Source Emissions Testing Report for Industrial Refractory Services, Inc.

Thermal Oxidizer Emissions Testing

Roosevelt Gas Field Uintah County, Utah

Report prepared for: Report prepared by: Mr. Mike Riddell Industrial Refractory Services, Inc. 2300 S Main Street Fort Worth, TX 76110 Peter Knell

Technical Writer Test Date: April 30, 2009 APT Project: IRS9169

Table of Contents

1. Introduction....................................................................................

1

2. Methods………………...................................................................

2

3. Test Program Summary.................................................................

2

4. Test Method Details….................................................................

3

5. Test Results Summary...................................................................

5

6. Conclusions…………………………………………………………… 8

Tables

Table 1.1 : Contact Personnel......................................................

1

Table 1.2 : Testing Program Summary.........................................

2

Table 3.1 : Sampling and Analytical Methods Summary..............

3

Table 5.1 : Test Results Summary, TO Emissions.......................

6

Appendices

Testing Parameters and Sample Calculations.......…………….…

Appendix 1

Field Data...........................……………………………………….…

Appendix 2

Laboratory Data..................……………………………………….…

Appendix 3

Calibration Data..................……………………………………….…

Appendix 4

Schematics……………………………….........................……….…

Appendix 5

APT Project IRS9169 Test Report– Roosevelt Gas Field

page 1

1. Introduction Air Pollution Testing (APT) was contracted by Industrial Refractory Services, Inc. to conduct a series of source emissions tests at the Roosevelt Gas Field facility located near Vernal, Uintah County, Utah. The purpose of the testing program was to determine the concentrations and mass emission rates of nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the exhaust stack of one (1) thermal oxidizer (TO) in service at the site. The TO unit is used to control the effluent emissions of various facility processes. Concurrent stack gas velocity and volumetric flow, oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and moisture (H2O) measurements were conducted to determine pollutant mass emission rates. The exhaust VOC data was compared with inlet VOC data, taken from GRI Gly-Calc software, to determine the system VOC destruction removal efficiency. The testing program is demonstrating the emissions characteristics of the TO exhaust gas for comparison with manufacturer estimated emissions factors. Personnel involved in the test program are provided in Table 1.1 below. Unit identification and information as well as applicable emissions limits are provided in Table 1.2.

Industrial Refractory Services, Inc. : Roosevelt Gas Field Emissions Testing Program Contact Personnel

Name, Title Company, Address Phone, FAX

Mr. Mike Riddell Industrial Refractory Services, Inc. 2300 S Main Street Fort Worth, TX 76110

817-924-9991, 817-924-9533

Mr. Norm Erikson, Environmental Scientist

Utah Division of Air Quality 1950 West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

801-536-4063, 801-536-4099

Mr. Chris Keefe, Operations Director

Air Pollution Testing, Inc. 5530 Marshall Street Arvada, Colorado 80002

303-420-5949 ext. 24, 303-420-5920 fax

Table 1.1: Emissions Testing Program Contact Personnel

APT Project IRS9169 Test Report– Roosevelt Gas Field

page 2

Industrial Refractory Services, Inc. : Roosevelt Gas Field Source Identification Summary

Unit Description Emission Parameters

(1) Thermal Oxidizer VOC DRE 95%

Table 1.2: Testing Program Summary 2. Methods APT tested in accordance with the following United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) source emissions test methods, referenced in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A and 40 CFR Part 63, Appendix A. Method 1 – Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources Method 2 – Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate Method 3A – Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) Method 4 – Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases Method 7E – Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) Method 10 – Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) Method 18 – Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography Method 25A – Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration using a Flame Ionization Analyzer 3. Test Program Summary APT provided all necessary equipment and labor for the determination of the emission parameters detailed in Table 3.1. On-site gas analyzers housed in a mobile analytical trailer were used to determine exhaust emission concentrations of O2, NOX, CO and NMEOC. Concurrent with each gas sampling run, an integrated sample of exhaust stack gas was collected in a clean, leak-free Tedlar bag for subsequent off-site analysis via gas-chromatography to determine the stack gas methane and ethane content. This data was used to correct total VOC data to non-methane / ethane organic compounds (NMEOC).

APT Project IRS9169 Test Report– Roosevelt Gas Field

page 3

Triplicate 60-minute sampling runs were conducted. Pollutant concentration data was combined with concurrently collected stack gas volumetric flow rate data to calculate the mass emission rates. The TO unit was running at no less than 90% of permitted capacity for the duration of the test program. Equipment operating parameters, such as fuel use, were recorded each sampling run to document the system operating conditions during the testing.

Industrial Refractory Services, Inc. : Roosevelt Gas Field Sampling and Analytical Methods Summary

Gas Parameter Sampling Method Analytical Method Laboratory

gas flow Method 1, 2 draft gauge, thermocouple, pitot tube

O2, CO2 Method 3A paramagnetic and non-dispersive infrared analyzer - Servomex Series 1400

H2O Method 4 gravimetric

NOX Method 7E chemiluminescent analyzer -TECO Model 42 CHL

CO Method 10 gas filter correlation, infrared analyzer -TECO Model 48

TVOC Method 25A flame ionization detector

APT, on-site

NMEOC Method 18 gas-chromatography APT, off-site

Table 3.1: Sampling and Analytical Methods

4. Test Method Details 4.1. Stack Gas Moisture Stack gas moisture (H2O) content was measured in accordance with EPA Method 4. Each sampling period consisted of a sample of gas for moisture determination being extracted from the stack at a constant flow rate of no more than 0.75 cubic feet per minute (cfm). The gas sample passed through a stainless steel probe, through a series of four (4) chilled glass impingers, and through a calibrated dry gas meter. See Appendix 5 – Schematics for a diagram of the EPA Method 4 sampling train. Prior to sampling, the first two impingers were each seeded with 100 milliliters of water. The third impinger was empty. The fourth impinger was seeded with 250 grams of dried silica gel. Following sampling, the moisture gain in the impingers was measured gravimetrically to determine the moisture content of the gas.

APT Project IRS9169 Test Report– Roosevelt Gas Field

page 4

4.2. Diluent (O2 and CO2), Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide O2, CO2, NOX and CO emission concentrations were measured in accordance with EPA Methods 3A (O2 and CO2), 7E (NOX) and 10 (CO). Each sampling period consisted of extracting a gas sample from the stack at a constant flow rate of approximately four liters per minute (lpm). The sample passed through a refrigeration-type gas conditioner to remove moisture and into the sampling port of a Thermo Environmental Instruments (TECO) Model 42CHL chemiluminescent NOX analyzer, a TECO Model 48H gas filter correlation infrared CO analyzer, and a Servomex Series 1400 paramagnetic O2 / non-dispersive infrared CO2 analyzer. The gas concentrations were displayed on the analyzer front panels in units of either parts per million, dry volume basis (ppmvd – NOX and CO) or percent, dry volume basis (%vd – O2 and CO2) and logged to a computerized data acquisition system (CDAS). Please see Appendix 5 – Schematics for a diagram of the EPA Methods 3A, 7E and 10 sampling train. Before and after each sampling period, the analyzers were challenged with calibration gases to calibrate the instruments, to verify linearity of response, and to quantify zero and span drift for the previous sampling period. The calibration gases were prepared and certified in accordance with EPA Protocol 1. To ensure no system bias, the analyzer calibrations were conducted by introducing all gases to the analyzers at the sampling probe tip at stack pressure. Following sampling, the CDAS data were averaged in one-minute increments, corrected for instrumental drift, and reported as average O2, CO2, NOX and CO emission concentrations for each sampling period in units of %vd or ppmvd. 4.3. TVOC / NMEOC TVOC concentrations were measured in accordance with EPA Method 25A. Three, one-hour test runs were conducted at the TO exhaust. A flame ionization detector (FID) was used to determine TVOC levels. The FID was housed in a mobile analytical trailer to provide a temperature-controlled environment for stable, accurate response. Each sampling period consisted of extracting a gas sample from the stack at a constant flow rate of approximately four liters per minute using a heated Teflon line. The gas was directed into the sampling port of a TECO Model 51C flame ionization analyzer. TVOC concentrations were displayed on the analyzer front panel in units of parts per million, wet volume basis as propane (ppmvw as C3H8) and logged to a CDAS (see Appendix 4 – Schematics). Concurrent with each sampling run, an integrated stack gas sample was collected in a clean leak-free Tedlar bag for subsequent methane/ethane analysis. Before and after each sampling period, the analyzer was challenged with EPA Protocol 1 calibration gases to calibrate the instrument, to verify linearity of response, and to quantify zero and span drift for the previous sampling period. To ensure no system bias, the analyzer calibrations were conducted by introducing all gases to the analyzer at the sampling probe tip at stack pressure. Following sampling, the CDAS data were averaged

APT Project IRS9169 Test Report– Roosevelt Gas Field

page 5

in one-minute increments, corrected for instrumental drift, and reported as average emission concentrations for each sampling period. Stack gas moisture data were used to determine TVOC emissions in parts per million, dry volume basis as propane (ppmvd as C3H8). The stack gas samples collected in Tedlar bags were shipped with chain of custody documentation to the APT laboratory for methane analysis using gas chromatography. Methane levels were subtracted from the TVOC data to determine emissions in NMEOC. 5. Test Results Summary

The results of the testing program are summarized in Table 5.1. Any emission parameters not found in the table may be found in Appendix 1. The following terms are used in the table:

• Temp. (°F) – stack gas temperature, degrees Fahrenheit

• %vd – diluent concentration, dry volume percent

• %vw – stack gas moisture content, wet volume percent

• ppmvd – parts per million, dry volume basis

• lb/hr – pollutant mass emission rate, pounds per hour

• tpy – pollutant mass emission rate, tons per year

• C3H8 – propane

• DRE – destruction removal efficiency

APT Project IRS9169 Test Report– Roosevelt Gas Field

page 6

Industrial Refractory Services, Inc. : Roosevelt Gas Field Thermal Oxidizer Test Results Summary (4/30/09)

1 2 3 Average Permit

Limits

Start Time 11:10 12:28 13:43

Stop Time 12:10 13:28 14:43

Gas Throughput (MMcf) 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Stack Temp. (ºF) 1,481 1,437 1,434 1,451

Moisture Content (%vw) 9.7 8.4 8.2 8.7

O2 (%vd) 14.3 14.5 12.7 13.8

CO2 (%vd) 3.4 3.3 4.5 3.7

NOX (ppmvd) 32.6 27.6 37.8 32.6

CO (ppmvd) 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.8

TVOC (ppmvw as C3H8) 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3

Emissions Data

VOC (ppmvd as C3H8) 0.058* 0.058* 0.058* 0.058*

VOC (tpy) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

VOC (lb/hr) inlet 2.8271 2.8271 2.8271 2.8271

VOC (lb/hr) outlet 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

VOC (%DRE) 99.996 99.995 99.996 99.995 ≥95

* VOC values were slightly negative so the detection limit of 0.058 (2% of the span gas value) was substituted.

Table 5.1: Test Results Summary, TO 6. Conclusions The testing conducted at the Roosevelt Gas Field facility on April 30, 2009 demonstrates the emission characteristics of the TO exhaust gas for comparison with manufacturer estimated emissions factors.

Industrial Refactory Services, XTO

Roosevelt Gas Field

Uintah, Utah

TO

4/30/2009

Run # 1 2 3 Average

Start Time 11:10 12:28 13:43

Stop Time 12:10 13:28 14:43

Sample Duration (minutes) 60 60 60

hrs Hours of Operation / Year 8760 8760 8760 8760

DS Stack Diameter (inches) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

√∆PAVG Average (Delta P)½ (" H2O)

½ 0.0992 0.1066 0.0997 0.1018

CP Pitot Tube Constant (unitless) 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81

TS Stack Temperature (°F) 1481 1437 1434 1451

Pbar Barometric Pressure (mbar) 843 843 843 843

Pbar Barometric Pressure (" Hg) 24.89 24.89 24.89 24.89

Ps Stack Pressure ('' H2O) 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01

Yd Meter Y Factor (unitless) 0.9770 0.9770 0.9770 0.9770

Tm Meter Temperature (°F) 82 87 82 84

Vm Sample Volume (ft3) 38.837 40.266 40.220 39.774

∆H Orifice Pressure Delta H (" H2O) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vlc Moisture (g) 70.0 61.4 60.8 64.1

Fd Fd value (dscf/MMBtu) 8710 8710 8710 8710

Fc Fc value (dscf/MMBtu) 1040 1040 1040 1040

O2%vd O2 (%vd) 14.3 14.5 12.7 13.8

CO2%vd CO2 (%vd) 3.4 3.3 4.5 3.7

N2%vd N2 (%vd) 82.2 82.2 82.9 82.4

dry NOX (ppmvd) 32.6 27.6 37.8 32.6

dry CO (ppmvd) 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.8

wet TVOC (ppmvw as C3H8) 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3

Run # 1 2 3 Average

methane (ppmvd) 6.6 6.9 5.8 6.5

ethane (ppmvd) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Run # 1 2 3 Average

Vmstd Sample Volume (dscf) 30.845 31.680 31.923 31.482

Vwstd Moisture Volume (scf) 3.29 2.89 2.86 3.02

Bws Moisture Content (%/100) 0.097 0.084 0.082 0.087

MD Molecular Weight Dry (lb/lb-mole) 29.12 29.11 29.22 29.15

MA Molecular Weight Wet (lb/lb-mole) 28.05 28.18 28.30 28.18

VS Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 11.5 12.2 11.3 11.6

FACFM Gas Flow (acfm) 1500 1591 1483 1525

FDSCFM Gas Flow (dscfm) 307 338 316 320

FWSCFM Gas Flow (wscfm) 340 368 344 351

FKWSCFH Gas Flow (kwscfh) 20 22 21 21

FKWSCFM Gas Flow (kwscfm) 0 0 0 0

lb/hr Gas Flow (lb/hr) 1483 1617 1517 1539

Fo Fo (unitless) 1.906 1.940 1.840 1.895

wet O2 (%vw) 13.0 13.2 11.6 12.6

wet CO2 (%vw) 3.1 3.0 4.1 3.4

lb/hr NOX (lb/hr) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

tpy NOX (tons/year) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3

lb/hr CO (lb/hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

tpy CO (tons/year) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

dry TVOC (ppmvd as C3H8) 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4

lb/hr TVOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001

tpy TVOC (tons/year as C3H8) 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.004

dry NMEOC (ppmvd as C3H8) 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058

lb/hr NMEOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

tpy NMEOC (tons/year as C3H8) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Run # 1 2 3 Average Permit

Limits

Outlet Emissions

lb/hr VOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Inlet Uncontrolled Emissions (GRI Gly-Calc)

lb/hr VOC (lb/hr) 2.8271 2.8271 2.8271 2.8271

DRE Calculation

% % DRE 99.996 99.995 99.996 99.995 ≥95

DRE Calculations

Permit Limits

Field Reference Method Data

Reference Method Calculations

Laboratory Data

Air Pollution Testing, Inc.