
279 to >300
232 to 254
(535 to >570)
(450 to 490)
2.71 to 2.87 (5,740 to 6,080)
2.38 to 2.95 (5,040 to 6,260)
0.61 to 0.65
Fuel oil analysis, percent weight (dry basis, unless noted)
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfurc
Nitrogen0
Ash
Moisture^
Oxygen6
Gross heating value, MJ/kg (Btu/lb)
Specific gravity (degrees API)
at 60°F
1.00 to 1.
1.00 to 1,
10
09
242 (468)
2.80 (5,940)
2.65 (5,630)
0.64
0.65
86.2
11.3
1.06
1.04
0.03
0.57
0.4
42.78 (18,430)
12.6
aSpans the entire 1-day period of comprehensive testing
bAssumes a combustor temperature of 1,430°C (2,600°F)
cAnalyses of sulfur and nitrogen were performed in triplicate
dAs fired
eBy difference
2-7
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
2-1. England, 6. C., et al., "Evaluation and Demonstration of Low-N0x Burner
Systems for TEOR Steam Generators; Test Report: Preliminary Evaluation
of Commercial Prototype Burner," EPA-600/7-83-061, NTIS PB84-128727,
December 1983.
2-2. England, G. C., et al., "Evaluation and Demonstration of Low-N0x Burner
Systems for TEOR Steam Generators — Design Phase Report,"
EPA-600/7-84-076, NTIS PB84-224393, July 1984.
2-8
-------
SECTION 3
EMISSION RESULTS
The objectives of this test program were: (1) to measure steamer flue
gas emissions during a 30-day test period to evaluate the continuous
performance of the EPA low-NOx burner and (2) to perform comprehensive tests
over a 1-day period to measure inorganic and organic pollutant emissions.
Emission measurements were performed in cooperation with EERC personnel who
assisted the test crew in the operation of the low-NOx burner.
3.1 SAMPLING PROTOCOL
Table 3-1 summarizes the sampling and analytical test matrix employed
during the comprehensive test program. Fuel samples of the crude oil were
collected for proximate, ultimate, and selected trace element analyses. All
flue gas emissions were measured at the stack, downstream of the steamer
economizer section. Continuous monitors for 03, C02> CO, NOX, and S0£ were
operated during the comprehensive tests as well as throughout the 30-day
continuous emission testing period. Volatile organic species emissions were
\
measured with the volatile organic sampling train (YOST) according to EPA
protocol (Reference 3-1). Trace element and less volatile organic compounds
were measured using the source assessment sampling system (SASS) per an
extended EPA level 1 protocol (Reference 3-2). Particulate and sulfur oxide
compounds were measured using combined EPA Methods 5 and 8 and a controlled
condensation system (CCS). The size distribution of emitted particulate
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1. SAMPLING ANALYSIS TEST MATRIX*
Sample/
location Sampling protocol Analysis protocol
Fuel Grab sample Proximate, ultimate, and selected trace
elements
Stack Continuous NOX, CO, 0)3, 02, SOg
emission monitors
Volatile organic Volatile organic priority pollutant
sampling train species by GC/MS (EPA Method 624)
(VOST)
Source assessment Selected trace elements, total semi- and
sampling system nonvolatile organics, semivolatile
(SASS) organic priority pollutant species by
GC/MS (EPA Method 625)
EPA Method 5/8 Particulate emissions by EPA Method 5,
train S02, and $03 emissions by EPA Method 8
Controlled S02 and $03 by titration
condensation
system (CCS)
Andersen impactor Gravimetry of nine-stage impactor for
sampling system particle size distribution
Grab sample — N20 by laboratory GC/ECD
multiple sample
bombs
Grab sample — NOX by EPA Method 7
multiple sample
flasks
Measurement and analysis techniques used are discussed in detail in
Appendix A.
3-2
-------
was determined using an Andersen cascade impactor. Flue gas samples were
also collected for analyses of nitrous oxide (N20), using gas chromatography
with electron capture detection. Certification of the NOX analyzer readings
was performed three times during the 30-day test period using the reference
EPA Method 7 protocol. Figure 3-1 illustrates the actual test activity
schedule.
The following sections summarize the emission test results. Sections 3.2
through 3.4 present the emission results obtained during the comprehensive
tests that took place on February 1, 1984. Section 3.5 summarizes results of
continuous emission measurements performed over the extended test period from
i
January 21 to February 24, 1984. Section 4 presents results of Quality
Assurance (QA) activities performed, including results of the EPA Method 7
certification tests. Details of the sampling and analysis procedures used
are discussed in Appendix A.
3.2 CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND OTHER GAS PHASE SPECIES EMISSIONS
Table 3-2 summarizes gaseous and particulate emissions measured during
the 1-day comprehensive tests performed on February 1. NOX emission levels
were maintained below 75 ppm as measured, averaging 69 ppm corrected to
3 percent 02, well below the target of 85 ppm set for the field demonstration
program. CO emissions averaged 24 ppm (at 3 percent 02), again within the
45 ppm program goal. S02 emissions measured by continuous monitors were
relatively steady at about 565 ppm as measured. Conversion of all fuel
sulfur to S02 would result in an emission rate of 495 yg/J (643 ppm)
compared to the measured level of 435 ug/J (565 ppm).
N20 levels in the flue gas, at 7 ppm corrected to 3 percent 02, were
about 10 percent of the corresponding NOX emissions level. This is at the
3-3
-------
Test Activity
Continuous monitoring
Comprehensive tests
• SASS
t EPA Methods 5/8
• VOST
• Controlled condensation
• H20
• Andersen Impactor
Quality Assurance tests
* EPA Method 7
January 19B4 February 1984
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1« 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A A
"Comprehensive tests.
Figure 3-1. Test activity schedule.
-------
TABLE 3-2. CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND OTHER GAS SPECIES
EMISSIONS — COMPREHENSIVE TESTS
Pollutant*
Range
Average
As measured by continuous
gas analyzers
Q£, percent dry
C02, percent dry
CO, ppm dry
NOX, ppm dry
S02, ppm dry
2.3 to 2.8
12.2 to 13.7
21 to 27
66 to 75
560 to 579
2.7
13.1
24
70
565
Corrected average
gaseous emissions
CO
N0xd
S02
N20e
Particulate mass emissions
• SASS solids
• Method 5/86
— Solids
~ Condensible
— Total
ppmb
24
69
556
7
mg/dscm
26
96
50
146
ng/Jc lb/MBtuc
8.2
39
435
0.5
7.3
26.7
13.8
40.5
0.019
0.09
1.01
0.001
0.017
0.062
0.032
0.094
aAppendix A discusses continuous monitor analyzers used,
the conditioning system, particulate sampling equipment,
C0n a heat input basis
dAs N02
eAverage of two test measurements. Condensible particulate
measured, since the Kern County Air Pollution Control
District continues to regulate this fraction.
3-5
-------
low end of the range exhibited in recent data from several fossil-fuel-fired
external combustion sources (Reference 3-3). These other data suggest that
N£0 emissions are generally about 20 to 25 percent of the corresponding NOX
level.
Particulate emissions were measured using SASS and the combined EPA
Methods 5 and 8 sampling trains. Comparison of the solid particulate catch
indicates an emission rate of 7.3 ng/J (26 mg/dscm) based on the SASS
results, compared to about 27 ng/J (96 mg/dscm) using the EPA Methods 5 and
8 results. This difference may be attributed in part to the higher sampling
temperature of the SASS (230°C) versus the Method 5 (120°C). At higher
temperatures, condensible matter which might escape the SASS filter could be
caught on the Method 5 filter, perhaps causing this disparity. Impinger
solutions of the combined EPA Methods 5 and 8 were also analyzed for
condensible particulate matter. The Kern County Air Pollution Control
District still requires condensible particulate to be included in the total
particulate emission result reported. On the average, the condensed matter
accounted for about one-third of the total particulate catch of 40.5 ng/J
(146 mg/dscm).
Table 3-3 summarizes the particulate emission results of the two EPA
Methods 5 and 8 sample runs and the corresponding burner/steamer conditions
during each test run. As shown, total particulate emissions for both runs
were comparable (149 and 142 mg/dscm). This is in the range typical for
uncontrolled EOR steamer emissions. However, the split between solid and
condensible particulate between the two runs changed significantly. For
run 1, only about 43 percent of the Method 5 catch was solid particulate
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-3. FLUE GAS PARTICULATE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Method 5
Solid (front half)a
Condensible (back half)&
Total
Burner /steamer
operating data:
Fuel flow, 1/min (bbl/day)
Heat input, MW (106 Btu/hr)
Fuel temperature, °C (°F)
Steam pressure, MPa (psig)
Steam temperature, °C (°F)
Feedwater flow, 1/min
(103 bbl/day)
Burner primary air flow,
m3/s (scfm)
Secondary air flow,
m3/s (scfm)
Combustor stoichiometryc
Stack temperature, °C (°F)
Run 1
(mg/dscm) (gr/dscf)
64 0
85 0
149 0
Range
—
—
129 to 131
(264 to 268)
--
—
—
167 to 172
(5,900 to
6,080)
152 to 158
(5,360 to
5,590
0.62 to 0.64
232 to 241
(450 to 466)
.028
.037
.065
Average
24.1
(219)
16.9
(57.7)
130
(266)
7.03
(1,020)
279
(535)
400
(3.6)
170
(6,000)
155
(5,460)
0.63
236
(456)
Run 2
(mg/dscm) (gr/dscf)
128
14
142
Range
—
—
130 to 131
(266 to 268)
—
—
—
163 to 172
(5,740 to
6,080)
153 to 177
(5,390 to
6,260)
0.61 to 0.64
244 to 254
(472 to 490)
0.056
0.006
0.062
Average
24.1
(218)
16.8
(57.4)
131
(267)
9.10
(1,320)
>300
(>570)
375
(3.4)
167
(5,880)
170
(6,000)
0.62
248
(479)
*Solid particulate calculated from tne niter and prooe catcnes
bCondensible particulate calculated from the impinger solutions; duplicate
analyses performed
cAssumes combustor temperature of 1,430°C (2,620°F)
3-7
-------
(57 percent condensibles); for run 2, 90 percent was solid participate
(10 percent condensibles).
The operating data in Table 3-3 show that two operational changes
occurred between the two runs. Steam pressure (thus temperature) was
increased in run 2, though fuel flow was held constant. Feedwater flow was,
therefore, reduced slightly to maintain steam quality. The net result of
this change was slightly higher stack temperature (less heat absorption in
the convection section of the steamer) for run 2. In addition, burner
primary air flow was slightly lower in run 2, and secondary air flow higher.
Combustor stoichiometries, therefore, were slightly lower for run 2,
0.63 versus 0.62 on the average. The slightly lower combustor stoichiometry
may have contributed to an increase in emissions of carbonaceous particulate
matter and thus an increase in the solid catch of the Method 5 sampling
system.
Table 3-4 shows results of the Method 8 analyses for the two combined
Methods 5 and 8 runs. For comparison, the average $03 continuous monitor
reading over each run is also noted. The agreement between the reference
method and the $03 monitor was within 10 percent for run 1 and 3 percent for
run 2. The SOX (SOg + $03) levels measured (600 to 632 ppm dry at 3 percent
02) are as would be expected from total conversion of the fuel sulfur to SOX
(632 ppm at 3 percent 03, as noted above). Interestingly, the ratio of $03
to total SOX, at between 0.7 percent (run 2) and 2.0 percent (run 1), is much
lower than the range typical for oil-fired sources (5 to 10 percent). This
ratio is more in the range typical for coal-fired sources (less than
2 percent).
3-8
-------
TABLE 3-4. SULFUR SPECIES EMISSIONS BY COMBINED
EPA METHODS 5 AND 8a
Run 1 Run 2
Method 8
S02, ppm dry, 3 percent 03 619 593
$03, ppm dry, 3 percent 03 12.9 4.4
Continuous monitor
S02, ppm dry, 3 percent Og 557 574
03, percent dry 2.7 2.7
aTests performed on February 1, 1984
Table 3-5 shows results of the controlled condensation (CCS) analysis
for two separate measurements made on February 23. By this method, S02
emissions were about 600 and 610 ppm as measured, in fairly good agreement
with the Method 8 results obtained on February 6. Agreement between the CCS
S0£ measurement and the continuous monitor reading was also good, within
7 percent. However, flue gas $03 measured with CCS, at 47 and 51 ppm, was
much higher than as measured on February 1 using Method 8. The ratio of $03
to total SOX for the CCS measurements was 7.2 to 7.7 percent. This, as noted
above, is well within the range typical for oil-fired sources. The authors
can not explain this disparity between Method 8 and CCS.
Table 3-6 summarizes particle size distribution data obtained in
two separate Andersen impactor measurements. Figure 3-2 indicates a
log-normal distribution (as evidenced by the straight curve fits). Mean
particle size (D50) was 0.056 urn (run 1) to 0.14 ym (run 2); 90 percent of
the total particulate was less than 1.4 ym (run 1) to 11 vm (run 2).
3-9
-------
TABLE 3-5. SULFUR SPECIES EMISSIONS BY
CONTROLLED CONDENSATION3
Run 1 Run 2
Controlled condensation system
S02, ppm dry, as measured 602 611
(ppm dry, 3 percent 02) (653) —b
$03, ppm dry, as measured 47 51
(ppm dry, 3 percent 02) (51)
—b
Continuous monitor
S02, ppm dry, as measured
02, percent dry
642
4.4
—c
—c
aTests performed on February 23, 1984
bCannot be calculated, since flue gas 02 not known
cMonitors inoperative
TABLE 3-6. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS3
Run 1
Run 2
Impactor
stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
050 Cumulative weight 059 Cumulative weight
(pm) percent less (urn) percent less
than Dsn than Dgo
13.04
7.52
7.11
4.35
3.03
1.57
0.78
0.48
0.22
100
100
98.45
94.03
91.94
90.23
85.65
79.60
72.54
12.52
7.55
7.15
4.37
3.04
1.58
0.79
0.49
0.22
92.35
89.63
85.96
83.05
79.51
74.51
68.82
64.01
57.12
aTests performed on February 22, 1984.
3-10
-------
lo1 :
E
o
£
10
10
-1
RUN 1
RUN 2
—i 1 1 1 1 1 i—
2O 3Q 4O SO OO 7O BO
—I—
BO
T
.O.1 .09.1.2 .912 9 1O 2O 3O 4O SO BO 7O BO BO OS OB QOOe. 9 OB. 0
Cumulative wt percent less than diameter of particle (DP)
aa. oo
Figure 3-2. Particle size distribution.
-------
Table 3-7 summarizes the particulate loadings obtained using the
Andersen impactors, the SASS train, and EPA Method 5. Interestingly, the
Andersen results compare quite well with the SASS measurement. However, both
are significantly less than the EPA Method 5 solid (front half) result. The
solid particulate collection temperature for each method is also noted in
Table 3-7 (stack temperature for the in-stack Andersen impactors and filter
oven temperature for SASS and Method 5). The relatively good agreement
between SASS and Andersen particulate load is consistent with the similar
high temperatures at which solid particulate is collected in these methods.
The high Method 5 solid particulate results suggests that significant
quantities of material condense in the temperature range from 120° to 230°C
(250° to 450°F), the difference between the Method 5 oven temperature and the
stack and SASS oven temperatures.
3.3 TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS
The Kern County crude oil fuel samples and the SASS train samples from the
steamer flue gas were analyzed for 73 trace elements using the spark source mass
spectrometry (SSMS), supplemented by atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS).
(Selective ion electrode, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and wet chemical
methods were employed for selected elements in some samples.) Once the trace
element concentrations were determined, trace element flowrates for fuel oil and
flue gas vapor and condensed phases could be computed. Trace element
concentrations and flowrates are presented in Appendix B.
Table 3-8 summarizes the calculated trace element flowrates corresponding to
the fuel oil and flue gas samples. A mass balance closure measure based on the
3-12
-------
Table 3-7. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE LOADING MEASUREMENTS
Andersen
Run 1:
Run 2:
SASS
Solid
Method 5
Run 1:
Run 2:
Method
Impactor
Solid Parti cul ate
Solid Parti cul ate
Parti cul ate
Solid Parti cul ate
Condensible Particulate
Total
Solid Particulate
Condensible Particulate
Total
Particulate Collection
load, mg/dscm temperature, °C (°F)
30.8 290 (550)a
38.2 280 (530)a
26 230 (450)b
64 120 (250)b
85
149
128 120 (250 )b
14
142
aStack temperature (in-stack impactor train)
bFilter oven nominal temperature
3-13
-------
TABLE 3-8. TRACE ELEMENT FLOWRATES
Element9
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadmi urn
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Europium
Fluorine
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Hoi mi urn
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Lutecium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Nickel
Fuel oil
ConcentrationD
(ug/g)
5.0
— c
0.006
0.55
<0.0l
—
0.14
0.13
—
9.0
__
—
23
0.40
0.40
0.70
--
—
16
— —
0.20
<0.02
—
0.50
7.5
__
0.55
0.35
—
6.5
0.35
<0.4
1.2
—
13
Flowrate
(ug/s)
1900
—
2.3
210
<3.9
—
54
50
—
3500
_.
--
8900
160
160
270
—
—
6200
— —
78
<7.8
—
190
2900
«_
210
140
—
2500
140
<160
470
—
5000
Flue
Concentration
(ug/dscm)
79
0.69
2.0
6.9
0.0091
0.0046
3.3
4.8
<0.49
6.2
0.27
0.11
720
73
1.4
1700
0.091
0.0091
17
0.091
1.2
2.2
<4.9
1.8
310
0.36
2.4
2.1
0.0091
41
5.6
0.77
24
0.27
610
gas
Flowrate
(ug/s)
370
3.2
9.1
32
0.042
0.021
15
22
<2.2
290
1.3
0.49
3300
340
6.2
8100
0.42
0.042
77
0.42
5.4
10.3
<23
8.1
1400
1.7
11
9.6
0.042
190
26
3.5
110
1.3
2600
Mass balance
closure
flue gas flowrate/
fuel oil flowrate
(percent)
19
390
15
>11
28
44
8.2
37
220
3.9
3000
1.3
7.9
>130
4.2
49
5.2
7.0
7.5
19
>2.3
24
56
(continued)
aErbium, gold, hafnium, iridium, osmium, palladium, rhenium, rhodium,
and ruthenium were also analyzed for but not found above the detection
limit in any sample.
^Average of duplicate analyses.
C0ashes indicate element not found above detection limit. See Appendix B
for detection limits.
3-14
-------
TABLE 3-8. (continued)
Element*
Niobium
Phosphorus
Platinum
Potassium
Praesodymium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbi urn
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Fuel oil
Concentration^
(ug/g)
0.06
3.0
1.0
4.0
—
0.02
—
0.06
0.45
14
«»•*
120
0.20
--
--
•_
—
--
—
~
0.35
—
—
0.40
—
0.050
2.0
0.13
Flowrate
(wg/s)
23
1200
390
1600
— •
7.8
—
23
170
5400
».-
46,000
78
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
140
—
~
160
--
19
780
,'50
Flue
Concentration
(ug/dscm)
<0.89
34
1.7
90
0.33
0.26
0.091
12
12
83
2.2
120,000
3.3
0.046
2.1
0.018
0.0091
0.18
0.0091
0.091
24
0.0091
150
23
0.023
0.77
740
1.2
M,
gas flue
Flowrate fuel
(wg/s)
2.1
160
8.0
420
1.5
1.2
0.42
56
56
380
10.2
560,000
15
0.21
9.7
0.084
.0.042
0.84
0.042
0.42
110
0.042
670
100
0.105
3.6
3400
5.6
ass balance
closure
gas flowrate/
oi 1 f 1 owra te
(percent)
<18
13
2.1
27
15
240
32
7.0
1200
19
81
67
18
440
11
aErbium, gold, hafnium, tridium, osmium, palladium, rhenium, rhodium,
and rutherium were also analyzed for but not found above the detection
limit in any sample.
bAverage of duplicate analyses.
cDashes indicate element not found above detection limit. See Appendix B
for detection limits.
3-15
-------
ratio of flue gas output to fuel input flowrates for each element is also
presented. Laboratory analysis results for fuel oil are based on the average of
results obtained for two separate oil samples collected during the SASS test.
Trace elements found in the fuel oil at levels greater than 10 ug/g
(corresponding to flowrates greater than about 4 mg/s) were chlorine, fluorine,
nickel, silicon, and sodium. Sodium was measured at the highest level. The
source of this sodium is most likely the salt water brine in the produced crude.
The residual moisture content of the fuel was 0.57 percent by proximate
analysis.
Trace elements emitted at levels exceeding 100 ug/dscm (corresponding to
flowrates greater than about 0.45 mg/s) in the exhaust were chlorine condensed
chlorides, copper, iron, nickel, sodium, and zinc. Copper and sodium were
present in the flue gas at much higher levels than could be accounted for by
the fuel oil. Additional sodium may have been introduced through suspended
salts in the combustion air. Reasonably good mass balance closure for
i
several metals was obtained, including iron, nickel, titanium, and vanadium.
However, in general, mass balance closure was poor, with less element in the
flue gas than introduced with the fuel.
3.4 ORGANIC EMISSION RESULTS
Total organics and organic species emissions were measured using two
methods (see Appendix A for complete method description). The volatile
organic priority pollutant compounds (those having boiling points generally
less than 110°C (230°F) were analyzed by thermal desorption, purge and trap,
gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS) of YOST traps in accordance with
3-16
-------
the EPA VOST protocol (Reference 3-1). The volatile organic compounds sought
in the analysis are listed in Table 3-9.
Organic analyses of SASS train samples were performed according to an
extended EPA Level 1 protocol (Reference 3-2). The SASS train particulate
(filter), organic module sorbent (XAD-2), and organic module condensate (OMC)
samples were extracted with methylene chloride in a Soxhlet apparatus. The
extracts (the XAD-2 and OMC extracts were combined) were then subjected to
total chromatographable organic (TCO) and gravimetric (GRAV) analyses to
determine the total concentration of organics within the 100° to 300"C (212°
to 572'F) and greater than 300°C (572°F) boiling point ranges, respectively.
Infrared (IR) spectra of the GRAV residue of the extracts were also
obtained.
In addition, the SASS train organic sorbent module extract was analyzed
for the semivolatile organic priority pollutant compounds (a category which
contains several polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) species) by GC/MS in
accordance with EPA Method 625. (Reference 3-4). Semivolatile organic
compounds sought by GC/MS are listed in Table 3-10. A discussion of the
analytical results follows.
3.4.1 Volatile Organic Emissions
Table 3-11 summarizes volatile organic species emissions detected in the
VOST measurement (three trap pairs were sampled and analyzed, denoted "run"
i
in table). Only three compounds were detected: benzene, toluene, and
ethylbenzene. Flue gas concentrations were 60 ug/dscm (18 ppb) for benzene
and less than 4 pg/dscm (1 ppb) for toluene and ethylbenzene, on the
average.
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-9. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS SOUGHT IN GC/MS ANALYSIS
Halogenated Aliphatics Ethers
Chioromethane Ethylene oxide
Dichloromethane Propylene oxide
Chloroform
Tetrachloromethane Chlorinated Ethers
Chioroethane
1,1-dichloroe thane 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
1,2-di chloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane Aldehydes
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Acrolein
1,2-dichloropropane
Vinyl chloride Amines and Nitriles
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroe thylene Aeryloni trile
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Alkyl chloride
1,3-dichloropropene Benzene
Bromomethane Toluene
Bromodichloromethane Ethyl benzene
Dibromochloromethane Xylenes
Bromoform
Trichlorofluoromethane Chlorinated Aromatics
Chlorobenzene
3-18
-------
TABLE 3-10.
COMPOUNDS SOUGHT IN THE EPA METHOD 625
GC/MS ANALYSIS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS5
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-cnloro-m-creso!
2-chlorophenol
2,4-di chlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Acid Compounds
5 2-nitrophenol
5 4-nitrophenol
5 2,4-dinitrophenol
5 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
5 Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Base Neutral Compounds
1.2,4-tri chlorobenzene 1
1,2-dichlorobenzene 1
1,2-diphenylhydrazine 1
(as azobenzene)
1,3-dichlorobenzene 1
1,4-dichlorobenzene 1
2,4-dinitrotoluene 1
2,6-dinitrotoluene 1
2-chloronaphthalene 1
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine 5
3-methyl cholanthrene 40
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether 1
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 1
7,12-dimethyl benz(a)anthracene 40
N-m"trosodi-n-propylamine 5
N-nitrosodimethylamine NA
N-nitrosodiphenylamine 1
Acenaphthene 1
Acenaphthylene 1
Anthracene 1
Benzo(ghi)perylene 5
Benzidine 20
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1
Benzo(a)anthracene ( 1
Benzo(a)pyrene 1
Benzo(c)phenanthrene
Bi s(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethy!)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexylJphthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Di benzo(c, g)carbazole
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadi ene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Ni trobenzene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
5
20
20
20
5
1
40
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
40
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
40
1
1
aln nanograms per microliter injected
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-11. VOLATILE ORGANIC SPECIES EMISSIONS
Stack Gas Concentration
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Run 1
(vg/dscm)
128
6.3
3.2
Run 2
(yg/dscm)
42
1.1
<1
Run 3
(ug/dscm)
9
2.3
<1
Average
(wg/dscm) (ppb)
60 18
3.2 0.83
1.7 0.39
3-20
-------
3.4.2 TCP. GRAY, GC/MS. and IR Analyses of Sample Total Extracts
Table 3-12 summarizes organic emissions results based on the TCO, GRAV,
and GC/MS analyses for semivolatile organics. Total organic emissions were
relatively low, about 300 ug/dscm, and roughly equally split among the
semivolatile (TCO) and nonvolatile (GRAV) boiling point ranges. The levels
noted reflect the sorbent module extract analysis; the particulate (filter)
extract contained negligible organic content. The emissions noted are of the
same order of magnitude as emissions measured from recent tests of a steamer
equipped with another low-NOx burner design (the MHI burner, Reference 3-5).
Semivolatile priority pollutants detected were naphthalene, phenol, and
dimethylphthalate, all at concentrations well below 10 ug/dscm. The
dimethylphthalate noted is most likely a sample contaminant.
Table 3-13 summarizes results of the IR spectroscopy analysis of the
SASS train extracts. The organic sorbent module extract spectrum suggests
the presence of aliphatic hydrocarbons and oxygenated hydrocarbons such as
aldehydes and/or ketones. As noted in the table, the filter extract spectrum
showed no peaks. A weak spectrum for the blank suggests the presence of
small quantities of aliphatic hydrocarbons.
3.5 EXTENDED CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING
Continuous monitoring of stack gas 02, C02, CO, NOX, and S02 was
performed for a period extending from January 21 to February 24, 1984.
Figures 3-3 through 3-5 illustrate the emission trends over this test period.
The points plotted represent hourly averages of data taken at 5- to 15-minute
intervals. Test periods where data gaps appear correspond to shutdown of the
steamer. The first shutdown occurred during the period of February 12 to
February 15. This was caused by concerns from the site personnel relating to
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-12. TOTAL ORGANIC AND SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC
PRIORITY POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Emission levela
(ng/dscm) (pg/J)
Total semivolatile organics
(C7 to Ci6) by TCO 170 50
Total nonvolatile organics
(Cl6+) by gravimetry 130 35
Total organics 300 85
Semivolatile organic priority pollutantsb:
Naphthalene 1.4 0.40
Phenol 0.7 0.20
Dimethylphthalate 3.6 1.0
Other priority pollutants <0.4 <0.1
aBlank corrected. Levels noted correspond to the
sorbent module extract analysis; the filter
particulate extract contained negligible organic content.
^Average of duplicate analyses
3-22
-------
TABLE 3-13. IR SPECTRA SUMMARY
Sample
XAD-2 extract
Filter
Wave
number
(cra-1)
2930
1732
1438
1255
1165
1125
Intensity4
M
S
w
W
W
W
No peaks
Assignment
CH alky!
OO stretch
C-H bend
C-0 stretch
C-0 stretch
C-0 stretch
Possible compound
categories present
Aliphatic hydrocarbons,
oxygenated hydrocarbons
such as aldehydes
and/or ketones
XAD-2 blankb 2928
C-H aliphatic Small amounts of
aliphatic hydrocarbons
aS = strong; M = medium; W = weak
bVery weak spectrum
3-23
-------
accelerated tube corrosion. These concerns turned out to be unfounded upon
inspection. The second shutdown, starting on February 16 and lasting to
February 21, was caused by electrical problems. Steady operation of the
steamer was not again reached until February 21.
The 03 and ($2 traces shown in Figure 3-3 indicate quite steady
operation of the steamer over the entire test period. Flue gas 02 levels
were maintained at about 3 percent. Only during the final day (February 24)
did the flue gas 02 increase to over 4 percent, with a corresponding drop in
C02 concentration. It is not known whether this increase in 02 was caused by
higher secondary or primary air flow. NOX emissions, shown in Figure 3-4,
indicate levels generally below 80 ppm, corrected to 3 percent 02. Average
NOX emissions for the entire test period were about 70 ppm at 3 percent 02-
0 measurements, available only to February 11 due to subsequent instrument
malfunction, indicate levels generally below 30 ppm at 3 percent 02- S02
emissions, shown in Figure 3-5, indicate emissions in the range of about 500
to 750 ppm at 3 percent 02- An increase in S02 emissions seems evident,
starting at about the half-way point of the extended test period. This
increase might be attributable to increased sulfur levels in the crude oil,
although fuel oil samples were not collected during this time period to
verify this.
3-24
-------
20
16
" 12
aot'V-rCS
1 1 1
10 15 2C
^S^c'flt)'
1
1 25
February 1984
Figure 3-3. Flue gas 03 and C02 for the extended test period.
3-25
-------
100 -,
80 H
o~
^.
a.
c
o
E
LkJ
O
!A rr,
',-r,'--1
60 -
Mi — wgRU i\
mm&
fUm i
21 26
January 1984
O
Figure 3-4. Flue gas NOX and CO for the extended test period.
3-26
-------
800 -|
700 J
O
,0
* 600 -L£®
e l>a. ?3
H •*?
O
January 1984
February 1984
I
a
w
c
0
.? 500 -
E
UJ
04
0
l/l
400 -
300 -
2
^\_J (ft -^
\2*
O O
o
~~r~ ~n i i 1 1
L 26 31 5 10 15 20 2
Figure 3-5. Flue gas SOg for the extended test period.
3-27
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
3-1. "Protocol for the Collection and Analysis of Volatile POHC's Using
YOST," EPA-600/8-84-007, NTIS PB84-170042, March 1984.
3-2. Lentzen, D.E., etal., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1
Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)," EPA-600/7-78-201,
NTIS PB 293795, October 1978.
3-3. Waterland, L. R., etal., "Environmental Assessment of Industrial
Boilers Firing Coal-Liquid Mixtures and Wood," in Proceedings of the
1982 Joint Symposium on Stationary Combustion NOY Control. Volume II,
EPA 600/9-85-OZZb, NTIS PB 85-235612, July 1985.
3-4. 44 CFR 69532, December 3, 1979.
3-5. Castaldini, C., et al., "Environmental Assessment of an Enhanced Oil
Recovery Steam Generator Equipped with a Low-N0x Burner,"
EPA 600/7-86-003 a/b, February 1986.
3-28
-------
SECTION 4
TEST QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
Quality assurance (QA) activities implemented for this test included:
• Certification of the NOX continuous monitoring analyzer using
standard EPA Method 7 protocol for accuracy determination of the NOX
monitor readings
o Duplicate SSMS analysis of the fuel sample and duplicate GC/MS
analysis of SASS extract sample for determination of analytical
precision
o Duplicate Method 5/8 and controlled condensation system (CCS)
measurements of steamer flue gas particulate, S02, and $03
concentrations under relatively constant operation
9 Analysis of blind spiked XAD-2 resin blank for TCO, GRAY, and GC/MS
analytical precision
o Use of EPA/EMSL audit sample in the laboratory analysis of Method 7,
Method 8, and controlled condensation system samples for
determination of analytical accuracy.
The following paragraphs discuss the results of these QA activities.
4.1 NOX MONITOR CERTIFICATION TEST RESULTS
The EPA Method 7 test protocol was used three times during the extended
continuous monitoring period to certify the accuracy of the NOX analyzer.
Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 show the results of the certification tests
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. METHOD 7 CERTIFICATION RESULTS: JANUARY 24, 1984
Test
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean
Mean
NOX
Sample
68
—a
69
77
45
56
53
30
46
reference
reference method results
1 Sample 2
80
—a
59
43
83
93
192
63
28
method test
Sample 3
65
—a
— b
55
34
47
32
53
40
value
(ppm)
Sample
average
71
—
64
58
53
65
92
49
38
61
Average
analyzer
reading
(ppm)
65
—
62
59
58
65
64
64
48
of differences
Difference
(ppm)
6
—
2
( 1)
( 5)
0
28
(15)
(10)
0.62
95 percent confidence interval of the differences = 10.8
Relative accuracy =
Mean of differences + 95 percent confidence interval X 100
Mean reference method value
= 19 percent
^Suspected sample contamination during analysis
"Sample lost during recovery
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-2. METHOD 7 CERTIFICATION RESULTS: FEBRUARY 8, 1984
Test
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean
Mean
NOX
Sample
50
80
64
82
34
80
88
59
41
reference
reference method results
1 Sample 2
32
100
72
95
- 16
13 i
63
60
63
method test
Sample 3
24
64
62
96
80
88
54
54
—a
value
(ppm)
Sample
average
36
81
66
91
60
60
68
58
52
64
Average
analyzer
reading
(ppm)
69
72
70
75
61
65
78
68
63
of differences
Difference
(ppm)
33
(9)
4
(16)
*
1
5
10
10
11
11
95 percent confidence interval of the differences = 7.2
Relative accuracy =
Mean of differences + 95 percent confidence interval X 100
Mean reference method value
= 28 percent
aSample lost during recovery
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-3. METHOD 7 CERTIFICATION RESULTS: FEBRUARY 24, 1984
Test
no.
1
2
3
Mean
Mean
NOX reference method results
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
65 55 53
70 72 99
75 33 63
reference method test value
of differences
(ppm)
Sample
average
58
81
57
65
Average
analyzer
reading
(ppm)
68
73
67
Difference
(ppm)
10
(8)
10
9.3
95 percent confidence interval of the differences = 2.9
Relative accuracy =
Mean of differences + 95 percent confidence interval X 100
Mean reference method value
= 19 percent
4-4
-------
conducted on January 24 and February 8 and 24, respectively. Tests performed
on February 24 were abbreviated (only three sets of three flasks were taken
during this certification test, as shown in Table 4-3). Results of the
Method 7 NOX monitor certification tests performed on January 24 and on
February 24 indicated that the meter relative accuracy was within the
performance specification of 20 percent. The relative accuracy as determined
by the tests on February 8 (Table 4-2) was not. However, if results from the
first set of samples are disregarded, the indicated relative accuracy of the
NOX meter is improved to 15 percent. NOX readings indicating concentrations
below 45 ppm can be considered suspect. Two of the three samples in the
first set of Method 7 flasks in the February 8 tests show NOX concentrations
of 32 and 24 ppm. Sample leakage may have caused these low values.
4.2 DUPLICATE ANALYSES
4.2.1 Trace Element Analyses
Blind duplicate fuel samples were submitted for analysis for trace
elements by SSMS, supplemented by atomic absorption analysis for mercury and
sodium, x-ray fluorescence for sulfur, and specific ion electrode analysis
for chlorine. Precision of the analysis was then determined based on the
relative standard deviation of the replicate samples. Table 4-4 summarizes
the results of these SSMS duplicate analyses. The average relative standard
deviation for all the trace elements was 42 percent; the maximum relative
standard deviation was 113 percent. Both are within the implied precision of
Level 1 analyses of a factor of 2 or 3.
4.2.2 Organic Analyses
The organic sorbent module extract from the SASS test was analyzed in
duplicate by 6C/MS for the semivolatile organic priority pollutants. Results
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-4. DUPLICATE SSMS ANALYSES OF TEST FUEL*, ppm
Relative standard
Element
Aluminum
Bari urn
Boron
Bromine
Calcium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobal t
Copper
Fluorine
Gallium
Iodine
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Selenium
Silicon
Sodi urn
Strontium
Sulfur
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Sample
901440
9
0.8
0.2
0.2
13
25
0.4
0.6
0.7
27
0.2
0.5
10
0.6
0.5
8
0.4
2
6
0.09
4
5
0.02
0.5
19
132
0.2
11,700
3
6
0.06
2
0.2
Average relative standard
Sample
901441
1
0.3
0.08
0.06
5
21
0.4
0.2
0,7
4
0.2
0.5
5
0.5
0.2
5
0.3
0.3
20
0.03
2
3
0.02
0.4
9
104
0.2 '
11,600
4
2
0.04
2
0.06
deviation
deviation
(percent)
113
64
61
76
63
12
0
71
0
105
0
0
47
13
61
33
20
105
76
71
47
35
0
16
51
17
0
0.61
20
22
28
0
76
42
aOnly elements reported present at greater than the
method detection limit are noted
4-6
-------
of these analyses are summarized in Table 4-5. The average relative standard
deviation for these duplicate analyses was 32 percent; the maximum relative
standard deviation was 47 percent. Both are within the project precision
goal of 50 percent for these measurements (Reference 4-1).
4.2.3 Particulate. SO?, and 50$ Emission Measurements
Two sequential combined Methods 5 and 8 tests were performed on
February 1, 1984, with the steamer operating under relatively constant
conditions. Both solid (front half) and condensible (back half) particulate
emission levels were obtained, as well as S02 and $03 emissions from wet
chemical analyses of appropriate impinger solutions. In addition, two
sequential CCS tests were performed on February 23, 1984, again under
relatively constant steamer operation, giving duplicate S02 and $03 emission
measurements. Results of all these tests are summarized in Table 4-6.
The project precision goal for all these measurements is 20 percent
(Reference 4-1). The precision suggested by Table 4-6 for total particulate,
S02 by both methods, and $03 by CCS fall well within this goal. The
precision of the Method 8 $03 measurement exceeds the goal; however, the
apparent $03 levels were quite low.
The precision of each of the particulate emission fraction measurements
(solid and condensible) exceeded the project goal, although the total
particulate result had very good precision. Discussion in Section 3.2
suggests that changes in steamer operating conditions between the two
Method 5 runs could have affected the split between solid and condensible
particulate fractions. These changes could similarly have affected
emissions as well.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-5. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE GC/MS ANALYSES OF THE
SASS ORGANIC SORBENT MODULE EXTRACT3
Compound
Dibutylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Naphthalene
Phenol
Average relative
Analysis resul
Run 1
50
100
40
20
standard deviation
ts, (ug/ train)
Run 2
50
60
20
10
Relative standard
deviation
(percent)
0
35
47
47
32
aOnly compounds reported present at greater than the
method detection limit are noted
TABLE 4-6. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE PARTICULATE, S02, AND $03 MEASUREMENTS
Result (yg/dscm)
Method
Method 5
(February 1, 1984)
Method 8
(February 1, 1984)
CCS
(February 23, 1984)
Parameter
Solid particulate
Condensible particulate
Total particulate
S02
S03
S02
S03
Run 1
64
85
149
1676
43.6
1599
158
Run 2
128
14
142
1606
14.8
1627
169
Relative
standard
deviation
(percent)
47
101
3.4
3.0
70
1.2
4.8
4-8
-------
Finally, duplicate impinger solution aliquots were analyzed to give the
back half (condensible) particulate result noted in Table 4-6. Results of
these analyses are given in Table 4-7. As noted, analytical precision for
these analyses was within 20 percent.
4.3 ANALYTICAL RECOVERY OF BLIND SPIKES
As part of quality assurance procedures, a sample of blank XAD-2 resin
was spiked with a mixture of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (naphthalene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene), TCO compounds (dodecane, hexadecane and the
naphthalene), and GRAY compounds (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, plus the
phenanthrene and pyrene noted). This spiked resin was then extracted and
analyzed as a separate sample to obtain recovery and analytical accuracy
information. Table 4-8 summarizes these data. As shown in the table, the
recovery and analytical accuracy for all components spiked was excellent.
The maximum deviations were +28 percent and -35 percent, well within the
project accuracy goal of -50, +100 percent for this analysis.
4.4 REFERENCE METHOD AUDIT SAMPLES
Audit samples supplied by EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory (EMSL) were analyzed along with the laboratory analysis of
Method 7 and Method 8 samples collected in the field to establish the
analytical accuracy of these analyses. Results of the audit sample analyses
are summarized in Table 4-9. Excellent accuracy is evidenced.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-7. DUPLICATE METHOD 5 CONDENSIBLE PARTICIPATE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Method 5
train
1
2
Analysis result (yg/train)
Test 1 Test 2
13.70
26.31
13.42
20.92
Relative
standard
deviation
(percent)
1.5
16
TABLE 4-8. SPIKE XAD-2 RESIN ANALYSIS RESULTS
Analyte spiked
Spiked amount Recovered amount Percent
(mg) (mg) recovery
TCO compounds
(400 yg dodecane,
400 yg hexadecane,
400 yg naphthalene)
GRAY compounds
(10 mg bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthaiate, 400 yg
pyrene, 400 yg
phenanthrene)
Polynuclear aromatics
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1.20
10.8
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.784
11.0
0.42
0.40
0.51
65
102
105
100
128
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-9. EMSL AUDIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Audit sample
Pollutant Lot no. Sample no.
Reported Known
value valuea Percent
(mg/dscm) (mg/dscm) difference
S02
N02
0881
0881
0481
2337
3333
5501
1294.9 1296.4
200.7 190.7
297.3 298.6
0.12
5.2
0.44
aAs certified by EMSL
4-11
-------
REFERENCE FOR SECTION 4
4-1. "Quality Assurance Plan for the Combustion Modification Environmental
Assessment," Acurex Corporation under EPA Contract 68-02-2160,
September 10, 1982.
4-12
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY
Field tests were performed on a 16-MW (55 X 106 Btu/hr) thermally
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) steamer equipped with the EPA low-NOx burner.
This burner was developed under EPA sponsorship to achieve NOX emissions at
or below 85 ppm at 3 percent Q£ with acceptable CO and smoke emissions when
burning high-nitrogen fuel oils. These tests were performed in conjunction
with the field demonstration tests by the Energy and Environmental Research
Corporation (EERC), the burner developers. Two series of tests were
performed: a comprehensive test program to characterize flue gas emissions
from the steamer with burner operating conditions set to achieve the field
demonstration goals of less than 85 ppm NOX and low combustible emissions,
and an extended flue gas monitoring program spanning about 30 days to measure
the low-NOx burner performance under typical steamer operation.
During the 1-day comprehensive tests, NOX emissions averaged about
70 ppm at 3 percent 0£, with CO emissions below 30 ppm while burning Kern
County crude oil with a nitrogen content of about 1 percent. SOg emissions
measured by a continuous monitor averaged about 550 ppm, also at 3 percent
02- Other S0£ measurements with extractive sampling trains indicate
relatively good agreement between the continuous monitor and these methods.
Solid partlculate emissions were measured at about 27 ng/J (96 mg/dscm).
Condensible paniculate emissions were at about 14 ng/J (50 mg/dscm). These
5-1
-------
results correspond to the average of two separate measurements. Particle
size distribution data indicate that about 90 percent of the particulate had
a mean particle diameter less than 1 to 10 urn (two determinations). Trace
element analyses performed on the fuel oil indicate sodium, silicon, nickel,
fluorine, and chlorine are the major elements present at levels greater than
10 ug/g. In the flue gas, sodium, chlorine (condensed chlorides), copper,
iron, nickel, and zinc contributed the highest emission levels, with emission
concentrations greater than 100 ug/dscm.
Volatile organic analyses of flue gas samples indicated benzene,
toluene, and ethylbenzene as the detected compounds, with emissions in the
2 to 60 ug/dscm (0.4 to 20 ppb) range. Semivolatile organic compounds
detected were naphthalene and phenol in the 1 ug/dscm (0.3 ppb) range. Total
organic emissions were relatively low, at 300 ug/dscm, and relatively evenly
distributed between the semivolatile (boiling point of about 100° to 300°C)
and nonvolatile (boiling point of greater than about 300°C) categories.
Extended continuous monitoring of flue gas criteria emissions spanned a
period of 33 days. During this monitoring period, NOX emissions were
generally below 80 ppm, with an average of about 70 ppm at 3 percent $2- c^
emissions were also low, generally less than 30 ppm at 3 percent 03.
5-2
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
Emissions test equipment was provided by Acurex Corporation. Onsite
equipment included a continuous monitoring system for emissions measurements
of gaseous criteria pollutants; the source assessment sampling system (SASS)
train for particulate mass, trace elements, and semivolatile and nonvolatile
organics; the EPA Method 5 with modified impingers for 503 and $03
measurements by EPA Method 8; a volatile organic sampling train (VOST) for
volatile organic species; a controlled condensation system (CCS) sampling
train for SC>2 and sulfuric acid mist measurement; gas grab sampling equipment
for determining N20 emissions by subsequent laboratory gas chromatography and
sampling equipment for validation of NOX analyzer measurements with EPA
Method 7. The following sections summarize the sampling and analysis
equipment and methods used in the field and laboratory.
A.I CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEM
Figure A-l illustrates a simplified schematic of the gas conditioning
and monitoring system. The monitoring capability included 03, C02, CO (high
and low concentrations), NO, NOX, and $03. The heated sample gas was treated
for moisture removal using a permeation dryer. Table A-l lists the
instrumentation constituting the continuous monitoring and flue gas
extractive sampling system. A datalogger was used in addition to strip
charts to record data continuously.
A-l
-------
011-1*11 llr
Figure A-l. Schematic for continuous extractive sampling system.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUOUS MONITORING EQUIPMENT IN THE MOBILE LABORATORY
Instrument
NO
NOX
CO (1)
CO (2)
C02
Principle of
operation Manufacturer
Chemi luminescence Thermo Electron
Nondispersive ANARAD
infrared (NDIR)
Nondispersive ANARAD
infrared (NDIR)
Nondispersive ANARAD
infrared (NDIR)
Instrument
model Range
10 AR 0-2.5 ppm
0-10 ppm
0-25 ppm
0-100 ppm
0-250 ppm
0-1,000 ppm
0-2,500 ppm
0-10,000 ppm
500R 0-1,000 ppm
500R 0-10 percent
(10,000 ppm)
AR500 0-20 percent
S02
Pulsed
Fluorescence
Thermo Electron 40
0-100 ppm
0-1,000 ppm
0-5,000 ppm
0-10,000 ppm
02
Fuel cell
Teledyne
0-5 percent
0-10 percent
0-25 percent
Datalogger Electronic
'Acurex/Autodata 10
99 channels
Sample gas Permeation
conditioner dryer
Permapure
E-4G-SS 10 scfm
Strip chart Dual pen
recorders analog
Linear
400
0-10 mV
0-100 mV
0-1V
0-10V
A-3
-------
A. 2 TRACE ELEMENT AND SEMIVOLATILE AND NONVOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS
Emissions of semivolatile and nonvolatile organics were sampled using
the source assessment sampling system (SASS). Designed for Level 1
environmental assessment (Reference A-l), the SASS collects large quantities
of gas and solid samples required for subsequent analyses for inorganic and
organic emissions.
The SASS, illustrated in Figure A-2, is generally similar to the system
utilized for total particulate mass emission tests (a high-volume Method 5
train), with the exception of:
o The addition of a gas cooler and organic sampling module
o The addition of necessary vacuum pumps to allow a sampling rate of
2 1/s (4 cfm)
Particulate cyclones shown in Figure A-2 were not used for these tests
because of low particulate loading in the flue gas.
Schematics outlining the standard sampling and analytical procedures
using the SASS equipment are presented in Figures A-3 and A-4. The following
paragraphs briefly describe analytical procedures used in measuring trace
elements and organic emissions.
Inorganic analyses of solid (particulate and organic sorbent) and liquid
(impinger solution) samples from the SASS train were performed with spark
source mass spectroscopy (SSMS) for most of the trace elements. Atomic
absorption spectrometry (AAS) was used for analyses of volatile mercury (Hg),
antimony (Sb), and arsenic (As) and for backup analyses for those elements
identified as major components by SSMS. Additional backup techniques used to
quantitate elements identified as major components by SSMS were specific ion
A-4
-------
Heated oven
Filter
Stainless
steel
sample
nozzle
Organic module
Gas temperature T.C.
Teflon line
Ol
Stack
velocity
AP magnehellci
gauges I
Teflon
line
Isolation
ball valve
Stainless steel
probe assembly
Oven T.C
Sorbent cartridge
Heater controller
1
Teflon lirfe
Condensate '
collector vessen
Imp/cooler trace .X
element collector
Coarse adjustment
All orifice plate
Fine adjustment
valve
Orifice AH
magnehelic
gauge
i »di.uuin iiumpi
1(10 ftVmln each)
Implnger
T.C.
Ice bath
COO grains
silica gel
deslcant
500 ml
0.2 H AgNOi
0.2 H (Nll4)2
500 ml
30S H202
Heavy wall
vacuum line
| Control jodulV-^ _°O^
Note: T.C. = Thermocouple
Figure A-2. Source assessment sampling train schematic.
-------
X
HI
GC FOR S ft OTHER GAS
ORGANIC |bp<100 Cl
ORV. WEIGH
SOXHLET EX
GRAV
TCO
LC-IR-L
ARR/ACIO DIGESTION
s
SAMPLE
SPLIT \
SCRAMS
AniiFniit rflnnFfKATF .A..,-,- AQUEOUS PORTION
>y ORGANIC EXTRACT
•_^^_^«__
COMBINE
... \
*
SECOND AND THIRD
IMPINGERS COMBINED
-•—•
TOTALS
5 2 S
8 1
• If nquirad. umpto ihould b« wt Mid. for biologkal «nalyftt M thb point.
Thn IMP • raqund to drfln* ttw tonl RUM of pwiiculM* catch. If ttM •mpto .xoNd* 10% of rtio teal cyetorw and
Iilt«r umpto «Mi«M. proewd to •mryM. It tin •rnipte it Ma then 10% of th. catch, hold in •
Figure A-3. Flue gas analysis protocol for SASS samples.
A-6
-------
rnont AND
CYCLONE
HINSl
OnOANIC'
J
INORGANIC
rAHTICULATE
COMHINE
II INOHOANICS I
L—I—'
DIOASSAY
onoANics
FLUE SOUItCE
or ACHY
OASES
Figure A-4. Flue gas sample analysis protocol.
-------
electrode methods for fluorine and chlorine, x-ray fluorescence for sulfur,
and a wet chemical (colorimetrie) method for phosphorous.
Quantitative information on total organic emissions was obtained by gas
chromatography/flame ionization detector for total chromatographable organics
(TCO), that fraction with boiling point between about 100° and 300°C, and by
gravimetry (GRAY) of sample extracts for that fraction with boiling point
greater than 300°C. Infrared spectroscopy (IR) was used for identification
of organic functional groups in the GRAV residue of extract samples and gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) was used to quantitate the
semivolatile organic priority pollutant species in extract samples. This
class contains several of the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
compounds of interest from combustion sources. Figure A-5 illustrates the
organic analysis methodology used.
Passivation of the SASS train with 15 percent by volume HN03 solution
was performed prior to equipment preparation and sampling to produce
biologically inert surfaces. Detailed descriptions of equipment preparation,
sampling procedures, and sample recovery are discussed in Reference A-l and
will not be repeated here.
A.3 VOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS
A volatile organic sampling train (VOST), shown schematically in
Figure A-6, was used to measure the low-molecular-weight volatile organic
compounds (boiling points
-------
Organic Extract
or
Neat Organic Liquid
Concentrate
Extract
I
TCO
Analysis
n
vS
fi
•^
1
EC/MS Analysis,
POM, and other
organic species
LRMS
Infrared
Analysis
Gravimetric
Repeat TCO
Analysis
if necessary
Figure A-5. Organic analysis methodology.
A-9
-------
T' bore stopcock
I
H-*
O
Glass wool
participate
filter
Stack
(or test
system)
Charcoal
backflush trap
Thermocouple
Insert port
Condensate
trap impinger
Vacuum
Indicator
Tenax/
charcoal
trap
Empty
Impinger
Exhaust
Dry gas
meter
Figure A-6. Schematic of volatile organic sampling train (VOST).
-------
and petroleum-based charcoal. Prior to their use in the field, each trap was
conditioned to remove organic compounds. Conditioning consisted of baking
each trap at 190°C with a N2 purge for an 8-hr period. The traps were then
desorbed at 190°C directly into a GC/FID. If a trap showed no contaminant
peaks greater than 20 ng as benzene or toluene, it was considered ready for
sampling. The trap was then sealed at each end with compression fittings,
placed in clean, muffled culture tubes, and sealed in a metal can with a
charcoal packet for shipping.
Before the field testing, the entire system was leak-checked at ~15 to
20 in. of vacuum. A leakage rate of 0.05 1/min was considered acceptable.
Ambient airNwas drawn through a charcoal-filled tube to prevent organic
contamination while bringing the system back to ambient pressure.
One set of samples (three trap pairs), a field blank, a trip blank, and
a lab blank were obtained for the test program. The gas sample was obtained
at the stack location. A total sample volume of 20 1 was taken over a 40-min
period (0.5 1/min) for each trap pair. Upon completion of the test, the
sample traps were removed from the train, sealed, returned to their original
culture tubes, and stored in a metal can on ice. The VOST samples were
analyzed by thermal desorption, purge and trap GC/MS according to the EPA
VOST protocol. Each pair of traps used was analyzed for the EPA Method 624
(volatile) priority pollutants (Reference A-3). Each trap in a trap pair was
analyzed separately.
A.4 PARTICULATE TESTS
Particulate mass emission tests were performed using the EPA Method 5
with the impinger train modified according to EPA Method 8 for S02 and S03
measurements. The sampling train used is illustrated in Figure A-7. Solid
A-ll
-------
ro
Sample nozzle
Probe T.C.
Probe
\_ "S" type
pilot tube
AP Hagnchellc
gauge
142 mm (diameter)
filter
Filter
oven
If
Oven
T.C.
i
Teflon
connecting
line
Fritted
glass
filter
Proportional
temperature
controllers
Ice/water
bath
100 ml
BOX I PA
Smith-Greenberg
impinger
"T
! •
mrtnrin'
AH orifice
plate ~\
Check
valve
Implnger
thermocouple
Silica gel
desslcant
3X M2fl,
Modified
— Smith-Greenberg
Impinger
Gas meter thermocouples
Fine adjustment
bypass valve
Digital temperature
Indicator
Vacuum line
Vacuum gauge
4—Coarse adjustment valve
Airtight vacuum pump
Figure A-7. Participate and SQX sampling train (EPA Method 5 and 8).
-------
particulate matter collected in the probe, cyclone, and filter were
determined by gravimetric analyses of these samples. Condensible particulate
matter was obtained from gravimetric analysis of impinger liquids and
impinger rinses. Sulfur oxide emissions were determined by bariun-thorin
titration of appropriate impinger solutions per EPA Method 8 protocol.
A.5 SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS
Sulfur oxide emissions (S02 and $03) were also measured using the
controlled condensation system illustrated in Figure A-8. This sampling
system, designed primarily to measure vapor phase concentrations of 503 as
H2$04, consists of a heated Vycor probe, a Goksoyr/Ross condenser
(condensation coil), impingers, a pump, and a dry gas test meter. By using
the Goksoyr/Ross condenser, the gas is cooled to the dew point where $03
condenses as H2S04. S02 interference is prevented by maintaining the
temperature of the gas above the water dew point. Sulfur dioxide is
collected in a 3 percent hydrogen peroxide solution. Both S02 and $03 (as
H2S04) are measured by titration with a 0.02 N NaOH, using bromophenol blue
as the indicator. A more detailed discussion of the sampling and analytical
techniques for the controlled condensation system is given in Reference A-4.
A,6 N20 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The stack gas grab samples were extracted into stainless-steel cylinders
for laboratory analysis for N20 using the sampling apparatus illustrated in
Figure A-9. For analysis, each sample cylinder was externally heated to
120°C (250°F), then a 1-ml sample was withdrawn with a gas-tight syringe for
injection into the gas chromatograph (GO equipped with an electron capture
detector (ECO). The GC column used was a 10 ft x 1/8 in. stainless-steel
column packed with 80/100 mesh chromosorb 101. The flow of nitrogen was
A-13
-------
• 1/h" quart! noirle
316 stainless fleet union
-IIInn tcwperiture
iMtlni) m*nlle
Coksoyr/Rnti
condtnter
I
t-»
*.
tonrtrnter f.C.
Heavy Mil
1/4* I.D.
late* lubinq
Submrtlbte wtlcr
clrcuUtlon
Dl.pUl I
rradnul
Proportion*! temperature
controllers Gtt
Sta Inlets steel
condrnier heat
eiclianqer
gauqe
Coarse adjustment
valve
Air tight vacuum pump
Orifice AP
•uqnehellc gauge
Dry test meter
Greenberg
(•plnqer (100 nt 3: H2n
Cupty Mdlfled SaiUh-
•Crcenberg Inplnner
1 1 lea gel des leant trap
Control module
Figure A-8. Controlled condensation system.
-------
H-«
cn
0.7 \m sintered stainless-steel filter
1/4-ln. stainless-steel
probe
Teflon diaphragm pump
Pressure gauge
Inlet valve
500-cm stainless-steel
sample cylinder
Ceramic Insulation -'
and heat tape
Resistive heat tape
Outlet
valve
Thermocouple
Figure A-9. ^0 sampling system.
-------
20 ml/min with the column kept at 45"C (112°F). Elution time for N20 was
approximately 5 min.
A.7 NOX MONITOR CERTIFICATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Certification of the continuous NOX monitor was performed using the
standard EPA Method 7 equipment and protocols.
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A
A-l. Lentzen, D. E., et al., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1
Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)," EPA-600/7-78-201,
NTIS PB 293795, October 1978.
A-2. "Protocol for the Collection and Analysis of Volatile POHC's Using
YOST," EPA-600/8-84-007, NTIS PB84-170042, March 1984.
A-3. "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," EPA-600/4-79-020,
NTIS PB 297686, March 1979.
A-4. Maddalone, R. and N. Gainer, "Process Measurement Procedures:
H2S04 Emissions," EPA-600/7-79-156, NTIS PB80-115959, July 1979.
A-16
-------
APPENDIX B
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
The following tables present sample trace element analysis results and
trace element discharge stream concentrations. The tables labeled "ppm"
represent elemental analysis results (ug/g or wg/ml) for each sample
analyzed. Compositions for the steamer crude oil and all SASS train samples
(filter, XAD-2 resin, and first impinger) are noted. Other tables give
corresponding sample element concentrations in units of yg/dscm (labeled
MCG/DSCM) and ng/J (labeled NG/J) heat input. A final set of tables gives
corresponding trace element flowrates in ug/s (labeled MCG/SEC), with the
mass balance ratio (out/in) noted in the last table (labeled STEAMER MASS
BALANCE).
Symbols appearing in the table include:
DSCM Dry standard cubic meter at 1 atm and 20°C
MCG Mi crogram
PPM Parts per million by weight
SEC Second
< Less than
> Greater than
Trace elements having concentrations less than the detectable limit or
having a blank value greater than the sample value were given an arbitrary
concentration of zero.
B-l
-------
Detection limits for the various SASS samples were:
• Filter: <0.1 ug/g
• XAD-2: <0.08 wg/g
• Impinger and organic <0.008 wg/ml
module condensate:
« Fuel oil: <0.7 ng/g
SASS and steamer operating data used for the calculation of trace
element emissions were as follows:
• Fuel flowrate -- 388 ml/s (3,073 Ib/hr)
• Heat input -- 16.6 MW (56.63 x 106 Btu/hr)
• Flue gas flowrate — 4.62 dscm/s (9,779 dscfm)
• SASS gas volume collected — 22.5 dscm (796 dscf)
• Particulate on filter — 0.5129 g
• XAD weight — 130 g
• Impinger 1 volume — 547 ml
• Impinger 2 and 3 volume — 840 ml
• Heating value of fuel — 42.78 MO/kg (18,430 Btu/lb)
B-2
-------
DO
oo
PPM BLANK CORRECTED
ELEMENT
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
BROMINE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CESIUM
CHLORINE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
FLUORINE
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
HOLMIUM
IODINE
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
EOR STEAMER
1 BASELINE
PPM
FUEL
.500E401
. 000E400
. 600E-02
. 550E+00
<.100E-01
.000E+00
. 1 40E+00
.130E400
. 000E+00
.900E401 U
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 230E+02
. 400E400
. 400E400
. 700E400
.000E+00
. 000E400
.000E400
.160E-f02
. 000E400
. 200E400
<.200E-01
. 000E4 00
. 500E400
.750E401
. 000E400
.550E400
.350E400
.000E400
.650E+01
. 350E400
< . 400E+00
. 120E+01
. 000E400
.130E+02
.600E-01
.300E+01
. 100E+01
.400E+01
. 000E400
.200E-01
. 000E400
.600E-0I
.450E+00
FILTER
. 232E404
.800E+01
. 158E402
.800E401
. 400E+00
. 200E400
. 000E+00
.600E401
. 000E400
. 000E400
.119E402
. 400E400
.315E405
. 280E402
.557E402
.600E401
.400E401
. 000E400
. 400E400
.106E403
.400E401
.117E402
.190E401
.200E401
. 000E400
.715E404
.I58E402
.300E401
.162E402
. 400E400
. 154E404
. 180E402
.200E-01
. 100E402
.120E402
. 236E405
. 600E400
. 408E403
. 000E400
. 100E401
.380E401
. 700E400
.400E401
.370E401
.380E401
XAD-2
. 100E401
. 000E400
.300E-01
. 400E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 500E400
. 000E400
.000E400
.400E401
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 100E-01
. 000E400
. 100E-01
.000E400
. 000E400
. 400E400
.000E400
.000E400
. 100E401
. 100E400
. 120E400
. 100E400
. 000E400
. 100E400
. 000E400
.000E400
.300E400
.800E40t
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
1ST IMPINGER 2ND ft 3RD IMPINGERS
.850E400
.210E-01
.480E-01
.180E400
.000E400
.000E400
.180E-01
.192E400
<.2C0E-0I
.160E401
.000E400
.400E-02
.000E400
.299E401
<.600E-02
.719E+02
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.590E400
.000E400
.370E-01
.880E-01
<.200E400
.700E-01
.594E401
.000E400
.000E400
.700E-01
.000E400
.000E400
. 190E400
.000E400
.970E400
.000E400
.299E401
<.360E-01
. 100E401
.000E400
. 180E401
.100E-01
.100E-01
.000E400
.495E400
494E400
.000E400
.000E400
.700E-02
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 200E-02
. 000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
. 000E+00
.000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
-------
PPM BLANK CORRECTED
ELEMENT FUEL
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
PPM
SILICON . 140E+02
SILVER .000E+00
SODIUM .118E+03
STRONTIUM .200E+00
SULFUR .104E+04
TANTALUM .000E+00
TELLURIUM .000E+00
TERBIUM .000E+00
THALLIUM .000E+00
THORIUM .000E+00
THULIUM .000E+00
TIN .000E+00
TITANIUM .350E+00
TUNGSTEN .000E+00
URANIUM .000E+00
VANADIUM .400E+00
YTTERBIUM .000E+00
YTTRIUM .500E-01
ZINC .200E+01
ZIRCONIUM .130E+00
FILTER
.000E+00
.100E+01
.113E+04
.120E+02
.650E+02
.200E+01
.300E+01
.800E+00
.400E+00
.800E+01
.400E+00
.400E+01
.200E+02
.400E+00
.100E+01
.937E+03
.100E+01
.232E+02
.600E402
.000E+00
XAD-2
.C00E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 110E+00
.500E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.200E-01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.230E+01
.000E+00
1ST IMPINGER 2ND & 3RD IMPINGERS
.340E+0I
.900E-01
.496E+04
.970E-01
.687E+04
.000E400
.840E-01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.960E+00
.000E+00
.600E+01
.470E-01
.000E+00
.100E-01
.300E+02
.S00E-01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E400
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
CO
-------
CONCENTRATION
ELEMENT
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
BROMINE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CESIUM
CHLORINE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
FLUORINE
GADOLINIUM
co GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
HOLMIUM
IODINE
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTET1UM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
i
en
FILTER
.528E+02
.182E+00
.360E+00
.182E400
.910E-02
. 455E-02
.000E+00
. 137E+00
.000E400
.000E-V00
.27 IE-fee
.910E-02
.716E+03
.637E+00
.127E+01
.137E-l-0e
.910E-01
.000E+00
.9ieE-«2
.241E+01
.910E-01
.266E+00
.432E-01
.455E-01
.000E+00
.163E+03
.360E+C0
.6B3E-01
.369E+00
.910E-02
.350E+02
.410E+00
.455E-03
.228E+00
.273E+00
.536E+03
.137E-ei
.928E+01
.000E+00
.228E-01
.865E-01
.159E-01
.910E-81
.842E-01
.865E-B1
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
MCG/DSCM
XAD-2
.577E+B1
.000E+00
.173E+00
.231E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.288E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.231E+02
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 000E+00
. 000E+00
.000E+00
.000E-1-00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.577E-01
.000E+00
.577E-01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.231E+01
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.577E+ei
.577E+00
.692E+00
.577E+ee
.000E+00
.577E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.173E+01
.461E+02
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E-f00
.000E+00
1ST 1MPINGER 2ND t 3RD IMPINGERS
. 206E+02
.510E+00
. 116E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 437E+00
.466E+01
. 388E+02
. 600E+00
.971E-01
. 000E+00
. 726E+02
.146E+00
.174E+B4
.000E+00
. C00E+00
.000E+00
. 143E+02
.000E+00
. 898E+ ee
. 214E+01
.170E+ei
. 144E403
. 000E+00
.000E+00
. 170E+01
. 000E-H00
.000E+00
.461E-I-01
.000E+00
. 235E+02
. 000E+00
.726E+02
. 874E+00
.243E+02
.000E+«0
. 437E+02
.243E+00
. 243E+00
. 000E+00
. 1 2BE+B2
. 120E+02
.000E+00
.000E+00
.261E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.745E-B1
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
STACK OUTLET
.792E+02
.692E+«0
.196E+01
.6B6E+01
.910E-02
.455E-fl2
.332E+01
.480E401
< .485E400
.619E+02
.271E+00
.106E+00
.716E+03
.732E+02
. 127E+0KX<.141E+ei
. 174E+04
.910E-01
. 000E400
.910E-02
.167E+02
.910E-01
.1J6E+01
.224E+01
.455E-0KX<.490E-t-01
.176E+01
.307E+03
.360E+00
.238E+01
.207E+01
.910E-02
.408E+02
.560E+01
.767E+00
.243E+02
.273E+00
.609E+03
. 137E-0KX<.887E+00
.336E+02
.173E+01
.898E+02
.329E400
.259E+00
.910E-01
. 121E+02
. 121E+02
-------
CONCENTRATION
ELEMENT
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
FILTER
. 000E400
.228E-01
.258E402
.273E400
.14BE401
.455E-01
.683E-01
. 182E-01
.910E-02
.182E400
910E-02
910E-01
. 455E400
.9J0E-02
.228E-01
.213E+C2
.228E-01
.528E400
.137E+01
.000E400
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
MCG/DSCM
XAD-2
.000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
.634E400
. 288E-I-02
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E+00
.000E+00
.115E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.U3E402
.000E+00
1ST IMPINGER 2ND & 3RD IMPINGERS
. 825E402
. 218E401
. 120E+06
.235E401
167E406
. 000E400
.204E+01
. 000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 233E+02
. 000E400
. 146E403
114E401
. 000E400
. 243E400
. 728E+03
121E+01
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
. 000E400
. 000E400
.000E400
STACK OUTLET
.B25E402
.221E401
.120E406
.326E401
.167E406
.455E-01
.211E401
.182E-01
.910E-02
. 182E400
.910E-02
.910E-01
. 238E402
.910E-02
. 146E403
. 226E402
228E-01
.771E400
.742E403
. 121E401
oo
i
-------
MASS/HEAT INPUT
ELEMENT
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
BROMINE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CESIUM
CHLORINE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
FLUORINE
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
HOLMIUM
IODINE
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
FUEL
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
HG/J
.117E+00
.000E+00
. 140E-03
.128E-01
.2J3E-03
000E+00
.327E-82
.303E-02
.000E+00
.210E+00
.000E+00
000E+00
.537E+00
.933E-02
.933E-02
.163E-01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.373E+00
.000E+00
.467E-02
.467E-03
.000E+00
.117E-01
.175E+00
.000E+00
. 128E-01
.B16E-02
.000E+00
.152E+00
.B16E-02
: .933E-02
.280E-01
.000E+00
.303E400
.140E-02
.700E-01
.233E-01
.933E-01
.000E+00
.467E-03
.000E+00
.J40E-02
.105E-01
STACK OUTLET
.220E-01
.192E-03
.545E-03
.191E-02
.253E-05
.127E-05
.923E-03
.133E-02
< .135E-03
.172E-01
.753E-04
.295E-04
.199E+00
.204E-01
.352E-03
-------
MASS/HEAT INPUT
ELEMENT
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
FUEL
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
NG/J
.327E+00
.000E+00
.275E+01
.467E-02
.243E+02
.eeeE+ee
.000E+00
.eeeE+ee
.000E+00
.000E+00
.ee0E+ee
.000E+00
.816E-02
.000E+00
.000E+00
.933E-02
.000E+00
.117E-02
.467E-01
.303E-02
STACK OUTLET
.229E-01
.614E-03
.335E+02
.907E-03
.464E+02
127E-04
.586E-03
.506E-05
.253E-05
.506E-04
.253E-05
.253E-04
.661E-02
.253E-05
.405E-01
.628E-02
.633E-05
.214E-03
. 206E+00
. 337E-03
cx>
i
00
-------
MASS/HEAT INPUT
ELEMENT
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
BROMINE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CESIUM
CHLORINE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
FLUORINE
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
"> GERMANIUM
10 HOLMIUM
IODINE
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
FILTER
.147E-01
.506E-04
.100E-03
.506E-04
.253E-05
.127E-05
.000E+00
.380E-04
.600E-I-00
.000E+00
.753E-04
. 253E-05
. 199E400
.177E-03
.352E-03
.380E-04
.253E-04
.000E+00
.253E-05
.671E-03
.253E-04
.740E-94
.120E-04
.127E-04
000E+00
.452E-01
.100E-03
.190E-04
.103E-03
.253E-05
.975E-02
.114E-03
.127E-06
.633E-04
.759E-04
.149E+00
.380E-05
.258E-02
.000E+00
.633E-05
.240E-04
.443E-05
.253E-04
.234E-04
.240E-04
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
NG/J
XAD-2
.160E-02
.000E+00
.481E-04
.642E-03
.000E+00
.000E+00
.802E-03
.000E+00
.000E+00
.642E-02
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.160E-04
.000E+00
.160E-04
.000E+00
.000E+00
.642E-03
.000E+00
.000E+00
.160E-02
.160E-03
.192E-03
.160E-03
.000E+00
.160E-03
.000E+00
.000E+00
.481E-03
.128E-01
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
1ST IMPINGER 2ND It 3RD IMPINGERS
.574E-02
.142E-03
.324E-03
.121E-02
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.121E-03
.130E-02
.135E-03
.108E-01
000E+00
.270E-04
.000E+80
.202E-01
. 405E-04
.485E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.398E-02
.000E+00
.250E-03
.594E-03
.135E-02
.472E-03
. 401E-01
.000E+00
. 000E400
.472E-03
. 000E+00
.000E+00
.128E-02
.000E+00
.655E-02
.000E+00
.202E-01
.243E-03
.675E-02
.000E+00
.121E-01
.675E-04
.675E-04
.000E+00
.334E-02
.333E-02
.000E+00
.000E+00
.726E-04
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.207E-04
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
STACK OUTLET
.220E-01
.192E-03
.545E-03
.191E-02
.253E-05
.127E-05
.923E-03
.133E-02
< .135E-03
.172E-0)
.753E-04
.295E-04
.199E+00
.204E-01
.352E-03
-------
MASS/HEAT INPUT
ELEMENT
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
FILTER
.000E+00
.633E-05
.718E-02
.759E-04
.411E-03
.127E-04
.190E-04
.506E-05
.253E-05
.506E-04
.253E-05
.253E-64
.127E-03
.253E-65
.633E-05
.593E-02
.633E-05
.147E-03
.3B0E-03
.000E+00
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
NG/J
XAO-2
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.000E+00
176E-03
.802E-02
000E+00
000E+00
000E+00
.000E+00
000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.321E-04
.000E+00
.000E+00
.369E-02
.000E+00
1ST IMPINGER 2ND * 3RD IMPINGERS
.229E-01
.607E-03
.335E+02
.655E-03
.464E+02
.000E+00
.567E-03
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.648E-02
.000E+00
.405E-01
.317E-03
.000E+00
.675E-04
.202E+00
.337E-03
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.000E+00
.000E400
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E-I-00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
STACK OUTLET
.229E-01
.614E-03
.335E+02
.907E-03
.464E+02
.127E-04
. 586E-03
.506E-05
.253E-05
.S06E-04
.253E-05
.253E-04
.661E-02
.253E-65
.405E-01
.628E-02
.633E-05
.214E-03
.206E+00
.337E-03
I
o
-------
MASS FLOWRATE
ELEMENT
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
BROMINE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CESIUM
CHLORINE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
FLUORINE
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
Y GERMANIUM
— HOLMIUM
IODINE
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM .
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
FUEL
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
MCG/SEC
. 194E404
.000E400
.233E401
.213E+03
.388E401
.000E+00
.543E402
.504E402
.000E+00
.349E+04
.000E400
.000E400
.891E404
.155E403
.155E403
.271E403
.000E400
.000E+00
.000E400
. 620E404
.000E+00
.775E402
.775E401
.000E+00
.194E403
.291E404
.000E+00
213E+03
136E403
.000E+00
.252E+04
.136E+03
I .155E+03
.46SE403
.000E+00
.504E+04
.233E+02
.116E+04
.3B8E+03
.155E+04
.000E+00
.775E+01
.000E+00
.233E+02
.174E+03
STACK OUTLET
.366E+03
.320E401
.905E+01
.317E402
.421E-01
.210E-01
. 153E+02
.222E+02
< .224E+01
.286E+03
.125E+01
.491E+00
.331E+04
.338E+03
.586E+0KX<.653E+01
. 806E+04
.421E+00
.000E+00
.421E-01
.773E+02
.421E+00
.538E+01
.103E+02
.210E+00
-------
EOR STEAMER
MASS FLOWRATE BASELINE
MCG/SEC
ELEMENT FUEL STACK OUTLET
SILICON .543E+04 .381E403
SILVER .000E+00 .102E+02
SODIUM .457E+05 ' .556E+06
STRONTIUM .775E+02 .151E+02
SULFUR .403E+06 .770E+06
TANTALUM .000E+00 .210E+00
TELLURIUM .000E+00 .973E4BI
TERBIUM .000E+00 .841E-01
THALLIUM .000E+00 .421E-01
THORIUM .0B0E+00 .841E+00
THULIUM .000E+00 .421E-01
TIN .000E+00 .421E+00
TITANIUM .136E403 .I10E+03
TUNGSTEN .000E+00 .421E-01
URANIUM .000E+00 .673E+03
VANADIUM .155E+03 104E+03
YTTERBIUM .000E+00 .105E+00
YTTRIUM .194E+02 356E+01
ZINC .775E+0J .343E+04
ZIRCONIUM .504E+02 .561E+01
ro
i
-------
DO
I
MASS FLOWRATE
ELEMENT
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
BROMINE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CESIUM
CHLORINE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
FLUORINE
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
HOLMIUM
IODINE
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYM1UM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
FILTER
.244E+03
.841E+00
.166E401
.841E400
.421E-81
.210E-01
.eeeE+ee
.631E+00
.000E400
.000E400
.125E401
.421E-01
.331E404
.294E401
.586E+01
.631E400
.421£400
.000E400
.421E-01
.111E+02
.421E400
.123E401
.200E400
.210E400
.000E400
.751E403
. 166E-I-01
.315E400
.170E401
.421E-01
.162E403
.189E401
. 210E-02
.105E+01
.126E+01
.248E404
.631E-01
.429E+02
.000E400
.105E400
.399E400
.736E-01
.421E+00
.389E+00
.399E400
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
MCG/SEC
XAD-2
.266E+02
.000E+00
. 799E400
.107E402
000E+00
.000E400
.133E402
000E+00
.000E400
.107E403
.000E400
000E400
.000E+00
.000E400
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E400
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.266E400
.000E400
.266E400
.000E400
.000E400
.107E402
.000E400
.000E400
.266E402
.266E401
.320E401
.266E401
.000E400
.266E401
.000E400
.000E400
.799E401
.213E403
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
1ST IMPINGER 2ND & 3RD IMPINGERS
.953E402
.235E401
.538E401
. 202E402
.000E400
.000E400
.202E401
.215E402
. 224E401
.179E403
.000E400
. 448E400
.000E400
.335E403
.673E400
.806E404
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.661E402
.000E400
.415E401
.987E401
.224E402
.785E401
.666E403
.000E400
.000E400
.785E401
.000E400
.000E400
.213E402
. 000E400
.109E403
.000E400
.335E403
.404E401
.112E403
.000E400
.202E403
.112E401
112E401
.000E400
.555E402
.554E402
.000E400
.000E400
.121E+01
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.344E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
STACK OUTLET
.366E403
.320E401
.905E401
.317E+02
.421E-01
.210E-01
. 153E402
. 222E402
< .224E401
. 286E403
.125E401
. 491E400
.331E404
.338E403
.586E40KX<.653E401
.806E404
.421E400
. 000E400
.421E-01
. 773E402
.421E400
.538E401
.103E402
. 210E400
-------
MASS FLOWRATE
ELEMENT
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
FILTER
.000E+00
.105E+00
.119E+03
.126E+01
.6B3E+01
.210E400
.315E+00
.841E-01
.421E-01
.841E400
.421E-01
.421E+00
.210E+01
.421E-01
.105E400
.985E+02
.105E+00
.244E+01
.631E+01
.000E+00
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
MCG/SEC
XAD-2
. 000E400
000E400
.000E400
.293E+01
.133E+03
.000E+00
.000E+00
.006E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.000E+00
.533E+00
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.613E+02
.000E+00
1ST IMPINGER 2ND Jc 3RD IMPINGERS
.381E403
.101E+02
.556E+06
.109E+02
.770E+06
.000E+00
.942E40t
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E+00
.000E400
.108E+03
.000E400
.673E+03
.527E+01
.000E+00
. 112E+01
.336E+04
.561E+01
.000E+00
.000E+00
. 000E+00
.000E+00
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
.000E400
STACK OUTLET
.381E403
.102E402
.556E406
. 151E402
.770E406
.210E400
.973E401
.841E-01
.421E-01
.841E400
.421E-01
.421E400
. H0E403
.421E-01
.673E403
. 104E403
. 105E400
.356E401
.343E404
.561E401
oo
i
-------
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
ELEMENT
STEAMER
STEAMER MASS BALANCE
TOTAL IN
INPUT = FUEL
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
BROMINE
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CESIUM
CHLORINE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
FLUORINE
03 GADOLINIUM
.1 GALLIUM
en GERMANIUM
HOLMIUM
IODINE
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RUBIDIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
. 194E+04
.233E+B1
.213E+03
X< 388E+01
. 543E+02
. 504E+02
. 349E+04
.891E+04
.155E+03
.155E+03
.271E+03
. 620E+04
. 775E+02
X<.775E+01
. 194E403
.291E+04
.213E+03
.136E-I-03
. 252E+04
. 136E+03
X<.155E+03
. 465E+03
.504E+04
. 233E+02
. 116E+04
.388E+03
. 155E+04
.775E+01
. 233E+02
.174E+03
OUTPUT = STACK GAS
TOTAL OUT
.366E+03
.320E+01
.905E+01
.317E+02
.421E-61
.210E-01
.153E+02
.222E+02
X<.224E+01
.286E+03
.125E+01
.491E+00
.331E+04
. 338E+03
.586E+0KX<.653E+01
.806E+04
.421E+00
.421E-01
.773E+02
.421E+00
.538E+01
.103E+02
.210E+00
-------
EOR STEAMER
BASELINE
ELEMENT
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
STEAMER
STEAMER MASS BALANCE
TOTAL IN
.543E+04
.457E+05
.775E+02
.403E+06
INPUT = FUEL
.136E+03
.155E+03
.194E+02
.775E+03
.504E+02
OUTPUT = STACK GAS
TOTAL OUT
381E+03
102E+02
556E+06
151E+02
770E+06
210E+60
973E+01
841E-0)
.42IE-01
.84IE4-00
.421E-01
.421E+00
110E+03
.421E-01
.673E+03
.104E+03
.105E+00
.356E+01
.343E+04
.561E+01
MASS BALANCE (OUT/IN)
.703E-01
•
122E+02
.194E+00
.191E+01
.809E+00
.673E+00
184E+00
.442E+01
.111E+00
CO
i
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inuructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-86-013a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Assessment of an Enhanced Oil
Recovery Steam Generator Equipped with an EPA
Heavy-oil Low-NOx Burner; Volume I*
5. REPORT DATE
April 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
C. Castaldini, L. R. Waterland, and R. De Rosier
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
A cur ex Corporation
Energy and Environmental Division
P. O. Box 7044
Mountain View, California 94039
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3188
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 1/84 - 1/85
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEERL projectofficeris Joseph Ai McSorley, Mail Drop 65, 919 /
541-2920. Volume jj is a data supplement. (*) Volume I is Technical Results.
io. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of comprehensive emission measurements and
30-day flue gas monitoring on a 16-MW (55 million Btu/hr) enhanced oil recovery
steam generator equipped with the EPA low-NOx burner firing high-nitrogen crude.
The 1-day comprehensive measurements included quantification of semivolatile or-
ganics and 73 trace elements; volatile organic sampling train quantisation of volatile
organic priority pollutants; EPA Method 5/8 for particulate and SOx; controlled con-
densation for SOx; Andersen impactors for particle size distribution; grab samples
for N2O; and continuous flue gas monitoring. NOx emissions averaged 70 ppm at 3%
O2, well below the target of 85 ppm. CO emissions were below 30 ppm, and SO2
averaged about 550 ppm. Solid particulates were emitted at about 27 ng/J (96 mg/
dscm); condensible particulates were about half that. Volatile organics (benzene,
toluene, and ethylbenzene) were measured in the 0.4 to 20 ppb range. Semivolatile
organics (naphthalene and phenol) were detected at about 0. 3 ppb. Subsequent contin-
uous monitoring of flue gas criteria emissions showed NOx below 80 ppm at 3% O2
with an average of 70 ppm. CO emissions were generally less than 30 ppm.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Assessments
Boilers
Oil Recovery
Crude Oil
Combustion
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Environmental Assess-
ment
Low-NOx Burners
13B
14B
ISA
081.11H
21B
21. NO. OF PAGES
100
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pagt)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-73)
B-17
------- |