Flare Efficiency Study
Engineering-Science, Inc.,  Austin,  TX
Prepared for

Industrial Environmental Research Lab,
Research Triangle Park, NC
                                                            PB83-261644
Jul 83

-------

-------
                                 KJ'A-600/ 2-83-052
                                 July 1983
           FLARE EFFICIENCY STUDY



                     by

                Marc McDaniel

         Engineering-Science, Inc.
          2901 North Interregional
            Austin, Texas  73722
         EPA Contract 68-02-3541-6


    EPA Task Officer:   Bruce A.  Tichenor
        Industrial Processes Branch
Industrial  Environmental  Research  Laboratory
     Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
               Prepared for:
    U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
     Office of Research and  Development
           Washington, DC  20460

-------
                                 TECHNICAL (UI'OIU DATA
                                 I l;iiril: /|."l> ."I /'«•/, ../•. .'., /.•/, , .
 KPA-600/2-83-052
 : ' ' . •  >-..- -.-. :'' •• i •. i
 Klarc T.'fficicnc v Study
 Marc' Me Daniel
                 'A I ,..>••, PJAMI AND AOl.lHI i;S
               ciciict.',  Inc.
 3109 -North Intofre.qional
 Austin, Texas  78722

 <: V:-NSi)iH( fiBAM.f'Lf MENl" NO."""

                                                        ii CON f HACT/GHAN T NO  "
                                                        68-02-3541,  Task 6
                                                        13. TYPt 
-------
              .    'NOTICE   .






THIS DOCUMENT  HAS  BEEN REPRODUCED




FROM THE BEST  COPY  FURNISHED U-S  BY




THE  SPONSORING AGENCY.  ALTHOUGH  IT




IS RECOGNIZED  THAT CERTAIN  PORTIONS




ARE  ILLEGIBLE,  IT IS  BEING RELEASED




IN THE  INTEREST OF. MAKING AVAILABLE




AS  MUCH  INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.

-------
                      NOTICE

This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication.  Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
                       ii

-------
                                   ABSTRACT
     A  full-scale  experimental  study was  performed  to determine  the  effi-
ciencies of  flare burners as devices  for the disposal of hydrocarbon emissions
from refinery and petrochemical  processes.  The primary  objectives of the study
were  to determine  the  combustion  efficiency  and  hydrocarbon  destruction
efficiency  for  both  air- and  steam-assisted  flares  under  a  wide range  of
operating  conditions.   Test  results indicate  that  flaring  is generally  an
efficient  hydrocarbon disposal  method for the conditions as evaluated.   The
study provides  a data base  for defining the  air  quality impact  of  flaring
operations.

     The  test  methodology  utilized  during  the  study employed a specially
constructed 27-foot  sample probe suspended by a  crane over the  flare  flame.  The
sample extracted by the probe was analyzed by  contiguous emission monitors to
determine concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO;?), carbon monoxide (CO), total
hydrocarbons (THC),  sulfur dioxide (SO;?),  oxides  of nitrogen (N0x)»'and oxygen
(0;?).  In additton, the probe tip temperature, ambient-air temperature, and wind
speed and direction were measured.  Integrated samples of the relief gas were
collected for hydrocarbon species analysis by  gas chromatograph.  Particulate
matter samples were also collected during the  smoking flare tests.

     The .rigorous test program  included  flare  testing  under  thirty-four dif-
ferent operating conditions  during  .a three-week  period  in  June 198?.   Test
variables  included  Btu content of  the  relief  gas  (propylene diluted  with
nitrogen),  relief gas flow rates, steam flow rates, and air flow rates.  When
flares were operated under conditions representative of good industrial opera-
ting  practices,  the  combustion  efficiencies  at  the  sampling  probe  were
determined to be  greater than 98 percent.  Combustion efficiencies were observed
to decline under conditions of  excessive  steam  (steam quenching) and high exit
velocities o.f low Btu gases.

-------
                                   CONTENTS
Abstract .............. .......  .....  .....   ill
Figures ....... .  .  ...... .  .....  .  .....  .....   viii
Tables ..........  ......  .  .....  ..........   ix
Abbreviations and Symbols  .  .  .  .........  ......',...   x
Section 1   Introduction .....  ..... ....  .....  ....    1
Section 2   Conclu-sions.  .....  . .  ........  ........    2
                 Technical  Summary ...  .....  ............    2
                 Conclusions  and  Observations  .......  .....    5
Section 3   Testing Methodology.  ...........  .....  ...    6
                 Experiment Design and  Flare Operation  ........    6
                 Sampling and Analysis  .  ...  .  ...-.  .........    8
                 Types  of Flare Burners Tested  ....  .....  .  .  .    8
                 Flare  Test Procedures  ..........  .  .....   13
                 Background Measurements  ..... '-.........-..-..   14
                 Continuous Emission Analyzers  .  ...........   15
                 Hydrocarbon  Species Analysis  .....  .....  .  .   15
                 Temperature  Measurements  .....  .....  .......   18
                 Participate' Analyses.  ......  ......  ....   18
                 Moisture Determinations  .  . .....  .....  .  .  .  .   18
                 Meteorological Measurements .  .  .  .....  .....   19
                 Audio  and  Video  Recordings  .  .  .....  ......   19
Section 4   Data Collection and Calculations .  .-." .......  ...   20
                 Continuous Analyzers'  Data Acquisition   .......   20

-------
                                                                      Page
                 Hydrocarbon Species Data  ..............   21
                 Documentation .  .  . ..............  .  .  ,   21
                 Calculations  ...............  	   22
Section 5   Review of Flare Test  Results ......  .  .  .  ....  .-.-.   25
                 Steam-Assisted Flare Tests'-..;  ...........   25
                      High Btu Content Relief Gases  .  .  .......   27
                      Low Flow Rate, High Btu Relief  Gases  .  .  .  .  .-.'.   28
                      Low Btu Content Relief Gases	'....„   29
                      Purge Rote  Relief Gas Flows  .  .  .  .  .  .  ....   31
                 Air-Assisted Flare Tests	  .31
                      High Btu Content Relief Gases  .........   31
                      Low Btu Content Relief Gases ..........   33
                      Purge Rate  Relief Gas Flows  ..........   34
                 Sensitivity of'Combustion Efficiency to
                 Probe Height  .  .  . .... .  .  . .  .  ...  .  ...  .  .   34
                 Effect of Steam-to-Relief Gas Ratio  on
                 Combustion Efficiency	•  ....  34
                 Flare NOX Emissions   .'..	  .   37
                 Hydrocarbon Analyses	  ...   39
                 Particulate Material Analyses ......  .  .  .  .  .  .   43
                 Dilution Ratio and Destruction Efficiency
                 Determinations  ...................   43
                 Moisture Determinations . ......  	  .   48
                 Other Flare Test Analyses ..............   48
Section 6   Quality Assurance and Quality Control Activities  .  .  .'.  .50
                 Multipoint Calibrations . . .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   50
                 Zero and Span Checks  ................   50
                 Instrument Response Times and Through-Probe
                 Calibration Checks  .  .	  .  ...  ...   53
                                     vi        :

-------
                                                                      Page
                 Background Measurements .  .  ...  .  .  .  .  .  .. .  ,  .  .56
                 Combustion Efficiency Error  Analysis  .  	  ,  .  56
Appendices
            A.    Graphical  Review of Selected Tests  .........  59
            B.    Statistical Summaries	.  .  ...  .78
            C.    Calculation of Destruction Efficiency  (OE).  ...  .  . 125
            D.    Soot Composition. . 	 ............ 129
                                    vtl

-------
                                   FIGURES
Number                                                               Page
  1          Flare  efficiency test systems  .............   3
  2          Flare flow control  system  .....  	 ...   4
  3          Flow control  and nitrogen cylinder manifolds	  10
  4          Flare sampling and  analysis system ...........  11
  5          Flare emission sampling probe	  12
  6          Sensitivity of combustion efficiency  to
                probe height (Test  28).  .  .	  35
  7          Sensitivity of combustion efficiency  to
                probe height (Test  57).  	 .........  36
  8          Effect of steam-to-relief gas ratios  on flare
                combustion efficiency (High  Btu content relief
                gases)	 .  38
  9          Example gas chromatogram hydrocarbon  analysis
                (Test 50)  ........	  44
                                    vlii

-------
                                   TABLES
Number                                                               Page
  1          Flare efficiency test results	  4
  2          Flare emission analyzers and instrumentation   ...... 16
  3          Gas chromatograph operating conditions	 17
  4          Steam-assisted flare summary.  .  .  .  .  .....  . . ....  . 26
  5          Air-assisted  flare summary  .  ........  .  '. . .  .  . 32
  6          Flare NOX results .  .'-.  .  . ....  . ,  ......... 40
  7          Hydrocarbon  analysis summary
                Steam-assisted flare  tests  ....  	  ..... 41
  8          Hydrocarbon  analysis summary.
                Air-assisted flare tests	  .  . .  ....  .  . 42
  9          Particulate  analysis  .................. 45
 10          Smoking  flare combustion efficiencies  .  .  . .  .  . .... 46
 11          Flare efficiency test
                Moisture content  of samples  (EPA  Test Method  4). .  .  . 49
 1.2          Multipoint calibration checks  .  .  .  . ..  .-  . .  .  . .... 51
 13          Zero/span check summary	 . .  .  . 52
 14          Instrument response  times  ....... .  ...... ..  .  . 54
 15          Sampling system leak checks .  ..'..-	 . .  .  . 55
 16          Error estimates .  .	  ...  . .  .  ...  .  .57
                                     ix

-------
                      LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS

AGL
Btu
Btu/hr
Btu/min
Btu/SCF
FEP
ft/min
HP
•ID,
in2
Ibs/hr
1/9
mg/1 .
OD
PPM
psia
psig
SCFM
Above ground level
British thermal unit
British thermal unit per hour
British thermal unit per minute
British thermal unit per standard cubic foot
fluro elastic polymer
feet per minute
horsepower
inside diameter
square inch
pounds per hour
1iters per gram
milligrams per liter                ;               .
outside diameter
parts per million by volume
pounds per square inch absolute
pounds per square inch gauge pressure
standard cubic feet per minute P 14.7 psia and 70°F
SYMBOLS

CO
C02
N2
NOX
P2
SF6
S02
THC
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
nitrogen
nitrogen oxides
oxygen
sulfur hexafluoride
sulfur dioxide
total hydrocarbon

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                                 INTRODUCTION


     This  document  is  a, report  on  an  experimental  study to determine  the
efficiencies  of flare  burners  as  devices  for  the  control  of  continuous
hydrocarbon emissions.  The primary objectives  of this  study were to determine
the combustion efficiency and hydrocarbon destruction efficiency for both air-
and steam-assisted flares over a wide range of  operating conditions that might
be  encountered  in continuous  low flow  industrial  applications.    The  study
excluded abnormal flaring  conditions which might  represent large hydrocarbon
releases during process upsets, start-ups and  shutdowns.

     Both  government  and  industry environmental  officials are concerned with
the effects of flaring hydrocarbons on  the air  quality.  However,  since flares
do  not  lend  themselves  to  conventional  emission  testing  techniques,  few
attempts have been made  to  characterize  flare emissions.    Flare  emission
measurement problems include:  the effects of high temperatures and radiant heat
on test equipment, the meandering and  irregular nature of flare flames due to
external winds  and  intrinsic  turbulence,  ihe undefined dilution of  flare
emission plume with ambient air,  and the lack of  suitable sampling locations due
to flare and/or  flame heights,  especially during process upsets  when safety
problems would predominate.

     Previous flare  efficiency studies  did not encompass the range of variables
encountered in the industrial  setting.  Limited  test conditions of flare types,
relief gas types, Btu content,  relief  gas  flow rate,  and steam-to-relief gas
ratios  were  explored.   This  study  was intended  to  add  to the  available
literature on the subject  by testing the flaring  of an olefin (propylene) in
both air- and  steam-assisted flares with test variables of  relief gas flow rate,
relief gas Btu content, and steam-to-relief gas ratio.

     Separate elements of this flare efficiency  study were sponsored by-the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Chemical  Manufacturers Associa-
tion (CMA).  Other project participants included John 2ink  Company who provided
flares, test facility and flare operation, and  Optimetrics, Inc.  who operated
the EPA's  Remote  Optical  Sensing  of Emissions (ROSE) system.   Engineering-
Science, Inc. (ES) operated the  extractive flare sampling  and analysis  systems
and prepared  this report.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                                 CONCLUSIONS
TECHNICAL SUMMARY
     Figure  1  is an  overview  of the equipment used  to  operate  and  test the
flares.   The  test  methodology utlized during  the  study  employed a specially
constructed 27-foot sample probe suspended by a crane over the flare flame.  The
sample extracted by the probe was analyzed by  continuous emission monitors to
determine concentrations of carbon dioxide (C02), carbon monoxide (CO), total
hydrocarbons (THC), sulfur dioxide (S02), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and oxygen
(Op).  In addition, the probe tip temperature, ambient air temperature and wind
speed and direction were measured.   Integrated  samples of the flare plume were
collected for hydrocarbon species analysis by  gas chromatograph.   Particulate
matter samples were collected during the smoking flare tests.  Sulfur use was
attempted as a tracer material  in  an effort to determine the dilution of the
relief gas between the flare burner  and  the sampling probe location.  However,
the  implementation of  this unproven  sulfur  balance method  for determining
dilution ratios was unsuccessful.

     The term "combustion efficiency" was used  during this study as the primary
measure  of  the  flares'  performance.   Conceptually,  this  term  defines  the
percentage of  flare emissions  that  are completely oxidized  to  COp.   Mathe-
matically the combustion efficiency  is defined as:

                 C02
          " C02 + CO + THC + Soot     °

Where:

     C02 = parts per million by  volume of carbon dioxide
     CO = parts per million by volume of carbon monoxide
     THC - parts per million by  volume of total hydrocarbon as methane

     Soot = parts per million by volume of soot as carbon*.

     Table 1  summarizes the  results of the flare efficiency tests.  The rigorous
test  program included  flare  testing  under  thirty-four different  operating
conditions during a three-week period in June 1982.  Test variables included Btu
content of the relief gas  (propylene diluted  with nitrogen),  relief  gas flow
rates, steam flow rates and  air  flow  rates.  Five of the thirty-four tests were
divided into thirteen subtests for  purposes of  d*ta  analysis because the flare
operation did not  represent steady-state conditions.   The  Btu content  of the
relief gas was varied from 2,133 to 192 Btu/SCF for the steam-assisted  flare,
and from 2,183 to 83 Btu/SCF for the air-assisted flare.   The relief  gas flow


*  In most cases, the "soot" term was zero.

    •   •   '    ' '      :                2        '•   '    '.   .         '

-------
            CRUDE PROPYLENE
                                                                                     PROPYLENE
                                                                                       FLOW
                                                                                     ROTOMETER
                                                                                      NITROGEN
                                                                                       FLOW
                                                                                     ROTOMETER
      ENGWEERWG SOENCE ANALYSIS TRALERS
                                                                 STEAM
                                                           MEASURING STATION
METEOROLOGICAL
STATION
STEAM BOILER
                                                                                           ^"""wiiSw^ifciiiJB
                              Figure  1.   Flare efficiency  test  systems.

-------
                       TABLE  1.   FLARE  EFFICIENCY TEST RESULTS
. . Relief Gas .
lest
Number
F low
(SDM)
Heating
Value
(Btu/SCF)
Steani-io-Relief
Gas Ratio
(Lb/Lb)
. Combustion
Efficiency
(*)
Comments
STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE TES^S
1
2
3
4
8
7
5
67
17
50
66
61
?5
57
J . J
i* .
1U
59a
59D
60
51
16d
16D
16C
16d
54
23
52
53
AIR-ASSISTED


26
65
28
31
66
?9a
29b
64
6?
63
33
32a
32D
473
464
456
283
157
154
149
148
?4.5
?4.4
24.5
25.0
24.7
703
660
B99
656
591
496
3J4
325
320
212
194
169
, 0.356
0.494
0.556
0.356
FLARE TESTS


481. 6
Ii9
157
22.7
639
510
39?
249
217
1?]
0.714
0.656
0.537
2183
21B3
?1U3
?163
2183
?1B3
?1H3
2183
?183
?183
. 21tl3
21B3
2183
294
305
342
364 .
19?
?32
298
309
339
408
519
634
209
267
268
209



2183
21B3
2183
2183
158
16B
146
282
153
289
83
294
228
0.688 ••
O.SOB
0.448
0.
0
0.757
1.66
0.725
0.9^6
3.0/
3.45
_• 6.67
6.86
0.150
.0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0.168
0
0
0
0
0
0
77.5
123

Air Flow, Hi,
Low, Off
Hi
Off
Hi
low
Off
' LOW
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
99.96
9«.82
99.82
99.80"
98.81«
99.84
9H.94
..
99.84
99. 4i>
99.70
82.18
68.95
99. 9U
99.79
99.86
99.82
97.95
99.33
98.92
98.66
99.73
99.75
99.74
99.78
• 99.90
100.01
98.82
99.40



99.97
99.57* •
99 . 94
99.17
61.94
54.13
64.03
99.74
94.18
99.37
98. ?4
98.94
98.6?


Incipient wiokintj flan-
Smok ing flare
Smoking flare
Incipient smoking flare

Sampling probe in fljre flame



Steam-quenched flame
Steam-quenched flare








No smoke
No snioke
Incipient smoking flare
Smoking flare








Smoking flare; no air o-.MilJnce


Detached flame observed
Detached flanie; no air assistance
Detached flame; with air assistance

Flame slightly detached



— •
*  Not accounting for carbon present as soot (see Table 10).

-------
rates ranged from 703 SCFM to 0.35 SCFM (purge flow rate) for the steam-assisted
flare, and from 639 SCFM to 0.54  SCFM (purge  flow  rate)  for  the  air-assisted
flare.
CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS

•    When flares are  operated  under conditions which are representative   of
     industrial practices, the combustion efficiencies in the flare plume are
     greater than 98%.                                               ,

•    Steam-  and  air-assisted  flares  are  generally  . an  efficient  means  of
     hydrocarbon  disposal over the range of operating conditions  evaluated.

•    Varying flow rates of relief  gas  have no  effect on steam-assisted flare
     combustion efficiencies below an exit velocity of 62.5  ft/sec.

•    Varying Btu content  of relief  gases  have no observed  effect  on  steam-
     assisted flare combustion efficiencies for  relief gases above 300 Btu/SCF.
     A slight dec'Hne  in combustion efficiency was noted  for relief gases below
     300 Btu/SCF.

»    Flaring low  Btu content gases at high  exit velocities may result in lower
     combustion efficiencies for air-assisted flares.

.    Smoking flares  achieve  high  gaseous  hydrocarbon destruction efficiencies.

•   .In- many  Cases,  where  high combustion  efficiencies  were observed,  the
     carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon concentrations observed in the flare plume
     were approximately equal to those  found in ambient air.

•    Concentrations  of NOX emissions in the flare plume were observed to range
     from 0.5 to  8.16 ppm.

•    The combustion  efficiency data were insensitive to sampling  probe  height
     within the normal operating heights of the probe.

•    Further development of  a technique to  use  sulfur or another material as a
     tracer material to determine the flare dilution ratios  is required.

.    Steam-assisted  flares  burning relief  gases  with less  than 450 Btu/SCF
     lower heating  value did not smoke, even with zero steam  assistance.

•    The meandering  of the flame's position relative to the sampling probe with
     varying wind conditions affected  the  continuous measurements but  had  no
     apparent effect on the  combustion  efficiency values.

•    Higher concentrations of THC and CO were not observed during  the purge
     rate flare tests.

-------
                                  SECTION 3
                             TESTING METHODOLOGY
EXPERIMENT DESIGN AND FLARE OPERATION
     The flare tests were designed to determine the combustion efficiency and
hydrocarbon destruction  efficiency of  flares  under a  variety of  operating
conditions.  The tests were devised to investigate routine industrial  flaring
operations. Conditions representative of emergency flaring operations were not
investigated.   The primary flare operating variables were:
     •    Flow rate of relief gas;                                  .
     •    Heating value of relief gases; and
     •    Steam-to-relief gai ratio (steam flare only).
The preliminary,test plan called for twenty-seven  tests, with each test having
a different combination of flare operating variables.  The operating variables
were defined as follows:
     Relief Gas Flow
          High - 25 foot  flame length.
          Intermediate - 1/6 of high flow.
          Low  -1/20 of high flow.
The maximum practical flame  length that  could  be  tested  was  approximately 25
feet due to height limitations of the crane boom  holding  the  sampling probe.
This was the limiting factor for setting the maximum relief  gas flow rate.
     Heating Value            •-....;
          High - Heating  value of the undiluted  relief gas (zero nitrogen flow)
          (2,200 Btu/ft*).
          Intermediate -  Twice  the  low  heating  value  condition  (300-600
          Btu/ft3).
          Low— Lowest  heating  value  that will  maintain  combustion  (high
          nitrogen flow)  (less than 200 Btu/ft3).
     Steam Flow
          High- Steam-to-relicf gas mass ratio of 1.0.
          Intermediate -  Steam-to-relief gas mass  ratio of 0.5.
          Low- Steam flow at incipient smoking.
          Zero

-------
      The preliminary test plan called for determination of the vertical  profile
 of the plume by sampling at least four different heights above the flame.   As
 discussed on page 34, this  was  not done  due to the insensitivity of combustion
 efficiency to probe height.  Following the vertical  profile measurements,  the
 flare's  efficiency was  to be  determined at  the vertical  point where  the
 combustion reactions are complete but prior  to  further  dilution  with  ambient
 air.

      A technical  prete.st meeting was  held on May 6,  1982 at the John Zink Company
 flare demonstration facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma  to allow the project  partici-
 pants to finalize the test  plans.  During this meeting,  six (6)  smoking  flare
 test  designs were adopted in addition to  the 2.7 tests previously mentioned,  for
 a total  of  33  planned tests.   Other  items discussed  during  this  meeting
 included:  the division of  responsibilities,  lines of communication,  quality
 assurance procedures, safety considerations,  schedules  and  testing sequence.

      During the early stages of the test  program, the participants learned more
 about the characteristics of flares,  and  it became  apparent that several of  the
 planned tests were not practical and/or  did  not  represent  the intended  flare
 operating conditions.  Therefore, sixteen of the thirty-three planned  tests
 (numbered 1  through 33) were  cancelled  and a   substitute  group of  tests
 (numbered 50 through 67) were  formulated  in  the field  and  executed  in  their
 place.   The most common reason for abandoning  tests was that  many of the planned
 incipient smoking tests and smoking steam-assisted flare  tests would not smoke,
 even  with zero steam flow.

      During each test  the  flows of  the flare feed gases were monitored  and
.maintained as close as practical to the target levels.  For several tests it  was
 not  possible, due to physical  constraints, to maintain  all  the  flow  rates at
 constant level.  This was particularly true for those tests that called for high
 nitrogen flow.  As the pressure  in the N? cylinder banks declined during a test,
 the nitrogen  flow.would  tend to decrease,  resulting in higher relief gas heating
 values.                                                  i

      Sulfur  was  selected   as  a  tracer  material   to allow  estimation of  the
 dilution of the relief gas  from  the  flare burner tip to the  sampling probe.
 Sulfur was chosen primarily because of the availability of monitoring   instru-
 mentation to measure part-per-billion levels of sulfur using flame  photometry.
 Helium was  considered  as  a  tracer   material.   However,   this   material   is
 difficult to quantify at levels  less  than several  tens of  parts  per million  and
 thus, would require large quantities of  gas.   Additionally,  helium cannot be
 detected on  a continuous basis  as can S02-  Sulfurhexafluoride  (SFg)  was also
 considered as a  tracer  material.   However,  SFs  is net  stable  at  the elevated
 temperatures found  in a flare flame.

      The sulfur  in the relief  gas originated  from three  primary  sources:   1)
 naturally occurring reduced sulfur  in the crude  propylene,  2)  sulfur added to
 the  propylene in  the form  of  butyl  mercaptan (approximately 1 gallon  butyl
 mercaptan/6,800 gallons crude propylene), and  3) sulfur dioxide gas added to  the
 relief  gas  stream.  All  three  sources  and  forms of  sulfur  are  presumably
 oxidized to  S02  as  the relief  gas is burned.  The flare emissions were then
 analyzed for total  sulfur  as SO? using flame  photometry.

-------
      Crude propylene was selected for the relief gas  because  it  is  relativly
 difficult to burn smokelessly,  as compared  to paraffins.   The  availability  of
 propylene and  safety considerations also influenced  its selection as the relief
.gas.    Lower Btu. content  relief gases  were  obtained by  diluting the  crude
 propylene with  inert  nitrogen.   Flow rates for both the propylene  and the
' nitrogen, were eont» oiled by appropriately sized metering valves and rotameters.
 Steam flow to  the steam-assisted flares  was controlled by a metering valve and
 monitored by an orifice meter.  Sulfur dioxide  was added to the relief gas during
 some  of  the  tests to increase the levels of tracer material.  The flow of SO^ was
 monitored and regulated by a  rotameter  and metering  valve assembly.  Figure 2  is
 a schematic  of the  flow  controls and plumbing used to operate the test  flares.
 Figure 3 presents photographs  of  the  flow  control  manifold assembly  and the
 nitrogen cylinder manifold arrangement.                          (


 SAMPLING. AND ANALYSIS

      An  extractive sampling  system was use to collect the flare emission  samples
 and transport these samples to two mobile analytical  laboratories.   Figure 4  is
 a diagram of the sampling  and analysis system.  The extractive sampling system
 consisted of a specially designed 27-foot sampling  probe  which  was  suspended
 over  the  flare  flame  by  support  cables and a  hydraulic  crane.   This  probe
 consisted of a 5-foot unheated  section of I" stain,less steel pipe coupled with
 a 22-foot  heated section of 5/8" stainless steel tubing. The heated section was
 insulated and  housed  in  a  3" pipe which  provided support for  the entire probe
 assembly.    Guy  wires  were  attached  to  both ends of  the  3"  pipe  support  to
 position and secure the probe from ground level.  Figure 5 contains photographs
 of the flare emission  sampling  probe.

      Gaseous flare  emission  samples  entered  the  sampling system via  the probe
 tip,  passed through the particulate filter, through the  heated probe section and
 then  were carried to ground  level by a 3/8"  heated FEP  teflon tube sample line.
 The  sampling system temperature was  maintained above 100 C  to  prevent the
 condensation of  water  vapor. The flare emission sample was divided into three
 possible paths.   A fraction of the heated sample was passed  through  an EPA
 Reference Method 4  sampling train to determine the moisture content  of the
 sample.  A second fraction was directed through a  moisture removal cold trap and
 thence,  into a sampling manifold  in one of the mobile laboratories.  Sample gas
 in this manifold was analyzed by continuous monitors for 0?,  CO,  C02, NOX and THC
 on a dry-sample basis.  A third fraction of the sample  was directed into a heated
 sampling manifold in the other  mobile  laboratory.  Sample gas in this manifold
 was analyzed for S02  and hydrocarbon species  on  a wet  basis.


 TYPES OF F  ,di  BURNERS TESTED

      The steam-assisted  flare used for the test series  was a John Zink Standard
 STF-S-8  flare  tip with two constant ignition silots.   Overall  length was  12'-3
 1/2"  with the  upper 7'-3"  constructed  of stainless steel  and the lower  5V-1/2"
 made  from carbon steel.  The maximum capacity of  the  tip is  rated  by John Zink
 Company  at  approximately 53,300  Ibs/hr  for  crude  propylene at 0.8 Mach exit
 velocity.  However,  the STK-S-8 would not burn  this volume of gas and  remain
 totally  smokeless.  The capacity of steam flow through  the flare steam manifold

   :    '    .         .       '  • •     -    8   •      . '      ,  '  .   •:••..'•••'

-------

•ITKKC*

              f.
                      •*•
                      iKomn '
                    COHTHM.
         MITMCEll
     -95—	1    JTM
-------
                   Flow.Co
                Nitrogen  Cy
Figure 3.   Flow control  and
                        10

-------
                                         CRANE SUPPORT
                                                          /PARTICIPATE


                                                         I       ^THERMOCOUPLE
                                    KEAHP PROBE-1     UNHEATED PROBE
                                     SECTION          SECTION
                                                       H_PJ-
                                                       ) PROBE-'
A
















1
•'

•
"
1















1 CO |
1 ««Al"ZE» |
•

-


,


r



























































EXHAUST"


MOBILE LAB II

THC 1 I CO*
M*LYZE» 1 1 ANALYZER



rrr




/^




777



\

HEAT "TRACE -*
SAHPU LINt




I MOrSTURE I
• 	 j nrrFRM i NAT inn ^, , '
1 APPARATUS J

•

•
I CO 1 HO, I
j ANALYZER | [ ANALYZER |



^




'
























—
,

.














































HEATED HAH 1 FOLD








H TEMPERATURE
HONITOR


	



LE





| DATA I



1




I















/









'>
/










H

^


•y
+
:<
.•.
'••::
f=i
•:
T







V
\











v





















Jt
METEOROLOG 1 CAL 	
TOWER




MOBILE LAB t2
' Jt
<2
&


INTEGRATED
BAG SAMPLE

TAPE









HYDROCARBON
SPECIE























-4 SAMPLE 1


SO? TRACER I
ANALYZER |







t
r





,

s
s,
/
s
/
/
\
/
s.
/
\
/
\
/
\

•EXHAUST






Figure 4.   Flare sampling and  analysis  system.

-------
Flare emission sampling probe.
       12

-------
is  10,080  Ibs/hr  based  on  steam  conditions of  100 psig  and  338°F.   The
recommended steam flow for this flare is approximately 0.4 pounds of steam per
pound of  crude  propylene.   The steam jet total flow  area is 1.92 in? and the
unobstructed flow area at the  exit of the 8 5/8" ID  steam-assisted flare tip is
27.0 In*.-

     The  air-assisted1 flare  was  the John  Zink  STF-LH-457-5 flare  with two
constant  ignition pilots.   The overall  length of this flare was  13'-2".   The
upper portion of this  flare's  air plenum and burner are constructed of stainless
steel and the  lower portion is  of carbon steel.  The maximum capacity of the air-
assisted flare is approximately 23,500 Ibs/hr  of crude propylene, which can be
burned smokelessly through use of an air blower. The  blower  used for this test
series was  7  1/2 HP  vane axial fan located in the base of the 18 1/4" ID air
riser.   The relief gas is delivered  to the tip by an 4" OD internal  riser with*
the air supplied around the outside through the air riser and plenum.  The relief
gas is discharged via a specially  designed  "spider" on the end of the internal
riser.   The total area of the relief gas  holes  in the spider burner was 5.30 in2
for the tests on high Btu content  relief gas and 11.24 in^ for the tests on low
Btu  content gases.   The  air  flow and  air   flow  velocity  are  proprietary
information and are not  included in this report.

     Typical field installations of  air-assisted flares-utilize two-speed forced
draft fans.  The blower normally runs at  low speed with automatic advancement to
high speed  upon an  increased  relief gas  flow signal.   The blower  is  also
automatically returned  to  low speed when the  increased  relief  gas  condition
subsides.  Some deadband is normally provided  to avoid excessive speed cycling
of the  blower with oscillating flows.   Normal  low  speed  operation  handles
approximately one-third of the maximum smokeless duty.  The air-assisted flare
used in these  tests employed an adjustable air  inlet vane  assembly instead of a
two-speed fan.  Adjustment of  the vane assembly allowed duplication of the high
and low speed air flow rates without the two-speed fan.

     Two different "spider" burner  tips were employed during the air-assisted
flare tests.  The LH  burner tip, designated  at  "A", was used for tests 26, 65,
28 and 31 for high Btu content gases, and the  burner  tip  designated as "B" was
used for the low Btu content  gas tests 66, 29, 64,  62, 63, 33 and 32.

     John Zink Standard  STF-6-2 pilots  were used  for both flare  tips.   At 15
psig, the pilots were  designed to burn 300 SCFH of natural  gas. The natural gas
burned in the pilots  had a lower heating value of 921 Btu/SCF. Two pilots were
used on both the air-  and  steam-assisted flares,  resulting  in 552,600  Btu/hr
being supplied to the flare by the pilots.


FLARE TEST PROCEDURES

     All key  personnel  involved in the  execution of  the flare tests were in
communication  with one another  via a hard  wire  intercom system.    This
communications  system  included  the  following:    J2 test  coordinator,  ES
instrument operator,  CMA test  observer, EPA ROSE operator, steam flow operator,
rotameter operator, vaporizer  operator,  crane  operator, propylene  truck/nitro-
gen bank operator and video camera operator.  All  conversations between these
persons during  tests  were recorded on  the  video tape and on a portable  tape

                                      13

-------
recorder.  In addition,  the two ES mobile laboratories were in communication via
a separate intercom system.

     Flaring was not begun until all key personnel were at their stations and
verified  that  they were prepared to initiate  a  formal  test.   Then  the  test
coordinator would call for flare ignition and the gas flows to the flare would
be  adjusted  to the previously  agreed  nominal values.    Once  the flows  were
stabilized  the probe  would  be brought  into position  by manipulating  the
hydraulic crane and guy wires.
                                         t         ,         —     ' -         :
     The  probe  positioning  objective was to place the  probe  tip as  close as
possible to the flare flame without the probe being in the flame.  The intent was
to  sample the flame emission plume as close as possible  to the combustion zone
to minimize the of dilution of the plume by  ambient air.   The prohe tip was kept
out of the flame so as not to bias the data with gases that were still undergoing
combustion reactions.

     Probe positioning  was  directed  by the  JZ  test  coordinator.   The  test
coordinator's  visual  probe  positioning was  aided  by  observers located  in
different quadrants surrounding the  flare and the CMA observer who was situated
on an elevated platform.  Additionally,  the ES instrument  operator monitored the
probe tip temperature, CO, C02,  and THC.

     When the project participants agreed that the probe was positioned as well
as was feasible, the test coordinator announced the initiation of the test and
data collection ensued.   The probe position was adjusted as required during th?
test to compensate  for changes in wind conditions  causing movement of the flame
and the plume away from the probe tip.   These adjustments were both vertical and
lateral.  The primary criteria  for  determining the need to adjust  the probe
position  was  a decline in  probe  tip  temperature.   Short-term declines  in
temperature (i.e. less than one minute)  were common as  the flare flame and plume
moved with intermittent  changes in  the wind.  However, extended temperature
declines (i.e., greater than two minutes) were  regarded  as a significant shift
of the wind and signaled • ie need to adjust the probe position.

     Data collecton continued for each test for a target period of 20 minutes.
The actual test duration was dependent  on a number of  factor, which influenced
decision of when to terminate the tests.  These factors included;

     1.   The effects of the flare's radiant heat on  buildings,  personnel  and
          test equipment in the  area;

     2.   The representativeness of  the data  from the standpoint of being able
          to maintain good probe positioning during the majoritv of  **" i< .t-
          and              .-.'-.

     3.   The consumption rates of propylene and  nitrogen.


BACKGROUND MEASUREMENTS

     Ambient alt concentrations of the compounds  of interest were r,?dsurev"  in
the test area before and after each  test or series of tests.  The*e
                                     14        •-'..•'  "'.;'

-------
measurements  were  collected  for . a 'minimum period  of  five  minutes.    The
background measurements  collected  before the tests were  typically initiated
fifteen  to thirty  minutes  before  the  anticipated start  of the  next  test.
Background measurements collected after the tests were  initiated as soon as all
the  instruments  indicated  a  complete return to base!ine concentrations (typi-
cally five to ten minutes  after  test completion).  On  occasions when several
tests were executed  in a relatively short time period (less than four hours),
the  same pair of before and after background measurements were applied to more
than one test.  On othe" occasions a set of background measurements collected
after a test would also suffice as the background  data  set collected before the
next test.
CONTINUOUS EMISSION ANALYZERS

     Flare emission measurements of carbon monoxide (CO),  carbon dioxide (CO?),
oxygen  (0;?),  oxides of nitrogen  (NOX)»  total hydrocarbons  (THC)  and  sulfur
dioxide (SO?) were measured by continuous analyzers that responded to real time
changes in concentrations.   These analyzers  obtained  their  samples  from the
sample manifolds in the two mobile laboratories.  Table 2 is a summary of the
instrumentation  used  during  the  tests.    The operating principles  of  these
instruments are well known and are not discussed in detail  in this report.

     The  instruments  were  operated  according  to  the manufacturers'  recom-
mendations, utilizing the  primary measurement ranges  listed  in  Table 2.   The
only exceptions to  this were the operation of the THC and SO? analyzers.  During
some tests it was necessary to change  the operating range of  the THC analyzer to
higher scales due to elevated levels of these compounds.  The Meloy SA 285 SO?
analyzer was modified to  incorporate a 1:5  sample  dilution  system.   This was
necessary in order to minimize the effect of  variable 0? content in the flare
emissions on the instrument response.

     All  instruments  were housed  in, air conditioned  mobile  laboratories  to
minimize the effects of temperature on instrument response.  However, given the
high radiant heat effects  of some of the flare tests, it was  not always possible
to maintain a constant temperature within the mobile labs.  This factor had the
greatest effect  on  the  NOX and SO?  analyzers which employed photomultiplier
tubes in their  detection systems.  The effect of rising  ambient temperature was
noted as a slight shift in the instrument baseline.


HYDROCARBON SPECIES ANALYSIS

     Flare emission samples were collected during each test for  gas chromato-
graphic analysis for hydrocarbon  species.   These samples were of  two  forms:
instantaneous samples and time integrated samples.   The instantaneous samples
were periodically withdrawn directly  from the sample manifold during each test
and injected into the chromatograph via a gas  sample loop.  The time integrated
samples were transferred  from the manifold into a six  liter Tedlar® bag over a
period  of  five  to  ten  minutes.   Subsequently,  the  integrated samples  were
analyzed by gas chromatograph.  The analysis techniques for the integrated and
Instantaneous  samples were the same.   Only  the sampling differed.  Table  3
outlines the operating conditions of gas chromatograph.
                                      15                       " .

-------
                             TABLE 2.  FLARE EMISSION  ANALYZERS AND INSTRUMENTATION
         Make and Model
                                   Parameter
                            Primary
                         Operating  Range
                           Operating  Principle

-------
              TABLE 3.  GAS CHROMATOGRAPH OPERATING CONDITIONS
      Gas Chromatograph:
                 Column:
                Packing:
       Oven Temperature:
Sample Loop Temperature:
            Carrier Gas:
           Carrier Flow:
       Sample Loop Size:
           Sample Valve:
          Detector Type:
      Calibration Basis:
  Lower Detection Limit:
         Valving Scheme:
Carle 211
4.9 foot x 1/8 in. stainless steel
n-octane/porasil C, 100/120 mesh
35 °C
35°C
Nitrogen
35 cc/min.
1 cc
Carle 6 port, selonoid activation
Flame ionization detector
Methane equivalents (parts per million)
0.05 ppmas  Cfy
Direct injection, no backflush
                       Elution Times:     Minutes
                       Methane             1.27
                       Ethane/Ethylene     1.62
                       Propane             2.44
                       Propylene           2.91
                       Butane              4.68
                                    17

-------
TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS

     The  temperature at  the sampling  probe  tip was continuously  monitored
during  the  tests with  a chromel-alumel  thermocouple  in conjunction with  a
digital thermometer.  The thermocouple selected was  an exposed bead type so as
to. minimize the response time. An open end stainless  steel shield protected the
thermocouple from the flame's radiant heat and still allowed  free circulation of
the flare emission around the thermocouple.  Thermocouples were also installed
in the  heat trace  line,  the heated manifold and the heated probe assembly to
allow monitoring of these tempertures during the tests.


PARTICULATE ANALYSES

     The probe assembly  included  an in-line particulate  filter  housed inside
the heated section of  the probe about six feet from tne probe tip.  This in-line
particulate filter assembly served two purposes:  1) collection of particulate
samples from  smoking  flares for subsequent analysis, and  2)  maintaining the
cleanliness of the sampling  system.  The preweighed filter elements used were of
the thimble configuration and constructed of 0.3 micrometer glass fiber.

     The filters were changed before and after each of the smoking flare tests.
Following  the  tests  the filters  were  reweighed to determine  the mass  of
particulate collected.  This information, combined with the measured flow rate
of sample through  the probe assembly,  allowed the  calculation of  the  gross
particulate concentration of the flare emission at the sampling location.  It
should  be  noted  however, that  these particulate samples  were  not  collected
isokinetically and  thus, represent  only gross estimates  of  the particulate
concentration. The flare particulate emissions  were  not isokinetically sampled
because it was not practical  to directly measure the plume velocity.  Due to
small particle sizes, the  lack  of  isokinetic  sampling conditions is probably
insignificant.


MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS

     The moisture content of the sampled  flare emissions were determined by the
procedures set forth  in EPA's Reference Method 4 (40  CFR 60  Appendix A).  A gas
sample was extracted from the heated sample  line and  passed  through a series of
four impingers immersed in an ice bath.  The impingers removed the water from the
sample stream by condensation and  by adsorption on silica  gel.  The weight gain
of the impingers  was  measured to determine the moisture content of the sample.
The only deviation from the published method required by this appication w
-------
for steam-assisted flare tests and 3.0% average for air-assisted flare tests).
Therefore, moisture corrections were not applied to the data because of their
low  levels and  questionable  accuracy.    It  is  not  believed that  moisture
corrections would enhance the value of the data.

     The results of the  moisture  determinations  may  be found in  Section 4 of
this report,


METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS

     The ambient wind  speed, wind direction and temperature was monitored at the
flare test facility concurrently  with  the collection  of flare emission data.
The meteorological sensors were situated as close as was practical to the test
flares at an elevation approximately the same as the flare tip (12 feet, 8 inches
AGL).

     Due to the numerous air flow obstructions in the test area the  wind data are
not expected to correspond with the prevailing Tulsa area winds.   Rather, the
wind data were intended to represent the wind  encountered by  the subject flare
flames.

     Testing of  the  flares was  found  to be  infeasible  when wind velocities
exceeded 5 miles per  hour.   Elevated  wind velocities prevented  sustained and
consistent positioning of the probe in the flare plume.


AUDIO AND VIDEO-RECORDINGS

     Audio  and  video  recordings  were  made during the  flare tests.   Video
recordings were made  to  document the  flame behavior and  the probe position
relative to the  flame. The  video  camera was positioned to have an unobstructed
view of the flame by placing it on  a platform approximately 20  feet above ground
level.  The distance from the flare to the camera was approximately 50 feet.

     Audio recordings were made of the  verbal observations of the  participants
during the tests.  The audio recordings  were made on the same magnetic tape used
for the video recordings.  The intercom system  served as the source of all audio
recordings.

     The audio and video  recordings were made primarily as means  of documenta-
tion of the tests and to allow possible future more detailed analyses of the data
with respect to flame  behavior.  These recordings  were not generally used in the
data analysis contained in this report.  The  one exception to this  is the use of
the  recordings  to  identify the  point  at which  smoking began during  Test  11
relative to tfce increasing Btu content of the relief  gas.
                                      19

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                       DATA COLLECTION AND CALCULATIONS
CONTINUOUS ANALYZERS' DATA ACQUISITION

     The outputs of the continuous monitoring  instruments used for this study
were analog signals that were  proportional  to the magnitude of the parameter
being monitored.   These output  signals were  recorded on both  a  strip chart
recorder and  on  a  data logging  system.   The  strip chart records  provided  a
permanent, continuous record  of the analyzer output and a graphical display that
aided in the data interpretation.  The electronic data  logger system provided a
convenient means to record and process a large quantity of data.  Although the
data logger served as the primary means of  data acquisition,  the  strip chart
records provided a back-up data  acquisition system :.nd  documentation for the
data logger.

     The data logger employed for this project was a Monitor Labs  Model 9300.
This instrument was coupled with a 9-track magnetic tape recorder (Kennedy Model
9800) and a ten-digit manual data entry system.  The functions of the data logger
were as follows:

•    Scan each instrument output (approximately every 12 seconds);

•    Convert the analyzer's analog output to a digital value;

.    Scale the digital value to a useful unit  of measure (ppm, mph,  etc.);
.    Record the scaled instantaneous  value on  the 9-track magnetic tape.

•    Average the instantaneous Values to one-minute averages;
.    Print the one-minute, averages on paper tape for on-site review;  and
•    Label each set of data with the  time and  the  appropriate manually entered
     status data.

     The original test plan called for the data logger to scan each channel  once
every six seconds.   However,  this was not possible given the  number  of input
channels to the data logger (10), the required functions, and the speed of the
instrument.   Each  input  channel  was  scanned  for  instantaneous  data  approxi-
mately once every twelve seconds.

     The data  logger's internal clock  was set as closely as possible to  Central
Daylight Savings  Time  (COST).  This clock was used  as the standard time for all
data acquisition relating to the flare tests.

     The printed paper tape output  of the data  logger provided means  to review
the data being recorded on-site by the data logger.  This data was compared  with
the strip chart data  to ensure  integrity in the entire data acquisition system.
Likewise, the  paper tape output  was used to indicate the combined instrument and
data logger responses to the routine  zero and  span  calibration gas  inputs.  An
example paper tape output may be found in this report's  Appendix.

                                      ?0

-------
     A 10-digit manual data  entry  system  allowed the labeling  of each set of
data as it was collected.  This system was used to record the following:

     Record
     Digits                           Parameter

                                      Test number designation
                                      Sampling probe height (feet and
                                     • inches)

     6, 7, 8                          Spare

     9                                Status of data
                                      0 = Calibration data   •
                                      1 = Acceptable test data
                                      2 - Change in test conditions
                                      3 = Questionable data
                                      4 = Ambient background data
                                      5 = Trial test burn
                                      6 = Probe positioned in fire
                                      7,8= Spare       :
                                      9 = Disregard data              ^


HYDROCARBON SPECIES DATA

     The gas  chromatography  data for  hydrocarbon  species was recorded  by a
Hewlett-Packard Model  3390 Integrator.   This  device accepted the analog signal
from  the  gas  chromatograph  and plotted  the  peaks  which correspond to the
hydrocarbon species.  The integrator also determined the retention  time for each
peak and the peak areas which  are proportional to the hydrocarbon concentration.
This data was recorded by a printer/plotter on a  paper tape. The peak area values
recorded on this tape were subsequently reduced  to units of parts per million by
volume of  methane equivalents.


DOCUMENTATION

     The performance of these tests was documented by the following:

.    Logbooks maintained by CMA project  participants.  These records contain a
     test  chronology,  records of field observations,  records of flow  rates of
     gases feeding the flare  and preliminary field data records copied from the
     data  logger paper tape.  These logbooks are stored at  CMA's headquarters in
     Washington,  D.C.

•    Logbooks  maintained by  ES test  personnel.   These  records  contain  a
     chronology of all  events associated with the flare tests that are related
     to thf' analysis of  flare plume gases.  This recorded  data includes records
     of Calibrations,  zero  and span  checks,   samp liny  probe  heights,   test
    j observations, moisture determination data, particulate mass loading data,
     difficulties encountered and solutions offered.   These logbooks are stored
     at the ES Austin, Texas  office.
                                      21

-------
•    Strip chart records.  This includes continuous recordings of CO, CO?, NOX,
     THC,  SO?,  0;?,  probe temperature,  wind speed, wind  direction,  ambient
     temperature  and the  gas  chromatqgraph  integrator.   These  records  are
     maintained at the ES Austin, Texas office.

.    Video  and  audio  recordings.    These magnetic  tapes, include  the: audio
     recordings of the participants' comments and observations made during each
     test through the intercom  system.  The  video tapes ?.lso  include a visual
    . record of  the flare flame during the tests.   Copies  of these  tapes  are
     stored  at  the  JZ   Tulsa,  OK  facility;  the CPA,   IERL  Office,  Research
     Triangle Park,  North Carolina;  and  the  CMA headquarters in  Washington,
     D.C.                                 •• = .-     ...-.•

•    Data tapes.  These paper tapes and magnetic computer tape contain all  the
     validated data logged by the data logger  during the tests. The paper tapes
     are stored at the ES Austin,  Texas office.  Copies of magnetic tape  are
     stored at CMA headquarters, Washington,  D.C.,  and at the ES Austin,  Texas
     office.

CALCULATIONS                                                   ;   ;  •

     The following calculation formulas and constants were employed  to reduce
the data presented in this report.
Combustion Efficiency

                 CO?
     % CE =
            CO + C02 + THC
                           .100
Where:    CO,  CO?   and  THC  are  flare plume  concentrations  (corrected  for
          background) of these parameters  in parts per million by volume.  (The
          THC term is expressed in terms of.methane equivalents corrected for
          background.)  Note that soot corrections  were made only for Tests 4,
          8, and 65 (see pages 43-46).
Gaseous Flows
Ft
Ft
% MR
T00~ . MF
•
ffiw .
V29
V29 "

14.7 .
P+14.7
MR
prro "

T + 460
530
~ "53CT
Where:
                                      Standard Rotameters (SCFM)
                               r±'     Direct Reading Rotameters (SCFH)
          F^ - gas flow at time t
          % MR = percent of full-scale meter reading for standard  flow
          MR = meter reading for direct reading rotameters
          MF - flowmeter calibration factor (SCFM)

-------
          MW - molecular weight of gas in flow meter
           P = flowmeter back pressure (PSIG)
           T = temperature of gas (°F.)
Flow Meter Calibration Factors

     Meter Designation

         699 MT
         391 MT
         R13M-25-3
         R10M-25-3
         R8M-26-2
                         Flow Meter  Calibration  Factor (SCFM)

                                        745.4
                                        409.5
                                        128.8
                                         26.04
                                          2.13
Gas Constants
      Gas

Crude Propylene
Nitrogen
Sulfur Dioxide
    Density (Ibs/ftlj
          0.1106
          0.1700
          0.0730
 Lower Heating
Value (Btu/ft3)

      2183
         0
         0
Molecular
 Weight
Steam Orifice Flows

      3" orifice maximum flow = 2,250 Ibs/hr
      1-1/2" orifice maximum flow =600 Ibs/hr
      1/2" orifice maximum flow = 200 Ibs/hr
 Ft =
 Chart  -  20
~80~
 Where:   F.  = steam flow at time t (Ibs/hr)
           \r
          FMJIX = maximum steam flow through orifice (Ibs/hr)

          % Chart = response of recorder coupled with flow transducer

          20 = zero offset of recorder

          80 - full-scale recorder response

          Pg - steam pressure, (psia)

          P0 = base pressure, (psia) ,
                                      23

-------
Average Flows
    .
       ~
Where:   FA = average flow rate for each test
         z = number of flow rate readings during each test
         '"t? = flow reading numbered l...z at time t

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                         REVIEW OF  FLARE  TEST  RESULTS
     The test reviews contained in this section are grouped by the experimental
variables of flow  rate  and  Btu content of the relief gas.  The  test reviews
consist of a narrative  description  of the test conditions  and the results by
test group.   The measured combustion efficiency of the flare is the term which
is used in these discussions to evaluate  the flare performance.

     Statistical data summaries are presented  on  a test-by-test  basis in the
appendix to this report  (Appendix B).   The data  presented  in  these summaries
were calculated from the instantaneous data values  (collected at approximately
12-second  intervals)  which  have been  corrected  by subtracting  background
concentrations.  No adjustment was made for moisture.  These summaries include
average values,  standard deviations,  number  of observations  and  combustion
efficiency calculations  for each  test.   The combustion  efficiencies for each
test were calculated by  two methods:  (1) the  "average combustion efficiency"
values listed  in  the summaries are  the  average  values  of  all  of the instan-
taneous combustion efficiency  calculations performed  on the instantaneous data
values; (2)  the "overall combustion efficiency" term was calcuelated from the
average concentration  values  of CO,  C0£ and  THC  for  the  entire test.   The
differences between these two  calculation methods  are not regarded as signifi-
cant.  The  "overall combustion efficiency" term is used in  this  report for
comparison between tests.

     The chronological order in which the tests were performed minimized piping
and equipment changes in the field,  and this order is substantially different
from the groupings  listed here.   The test numbering  system is not sequential
since  many  tests were  added  or deleted  from the planned  sequence.   Tests
numbered 1 through 33 represent tests which were completed  in  accordance with
the planned test series.   Tests numbered 50 through 67  represent test conditions
which were planned and implemented in the field in  place of the deleted tests.

     The results for tests numbered 11, 16, 59,  29 and 32  have been divided into
subtests (designated ll(a), ll(b),  etc.).   These  test data were  divided into
subtests for  data  analysis because the flare operating conditions significantly
changed during  the tests. The  division  into subtests allowed  the  data to more
closely represent steady-state flare operation.  All other tests were judged to
represent steady-state flare operation.   The  criteria for steady-state  flare
operation were  that  all  individual  flow  readings must be within +10% of the
average flow.


STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS

     Twenty-three  tests  were  completed  on the  John Zink  Company  (STF-S-8)
steam-assisted  flare. The flare operating conditions and the results of  these
tests are summarized in Table 4.

                                      25

-------
                                                         TABLE  4.    STEAM-ASSISTED  FLARE  SUMMARY
        T*St Conditions
                                                                      RELIEF ens'
                        Test
                                  (SCFM)
                     Exit
                   Velocity
                   (ft/inn)
                        Lower
                       Heating
                        Value
                      (Btu/SCF)
    Prop>lene Flop
(Ibs/hr)
                                                                                                   Hitrogen  Flow
                                                                                               (Ibs/hr)
                                                                             Steam
                                                                	       Flow
                                                                (SCFM)(Ibs/hr)
                                                                        Steam-to-Rplief
                                                                           Gas  Ratio
                                                                            (Ib/lb)
                                                                               Combust if>"
                                                                               Efficiency
                                                                                Percent
       i!
 1
 2
 3
 4
 8
 7
 5
67
473
AHA
456
263
157
154
149
148
2,523
2.475
2.432
1.509
  837
  821
  79b
  789
2.183
2.183
2.183
2.183
2.183
2.183
2.1B3
2.1E3
3.138
3,078
3.027
1.875
1.044
1.019
  991
  980
             473
             464
             465
             283
             157
             154
             149
             148
                                                                                                                        2,lb9
                                                                                                                        1,564
                                                                                                                        1,355
              72?
            1,513
              711
                            0.688
                            0.508
                            0.448
                                                                                                                             0.757
                                                                                                                             1.56
                                                                                                                             0.725
                                                                                                                                          99.96
                                                                                                                                          99.82
                                                                                                                                          99^82
                                                                                                                                          9!..BO"
                                                                                                                                          9E.81"
                                                                                                                                          99.84
                                                                                                                                          99.94
                                                                                                                                       See pg. 28
= *E
 xcessive,
Stew Flo
Rates
                                    24.5
                                    24.4
                                    24.5
                                    25.0
                                    24.7
                     131
                     130
                     131
                     133
                     132
                        2,183
                        2.183
                        2,183
                        2.183
                        2,183
                              162
                              162
                              163
                              166
                              164
                            24.5
                            24.4
                            24.5;
                            25.0
                            24.7
                                                  150
                                                  498
                                                  652
                                                  941
                                                 1,125
                                                                0.926
                                                                3.07
                                                                3.45
                                                                5.67
                                                                6.86
                                            99.84
                                            99.45
                                            99.70
                                            82.18
                                            66.95
OV
                         57
                      1Kb)
                      59
-------
High Btu Content Relief Gases

     This test  group  addresses  the steam flare's combustion efficiency while
burning high Btu content relief gases at variable flow rates and various steam-
to-relief gas ratios.  Tests  numbered  1, 2 and 3 examined the burning of the
crude propylene  at the normal  (high)  rate of approximately 3,100 Ibs/hr with
steam-to-relief  gas ratios ranging from 0.688 to 0.448.   Test 3 was run at the
steam flow which yielded incipient  smoking of the flare.  No significant change
in the combustion efficiency values was noted between these three high flow rate
tests.   What little  hydrocarbons were  present were predominately  methane.
Likewise, the average corrected CO concentrations for these  tests wer:- low,
ranging from 3.8 to 13.8 ppm.

     The CO? values reported during the first minute of test 3 are lower than
those which were prevalent  during  the  remainder of  the test.   The combustion
efficiency data  does not appear to be  influenced by this  unexplained  anomoly.

     The background data file applied to test 3 has a negative average value for
CO (-0.4 ppm).   This was caused by the  physical  limitations of the CO analyzer.
This instrument  was operated on  the  lowest available range (0-1000 ppm).  At
this range, the  practical  limit  for  accurately adjusting the analyzer's zero
response was +3.0 ppm.  Therefore, it  is  not  surprising that siightly negative
background CO values  could be recorded  during conditions of low  ambient  CO
concentrations*

     The average corrected total hydrocarbon ,/alue reported for test 1 is -0.7
ppm.   This  negative  value  results from  thr measured ambient  background THC
concentration being higher than  the THC corjentration measured above the flare
flame.                          '

     Tests numbered 4  and 8 were perforred with crude propylene relief gas flows
of 1,875 and 1,044  Ibs/hr  without an>  steam assistance to the  flare.   These
conditions purposely resulted  in  a heavily smoking flare condition.  The relief
gas flow rates for test number 4 wp.-e reduced from those used  in tests 1,2 and
3 in order to keep the flame lerjth within the probe height constraints.

     The combustion efficiencies for these two  tests are reported  as 98.80% and
98.81%.  It should be noted  fiat these combustion efficiency calculations do not
account for the  carbon los* as soot; only carbon present as gaseous species are
considered (CO,   COp, and THC).   Higher levels of CO were observed during these
tests  (61 to  75 ppm corrected)   in comparison  to tests 1, ? and 3.   However
elevated  levels of iMburned  gaseous  hydrocarbons  were   not  detected.    Tr,e
hydrocarbon species f4ata shows the predominant species present to be methane and
acetylene.

     Particulate samples of the  spot  were collected during  these  two  tests.
This data is addressed later in this section.

     Tests nuMbered 7  and  5 were designed to represent flaring  of a  hi"h Btu
content gas at  an  intermediate flow rate.   The steam-to-relief  gus rat  « was
1.56 for t'.-st 5  and represented  the  high steam flow case, while the  ratio  of
0.757 for test 7 yielded incipient smoking.  Both of these tests at Intermediate


                                '      27    .    .   .'         .          ,

-------
flow rates yielded similar combustion efficiency results to  the high flow rate
tests (1, 2 and 3).  The observed combustion efficiencies were 99.94% and 99.84%
for tests 5  and  7  respectively.  Methane accounted for the major fraction of the
total hydrocarbons present in the  flare emissions.  The  corrected CO levels for
both tests were fairly  low at 4.1  ppm for test 5  and 7.9 ppm for test 7.

     During  test  67  the sampling  probe  was  deliberately placed  in the flare
flame.  This is in contrast  to the other tests which sought to sample in the
flare plume above the flame.   The  purpose of  this  short test  was to demonstrate
the upscale instrument responses to the partially combusted gases in the flame.
Concentrations of CO  and THC were observed to rise sharply and off scale as the
probe was placed in the flame.  THC concentrations were observed to be greater
than 100 ppm and CO concentrations were observed to be  greater than 2,280 ppm.
The data collected dunng this test does not represent the combustion efficiency
of the flare  since the sample was collected within the flame.  The average values
for THC and  CO reported in  the statistical summary are disregarded since these
numbers excluded the overrange observations.

Low Flow Rate. High Btu Relief Gases

     Tests numbered 17, 50,  56, 61 and 55 examined the  effects of increasing
steam flows on the flaring  of a high Btu  content relief gas at a low flow rate
(approximately 164 Ibs/hr).   Test 17 yielded resilts similar to the high and
intermediate flow rate tests.  The overall combustion efficiency was calculated
to be 99.84% and the  corrected average  concentrations of  THC and CO were low at
-0.5 and 6.1  ppm, respectively.    (The  negative THC value  resulted  from the
measured concentration being lower than the  background  concentration.)  It was
determined during  this test that  a steam-to-relief gas ratio of 0.926  was
required for smokeless operation  at the  designated flow  rate.

     Tests 50,  56, 61  and 55 were performed at increasing  steam flow  rates.  The
steam-to-relief gas ratios used for these tests are regarded as  being higher
than those that  would represent good engineering practice. Steam-to-relief gas
ratios  for   tests 50  and  56 were 3.07  and  3.45 and yielded  combustion
efficiencies of 99.45% and 99.70%.  By  contrast the  steam-to-relief gas ratios
for tests 61  and 55 were 5.67  and 6.86 and resulted in lower observed combustion
efficiencies of 82.18% and  68.95$.   This data suggests that steam-to-relief gas
ratios above 3.5 may cause inefficient combustion.

     The total  hydrocarbon  and CO concentrations for tests 50 and 56 were fairly
low in keeping with the high observed  combustion efficiencies.   However,  the
hydrocarbon specie data for these two tests  show that a  larger fraction of the
total hydrocarbon was present as unburned propylene (approximately  1/4 of the
total hydrocarbon for test 56 and  1/2 of the total hydrocarbon tor test 50)  in
comparison to the previously discussed tests.  In tests 61 and  55, with the lower
observed combustion efficiencies,  the CO and THC concentrations  were  elevated
and propylene represented  approximately 3/4  fraction of the total  hydrocarbon.

     Test ol  was a repeat of Test 55. this repeat test was performed because of
uncertainties regarding probe placement during test 55.  The flaring of the  high
heating value relief gas at a low flow with a  very high steam  rate yielded a low
luminosity  flame  that  prevented   accurate   visual  placement of  the probe.

       '  .       :  .                   28  ".-;•     '            .

-------
Additionally, test 55 was conducted during variable wind conditions.  Test 61
was performed at night to aid visual probe positioning  and to take advantage of
stable wind  conditions.  The only significant difference  between test 61 and
test 55 was  that the steam-to-relief gas ratio for test 61 was somewhat lower
(5.7  versus  6.9).   This ratio  is still regarded as  being very  high  and not
representative of typical industrial operating practices.  The effect of steam
quenching on the flare combustion efficiency  is evidenced in the test data.

Low Btu Content Relief Gases

     The flaring of low Btu content relief gases  was simulated by diluting the
high Btu crude propylene with inert nitrogen.  Thus, by changing the relative
flow rates of nitrogen and crude propylene to the flare, the heating value of the
relief gas could be varied.  For this series  of tests, the Btu content of the
relief gases ranged from 634 Btu/SCF  to 192 Btu/SCF,  and the relief gas flow
rates ranged from 3,292 Ibs/hr to 803 Ibs/hr.

     The original test plan  called  for  the series of tests involving low Btu
content  relief  gases  to  include  variations in  the  steam  flow to  achieve
incipient smoking and  smoking conditions.   However,  for most  of these tests
smoking was not observed, even with zero  steam flow. Only when the lower heating
value rose above 450 Btu/SCF during test 16 was smoking observed.

     Tests numbered 11,  59  and 16  in this  series were  divided into subtests
because the flare operation  was  not steady-state during these  tests.   Due to
physical limitations in the nitrogen flow control  system, the flow of nitrogen
decreased with respect to time  causing  a corresponding  increase in  the Tower
heating value of the relief gas.  The division into subtests allowed the data to
more closely represent steady-state flare operation.
                   :   m                      .

     Test 57  represented  the  highest flow rate of  a low Btu content gas  that was
tested.  The flare was  supplied  with  3292 Ibs/hr of  relief gas  with  a lower
heating value of 294 Btu/SCF and a steam-to-relief gas ratio of 0.150 steam/lb
relief gas.  Test 51, by comparison, represented flaring of a similar heating
vaiue gas (309 Btu/SCF) with  a similar steam-to-relief  gas ratio (0.168), but at
a  lower  flow rate  of  1,527  Ibs/hr.    Tests 57  and  51 achieved  combustion
efficiencies  of  99.90%  and • 98.66%,  respectively.    Corrected  hydrocarbon
concentrations of 2.0 ppm and 11.5 ppm  and CO concentrations of 5.0 ppm and 34.1
ppm were obtained for  tests 57  and  51,  respectively.   The  slightly lower
combustion efticiency of test 51  is also observed in  the  hydrocarbon  species
data.   The observed  hydrocarbons in test 57 were approximately 20% non-methane
species, while the hydrocarbons  in  test 51  were  comprised  of  58% non-methane
species.

     TI   rlarnes  for  tests  57  and 51  were  of low  luminosity and  visual
positioning of the probe was difficult.   These two tests were the only low Btu
flare  tests  where steam was supplied  to the flare.  The  background  file as
applied to test 51  (and  tests 23  and 52)  lists probe tip temperatures that are
higher than  ambient levels.  This is believed to  be caused by the probe acting
as a heat reservoir from the  test event that immediately preceded.  This anomaly
does not effect the combustion efficiency data.
                                      29

-------
     Tests 11, 59, 60 and 16 examined the flaring of relief gases with heating
values of 19? Btu/SCF to 634 Btu/SCF at flow rates ranging from 3,101 Ibs/hr to
803  Ibs/hr  with zero steam  flow to  the  f'are.   The variations  in  observed
combustion efficiencies for this set of tests was fairly narrow, ranging from
99.93* to 98.11%.

     Test 59 demonstrated the flaring of a low Btu content gas at a high flow
rate with no steam.  The  nitrogen  flow  decreased during  this  test from 2,453
Ibs/hr to 1,726  Ibs/hr  due to declining  pressure  in  the nitrogen cylinders.
This resulted  in  an  increase in the. Btu  content  of the relief gas  from  182
Btu/SCF  to  257  Btu/SCF  from the  beginning to  the end of  the test.   This
corresponds to a slightly lower combustion efficiency for test 59(a)  than for
test 59(b).                          .

     Tests 59(a)  and 59(b) had the lowest Btu  content relief gases of the group.
Likewise, these tests exhibited slightly lower combustion efficiencies.  This
observation is confirmed  in the hydrocarbon species data which  shows test 59 to
have elevated total hydrocarbon concentrations (as compared with tests 11, 60
and 16), and  non-methane  hydrocarbons representing 92% of the  total.   These
results indicate that some unburned hydrocarbons :were sampled during this test.

     Test 11 was to demonstrate the flaring of  low  heating value gas at a flow
rate of approximately 3,100 Ibs/hr.  No steam was supplied to the flare.  The
flow rate of  nitrogen  to  the flare  declined somewhat during  the  test, thus,
Musing  a  corresponding  increase  in  the heating  value  of  the  flare  gas.
rnerefore,  this  test has  been divided  into  three  subtests  [ll(a),  ll(b)  and
ll(c)] for purposes of data analysis.  The data  does  not indicate any change in
the flare combustion efficiency with the change in nitrogen flow.

     Test 16 was designed  to be  a smoking  flare test utilizing an intermediate
flare gas flow with a  low heating value gas.  No steam was  supplied to the flare.
As was the case  with Test  11,  the  nitrogen flow declined during the test and
hence, the test was divided into subtests for aata analysis [tests 16(a), 16(b),
     During the initial period of the test,  when  the heat content of the flare
gas was the lowest, the flare did not emit  smoke.  However,  as the nitrogen flow
declined and the heat  content  of the flare  gas increased,  the flare began to
smoke.  The smoking began approximately nine and cne-half minutes from the start
of  the  test  [during subtest 16(b)] when  the heating value of the  flare gas
reached approximately 450 Btu/SCF.  The smoking increased with increasing Btu
content of the  relief gas.  The onset of smoking and the change  in heating value
did not have any obvious effects on  the gaseous combustion efficiency data (if
carbon lost as  smoke is excluded from tne  combustion efficiency calculations).

     Test 60 was similar to Test 16( a) except the Btu content was slightly lower
at 298 Btu/SCF   instead of 339 Btu/SCF.  The flow rates for the two  tests were
similar with exit velocities of 1781 and 1707 ft/min.  The observed  combustion
efficiency for  test 60 was 98.92% as  compared with 99.74 for test 16(a).  As was
the case for test 59,  this slightly  lower  combustion efficiency is believed to
be a result of  the lower Btu content of the relief gas.
                                      30

-------
 Purge Rate Relief Gas Flows

      Tests 54,  23, 52 and  53 examined purge gas flare operations.  Purge flows
 are sometimes used in flare operations to prevent oxygen encroachment  into the
 flare system during the time that no relief gas is provided the flare.  It should
 be noted for these tests that the flow of natural gas from the flare  pilots was
 significantly  greater than the flow of the purge gases.  The two pilots burned
 a total of 10 SCFM (9210 Btu/min)  of natural gas as compared with purge flows of
 0.56 to 0.36 SCFM (149 to 74 Btu/min).  Thus,  the overall combustion  efficiency
 measurements  for  these  tests  were  primarily a measure  of  the flare pilots.
 During these tests only  an occasional flicker of flame could be observed  at the
 flare header.

      Tests 54 and 23 were performed without the addition of steam to  the flare.
 Thest tests yielded high observed overall combustion efficiencies of  99.90% and
ilOO.01%.   The  calculated combustion efficiency greater  than 100% for test 23
 resulted  from  the observed hydrocarbon  level  above  the flare being  slightly
 lower than the measured ambient background hydrocarbon concentrations.   The
 corrected  total hydrocarbon concentration for tests 54  and 23 were  0.0  and -5.0
                                                    '
     .Tests 52 and 53 were similar to tests 54 and 23 except 210 Ibs/hr steam was
 supplied  for  the  former.   The calculated  combustion  efficiencies for tests 52
 and 53 were 98.82% and 99.40%.  This slight decline in the combustion  efficiency
 is believed to be due to steam quenching of the combustion process.  Corrected
 total  hydrocarbon values observed for tests 52  and  53  are  15.2 and 10.9  ppm.
 Correspondingly,  the  CO concentrations for tests 54  and 23 were  lower than for
 tests  52  and 53  (6.8  and  4.5 ppm versus 16.0 and 23.9 ppm).  Likewise,  non-
 methane  species  represented a larger percentage of  the total hydrocarbon for
 tests  52  and  53  than  for  tests 54 and 23,

     The  probe tip  temperatures  during the first three and one-half  minutes of
 test  53  were not recorded  by the data  logger.   This  temperature data was
 recovered from  the strip  chart record.    The low,  steady  wind  speeds  that
 prevailed during test 54 allowed the collection of twenty minutes of  relatively
 consistent data.  However, during the  latter part of  the test  the wind speed was
 observed  to increase with a corresponding decrease in  probe tip temperature, C02
 concentration, and  S02 concentration.


 AIR-ASSISTED  FLARE  TESTS

     Eleven  tests were completed  on  the  John  Zink  Company  STF-LH-457-5  air-
 assisted  flare.   The  flare operating  conditions  and  results  are summarized in
 Table  5.

 High Btu  Content  Relief  Gases

     Four tests  numbered 26, 65,  28  and 31 were conducted on undiluted crude
 propylene burned  in the  air-assisted  flare.  The flow of relief gas for these
 tests  ranged from  3,196  Ibs/hr  to  150.8 Ibs/hr.    All  these tests achieved
 observed  combustion efficiencies greater  than  99. OX.

                         ''•""•     31            '    .     '       .

-------
                  TABLE  5.   AIR-ASSISTED FLARE SUMMARY
Test
Test Conditions Hunter
c
w
**
s0
3
00


«J
_ c
5 u
o»


o>
c
— » o»
5 ° **
L
u
&

0>
S82
J-Hcr


. '
*JM
O.U.OC
26
65
28
31
66
29(a)
29(b)
64
62
63
33
32(a)
32(b)

Flow
(SCFM)
481.6
159
157
22.7
639
510
392
249
217
121
0.714
0.556
0.537

Velocity
(ft/mln)
13087
4320
4266
617
8192
6538
5025
3192
2782
1551
9.1
7.1
6.9

Heating
Value
(Btu/SCF)
2183
2183
2183
2183
158
168
146
282
153
289
83
294
228
RELIEF GAS*
Propvlene
(Ibs/nr)
3196
1056
1043
151.8
308
261.9
173
214
101
106
0,181
0.498
0.374

Flow
(StFM)
481.6
159
157
22.7
46.4
39.3
26.2
32.2
15.3
16
0.0272
0.0750
0.0563

Nitrogen
(Ibs/hr)
-
*
2598
2062
1602
949
884
464
3.01
2.10
2.10

Flow
(SCFMJ

-
593
471
366
217
202 '
105
0.687
0.481
0.481
Air Flow
High
Off
High
Low
Off
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Combustion
Efficiency
99. »7
99.57**
99.94
99.17
61.94
55.14
65.65
99.74
94.18
99.37
98.24
98.91
96,86
 *  A!) values  at standard conditions of 70*F and 29.92 in Hg.
**  Itot accounting for carbon present as soot (see Table 10).

-------
     The hydrocarbon species data for the higher flow rate  tests 26, 65 and 28
show the bulk of the total hydrocarbon present as methane.  Test 31 integrated
hydrocarbon  species  data shows only  14% of  the total  hydrocarbon present as
methane.   Correspondingly test  31  has the  lowest  flow rate  and combustion
efficiency  of the group.   The  data  collected  during test 28  exhibits  more
variation than usual due  to the  unstable wind conditions that were present.

   .  One of the ambient background files that is applied to  this data (file 32)
shows slightly higher concentrations of CO  and CO? and lower concentrations of
THC during the first minute of data than are  prevalent during  the majority of the
background  period.    The  probable  explanation  for  this  is  that the  probe
temporarily was in the plume of  another combustion  source  in  the  area.   This
abberation does not significantly effect the test results.

     Test 65 represents the combustion of a high Btu  content hydrocarbon at an
intermediate flow rate  and no air assistance. This test essentially represents
a repeat of test 28 without the  air blower switched on.   During the test, the
flame was observed to smoke.

Low Btu Conjent jelief Cases  .

     Five tests were performed on  low Btu  content  relief gases with the air-
assisted flare.   The  relief gas flows  for these tests ranged from 2,906 to 570
Ibs/hr and the lower heating values varied from 146 to 289  Btu/SCF.

     Tests 66,  29  and  62  of  this group yielded the  lowest  combustion  effi-
ciencies observed for  the air-assisted flare tests.  Correspondingly,  these
tests involved the lowest  Btu  content relief gases  (146 to 158 Btu/SCF)  that
were tested on the air-assisted flare.   The  flare flames for  these tests were of
low  luminosity  and  were  observed  to  be detached from  the flare  tip.   This
detached  flame  condition  is  not  regarded  as good  engineering  practice.
Predictably, the major  portions  of the unburned hydrocarbons present  in the
flare plume were in the form of propane and propylene.  Likewise,  elevated CO
concentrations were observed during tests 66, 29 and 62.
'       .                          '           •  •                       '
     In contrast to  the above low efficiency tests, the air-assisted flaring of
282 and 289  Btu/SCF relief gases  during  tests 64 and 63 proved to be much  more
efficient.    These higher Btu  content relief gases were  flared  at lower  flow
rates (1,163 and 590 Ibs/hr) than the previously discussed tests  and  yielded
good combustion  efficiencies of 99.74% and 99.37%.  Methane comprised 61% of the
total hydrocarbon for test 64 and  only  29% of the total  hydrocarbon for the less
efficient test,63.

     The CO? data  from  test 63 shows a three minute  period in the middle of the
test with CO^ concentrations observed  near  ambient levels.  This is believed to
have been caused by the  flare plume shifting away from thi?  sampling probe due to
a wind shift.  This  is  evidenced by shifts in  wind  speed and  direction  and a
decline  in  probe  tip   temperature  that corresponds  to the  decline  in  CO?
concentrations.    This  shift   in  CO?  concentrations  caused  a  corresponding
decline in the combustion efficiency data.   Therefore,  the  average combustion
effir<«ncy data presented for this test is  regarded  as conservative.
                                      33

-------
     The first thirteen minutes of data collected during test 29 was designated
as test 66.  The difference between  these  two tests was that the air-assisted
flare's axial fan was  turned off for test 66 and turned on for test 29.  Both the
propylene and the nitrogen  flows were observed to decrease during test 29, thus
resulting in unsteady flare operation.  Therefore, the test was divided into two
subtests [29(a) 29(b)J in  an effort  to make the data within each subtest more
closely approximate steady-state  flare operation.

Purge Rate Relief Gas Flows

     Tests 33  and  32  evaluated the  performance  of  the air-aisisted  flare in
burning purge rate flows of low  Btu content gases.  As was the case for the steam
flare purge  gas  tests, the overall efficiency of the purge gas combustion is
masked by the flare pilots.

     The purge flows for tests' 33 and 32 are ranged from 0.714 SCFM to 0.537 SCFM
as compared with the 10 SGFM flow of  natural  gas  from  the  pilots.   The lower
heating values of the purge gases  for these tests ranged from 83 Btu/SCF to 294
Btu/SCF.  The observed combustion  efficiencies for these tests were 98.2458 for
test 33 and  98.87%  for test 32.   These  values  are  slightly  lower  than those
observed for  the steam-assisted flare purge  gas tests. However, the majority of
hydrocarbon  measured   in   the  flare  plume 'was  found  to  be  methane,  thus,
suggesting that incomplete combustion of the natural gas.from the flare pilots
may have caused the lower  combustion efficiencies.

     The flow of  crude propylene to the flare did not remain constant throughout
test 32.  Hence,  the test data  was divided  into two subtests [32(a)  and 32(b)J
appropriate for data analysis.


SENSITJVITY OF COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY TO PROBE HEIGHT

     During the course of  the  test series  the position of the flare sampling
probe was frequently adjusted to keep the probe tip as near as  possible to the
middle of the flare plume and as close to the flame as possible without being in
the flame.   These changes were  necessary to compensate for changes  in  the wind
that occurred  during the  tests   and  resulted  in  changes in the flare flame
pattern and  location.   Not infrequently,  the probe was situated at  several
different locations and heights during a test.

     The vertical position of the  probe did not  have a definable effect on the
combustion efficiency  data. Figures 6 and 7 are graphs of combustion efficiency
versus probe height that demonstrate-the  insensitivity of  the vertical probe
position to the combustion efficiency measured at the probe tip.


EFFECT OF STEAM-TO-RELIEF  GAS RATIO
ON COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY

     Steam injection is a techrique commonly used in flare operations to enhance
the combustion  process.    The  steam-assisted flare  tests  performed  in  this
project included a wide range of  steam flows and steam-to-relief gas  ratios.

                                   .   34             .".':'

-------
           3J
           32
           31
           30
        o
        or
        a.
        6 28

        £
           27
           26
            ii.tt)  95.7f' -95.80   99.90  100.00  I'OO.Ip 100.20 100.30 100.40

                            COMBUITION
figure 6.   Sensitivity of combustion  efficiency to probe height.

                                Test  28
                                   35

-------
         u

         < U2
         m
         o
         cc
         a
         u


         UJ
         X
           39
           38
37

 95.80
99.90

COMBUSTION
                                           100.00
                                                          100.10
Figure  7.   Sensitivity of combustion efficiency to probe  height.

                               Test 57
                                 36

-------
      Figure  8 is a graph  of  the ?ffeet of steam-to-relief gas ratios on the
measured  combustion efficiencies of high  Btu content relief gases.  This plot
shows general  tendencies for combustion efficiencies to decline at higher or
lower than  normal  steam flows.   This  data suggests that steam-to-relief gas
ratios  ranging from 0.4 to  1.5  yield  the best combustion efficiencies.   The
smoking flare tests  at zero steam  flow were observed  to have slightly lower
combustion efficiencies  than the other comparable tests at  normal steam flows.
Presumably this  is due to the lack of steam-induced  turbulence and reaction in
the  combustion process.   It should be noted that these combustion efficiency
values do not  account  for  carbon lost  as  smoke.

      The  steam flows during  the  low flow rate tests were at too  low a velocity
to promote good combustion.  Likewise,  because  of the low relief gas flows the
steam to hydrocarbon ratios were greater than for the higher flow rate tests.  In
the  case  of tests 61  and 55, the  excessive  steam-to-relief gas  ratios  are
believed  to  have caused  steam quenching of  the flame.


FLARE NOX EMISSIONS

      Emissions  of  NOX from  both steam-  and  air- ^sisted flare  plumes  were
measured during this test program.  The  NOX conrsiv-   jns observed during these
tests were  fairly  low in  comparison  to  other type--,  of  combustion  sources.
However, the NOX concentrations were subject to undefined dilutions of ambient
air  and  steam not normally encountered  in  other  sources.    Corrected  NO
concentrations ranged from 0.50  to  8.16 ppm.
'X
     The NOX  mass emission  rates were estimated  from the NOX and  CO?  data
suggested by EPA:

Ef o  = Mo1es NOy  . 46 Ibs/mole N0y . 132 Ibs CO? produced
 '*   Moles CO?    44 Ibs/mole C02   42 Ibs propylene burned

     . 47.2 Ibs propylene burned
            ~ 106 Btu
     -                    "5-0 • )b NIO  Btu
Where:
     Moles NO*    PPM NO* Measured
     Mole  CO?  " PPM CO? Measured

Assumptions:                                                              .

     1.   100 % combustion of propylene (fuel assumed to be 1005K  propylene);
     2.   Equal dilution of  NUX  and COp between flare  plume and sampling probe;
     3.   Neglect Btu content of flare pilots (612,600 Btu/hr,  gross);*
     4.   47.2 lbs/106 Btu higher heating value for propylene.
*  For purge tests, this assumption Is Invalid.


                                      37

-------
100
99
98
97
96
95
9<-
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
5 85
3 gi,
o
E 83
UJ
5 BJ
2 m
1 ou
79
78
77

76
it
71*
71
7?
it
70

68
67
0

CD^O )






























































KEY
• - SMOKING flMr
• • HIGH riOW HAT
X • LOW now RAH

































rrsrs
! TfSTS


< X




















































V

































x
















































— r


                                   )     I      *      S
                                  STfAM TO MLIir MS «ATIO(lb/lh)
Figure 8. Effect of steam-to-rel1ef gas ratios on flare  combustion efficiency.
                         (High Btu content  relief  gases)
                                        38

-------
     Table 6 summarizes the NOX results of these calculations.  This treatment
of the NOX data yields NOX emission rates ranging from 0..0.18 to 0.208 lbs/10&
Btu.   Examining  this data shows  no  clear patterns  of high or  low emissions
between test groups.  One possible exception to this is the high Btu content air-
assisted flare tests which yielded the highest calculated NOX emission rates.


HYDROCARBON ANALYSES

     Hydrocarbon analyses were performed both by continuous total  hydrocarbon
monitor and by gas chromatograph for  hydrocarbon species.  The samples for the
gas chromatograph were taken  from the heated sample manifold (wet basis) and
either directly  injected  into  the instrument  (an  instantaneous   sample)  or
collected in a Tedlar® bag over a period of time (integrated bag sample), and
subsequently, analyzed by  the same gas chromatograph.   The continuous hydro-
carbon analyzer withdrew  its sample from an unheated sample manifold  (dry basis)
and measured total hydrocarbon (THG)  directly.  Both the chromatograph and the
continuous hydrocarbon  analyzer utilized flame ionization  detectors.   Thus,
three sets of hydrocarbon data are available for each test.

     Tables 7 and 8 prfsent a  summary of  the  hydrocarbon data collected during
the steam- and air-assisted flare  tests.   All  three sets  of hydrocarbon data
show good agreement between their  total hydrocarbon values  for  those tests with
lower THC concentrations  (high combustion efficiency tests).   In addition, the
instantaneous  anu bag  sample  values show  good  agreement  (considering  the
different sampling techniques) throughout the range of values.  However, some
discrepancies  are  noted  between the  continuous  THC values  and  the  gas
Chromatograph THC analyses at  the  higher  concentrations encountered during the
lower combustion efficiency tests.  These discrepancies at higher  THC concen-
trations are believed due primarily to the  absorption of unburned propylene in
the cold trap  associated with the dry basis  sampling  system utilized by the
continuous THC analyzer.   It is believed that  the propylene was subject to loss
by virtue of its solubility in the water in the cold trap.  This may have been
the situation despite the precaution of using a minimum-contact  design cold trap
condenser.

     The  sample  concentrating  effect of  the  cold trap  i?  believed  to  be
negligible due to the low moisture content of the gaseous samples.   Variations
between  the  response  characteristics  of  the  gas  chromatograph1?  and  the
continuous THC analyzer's detectors  are  not  thought to be significant.   Both
instruments were calibrated in terms of parts per million by volume of methane
equivalents.

     The continuous total hydrocarbon  analyzer's data is believed to  be the most
useful for evaluating the higher combustion efficiency tests where  methane was
the major fraction of the total  hydrocarbon.  However,  in the case of the lower
combustion efficiency tests where  water soluble propylene could have be^n lost
in  the continuous  analyzer's  sampling  system, the  integrated bag  samples
provide the most  representative total hydrocarbon data.   Likewise,  since the
reported  combustion efficiency  values  were  based on  the continuous  total
hydrocarbon data,  these  values may be biased  high  for the  lower  combustion
efficiency tests due to thp potential  loss of propylene  In the sampling system.

                                      39

-------
                      TABLE 6.   FLARE NO* RESULTS

Test
No.






0>
L.
<0
U_
•o
o»
*J
*n
*A
I/)
§
o>
*».
i/>








QJ
U
«
u.
1
2
1/t
<
1
L»
•^
< . •



*J
=
V
*•»
§
%••*
3
*•*
O3
f
X




•M
C
OJ
4-»
§
u
3
4J
co
E
_j

a w
•^J ~
CD a
.wl
£ C
' Oi ' O
.£•3

«. *J
£ £
CO ^j
_ C
|«s
^J

1
2
3
4
8
7
5
67
17
50
56
61
55
57
11
59
, 60
- 51
16
54
23
52
53.
26
65
28
31
66
29
64
62
63
33
32
•Wii*
Concentration
(PPMy)
3.09
2.16 ;
1.54
1.96
1.45
1.62
2.09
3.77
1.00
0.50
0.58
1.32
0.38
2.68
3.69
1.41
0.99
0.57
1.87
5.00
5.90
0.68
2.83
5.34
2.40
8.16
4.02
0.97
1.06
1.24
0.60
1.57
0.74
1.75
C02*
Concentration
(PPMV)
7,052
4.719
2,496
6,61'
5,400
5.224
7,052
. H/A
3.499
4,220
3,120
6,273
2,012
6,945
5.269
5,413
3,685
3,347
4.059
7,115
8,465
2,622
5,741
6,270
4,878
6.076
4,568
2,432
2,179
3,282
3,076
4,164
1,857
3,702
NOX
Mass Emission
(Ibs/lO* BTU)
0.068
0.071
0.095
0.046
•0.042
0.048
0.046
H/A
0.044
0.018
0.029
0.033
0.029
0.060
0.108
0.040
0.042
0.026
0.071
0.109
0.108
0.040
0.076
0.132
0.076
0.208
0.136
0.062
0.075
0.058
0.030
0.058
0.061
0.073
•  Corrected for background.

-------
               TABLE  7.   HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS  SUMMARY
                        STEAM-ASSISTED  FLARE  TESTS
Test
NO.
1
2
3
c 4
•V
1 ;
£ 5
•g. 17
* 50
56
61
55
57
n
I»
Jsi
£ U
§ **
""•23'.
5?
53
Continuous THC
Analyzer
»*g. Cone.*
3.7
6.5
4.3
10.5
9.5
9.9
4.9
4.7
1Z.O
6.2
964
742
7.8
6.6
36.1
14.3
" (.-. Z2.8
6.4
6.5
6.3
?4.6
15.6
Instantaneous Samples, Average Values*
t\ Cj/C?* C2* £3 C3= C< THC
2.2 - - - - - 2.2"
3.0 - - - - - 3.0**
2.5 . - ... - J.5"
4.73 0.68 2.51 0.25 ?.66 - 10.8
5.70 0.63 3.00 0.15 1.8? - 11.3
1.79 O.?0 0.30 0.1? 0.35 - 2.8
2.4 - - - - . - 2.4**
2.59 0.25 - 0.09 - - 2.9
3.59 1.08 0.49 1.34 5.65 - 12.1
4.06 0.12 0.10 0.19 1.52 - 6.0
45.6 143 69.2 635 2,675 - 3.568
14.07 3.35 0.20 268 1,075 - 1,36)
6.72 0.37 0.03 0.29 O.SO - 7.9
4.29 0.24 0.52 0.31 0.71 - 6.1
4.00 2.96 1.05 3.30 9.63 - 20.9
3.75 1.28 0.55 1.47 6.22 - 13.3
5.82 0.56 0.53 0.50 1.78 - 9.2
6.06 0.49 0.18 0.64 2.16 - 9.5
3.15 0.64 - 1.76 2.42 - 8.0
3.47 0.02 - 0.06 - - 3.6
7.66 1.74 0.03 5.21 21.24 - 35.9
3.39 0.90 0.31 2.04 6.10 - 12.7
Bag Sanoles, Average Values*
Cj Cy/Cp* C?s C3 C3" tt THC
3.0 - 1 - - - - 3.0**
2.8 - ... - 2.8**
3.5 • -' - •-'•'-• .: : 3.5**
6.19 0.76 2.95 0.34 0.77 - 11.0
5.87 0.63 1.46 0.18 0.34 - 8.5
2.9? - G.22 0.23 0.56 - - - 3.9
3.08 - 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.03 4.0
3.12 0.59 0.35 0.15 0.06 - 4.3
4.31 1.90 0.95 2.2) 7.65 - 12.6
4.91 1.46 1.06 0.88 2.22 - 10.5
24.2 67.4 33.5 282 1,182 1.08 1603
16.5 36.6 21.0 259 1,061 - 1402
7.54 0.53 0.16 0.36 O.B2 - 9.4
5.70 1.33 0.35 0.3? 0.79 0.02 8.5
4.31 5.17 1.7? 13.0 31.4. - 55.6
4.45 3.05 1.31 2.63 14.? 0.08 J5.6
8.19 3.73 3.83 1.38 5.92 - 23.1
6.55 0.48 0.25 0.55 1.15 - 9.0
3.46 0.64 0.33 0.86 1.57 0.02 6,9
3.95 0.05 - 0.09 0.11 - <.2
6.65 2.49 4.23 6.70 27.8 - 47.9
3.97 1.53 0.55 3.22 13.6 - 2?. 9
 * ATI ir*lu«s are pp* by volume methane tquivalents; untc-rected for background THC.
••The gK clwo«atogr«ph electrometer attenuation was  se' to a less sensitive scale for these analyses.
 K£T:  Kcthjne. C|
      Cthane, Cj      Propjlene, (.3* Total Hydrocarbon, THC
      Ethylene, Cj*
Fropane, C3
Propjlene,  (.3*
Acetylene, Cj*

-------
                                              TABLE b;   HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS C'JMMARY
                                                       A)S-ASSiS7EO FLARE TESTS
Test
No.
i-»
S £ 65
»J28
31
^ 66/29
£ 64

a 63
«»
CO -
5 »
Continuous TKC
Analyzer
Avg. Cone.*
11.3
4.8
6.0
15.7
1.238
8.7
109
15.3
32.1
34.1
Instantaneous Samples. Average
Cl
3.36
4.63
4.15
4.85
25.5
7.59
13.1
5.97
25.1
15.6
C2/C2*
0.86
0.07
0.19
4.93
69.1
C.54
14.7
1.57
2.71
1.71
C2= C3 C3S
0.15 0.67 2.02
0.18 0.07 0.06
0.03 0.18 0.54
1.20 3.62 29.0
27.4 513 1,992
0.06 0.36 0.82
5.64 32.8 249
0.78 1.67 6.45
0.10 1.44 3.38
0.28 0.93 2.19
values*
C4 THC
7.06
5.0
- '5-1
- 
-------
      Figure  9  is  an example  of  a gas  chromatograph  analysis of  the  flare
 emissions.
PARTICULATE MATERIAL ANALYSES

     Samples  of  theparticipate material  emitted  from the flare  flame  were
collected during the flare test series.  An in-line fiberglass filter collected
these  samples for  determination  of particulate mass  loading  and'subsequent
analysis for polynuclear aromatic  compounds (PNA's) by gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy.  The  PNA data  is reported  in Appendix D.

     Table 9  is a summary of the mass particulate concentration data collected
during the test series.  The data show  distinct differences between particulate
loadings of nonsmoking and smoking flare tests.

     The combustion efficiency calculations used in this report  as a measure of
the flares' performance  did  not account  for the carbon  lost  as  particulate
material in the smoke.  Only terms for CO,  COz^and THC concentrations are used
in these combustion  efficiency calculations.  Therefore,  the gaseous combustion
efficiency values reported for the smoking flare  tests would be expected to be
higher than the real combustion efficiency.

     The following equation was used to include the carbon lost as particulate
material for smoking flare tests 4, 8 and 65.


      CE% =     C0?    	„ x 100
            C02 + CO + THC + Cp

Where:

     CO? = carbon dioxide concentration (PPMV)

     CO = carbon monoxide concentration (PPMV)
     THC = total hydrocarbon concentration (PPMV as methane)

     Cp = particulate concentration (PPMV assuming smoke particulate as gaseous
          elemental carbon and ideal gas, 2.03 1/g).

     Table 10 outlines  the results of calculating the  combustion  efficiency
using this particulate'corrected method.


DILUTION RATIO AND DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY DETERMINATIONS

     The attempt to use  sulfur  as a tracer material  for the flare tests yielded
disappointing results.   The tracer  technique was employed in Heu of measuring
the volumetric flow rate of the flare plume.   Volumetric flow rate determina-
tions in an open combustion system such as a flare are not feasible.   The  intent
was to  complete a sulfur balance between the flare burner and the samp 1 ing probe
in order to calculate the effective dilution of the flare  gas due to combustion,
steam,  forced air and ambient air.  By knowing the dilution ratio, estimates of
flare destruction efficiency and emission  rates can be  calculated.   Unfortu-
              .   . .          ' '       43        .         - -  '• .

-------
                      1.62  ETHANE
                  ACETYLENE

                    ?.<*'. PROPANE
                                            1.23 METHANE
                                            2.89  PROPYLENE
      STOP-
    I  194
TD   26128 68

ESTD
   RT
1.2S
1.6?:
1,91
? .44
2.851
3,5£
                              JUN/2 1/8.2-  14-11 88
                      ise
 AREA TW- CAL.
                     -PB
                     PV
                     W
                     vv
                     VP
                     PH
                     PV
 46859
.23?8i
 87374
                                           AMOUNT
                                            e.eee
                                            3.581
                                           .6.988
                                            « eee
                                            e.eee
                                            8 '.886
                                            6.688
       TOTAL AREA-
       HUL FrtfTOR- 1.8e88E-»98
Figure 9.   Example gas  chromatogram  hydrocarbon analysis.
                          (Test 50)

-------
                          TABLE 9.  PARTICIPATE ANALYSIS

Test No.
2, 3, 1, 5, 7
7, 17, 50, 51
23, 52, 53, 54
4 (Smoking)
8 (Smoking)
55, 56, 11, 57
16, 59, 60, 61
28, 31, 26, 29
33, 32, 62, 63
64, (80. 81, 82
83, 84)2
65 (Smoking)
Filter No,
A-l
F-l
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
Wt. gain,
(grams)
0.0063
0.0071
0.0810
0.0819
0.0179
0.0183
Sample Time *
(minutes)

_ —
16
25
—
25
Sample Rate Concentration
(&/min) (jjg/A)
18.51
18.51
18.51 274
18.51 177
18.51
18.51 40
    Includes  time for,probe positioning while probe was in the plume but
    before  formal  initiation of tfie test.

2-  Separate tests conducted for John Zink Company  not  reported herein.

-------
TABLE 10.  SMOKING FLARE COMBUSTION EFFICIENCIES
Combustion
Participate Efficiency
Concentration (percent)
Test
4
8
65
(yg/i)
274
177
40
(pl/1) Particul ate Corrected
557 91.21
360 92.72
81 97.95
Reported
99.80
98.81
99.57

-------
nately, considerable difficulty was encountered in quantifying and maintaining
constant levels of sulfur in the relief gas.

     The primary source of flare gas for this series  of tests was a tank truck
of 6,800 gallons of crude propylene  to  which approximately  4  liters of butyl
mercaptan were added.  This  addition of  mercaptan should have yielded a sulfur
concentration of approximately 89 ppm (by  weight) in  addition to the naturally
occurring sulfur in propylene (estimated at 2 - 10 ppm).  An  extremely wide range
of results were obtained from these  analyses.  Thus, there is considerable doubt
as to the actual concentration of sulfur in the propylene.  Additionally, this
data cast doubt  on  whether or  not the concentration of sulfur was stable or if
a fraction of the sulfur could have combined with the steel tank, iron pipe or
other materials which were in contact with the propylene.

     The sulfur content of the nitrogen  used for dilution of the propylene and
the sulfur content  of the r-team condensate were found  to be very low  and did not
represent a significant contribution to the  overall   sulfur balance.

     The  levels  of  S02  measured  during  the  initial  tests were  lower than
expected, and in some cases,  challenged the practical  detection limit-of the
analyzer.  After completion of  ten of  the thirty-four  tests,  provisions were
made to add S02 gas into the relief gas stream  in order to elevate the sulfur
levels  in the flare  emission into a midrange level.  This modification was
plagued with mechanical falures  that prevented the addition of SO? to many of
the subsequent tests and was not accomplished at a uniform rate.

     The sulfur balance data yielded results that were  much higher than would
reasonably  be  expected  to  occur.    In addition,  the  ratio of  SO?  to  CO?
concentrations in the flare emissions were not constant as was expected, either
between tests or within tests.  The SO?  and CO? ratio should be constant given
that both these gases are subject to the same dilution  effects and assuming a
constant level  of  sulfur in  the relief gas and no  effect  due  to background
concentrations.

     Because of the doubts surrounding the sulfur balance dilution ratios, an
alternate means  of calculating  dilution ratios was  formulated  using  the CO?
data.  This  technique  assumes  stoichiometric combustion and is frequently used
in evaluating envisions from other combustion sources.  However,  the CO? dilution
technique was not well received because:  (1) it did  not  provide a measure of
dilution independent  of the combustion measurement, and  (2) the flare plume did
not maintain steady-state conditions relative to the  sampling  probe.

     By making simplifying assumptions, destruction efficiency calculations can
be made and  are  provided  in Appendix C.  With regard  to  flare efficiencies, it
should be noted  that  in  a smokeless  flare, the total hydrocarbon destruction
efficiency will  always  be  greater than the combustion  efficiency.   This  is
because, by definition,  the  percentage of  hydrocarbon that is converted to CO?
(combustion efficiency) is equal to or less than the  percentage of  relief gas
that is converted to CO and  CO? (destruction efficiency).

-------
MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS

     The moisture content of the flare emissions was gravimetrically determined
using an ice-bath condenser type of moisture trap.  Table 11 lists the results
of these moisture analyses.  The moisture data were lower than expected with an
average of 3.0% moisture measured for the air-assisted flares and 3.8% moisture
measured in the steam-assisted flare samples.  A description of the methodology
used for moisture determinations may be found page 18 of this report.


OTHER FLARE TEST ANALYSES

     A composite sample of the steam condensate was collected and analyzed for
sulfur and hydrocarbon content.  The results of these analyses are as follows:

Sulfate        less than 1 mg/1
Sulfide        0.03 mg/1
Hydrocarbon    0.13 mg/1

     The crude prqpylene that was used during  the  test series as the basis for
flare fuel  was  analyzed by both the propylene vendor  and  by  ES.  The results of
these analyses are as follows:

Analyst          Propylene          Propane          Ethane/Ethylene

Vendor             80.2              19.8

ES                 79.4              18.5                  1.9%

For the purposes  of this test series, the differences between these two analyses
is not significant.        .

     The nitrogen used to dilute the crude propylene to  a lower heating value
gas was analyzed for hydrocarbon content.  The nitrogen was  found  to contain
0.33 ppm by volume of hydrocarbon methane equivalents.
                                      4B

-------
TABLE 11.  FLARE EFFICIENCY TES1
  MOISTURE  CONTENT  OF  SAMPLES
         (EPA METHOD 4)
Test Number
7
3
]
5
7
1 1
50
51
23
b?
53
54
4
g
55
56
1 1
57
16
59
60
61
?8
31
26
66
?9
33
32
62
6^
63
65
Mci sture
(Volume %}
<1
N/A
7. 1

-------
                                  SECTION 6

               QUALITY  ASSURANCE  AND QUALITY  CONTROL ACTIVITIES


MULTIPOINT CALIBRATIONS   .                        '

     Before the collection of data was initiated,  the continuous analyzers were
checked for proper operation.   A  key element of the operational checks was the
multipoint calibrations.   These  multipoint  calibrations consisted  of  chal-
lenuing the analyzers with a zero gas and  several  upscale concentrations of the
gaseous compounds of interest.  Calibrations were conducted at the concentra-
tions anticipated  to be in the flare emission plume.   The purpose  of  these
multipoint calibrations was to demonstrate instrument response linearity both
within instrument  ranges  and  between instrument  ranges.   Table  12  lists the
analyzer  ranges and gas  concentration  ranges  used for  these  checks.    The
criteria for calibration curve  acceptability was no more than 5% deviation from
the  input  value within  a range  and no  more  than  a  10% deviation  from the
reference standard between ranges.

     The source of the  calibration gases  was aluminum compressed gas cylinders
certified by their manufacturers  to be  accurate  within + 2%  of  their listed
concentrations.  The  gas standards for NOX and CO were traceable to'the National
Bureau of Standards'  standard reference materials. .The compressed gas standard
for S02 calibrations was contained in a Teflon® lined aluminum  cyl inder and was
certified on-site against a graviametrial ly calibrated S02 permeation device.

     In addition, the efficiency  of  the N02 to NO converter in  the NOX analyzer
was checked using the procedure recommended in EPA Reference  Method 20 (40 CFR
60 Appendix  A).   The converter efficiency was found to  be   greater than 99%
efficiency in the conversion of N0£  to NO.
     The  response  of  the  probe  tip  thermocouple  was  verified  at  ambient
temperature against the calibrated meteorological station  thermistor  and  was
checked for 0°C response in an ice water bath.


ZERO AND SPAN CHECKS

     Before and after each test or series of tests, all  the continuous analyzers
were challenged with zero gas and a single upscale  concentration of the compound
of interest.  The purpose of these calibration checks was two-fold.  First  the
col lection 'Of  the zero/span data provided a data base  to allow estimation of  the
analyzer's precision of measurement.   Secondly, the gas standards used  for  the
zero and  span  checks provided  points  of reference for instrument  calibration
adjustment between tests.  Thus, the zero/span  checks  provided  a mechanism to
both monitor and maintain the precision of the  d'atii.

     Table 13  is a summary of the zero span check data.

                                      50

-------
                  TABLE  12.   MULTIPOINT  CALIBRATION CHECKS
    Analyzer     Instrument Ranges Checked     Calibration Gas Levels V
CO
CO?
THC4
NOx
02
S02
0-5,000 ppm
0-3,000 ppm
0-1,000 ppm2
0-5%2
0-10%
0-15%
0- 100 ppm2
0-1000 ppm
0- 500 ppm
0-25 ppm2
0-100 ppm
0-250 ppm
9-1000 ppm
0-25%2
0-1 ppm range
(Instrument modified with
1:5 dilution --system to
yield an effective 0-5 ppm
range)
3,490 ppm
1,003 ppm
252 ppm3
5.01%3
10.0%
50 ppm3
159 ppm
500 ppm
3.7 ppm
17 ppm3
92 ppm
21. 0%3
12.1%
2.0%
.934 ppm3
.404 ppm
.103 ppm
1  All instruments' zero responses were verified with zero nitrogen.
2  Primary operating range used during tests.
3  Concentrations used for routine span checks and calibration adjustments,
4  THC analyzer calibrated on methane.
                                     51

-------
TABLE 13.  ZERO/SPAN CHECK SUMMARY
Parameter
CO
C02
THC
HOX
02
S02
HC Species
No. of
Checks
29
30
31
29
29
34
33
Average Deviation
of Instrument Response
to Span Value
-0.91%
-1.16%
-0.13%
+2.94%
-0.07%
-3.25%
-0.80%
Standard
Deviation
11.88%
13.09%
±2.65%
+4.37
±1.32%
±4.98%
±2.20%
Upper 95%
Probability Limit
+2.77%
+4.90%
+5.06%
+11.51%
+2.52%
-t-6.51%
+5.11%
Lower 95%
Probabil ity Limit
-3.59%
-7.16%
-5.32%
-5.63%
-2.66%
-13.01%
-3.51%

-------
     During  the initial tests,  zero/ipan  checks  were  conducted between each
test.    As  the  project progressed,  confidence  i,i  the  reliability of  the
instruments increased and the frequency of these calibration checks was reduced
by allowing two or three tests to be completed between zero/span checks.   As a
minimum, zero/span checks were conducted at the beginning  and end of each test
day.


INSTRUMENT RESPONSE TIMES AND
THROUGH-PROBE CALIBRATION CHECKS

     The response time for each instrument was adjusted to  allow  comparision of
individual data values.  The goal was to ensure that all the instruments were
analyzing a fraction of  the same sample at the same time. The synchronization of
the  instrument  responses permitted data calculations  to  be performed  on  the
instantaneous data as  well  as on the one-minute  and test averages. For example,
the combustion efficiency calculations, which included data from  three separate
instruments, could be performed on  each set of instantaneous data because the
three analyzers were  simultaneously sampling the same flare emission gas.

     The instrument synchronization was  accomplished by adjusting  the sample
tubing length  and  volume between the sample manifold  and the  instrument  and
adjusting the sample flow rate to the analyzer.  In this manner, the transit time
of the sample between  the manifold and the instrument could be adjusted.  These
adjustments were made  in reference to the instruments' initial upscale response
time.

     The upscale and downscale response times of the instruments were checked by
introducing  calibration gases  through  the probe  and  timing the  subsequent
response of the instrument.  Table 14 summarizes the  results of these response
time checks.

     An adaptor fitting was attached to the probe tip to allow the introduction
of the calibration gases.  This 1/4" tube to 1" pipe adapter fitting presented
a flow restriction  on  the entire sampling system that was not present during the
i.ormal sampling. Thus,  the response times reported  in Table  14 may be somewhat
slower than the actual  response times encountered during the sampling.

     The introduction  of calibration gases through the probe tip  also served to
verify  the  integrity  of the  sampling  system.   There were  no  significant
differences observed  in instrument  responses to  calibration gases  introduced
directly into the analyzers as  compared to calibration gases which were passed
through the probe.   This evidence suggests that the sampling assembly did  not
alter the composition of the flare emissions during the sampling.

     Leak checks of the sampling system were performed on  several  occasions
during the test series.   The  procedure followed was to introduce  zero nitrogen
in the probe tip and monitor the oxygen content of the sampling system.  If  leaks
were present in the sample system, they would be evidenced by elevated oxygen
levels in the  sampling  system.   Table 15  presents the  results  of these leak
checks.   This  leak   check  data  is believed  to  be  conservative  since  the
installation of  the  required adapter fitting  on  the probe tip during  these

                                      53

-------
TABLE-.14. 'INSTRUMENT RESPONSE TIMES
(Up Scale (Seconds)

CO
CO?
THC
NOX
02
S02
Initial
32
30
35
32
30
29
90% Response
115
123
147
77
123
90
Down Scale (Seconds)
Initial
30
25
,34
25
25
32
90% Response
115
120
. 125
69
120
80

-------
    TABLE 15.  SAMPLING SYSTEM LEAK CHECKS
Date
6/17/82
6/17/82
6/18/82
6/19/82
71 1/82
02 Analyzer
Input Response
N? 0.80%
N2 0.25%
NZ 0.31%
Ng 0.24%
N? 0.30%
Percent *
Leakage
3.8%
1.2%
1.5%
1.1%
1.4*.
Assuming 20.95% oxygen in ambient air.
                      55

-------
Checks  caused an  increase  in the  vacuum  present  in the  sampling  system as
compared to during normal flare emission sampling.

     The zero response of the other continuous analyzers to zero nitrogen passed
through the sampling  system was also  verified during the leak checks.


BACKGROUND MEASUREMENTS

     Ambient  air component concentrations of CO, CO?, THC, NOX, 0^ and SO? were
collected immediately before and after each  of the tests or series of tests.  The
collection of this background  data documented the influence of local ambient air
concentrations on the flare emission  measurements.  The background concentra-
tions of these compounds of interest could  have had a significant effect on the
data given the dilution effects of ambient  air in both steam- and air-assisted
flare  emissions.    This  is  especially  true in  this  situation since  other
combustion sources were  present  and operating in the test  area.   A complete
listing of the background.concentration measurements is contained in the data
volume (Volume 11)'of this reort.

     The background data was  applied to the flare emission data by subtraction.
The  average  background values were subtracted  from each  raw  flare emission
concentration  values  to  determine  the corresponding corrected value.   This
subtraction removed any  data  bias between tests that was  caused  by variable
ambient concentrations.   Additionally,  the subtraction  of  the  average of the
background concentrations before and  after each test helped to compensate the
data for. instrument  calibration drift  that  may have occurred  between  these
periods.   It  is  recognized that  to  properly account for  background concen-
trations, a dilution factor correction is  required.  As discussed previously,
dilution factors were not obtained in this study.  Calculations indicate that an
error of less than 0.1% in combustion efficiency (for CE's greater than 98%) is
caused by the  background  correction method employed  herein.   As shown below,
this error  is less  than the  sampling and  analysis  error.   Therefore,  the
background correction described above is suitable for this study.


•COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY ERROR ANALYSIS-'•                .

     It is assumed that accuracy of  the combustion efficiency calculations is
dependent on  two  primary sources of  error:   (1)  the accuracy of the  listed
concentrations of the calibration  gases, and (2)  the accuracy  of  the instru-
ments'  measurements of  the  gaseous  samplei  (instrument  drift,  interference,
repeatability, etc.).  Other systemic  errors due  to  sampling, data acquisition,
etc. are assumed to be negligible.

     Table 16  lists estimates  of  the magnitude  of  these two pr  -nary types of
error for each of  the  continuous  analyzers.   The instrument error data in  this
table  was  calculated  from  the  instrument  responses  to   the  routine  span
calibration chocks.  The calibration gas error data  are nominal  values supplied
by the vendors of the calibration gases.

     Although  these two  types  of  errors  are  independent  of  each other,  it is
assumed for this worst-case error analysis that they reinforce and are  additive.
Likewise, it  should be noted  that  the measurement  errors of variables  in  the

                                      56

-------
                                             TABLE 16.  ERROR ESTIMATES
Parameter
CO
C0?
HC
NOX
o?
SO?
Instrument Precision
Standard Deviation of Span
l.RB%
3.09*
2.65%
4.37%
1.32%
4.98%
Instrument
Errcr
.1.4 . 7 ppm
+1545 ppm
+1.3 ppm
±0.7 ppm
±0.27%
±0.046 ppm
Calibration Gas
Accuracy Error
±5.0 ppm
±1000 ppm
±1.0 ppm
±0.3 ppm
±0.42%
±0.019 ppm
Total Worst Case
Accuracy Error
±9.7 ppm
±2545 ppm
±2.3 ppm
±•1.0 ppm
±0.69%
0.065 ppm
u»

-------
 combustion efficiency calculations are independent of one another.  However,
 for this worst-case analysis it is assumed that the errors in the measurements
 of CO,  C02 and  THC  concentrations reinforce.
      For  this worst-case  analysis two sets of concentration values for CO,
 and THC were selected:   (]} for the high combustion efficiency case, and (2) for
 the  low combustion efficiency case.   The total worst-case accuracy error values
 were  applied  to these two  sets of concentration values to determine the effects
 on the combustion efficiency calculations.
•  •                   .   •     '                    !                         •
                           High  Efficiency Test       Low  Efficiency Test

  CO Observation  (ppm)                8                      1000
  CO?  Observation  (ppm)            7000                      5000
  THC  Observation  (ppm)               4                        90
  % CE Best  Estimate                 99.83                    82.10
  % CE Highest Estimate            100            •            87.49
  % CE Lowest  Estimate               99.46                    69.02

      This exercise shows that the high  combustion efficiency test data are less
 sensitive to  accuracy errors than are the low combustion efficiency test data.
 This  analysis also  provides worst-case  estimates  of the magnitudes of the
 combustion  efficiency  accuracy errors.   It  should be noted  that  the real
 accuracy  errors (which were not  directly measured) are expected  to be less than
 those listed  above  since the  sources  of error  are independent and do not
 necessarily reinforce.

      Another  mechanism  for examining the' quality of the  combustion efficiency
 determinations is to examine the variance of repetitive determinations based on
 consecutive measurements  of CO, C02  and THC within each test.  The data listing
 and  analysis  program used to compile  the data from these tests incorporated
 routines  to calculate the combustion efficiency from each set of data collected
 every twelve  seconds.   The variance (and standard  deviation)  of the average
 combustion  efficiency value was  determined from  this data set as an indicator of
 the   precision of the  data.    The  standard  deviations  of the consecutive
 measurements  of combustion efficiency  ranged from + 0.15» to +11.1%.  As in the
 worst-case  error  analysis,  the largest variances  occurred   with  the  low
 combustion  efficiency  tests  and the smallest variances were obseved with the
 high  combustion efficiency tests.
                                      58

-------
                                  APPENDIX A

                      GRAPHICAL-REVIEW OF -SELECTED  TESTS


     Five  of  the  thirty-four flare  efficiency  tests completed  during  this
project were selected for more detailed data analysis via graphical aids.   The
selected tests are as follows:
Test
3
55
57
28
33
Flare Type
Steam- assisted
Steam-assisted
Steam-assisted
Air-assisted
Air-assisted
Flare Gas Flow
(SCFM)
456
24.7
703
157
0.714
Heating Value
(Btu/SCF)
2183
2183
294
/•
2183
83
Steam-to-Flare
Gas Ratio
(Ib/lb)
0.45
6.9
0.15

. --
Combustion
Efficiency
Percent
99.8
68.9
99.9
99.4
98.2
     These tests were selected because they represented a fairly wide range of
flow rates, heating values and combustion efficiencies.  Figures Arl and A-2 are
photographs of the flare taken during these tests.

     Three types of graphical test data plots were compiled from the digitized
instantaneous data collected on magnetic  tape  via a  data  logger.   A detailed
listing of these  data may be found  in  a  separate data volume to  this report
(Volume II).   The plots chosen for this exercise are as follows:

     SO;? and Probe Temperature versus Time;
     THC and CO versus Time; and
     CO and Combustion Efficiency versus time.                        ' •  .

Figures A-3 through A-17 are the graphical plots of  this  data.

     The plots of $02  and probe temperature show a positive correlation between
these two  parameters.   The  temperature values are  observed to lead  the  SO?
values by  about 0.3  minutes.   This  time lead indicates  the difference  in
response times  between  the  thermocouple/digital thermometer  assembly  and  the
sampling  system/SO?  analyzer.   The  positive  correlation  between these  two
parameters is due to both parameters being indicators of probe position relative
to the flame.

     The graphical  presentations  of  THC  and CO? versus  time show  variable
amounts of positive  correlation between  these  two  species.    Theoretically,

                                  '    59 •'

-------
given a flare burning with constant combustion efficiency, the ratio of THC to
C02 should be constant regardless  of flame post ion relative to the probe.  This
is shown to  be the case in the plot, for Test 55 and to a lesser extent Test 57.
Tests 3, 28 and 33 show little or  no correlation bstween concentrations of THC
and CO?.

     The graphs of  combustion efficiency and CO versus time show  an  inverse
relationship between CO and concentrations  on the combustion efficiency.  This
demonstrates  the  importance  of .'the CO term  in the  combustion  efficiency
calculations and  he usefulness of  CO measurements  as  a primary  indicator of
relative combustion efficiency.

    .These plots of the test  data also  serve to  graphically show the  typical
range and variation  of concentrations and temperature observed during the flare
tests.                    •
                                      60

-------
 Test 3                             '•:,.     Test 33




Figure A-l.  Photographs of flare taken during tests.

-------

-------
  O
  O
  ru
0.5




OJ



  oo

  o





  o


  o





  o


  o
  o
  ru
  o

  o
                         TEST  03  :  JUNE 18 :  HOUR .05:54
-1	—	--1	

<:,%'..<•>      f;?.0
                                                             S02


                                                             TEMP
                                                               O

                                                               c
                                                              . o>
                                                               m
                                                                             o
                                                                             o
                                                                             m
                                                               (M
                                                               (M
                                                               (M
                                                               o
                                                               oo
                                                               o
                                                               •»
                                                                             o
                                                                            . o
                                             70.0      70,0
o
V
                                 TIME:


                 Figure A-3.  SO?  and  temperature vs.  time.

                                      63

-------
                     TEST 03 :  JUNE 18 :  HOUR 09:54
(f>
 66.0 -     70.0
T IME: .  (MIN)
                                               74,0
78.0
                 Figure. A-4.   THC  and CO? Vs,  time.


                                64

-------
o
00
o-,
Ch
                       TEST 03 :  JUNE 18 :  HOUR 09:54
o
o
Ch J
oo
o\
o
CO
o
o
a.  '
    , o
                                          EFF


                                          CO
58,0
f?.0
-  66.0      70.0

 TIME   (MI N)
74.0
78.0
                Figure  A-5.   Efficiency and'CO vs. time.


                                    65
                                           io
                                           K
                                                                         oo
                                                                         in
                                                                         0
                                                                         in"
                                                                         05:

                                                                        ICM O.
                                                                           Q.
                                                                           o
                                           I*
                                           ion
                                                                        Jvo
                                                                        Irvi
                                                                        r
                                                                        Joo
                                                                        p.
                                                                        Jo
                                          j°
                                           rvi

-------
       TEST  55  : JUNE 23 :.H&UR 14:03
                                       £02

                                       TEMP
                r>.0      19.0     23.0
               11%  (M1N)
Figure A-6.   SO?  and  temperature vs.  time.

                   66
                                                      o
                                                      o

                                                     -Jo
                                                        0
                                                      o o
                                                       \ ^
                                                        0.
                                                        51
                                                        LU
                                                      O

-------
  o
  o
  o
  o
  o
  o
  in
li
0.2-
 o
  o

  o
  o
  o .
  o

  o
  o
  o
  CO
                      TEST 55 : JUNE 23 :  HOUR 14:03
             THC  -


             C02  . .
    3.0
7,0
1.1 .0.
 15.0     19,0

TIME  (MIN)
23,0
27.0
                  Figure A-7-.   THC  and CO? vs. time.



                                 6?
                                                                    °

-------
  o


  f-
  o


  AJ
Li.
  00 _
  vo ,
  vo
  o

  (>j _
  a

  u
                       TEST 55 :  JUNE  23 :  HOUR  14:03
   3.0
7.0      11.0      1S.O      19.0     23.0 ,

                 TIME   (MIN)



    Figure A-8.   Efficiency and CO vs.  time.



                      68
27.0
                                                                     ro
                                                                     o

-------
                        TEST 57  : JUNE 24 :  HOUR 09:13
  •sr
  ro
  O
  O
  m
  O
                                                           S02

                                                           TEMP
                                                                          o
                                                                          o
                                                                          T
                                                                          o
                                                                          ^o
                                                                          m
  vo
  
-------
                   TEST 57;  JUNE 24 :  HOUR 09:13
13.0
17.0
21.0    -25.0     29.0

        TIME  (MIN)
33.0
37.0
              Figure A-10.  THC and CO? vs. time.



                              70
                                                                ° n
                                                                CM 
-------
           TEST 57  :. JUNE 24 :  HOUR 09:13
1.7.0
?! .,0
 25.0      29.0
TIME   (MINI)
33.0
                                      37.0
    Figure A-II,   Efficiency and CO vs. time.

                       71
                                                           (M
                                                           m
                                                           oo
                                                           (M
                                                           o
                                                           "3-
                                                           (M
                                                           O


                                                           ro
                                                             O
                                                             O
                                                           o
                                                           vo
                                                           o
                                                           nJ
                                                          o

                                                          00
                                                          o

-------
        TEST 28 .: JUNE 28;: HOUR 17:14
                                        SO 2

                                        TEMP
                                                       o
                                                       o
                                                      ' m
                                                       <=>
                                                      1°
                                                      Jr--
                                                         LJJ-
                                                       o
                                                      Jm
                                                       OJ
                                                       o
                                                      JON
                                                       P
                                                      ,'tr>
                                                       o
                                                       o
                  .0     30.0
               TIME   (M1N)
Figure.A-1?.  SO?  and temperature vs.  time.
                    7?
36.0

-------
                   TEST 28  : JUNE 28  : HOUR 17:14
1 4.0
                          TIME  CM IN
             Figure A-13.  Efficiency and CO vs.  time.
                               73
38.0

-------
   TEST  28 :  JUNE 28 •••. HOUR 17:14
                                 THC
                                 C52
          TIME  (M1N)
Figure A-14.   THC and CO? vs.  time.
               74
                                     38,0
                                               §°
                                               o
                                               00

-------
        TEST 33 :  JUNE 29 : HOUR 22:49
                fcl .0
               TIME
  er.. o
MIN)
69.0
73.0
Figure A-1B.   SO? and temperature vs. time.

                    75
                                                        oO
                                                          Q_
                                                          z:
                                                          UJ
                                                        o f—

                                                        OD
                                                        OD

-------
                   TEST  33  : JUNE 29  : HOUR 22r49
                                                                 O ,-^

                                                                 6 s:
                                                                 0 A
                                                                 V> U_
                                                                 m Q_
                                                                   fc*^

                                                                   Ol
                                                                 §°
49.0
53.0
 61.0     6S.O
TIME..(MIN)
                                             69.0
                                              73,0
               Figure A-i6.   THC  and COp vs. time.
                     ' >.         76

-------
                         TEST 33 :  JUNE 29 :  HOUR 22:49
  ru
  O
               EFF   -
               CO   ..
                                                                           \o
                                                                           m
  ON
  ON
                                                                         AJ
                                                                         f>
  ON .
  ON
LL
  03
  ON
ON


00
0s'


•*

0s


o
a,
—r—.
 S3.0
                       —-r	
                        S7.0      61.0      65,0
                                TIME  (-M.IN)
                                                   69.0
73.0
                  Figure A-17.  Efficiency and CO vs.  time.
                                      77
                                                                         0)
                                                                         rvj
                                                                         o 21
                                                                         aj 0_
                                                                           \^

                                                                           O
                                                                         o
                                                                         oj
                                                                           o
                                                                           VO
                                                                           o
                                                                           rvj
                                                                           o
                                                                           CO
           o
           *»

-------
          *V£.IUGE*
   OF  OBS^RVtTIO'iS
03-
                                                  APPENDIX B
                                                     TEST 1
                                               STATISTICAL. SUH1ART
PHOSE
lEMfMCl
175.3
73.8
117
28.2
S02 wax
tPPKI (PPNI
0.053 3.09
0.047 2.12
117 117
0.073 0.45
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
FILE
BACKGROUND 4
BACKGROUND 5
02
fPCTJ
19. 46
0.62
117
20.43
AMBICNT
CO C02
(PPH> IPPH)
3.8 7052.
1.4 3418.
117 117
4.7 373.
NEAS'J«fMf NTS
TIME
BEGIN
18/13
16/14
:i7:2«
:i4:22
THt WS UD AMBIENT COHHUSTION
(PPHI (HPHI  TEHP(C» EFFICJCNCT
-0.7 3.5 267. 30.1 99.9
0.2 1.2 24. 0.6 0.1
117 117 117 117 117
4.4 2.9 265. 26.0
TIME
END
18^13:32:10
i«/i4:22:o7
                                   OVERALL COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY  = 99.96%
                     AH  concentrations here  and  throughout  Appendix  B  have been corrected
                     via  subtraction.   Thus,  the  actual measured  value  (i.e.,  uncorrected)
                     is the  "average"  plus the "average background" (last row).

-------
                                                            TEST 2
                                                      STATISTICAL SUMMARY
               AVERAGE

    STMOARO DEVIATION

NUMBER or OBSERVATIONS

    AVERAGE BACKGROUND
PROBE
TEMP CO
158.7
49.6
84
38.2
SO2
CPPM)
0. 197
0.152
84
-0.008
NOX
(PPM)
2.16
1.31
84
1.41
02

19.73
0.42
84
20.26
CO
(PPM)
8.5
12.9
84
6.3
CO2
(PPM)
4719.
1684.
84
see.
THC
(PPM)
0.2
1.3
84
5.2
WS
(MPH)
2.8
0.9
84
2.7
UD
(DEC)
199.
33.
84
198.
AMBIENT
TEMMO
33.6
0.6
84
31.3
COMBUSTION
EFFICIENCY
99.8
O.2
84

                                             BACKGROUND AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS
     vO
BACKGROUND
   FILE

BACKGROUND 1
BACKGROUND 2
   TIME
   BEGIN

17/16!32t27
17/17t25l51
    TIME
     END

17/16«55«38
17/17130147
                                        OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  =  99.823J

-------
                                                        IfSt 3

                                                  STATISTICAL SUMMAUT
STANDARD



   OF



AVERAGE BACKGROUND
  as
  o
PRtRC S02 W» 0? CO C02
TEHPICl tPPPI CPPK)  (PPM>  «DEG) TCHP(C) EFFICIENCT
1.2 3.0 221. 30.5 99,8
1.3 0.9 27. 0.4 0.4
98 98 98 98 98
3.1 3.2 218. 27.2
END .
                                BACKGROUND  3          18/10:26:06



                                      OVERALL COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY = 99.82%

-------
                                                            TEST 4
                                                      STAT1ST1CAL SUMMARY
               AVERAGE


    STANDARD DEVIATION


NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS


            BACKGROUND
PROBE
TEMPtC)
153.4
38.6
57
24.?
S02
(PPM)
O. 153
0.080
57
0.003
NOX
(PPM)
1.94,
0.96
57
0. 1 1
02
(PCT)
20.05
0.52
57
21.09
CO
(PPMT
75.3
35.5
57
$.1
C02
(PPM)
6616.
3004.
57
497.
THC
(PPM)
5.3
2.9
57
5.2
US
(MPH)
1.4
0.2
57
0.8
WD
(DEO)
164.
8.
57
186.
AMBIENT
TEMF(Q)
32.8
0.2
57
26.3
COMBUST I ON
EFFICIENCY
98. &
0.2
57

                                             BACKGROUND  AMBIENT  MEASUREMENTS
    C3
BACKGROUND
   FILE

BACKGROUND 18
BACKGROUND 19
   TIME
   BEGIN


22/21:21:17
22/22S48t09
    TIME
     END

22/21:27:29
22/22:54:34
                                        OVERALL COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY =  98.80%

-------
                                                       TCST  H
                                                 STATISTICAL  SUHfUBT

»mw>i
1*0 DEVI4TJOH
OHSf RVftTIOSS
,i SiCKSBOuHJ
FROBt SOi
12T.C O.CfaS
33.2 O.B40
84 H4
31.4 O.COS
OlOX 0?
(PPH1 
1.45 20.30
0.9E. 0.52
8* 64
0.12 21. M
CO CO?
tPPH» IPP^J
61.1 5400.
36.1 3094.
84 84
3.8 495.
7HC
(PP«»
3.7
3.9
64
5.8
WS
«HPH)
0.9
0.3
84
0.6
UD
(OEG>
165.
11.
64
153.
AKBIENT CO«aUS'»10N
TE«P
-------
                                                       TEST 7
                                                 STATISTICAL SUHHART
AvCRAGC
PBOBE S02 NOK 02 CO C02
Tt«tP
AfCRAGC 138.4 0.044 1.62 .20.13 7.9 5224.
OCVIATION 39. T 0.026 O.q6 0.41 3.4 2254.
EPV4TIONS 103 103 103 103 103 103
AC^G»0'Jf»0 24.0 0.002 O.Q6 20.B7 6.1 396.
BACKGROUND TIHC
FILE BEGIN
BACKGROUND R 21/10tb5:50
BACKGROUSO 9 21/11:55:06
THC US
tPPN) f»IPH)
0.3 3.1
1.0 0.9
103 103
9.6 2.4
TIME
2i/n:o4:2l»
21/12:01:30
UC ANHieNT CONRUSTIOK
»DES) TENP«C) EFFICIENCY
262. 26.7 99.8
24. 0.5 0.1
103 103 103
280. 24.5


                                     OVERALL COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY - 99.84%

-------
                                                     TEST 5
                                               STATISTICAL SUMMARY
        OVERAGE
      DEVI AT ICM

c* ofr-ERvATioK?
«>RO8ex
TEMPtC*
172.8
34.6
1*5
3;. e
SO2 NO*

O2 CO CO2
(PCT) (PPM) (PPM)
0.070 2.O9 19.42 4.1 6113.
0.04-0 1.25 0.49 1.6 2908.
165 165 165 165 165
0.022 l.OO '20.28 3.4 368.
BACKGROUND AMP7ENT MEASUREMENTS
BACKGROUND
TILE
JiftCKPROUND 6
BACK GROUND ~>
TIME
BEGIN
"18/16!23!46
18/17145133
THC MS
(PPM) (MPH)
-0. 1 2. 9
0.2 1.0
165 Ifc^
—^5.0 2. 7
TIME
END
18/161 39s 05.
18/17:49:39
WD AMBIENT COMBUSTION
(DEG) TEMP(C> EFFICIENCY
294. 30.8 99.9
59. 0.6 O.I
165 165 165
289. 29.9
/
                                OVERALL  COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  = 99.94%

-------
                                                           TEST 6T

                                                     STATISTICAL  SIWKAHT
   OF
AWtRA&C B*C*GROvlM5
  00
  on
PH03E S02 HO" 0?
Tt«P«C» IPPM> «PP»> IPCT)
«70.9 0.01R 3.77 20.19
l&O.O 0.001 *>-?2 0.69
21 21 ?1 21
22.2 -0.002 0.1<» ?0.9?
BACKGROUND AfflU
hACKGRO'JMJ
FILE
CO C02
tPPNI (PP><)
N/A 3758.
N/A 22*1.
N/A 21
5.4 362.
NT MEASUREMENTS
BtGIl
THC
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.3
TIME
fND
WS UD AMBIENT COWPUSTIOH
t«PH)  TENPCC) EFFICIENCT
6.6 77. 25. * N/A
2.0 13. 0.3 N/A
21 21 21 N/A
3.1 131. 22.1

                                  HACKGROUnlO SI
19/10:32:5?

-------
                                                             TEST  17
                                                       STATISTICAL SUN«URT
               AVERAGE


    STAHOMD DEVIATION'


1UMBE* OF OBSERVATIONS


    AVERAGE
     O3
     CT>
PROBE
TE*P«C»
124.8
35.1
135
29.4

-
SQ2 NO*
tPPH) (PPK)
0.023 1.00
0.011 O.R4
135 135
0.005 -0.05
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
FILE
BACKGROUND 9
BACKGROUND 10
02 CO
CPCTI (PPM)
20.38 6.1
0.40 3.9
135 135
20.86 0.2
AMBIEM WTASi/Pt
TIHC
BEGIN
21/11:55:06
21/13:25:34
C02 . THC US VD AHetEsT CP«"JUSTl"N
iPt*l JPP") («10H) JOEG) TtHPJCJ EFflCITHCY
349?. -0.5 1.8'. 255. 26.9 99.8
2274. 0.6 0.9 77. 0.4 0.2
135 135 ]J5 135 135 135
434. 5.2 1.8 276. 26.3
TIHC
two
21/12:01:30
21/13:38:56
                                         OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  =  99.84%

-------
 OF OB5iRV4II
20.19
0.38
103
20.  
6.6 ?.2 269.
?.9 C.8 m.
103 10? 103
5.4 ?.0 2?<3.
UNHICNT
27.7
3.5
103
?3.n
CO»«U?T10N
"»9»%
0.3
153

00
                                FILE
                                        10
                                        11
                                                      TUT
21/13:;
21/14:1
21/13:36:53
                                   OVERALL  COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  =  99,45%

-------
                                                             TEST 56
                                                       STATISTICAL SUMMARY
               •VEH4SE


    STANDARD DEVIATION


NimdEft OF DBSCRVAT101S


    AVERAGE b
      OS
      CO
pPOBt
TEMPtCI
120.4
134
32.9


S02 NOX 02 CO CC2
(PPK)  IPCT) (PPM) CPPHJ
0.252 0.58 20.67 7.3 3120.
0.221 0.43 0.44 6.3 2190.
134 13» 134 154 134
0.016 0.78 21 .23 0.? 515.
BACKGROUND tHBHMT «C ftSUP.CHt«TS
BACKGSOUNO 1IHC
FILE BEGIN
BaCKCROUNP 21 23/lj:0
-------
                                                            TEST 61
                                                      STATISTICAL StMWAHY
               AVERAGE

    STANDARD OEWHTION

NUMBER OF 09SCRVATIONS
      03
      tO
pnngc
TEWMO
lf.6.8
32.6
58
21*2
SO?
IPPM)
N3X
tPPH)
0.033 1.32
0.012 0.47
58 58
0.003 0.11
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
FILC
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
0?
IPCT)
19.47
0.34
59
20.46
AH81CM7
CO C02 THC US
tPP«> IPPN> IPPH) «MPH>
393. 4 £273. 961.7 1.7
1U.Q 1623. 251.4 0.6
58 58 58 58
-0.6 357. -N 3.ej 0.1
MtASUREKENIS
VO AUBICST COMBUSTION
IDCG1 TE»P»C> EFFtCICNCjr
68. 21.1 81.6
12. 0.1 3. &
58 58 - 5»
70. ?!.?
V
- -
'' TIHE TI«E
BfGIW CND
30
31
24^??
25/00
:ie:40 ?«/Z2:3«:oj
:oa:59 25/00:17:09

                                         OVERALL  COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY =

-------
                                                            TfST 55
                                                      STATISTICAL SUNHART
               AVERAGE

    STANDARD OCVIATlo\

NUMBER OF OEEIBVAT1ONS

    AVIRA6E BACKGROUND
PROSt
85.6
16.0
93
32.9
SO?
«PPH»
NOX
tPPMI
0.112 0.18
0.030 0.32
93 93
0.016 0.76
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
TILE
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
21
22
02 CO CO? TMC WS
20.83 171.0 2012. 735.5 2.2.
0.21 83.9 686. 212.1 O.H
93 93 S3 93 13
21 .23 9.2 515. 6.6 2.3
AflDHNT HE ASURfM£.N1S
TIKE IIMC
BEGIN t MO
23/li:o TEMPfCt EFF IC1EMCT
187. 30.9 68.9
59. 0.4 J.I
93 93 93
177. 30. 8
                                         OVERALL  COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 68.95%

-------
                                                            TEST 57
                                                       STATISTIC*!. SU«»URY
    STANDARD DEVIATION

NUMBER OF 06SERVATIOHS

    AVCCA6E BACKGROUND
    IPPWI
0.113 2.68 19.80 5.0
0.067 2.05 0-89 7.6
100 100 100 100
-0.004 0.19 21.11 5.3
BACKGROUND AHHICNT HCASURI
BACKGROUND
FILC
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
TJBE
BEGIN
" ;»":""'
C02 THC US
(PPftl (PPM) tHPHI
6945. 2.0 1.5
4163. 2.3 0.5
100 100 100
42*. 5,8 1.0
IHEWtS
TIME
END
2^^09:50:57
UD AMBIENT COMBUSTION
«DCG» TEHPCO E^PiciEircir
168. 23.7 99.9
25. 0.3 0.1
100 100 100
156. 22.7
                                          OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  = 99.90%

-------
                                                           TEST  11
                                                      STATISTICAL  SUMMARY
               AVERAGE

    STANDARD DEVIATION

NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

    AVERAGE BACKGROUND
     vO
PROBE
TEMP CO
159.7
31.6
63
21.4
S02
(PPM)
NOX
(PPM)
02
(PCT)
0.163 3.69 20.03
0.037 1.18 0.33
63 63 63
-0.003 O.22 21.34
BACKGROUND AMBIENT
BACKGROUND
FILE
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
CO C02
 IPPtt)
7.1 5269.
5.2 3156.
63 63
3.6 512.
MEASUREMENTS
TIME
BEGIN
23
24
24/07
24/07
••O7:O6
:55:07
THC WS WD
(PPM) IMPH) (DEC)
1.6 1.2 135.
1.9 0.4 24.
63 63 63
5.0 1.1 B8.
TIME
END
24/07: 1 4:22
24/08:04:46
AMBIENT COMBUSTION
TEMP(C) EFFICIENCY
23.3 97.8
0.3 0.2
63 4,3
21. 0
                                       OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  =  99.83%

-------
                         TEST 11A
                   STATISTICAL SUHHART

tJEPtGC
sTMDMtD ce»!«nov
IL» OF OBSCMUKONS.
AVCRAGC B*C
3.31
1.02
33
0.22
02
IPCT»
20.10
0.35
33
21.34
CO
tPPHI
4.7
4.2
33
3.6
C02
IPPH>
6fe77.
1446.
33
512.
THC
IPPH)
0.2
1.4
33
$.0
US
UJPMI
^•2
0.4
33
1.1
WO
IDEG)
130.
24.
33
88.
AUBIENT
Tt«P«C)
23.2
0.3
33
2.1.0
COMBUSTION
EFFICIENCT
99.9
0.1
33

         BACKGROUND ANBICNT HEASUREHENTS
BACK5BOUNO
   FIlE
                          eeciN
                                                TlflE
                                                 t«0
nACXGWOUHO 23
BACKGROUND 24
                             ir:o6           24/07:14:22
                             iS:oT           ?4/os:o4:46
     OVERALL  COI^IBUSTION EFFICIENCY =  99.93%

-------
                                                            TEST  11B
                                                      STATISTICAL SUMMARY
               AVERAGE

    STANDARD DEVIATION

NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

    AVERAGE BACKGROUND
PROBE
TEHP(C)
181.9
7.7
18
21.4
SO2 NOX
(PPM) 
02
(PCT)
0.198 4.17 19.92
0.028 O.74 6.21
18 18 18
-O.OO3 O.22 21.34
BACKGROUND AMBIENT
BACKGROUND
FILE
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
23
24
CO CO2

-------
                                                       TEST  I1C
                                                  STATISTICAL  St/fHAftr
1IWK*
     095r*V*TIC*>
iJSS.
181.4
19.2
12
21.4
SO?
CPPHI
0.189
0.081
1?
-0.003
MO*
tPPWl
4.00
1.T3
12
0.22
02
CPCTI
19.-J8
0.3*
12
21.34
CO
CPPfO
11.6
4.6
12
3.6
C02
IPPHI
8210.
1108.
12
512.
THC
3.3
1.5
12
5.0
IIS
«MPH1
1.4
0.4
12
1.1
WO
tt)t6»
125.
25.
12
88.
AMBIENT
TEHPfO
23. *>
0.1
12
21.0
COMRUSTION
EFFICIEUCT
99.8
0.1
1?

VD
                                  PILE
                                          23
                               BftCKGi-CUND 2»
                                                          24/^7:07:06
                                                                                     END
                                                                J5:OT           24/08:04:46

                                          OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 99.82%

-------
                                                            TEST  39
                                                      STATISTICAL SUMMARY
               AVERAGE

    STANDARD 3EV1ATIOK

NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

    AVERAGE BACKGROUND
PRPDC
TEMP tPPH)
19.53 49.9 5413.
0.39 26.4 1481.
57 37 57
20.61 0.0 421.
AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS
TIME
BEGIN
24/2U 16112
24/22118:40
THC US
tPPM) (MPH)
33.3 0.9
24.7 0.6
57 57
2.«> 0.5
TIKE
END
24/2J:3lsll
24/22:30:09
UD AMBIENT COMBUSTION
(DEC) TEMP*C) ItFFIClENCY
94. 22.2 98.4
67. 0.: 1.0
57 57 37
93. 21.8

                                       OVERALL  COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY - 98.49%

-------
                                                            TPST 59'.
               MEIUG-;

    STA4DMO P^f

«V*BE* e^ fl

            qiCKt»*oim
PSOBE
1*2.*
29.9
J8
20.*
$02
0.052
0.025
3S
0.002
n-n 02
tPP«i (PCTI
1.30 ' 19.M
0.53 0.^0
!•!» 38
0.14 20. (t\
CO
«PP«»
62.1
?3.B
31
0.0
C02
5575.
1659.
3R
421*
THC
«PPM
»5.3 .
21.7
38
2,9
US
fHPHI
i»o
0.6
38
P.?
UD
«DtS»
1?..
46.
38
93.
AMBIENT
TCHP«CI
22.1
0.1
38
21. P
EVf JClENCt
97.9
3.9
5«

BACKGROUNH
   FILE

RUCKGOOUftD 29
nUCKGROUVO 39
                                                                                     END
                                                                n:*o            34/22:30:0^

                                         OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 98.11%

-------
                                                            TfST  59<»

                                                      STATISTICAL
    SIAftOAND DEVI*TI3N


•MMBC* OF OBSERVATIONS


         r.f BACKS*OUND
      «o
      O9
PROBE
TE*°«C>
133.1
15.9
20.4


S02 X0» 0? CO C02
iPPM CPPM) tPCTI tPPN) IPPH)
0.076 1.62 19.71 25.4 5090.
0.014 0.35 0.30 7.9 1002.
19 19 19 19 19
0.002 0.18 20.61 0.0 421.
BACKGROUND AHBU.Nt *£ ASURtfKNTS
FILE BE6I«
HACKG^OU^O 30 24/22:13:4?
TMC
CPPH)
9.4
3.1
19
2.9
TIKE
EMD
24/21:31:11
24/22:30:Oa
US HO AMBIfNT COH8USTIOM
ii'fH*  EFFICIEXCT
0.7 140. 22.3 9«.3
0.6 79. 0.0 8.1
19 19 19 1«
0.5 ^S. 21.8


                                          OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  =  99.32%

-------
           AVEHA6E

STANDARD DEVIATION

ER OP OBSERVATIONS

AVERAGE BACKGROUKO
TEST 60
STATISTICAL SUHHARY
PROBE
TEHPIC1
«.7
20.7
97
21.?
S02
tPPH>
0.052
0.014
97
0.003
NOX
0.99
0.47
97
0.11
02
CPCT)
19.70
0.33
97
20.46
CO
CPPHI
28.3
9.5
97
-0.6
coa
(PPHI
3685.
1290.
97
397.
TMC
(PPH)
11.8
?.9
97
3.5
US
(HPH)
1.3
0.4
97
0.4
UD
(DEC)
&5.
12.
97
TO.
AHDIENT
TiHPCCl
il.7
0.0
97
v 21.2
COMBUST IOW
EFFICIENCY
98.6
0.4
97

  vo
                                         0ftC(«GROU«C AHBIENT fieASURCBENTS
BACKGPOUNO
   FILE
                                           30
                                BACKGROUND 31
   TIPE
   BEGIN

2»/22:in:4«
25/oo:oa:5?
                                          TIME
                                           END
                                      25/oo:i7:-09

OVERALL  COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY = 98.92%

-------
                                                         TEST 31
                                                   STATISTICAL SUMMARY
           AVERAGE

STANDARD DEVIATION

   OF OBSERVATIONS

AVERAGE BACKGROUND
PROBE
TEHPtC)
119.6
43.4
78
35.1

S02 NOX

0.039 O.57
O.017 0.66
78 78
-0. 003 0. 42
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
FILE
02
tPCT)
19.85
O.60
78
2O.45
CO
tPPM)
34.1
32.3
78
0.6
C02
(PPM)
3347.
2564.
78
410.
THC WS
(PPM) (MPH)
11.3 2.3
12.1 0.8
78 78
11.3 2.3
HD AMBIENT COMBUSTION

-------
                                                             TEST  16
                                                       STATISTICAL SUMMARY
               AVERAGE

    STANDARC DEVIATION

NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

    AVERAGE 6ACKGRQUND
PROBE
TEMP(C»
127.5
20.7
103
24.7
S02
(PPM)
NOX
(PPM)
02

CO
(PPM)
C02
(PPM)
0.121 1.87 20.43 7.7 4059.
O.056 1.02 0.38 3.5 1501.
103 103 103 103 103
-O.002 0.26 21.17 O.6 394.
BACKGROUND AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS
BACKGROUND
FILE


TIME
BEGIN

1HC
(PPrl)
2.4
1.5
108
«.o
TIME
END
US WD AMBIENT COMBUSTION
tMPH) (DEC) TEMP(C) EFFICIENCY
1.7 149. 22.7 99.7
0.6 22. 0.2 0. 1
103 103 .103 103
o.a tea. 22.3
                                    BACKGROUND 27         24/11 i2fr: 05           2A<'ll:3'5M4

                                        OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  =  99.75?!

-------
                                                        TEST 16ft

                                                  STATISTICAL SUMMARY
STANDARD DEVIATION


ER OF OBSERVATIONS
 O
 INJ
PSOUE
TEHPtO
113.0
22.4
34
24. T
SOS NO*
02 CO C02 THC
tPCTI tPPHI CPPHI «PP«>
0.082 1.39 20.55 6.1 3236* 2.3
0.033 1.02 0.44 3.5 1657. 1.8
34 34 34 34 34 34
-O.QC2 0.26 21.17 0.4 3<»4. 6.0
BACK&ROUKO AMBIENT HC *Slǣǣ NTS
BACKGROUND
FUE
TJRE TIHE
BE6IN END
US WD A«BICNT COMBUSTION
t«PH> «OE6> TEHP*C» EFFICIEUCY
1.8 136. 22. fl 99.7
0.9 13. 0.1 0.1
34 34 34 34
0.8 IBS. 22.3
                               BACKGROUND 27          24/11:26:05           24/11:35144

                                     OVERALL COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY  = 99.74?

-------
                                                     TTST  16R

                                               ST«TlSTie«L SUHfURT
O
U)
PBHBf
TCPP«C1
HP. 6
11.7
28
*,'


SO?
(PPWI
0.16I>
c.osp
2B
-0.002

Fp.r
unit 02 CO CO?
(PPH1 (t»CTl (PPHI (PPMI
2.4? 20. ?0 9.6 5291.
0.98 0.36 3.7 11P3.
?« 28 28 28
0.26 21. IT 0.4 394.
PACKGROUND aHflt^Nl ^t *SU"»EHL NTS
BEGIt
THC US UO ftHBICNT COMBUST 10*
(PPHI ««PH» 
-------
STANDARD 01VIST ION


   OF  3BSt«*A110*43


      I RICKGftOUNP
rrsT i6c
ST»TISTIC»L SIMK»»T
PHOHt
TtPPtC)
125.0
B.7
2?
24.7
S02
IPPHI
0.107
0.052
22
-0.002
WO*
 TEHPtCl
164. 22.4
14. D.I
22 22
19«. 22.3
COMBUST 1 OK
EFTtCltHC*
99.7
0.1
2?

                               BBCK6POUNO
                                  Fur
                                         2T
TIHC
 EWO
                                    OVERALL COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY =99.74%

-------
                                                           160
                                                 ST»TISTIC«L
STAN3MO OCVTATI3N


   CF OBStRVMlOY;
PROnC SO?
T£P»P«C» lPP«n
13*. 3 0.13H
7.4 0.045
19 19
2».7 -0.002
NOX
2.?«
O.»l
19
0.26
0?
tPCT*
20.36
0,?4
19
21.17
CO
IPPB)
7.9
2.5
19
0.4
CO?
«PPB)
4*58.
627.
19
39«.
TMC
(PPKI
2.0
1.3
19
6.0
MS
f«PH*
1.9
0.6
19
0.8
HO

155.
26.
19
1*8.
TCHPCCI
22.4
0.1
19
22.3
COMBUST I OH
9S.?
P.I
1?

                                          ?7
tlft
                                                                             TIME
                                                                              r NO
                                    OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY  =  99.78%

-------
                                                         TEST  5*
                                                   STATISTICAL SUHHART
           AVERAGE:
STAMURO DEVIATION
   OF OBSERVATIONS
»VE«AC-C BACKliHOUNO
PROBE
TEHPCCI
197.1
46.1
92
34.4
S02
CPPH)
0.55*
0.476
92
0.085
NO*
CPPH)
5.00
2.29
92
0.22
02
(PCT)
19.15
0.51
92
20. .5 "5
CO
(PPM)
6.8
3.8
92
0.8
C02

-------
                                                             Tc"St  23
                                                       STATISTICAL  SUNHART
               AVERAGE

    STAWDAftD DEVIATION

NUftBEM OF OBSERVATIONS

          E RAC«GR3'J10
TEMPUI
235.1
111.5
103
3-=. I
S02
0.018
0.017
103
-0.003
.SI,
5.9D
5.31
103
0.*?

B465.
«,4fe.
5 13
410.
THC
-5.0
0.9
103
11.3
US tfO
1.5 160.
0.5 21.
10? 103
?.3 186.
ABBIENT
TEMP(C»
28.4
a.i
103
29.6
COMBUSTION
.100.2
0.5
103

                                             BACKGROUND
                                    RftCKSROUSO
                                       FltE
   BEGI*

21/18:10:47
                          TlWf
                          ruin
                                    BACKGROUND  13          21/18:19:47           21/18:37:3*


                                          OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 100.01%

-------
    STANDARD OFVI AT 10*



•WISC"» OF OBSERVATIONS



    AVERAGE BACKGROUND
     O
     Co
TEST 52
STATISTICAL SUH^AfU
PR01E SO? NOK 0? CO C02 T«C US
TE«tP«CI (PPM) (PPHI (PCTI (PPt) 
-------
                                                           TEST 53
                                                     STATISTICAL SUMMARY
               AVERAGE

    STANDARD DEVIATION

NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

    AVERAGE BACKGROUND
PROBE
TEHP(C)
160.6
47.1
112
30.5
SO2 NOX
(PPMI (PPM)
0.729 2.83
0.264 1.89
112 112
0.050 0.14
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
FILE
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
13
16
O2 CO C02
 EFFICIENCY
235. 30.4 99.3
33. 0.3 O.4
112 112 112
225. 3O.6
                                       OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 99.40*

-------
                                                            TEST 26
                                                      STATISTIC*!. SIWJURT
               MERAGE

    STANDARD

NWBE* OF

    AVERAC-L PkCRSIOUID
PR3BE
TE»"»«C>
194.0
42.5
32. 8


S02 NOX
CPPt» tPP»">
0.356 5.34
0.220 2.93
124 124
0.013 O.PO
BACKGROUND
FILE
BACKGROUND 35
B«CKG«?OUM0 36
02 CO C02
CPCTl «Pi»N» €PPR»
17.62 5.5 6270.
0.44 2.1 2646.
124 124 124
29.63 0.2 375.
ASBIIHT qrasiHt'cwrs
illn
29/13:34:20
29/14:44:11 ;
THC US HO AMBIENT COMBUSTION
IPPH> t«PH» 
-------
                                                            TCST 65
                                                      STATISTICAL SUNHAKV
               AVERAGE

             DCVIATIOM

•IffBC* Of OBSCftVATIOKS
P«OBE
TEM»tC>
111.3
26.6
83
26.4
S02
0.062
0.024
83
0.091
<"!i
2.40
1.82
83
0.15
02
t»CTI
20.33
0.35
63
21.14
CO
20.3
5.1
83
4.1
C02
. tPPfll
4878*
2168.
83
399.
THC
tPPH»
0.6
1.4
83
4.2
US
2.1
O.S
83
1.8
wo
«DE6»
1T2.
12.
83
179.
.TW"!,
31.0
0.2
83
26.9
COMBUSTION
EFFICIENCY
99. S
0.3
i
83

                                       Flit
                                    BACKGROUV3
                                    BACKG43U13
                                                       ««BtE«T ^
                 1/00:10:33            1/00:14:28

OVERALL  COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY * 99.57

-------
                                                            TEST 28
                                                      STATISTICAL SUKRART
    STAB9MD DEVI*T10*

HWtBCft Of OBSERVATIONS

    AVERAGE
    rv>
PROBH S02
TC*PiC> IPPHI
212.1 0.329
71.* 0.224
143 143
30.7 0.009
BACK6POU*
FItE
BACH&BOUN
ROY 02 C3 C02 THC US
CW«1 CPCTI 
-------
                                                           TEST 31
                                                      STATISTICAL SUHNART
              AVCRAGE

    STAUDBftO

•MIME* OF

    AVEHftG£ BACKGROUND
PftOHE S02 HOX 0? CO C02 TMC US
TEKPICI CPP«» I PPM) tPCT) «?PW> fPPH) «PP*> («PH)
159.3 1.226 4.32 19.83 27.9 4568. 10.1 2.S
37.6 0.751 2.3* 0.56 12.1 2258. 3.7 1.1
121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121
39. » 0.022 C.'ig 20.53 0.5 327. 5.6 3.0
BACKGROUND »BBIfNT HC*SURt «ir?iTS
FILt 85IGIN E«IO
HftCRG'3'J««G 33 28/l?:57:H ?P^lfl:04*^0
HRCR&BOUNO 3% 2A/ia:5&:5« 28/19:05:46
WO ft« TEHPtO EfFlCiriCT
315. 31.1 99.1
43. 0.3 0.4
12-1 121 121
317. 30.2
•

                                         OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 99.17%

-------
ST»HD«RD

   OF

PROBE
TEHPICJ
102.2
25.5
69
2*.9

S02
0.935
0.395
6"
0*026

NO*
0.97
0.53
69
0.00
TEST 66
STATISTICAL SIMNARr
02 CO C02 THC
20.05 !2?.4 2*32. 1265.0
0.39 114.2 1177. 510.7
69 69 6-J 6?
21.01 ?'.» 337. 12.7

US WO
«*PH» tOE6)
0.6 144.
0.2 23.
69 69
1.1 174.

AMBIENT
TEHPICI
29.7
0.1
69
29.1

COHDUSTIOM
EFFICltKCt
60.6
ll.l
69

BACK6ROUSO
   FltE
                                        3B
                                                                             two
                                                                                t 10
                                   OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY » 61.94%

-------
           AVCftAGt


STANDARD OCHIATION


   OF OBStRVAIIO'WS


• VEIUGF BACKGROUND

PHOBC
66.3
14.3
57
?8.9

SO?
IPP«U
1.365
0.502
57
0.025

NOX
1.06
0.40
57
0.00
TCST 29
STATISTICAL SUM1
QZ CO
(PCTI 
-------
                                                             TEST  29«
                                                       ST»TISTJC»L
•UMBER C* OBSi«W»TIO«r

          * B«CRCBOU>*3
PWO:IE - 50?
TTHPICI «PP*»
75.1 1.236
P.I 0.509
Z* ?B
2^.9 D.0?6
N0«
«PPW)
1.09
0.40
?R
0.00
0?
«PCT»
20.34
0.22
28
21.01
CO
IPPH1
146.6
2R.6
28
2.«
C02
IPPHI
1529.
4T6.
26
33 T.
THC
(PPMI
1097.1
243.0
2»
12.7
US
<«PHI
0.6
0.3
28
1.1
uo
191.
?1.
2B
17B.
AMBIENT
TEHP«C»
29.5
0.1
2B
29.1
COMBUSTION
54.1
10.1
2*

                                                            CUT:
                                                             T.TPE
                                                             HE6I1
                                    BtCKGROUNO 39         29/21:46:20
                                          OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 55.14%

-------
                                                         TEST  29*
                                                   STATISTICAL SUNHART
StANOARD DEVIATION


   OF OBSERVATIONS


        BACKGROUND
PROBE
TE«PtC»
97.2
9*9
29
28.9
SO?
1.499
0.470
?9
0.0 2f
NIX
1.04
0.41
?9
0.00
02
IPCT)
20.12
0.18
29
21.01
CO
CPPHI
213.9
34.6
29
2*4
CO?
IPPB)
2808.
440.
29
337.
THC
tPPH)
1255.4
325.6
29
12.7
US
0.7
0.3
29
1.1
UO
tOEG)
189.
15.
29
17S.
AMBIENT
TEHPCC)
29.2
0.1
29
29.1
COMBUSTION
rrriciEKCT
65.6
7.7
29

                                         B8CKKROUND AHRIENT HC 6SUP.EHCKT S
                                                         TJHC
                                   FILE
BACKGfiCUND 38
HACK6PPUNO 19
                                                                                TIRE
                                                                                 : 56: S3
                                                                            29/21:55:10
                                      OVERALL  COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY =  65.6*

-------

PROBE SO?
AVEMGC 105.0 0.051
STA*0»«3 DEVIATION 10.1 0.014
•njMBE" OF DBS r«»»T IONS 67 67
•V[*A3£ l«CK,43u-4J 2<*.3 0.032
UST 64
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
W0» 0? CO C02
fPPf! tPCTI M» tOtG>
•0.1 0.9 185.
1.9 ?.3 23.
67 €>7 67
8.8 T.7 1P«.

AHBICKT COWBUSTJ01
TEHPtO CFFICIEWCt
25.3 99.7
0.1 0.2
67 67
25.1
OB
                                 FILE
                                       BACfGROUNO
                                         90
                                         41
   PECIH

30/oo:i3:
30/02:01:
     EHO

30/00:15:1*
                                    OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 99.74%

-------
                                                             TEST 62
                                                       STATISTICAL SUHHART
               AVERAGC

    S7AHDAHD DEVIATION

MU»BE« OF OeSCRVATIOHS

            SJACK6ROUNO
    \o
ROBE
WP«C»
108.3
22.1
113
29.0
SO? NOX
IPPH> «PPH)
0.841 0.60
0.667 0.36
113 113
0.032 0.03
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
FILE
B4CKGRCUMD AO
BACKGROUND «]
02

90.2
32*0
113
-1.7
HEftSURf
BCGUI
30/00
30/02
:io:oa
:oi:s3
CO? THC US
IPPHI (PPH) INPH)
3076. 99.8 0.9
1206. 30.6 0.2
113 113 113
• '28.' 8.8 9.7
:«EfsTs
TINE
tUD
30/oo:is:i*
•3p/02:oe:-M
UD A1BIENT COHHUSTlO'i
175. 25.2 93.8
IS. 0.1 l.t
113 113 113
16*. 25.1
                                          OVERALL  COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY = 94.18%

-------
STAH3ABD DEVIATION

   Of

PROBE
TCMPfO
123.%
30*4
106
?o.O

S02
JPPH»
9.057
0.037
156
0.032
TtST 63
STATISTICAL SIM
NOV 02 CO
CPPfO CPCTI tPPXt
1.5T ?0.13 19.9
1.06 0*48 9.8
106 106 106
0.01 71..11 -l.T
H»RT
C02
4184.
2204.
1 06
4?R.

THC
«PPK»
6.5
6.7
106
a.B

us
1.4
0.7
106
0.7

tfO
fOEGI
97.
4«.
106
194.

AMBIENT
TEHPICI
24.8
0.6
106
25.1

COMBUSTION
99.1
1.?
ICf

                               BiCKGROUNC
                                  FILE
                                          40
                                                     30/00:lO:0-!
                                                     30/02:01:33
     EVD

30/00:15:1*
30/02:00:14
                                     OVERALL  COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 99.37%

-------
                                                        Si
                                              STATISTICAL
      JLVIATION
OF
R<»Bt
HPtCt
86.6
12.5
10?
?7.5


502 NOK
•PP«» IPPWJ
3.793 0.74
1.440 0.?
-------
                                                            TPST  32
                                                      STATISTICAL SUHHAHT
               »VERASE

    SlftHDARD DEVIATION

NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

    AVERAGE BACKGftOUNO
PROBf
120.9
36.7
121
27.5


S02 NQX
IPPHI 
-------
                                                 STATISTIC*!. SU1KIRT

BVCRAGt
OCVIMtO*
.CMV*TI(HIS ,
IACKK*OURQ
P*0*E SO?
TEHPICI (PPf)
80.3 2.204
9.7 0.827
4« 44
27.5^ 0.044
MOk
0.63
0.25
44
-0.03
02
«PCT>
20.90
0.11
44
21.23
CO
CPP«»
12.2
6.3
44
0.1
COS
»PPH»
ITfil.
S20.
44
436.
THC

7.3
5.4
«4
14.6
WS

                            CfcO

                        29/21 :55MO
                        30/00: 15: 14
                                     OVERALL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY - 98.91%

-------
   CF
AVERAGE  BiC
TEST T?i
STATISTICAL SU*»A«r
PROBE
TE«P«CI
144.1
23.9
7T".
2T.5
SO?
CPPHI
3.896
0.680
T7
0.044
»n» o?
(pp»r (PCTi
2.39 20. ?7
0.63 0.22
17 77
-O.OT 21.23
CO CO? THC
|PPH» tPPPJ IPPM>
24.8 «RI1. 26.5
8.2 1077. ^.3
T7 77 7t
'.O.I «3&. 1*.6
OS «D
0.7 134.
0.2 11.
77 77
1.9 175.
ABBIEHT COBBOSTtOW
26.3 98.9
0.1 0.2
77 77
26."
                                 FILE
                                                      TfPt
two
                              BACKG'OUVD 40
                                    OVERALL COMBUSTION  EFFICIENCY = 98.86*

-------
                                  APPENDIX  C.

                 CALCULATION  OF  DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY (DE)


     While dilution  factors  are -required  for  an accurate determination  of
destruction efficiency (DE), estimates of DE can be made for total  hydrocarbons
(THC) and for individual hydrocarbon species.  Assuming:

     (a)  All  carbon  resulting   from  combustion  is  accounted  for  in  the
          measurements,
          /          •    .      .          •      .        .     .

     (b)  Dilution is neglected, and

     (c)  The relief gas is 80% propylene and 20% propane.

One can calculate DE's as follows:

                 =  c°2 + CO 4 Soot          x 100
                    C02 + CO 4 Soot 4 THC
     DEpropylene = MJCgZ + CO 4 Soot * THC) - Cprnpy1pnp

                      0.8(C02 + CO 4 Soot 4 THC)
     DEPropane   = MM2 + CO 4 Soot 4 THC) - Cprnpnne x 10Q
                     0.2(C02 + CO 4 Soot 4 THC)


     where:    DEjHC       = Total Hydrocarbon DE (%)

               DEPropylene = Propylene DE (%)

               DEpropanc.   " Propane DE (%)                          .
               Cpropyiene  ~ Measured Propylene Concentration (ppmv)

               ^•Propane     = Measured Propane Concentration (ppmv)

               and all other variables as previously defined.

     Tables C-l and C-2 provide calculated values for DEjHC» DEPropvlene»
DEprQpane for each of the tests.   Note that  a Combustion Efficiency t fit)  value
is also  provided,  am' in some rases,  it  differs  from CE values  reported  in
previous tables.  Thi1-  & due to the method  of calculating CE:

     (a)  THC, Cpr9pyiene» and cPropane values from  the integrated bag samples
          (Tables 7 and 8) were used instead of the continuous THC data used  in
          previous calculations,   As noted in the report, there are differences
          between the continuous and integrated bag THC results,

-------
TABLE C-l.  DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES
         STEAM-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS
Test
Number
High Btu Tests
1
2
. 3-
4
8
7
5
17
50
56
61
55
Low Btu Tests
57
11
59
60
51
16
54
23
52
53
CE

99.85
99.66
99.80
91.67
93.15
99.79
99.82
99. 7o
99.37
99.49
76.92
61.63

99.73
99.67
98.22
98.71
98.48
99.61
99.81
99.84
97.93
99.24
D
-------
TABLE C-2.  DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY ESTIMATES
          AIR-ASSISTED FLARE TESTS
Test
Number
High Btu Tests
26
65
28
31
Low Btu Tests
66
29
64
62
63
33
32
CE
(X)

99.85
97.95
99.78
98.84

49.98
48.03
99.49
92.05
99. 14
97.31
98.50
i flu
I Of \

99. 94
99.90
99.93
99.42

54.17
•51.53
99.68
94.38.
99.54
97.98
99.04
OEfr^lmi,

99.99
100.00
99.98
99.61

55.66
53.11
99.93
95.44
99.72
99.72
99.87
^Propane
(SO

99.98
99.99
99.98
99.61

57.22
54.76
99.89
95.57
99.72
99.61
99.80
                      127

-------
(b)  Since the integrated  bag  sample  hydrocarbon data were used and  no.
     background  data were  available  for  propane  and  propylene,  the
     measured  values for  hydrocarbons  in  the  flare  plume  were  not
     "corrected"  by subtracting background  concentrations.   Thus, the CE
     and  DE  values  in  the  following  tables  were  calculated  from  a
     consistent set of data.

(c)  Did not segment tests 11,  16,  29, and  32 due to  lack  of hydrocarbon
     species data.
                                128

-------
        APPENDIX D
     SOOT COMPOSITION
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
                       CABLE ADDRESS ENGINSCI
                              TELEX: 77-6442
           3109 NORTH INTERREGIONAL • AUSTIN.TEXAS 78722 • 512/477-9901
                                                 CABLE ADC

                                        February 1,  1-983

Dr. Bruce Tichenor
Industrial Processes  Branch  (MD-63)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

Dear Dr. Tichenor:

     In response to your  letter dated December 9,  1982,  and our subsequent
telephone conversation, I ain providing a summary of the procedures used for
the PNA analyses of soot  collected during the  flare  efficiency test.

     The sample probe  assembly included an in-line particulate filter housed
inside the heated section of the  probe about  six feet from the probe tip.
This in-line particulate filter assembly served two purposes:   1) collection
of particulate samples  from  smoking flares for subsequent analysis, and 2)
maintaining the cleanliness  of the sampling system.   The preweighed filter
element? usrd  were of  the   thimble configuration and constructed  of  0.3
micrometer glass fiber.

     The filters were changed  before  and after each of  the  smoking flare
tests.  Following the  tests the filters were reweighed to  determine the mass
of particulate col lected.  This information, combined with the measured flow
rate of sample through  the  probe  assembly, allowed the calculation of the
gross  particulate  concentration  of  the  flare emission at  the  sampling
location.  It should  be noted however, that  these  paniculate samples were
not collected isokinetical ly and thus, represent only gross estimates of the
particulate  concentration.    The  flare   particulate  emissions  were  not
isokinetically sampled because it  was  not  practical to directly measure the
plume velocity.

     Table  1   is  a summary  of  the mass particulate concentration  data
collected during the test  series.  Although these samples  were not collected
isokinetically,  the   data shows  distinct  differences between particulate
loadings of nonsmoking, lightly  smoking (Test 65) and heavily smoking (Test
4) flare tests.

     Samples were prepared for PKA analysis by  Soxhlet extraction of the air
filters as  received with 200 ml of  pfithylene chloride  for 24 (+2) hours.  The
condenser water  was  chilled to 1 - 6°C and no solvent loss  (bp 40°C)  was
noted.  The samples were transferred  to bottles  and the glassware washed with
additional  tnrthylene chloride which was added to sample.  Samples were dried
for several days .or  anhydrous  sodium eulfate  which  had been kiln-fired at
450°C to remove  organic compounds.  Sample extract volumes were carefully
reduced to 1 mL using Kuderna-Danish flasks and three-ball Snyder  columns.
                                    129

-------
 ENGINEERING SCIENCE
 Dr. Bruce  Tichenor
 February I,  1983
 Page  2.
     Sample  extracts were analyzed by f /MS using a 60 meter J & W fused-
silica DB-1 bonded SE-30 capillary column,  using d^-Chrysene as an internal
standard.  Individual compound response  factors were obtained by running a
standard  mix prepared from EPA  standard solution concentrates, and spiked
with d]2~chrysene.   Quantitation was based on integrated peak areas and was
performed by  the  GC/MS data system.

     As a further quality assurance measure,  a solvent blank was run, spiked
with  di2~chrysene,  and  was  found  to be  free  of interfering peaks.   No
recovery  efficiency data can  be given,  since  there was only  one  of each
sample.   Ideally,  one should consider  collecting at  least one replicate
sample which could  be  spiked (directly onto the  soot) with a  known addition
of  a  surrogate PNA.   By  this means,  an  indication of the efficiency of
recovery of PNA's  fron the  soot  matrix could be obtained.   Tables 2 and 3
summarize the results of  the  PNA analyses.

     As I indicated in our  telephone conversation, I  am unabje to calculate
these results in terms of  mass  emission rates (e.g., mg/10^ Btu.'rcg/hr, etc.)
because of the  lack of isokinetic sampling  and  a measure  of the dilution
between the reaction zone and  the sampling probe.

     If you have  any questions,  please  call  me  at  512/444-5830.
     !                 '                          '             '
                                         Sincerely,
                                         Marc  McDaniel

Attch.

/kg
                                    130

-------
   ENGINEERING SCIENCE
   Dr.  Bruce Tichenor
   February 1, 1983
   Page 3.
   Table  1.   Flare Efficiency  Study Participate Analysis.
                            Wt. gain,  Sample Time  Sample Rate  Concentration
  Test No.      Filter No.    (grams)    (minutes)     U/min)        (u9/£)
2, 3, 1, 5, 7      A-l       0.0063

7, 17, 50, 51
23, 52, 53, 54     F-l  •     0.0071

4 (Smoking)        F-2       0.0810

8 (Smoking),       F-3       Q.0819

55, 56, 11, 57
16, 59, 60, 61
28, 31, 26, 29     F-4       0.0179
33, 32, 62, 63
64, 80, 81, 82
83, 84

65 (Smoking)       F-S       0.0183
25
25
18.51


18.51

18.51

18.51



18.51




18.51
274

177
 40
                        )      -        '      -     -        .'.,-•
    Includes  time  for.probe positioning  while  probe was in the plume but
    before  formal  initiation of  the test.
                                      131

-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
Dr. Bruce Tichenor
February 1, 1983
Page 4.
Table 2.  Total Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Filter  Samples,  in
          Micrograms*.
E.S.
Sample *
F F F F F
1 2 3 *4 F5
napthalene                 (0.05)"     1.9-    1.8      -3         -
acenapthylene                -          3.3    6.2      -          -
acenapthene                  -           -     0.25     -         '>
fluorene    '                 -         (0.02)   0.61     -          -
phenanthrene                0.35        4.7   11.      (0.02)       (0.06)
anthracene                   -          0.24    1.5     0.32
pyrene                      0.77        6.0   17.       0.25        0.38
fluoranthene                0.96        8.3   21.       0.93        0.63
benzanthracene              0.13       .0.18    4.7     1.0         0.°!
chrysene                    0.12        0.28    5.6     1.2         0.17
benzo(a)pyrene  ,             —          1.2    4.4     2.6         -
1,2;5,6 dibenzanthracene     -           -      -       -          -
1,12 benzoperylene           -           -      -      1.2         -
1 - Also equal to concentration  in final 1 mL extract,  in vg/mL (ppm).

2 - The calculated amount  is given in parenthesis if it is below twice the
    stated detection limit  in the extract (O.OSppm).  Note'that some com-
    pounds were detected at  concentrations below the stated detection limit.

3 - a dash indicates that  the compound was not present above the stated
    detection limit.
                                    132

-------
  ENGINEERING.SCIENCE
  Dr.  Bruce Tichenor
  February 1,  1983
  Page  5.
  Table 3.  Analytical Results for Polynuclear Aromatics  in Filter Samples.
E.S. Sample #
SumX Sample #
Sample weight, g
Compound
napthalene
acenapthylene
acenapthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
pyrene
fluoranthene
benzanthracene
chrysene
benzo (a) pyrene
Fl
1767
0.0071
F2
1768
0.0810
PNA concentrations
< I'M
nd
nd
nd
49
nd
110
140
18
1-7
nd
1,2; 5, 6 dibenzanthracene nd
1, 12-benzoperylene
Detection Limit1
nd
7
23
41
nd
<1
58
3.0
74
100
. .2.2
3.5
15
nd
nd
0^6
F3
1769
0.0819
, ug/g
22
76
3.1
7.4
130
18
210
260
57
68
54
nd
nd
0.6
F4
1770
0.0179
soot (ppm)
nd 2
nd
nd
nd
<5
18
14
52
56
67
145
nd
67
3.
F5
1771
0.0183

nd
nd
nd
nd
<5
nd
"i
i **
11
9.3
nd
nd
nd
3.
1 _ Dppcndent on sample size.  Corresponds  to  Q.OSppm  in  1  ml>  extract.   Con-
    centrations of substances found but  less than  twice the detection  limit
    are reported as less than  (<) twice  the detection  limit.

2 - nd - none detected at or above  the  stated  detection  limit.
                                      1H ,
                                      Jj

-------