Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. 479 Tolland Turnpike ♦ P.O. Box 239 Willington, Connecticut 06279 ♦ 860-487-5606 ♦ Fax 860-487-5607 www.airtoxenviro.com ♦ email: [email protected]September 22, 2009 Cynthia Vodopivec Environmental, Health and Safety Manager FirstLight Power Resources Services, LLC 20 Church Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 RE: 2009 Waterbury Compliance Oil Test Results Dear Cynthia, Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the Waterbury Compliance Oil Test Report with results while firing ULSK in August 2009. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments. Best Regards, Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Bethany Thienel Project Manager Enclosures: (2)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. 479 Tolland Turnpike ♦ P.O. Box 239 Willington, Connecticut 06279 ♦ 860-487-5606 ♦ Fax 860-487-5607
September 22, 2009 Cynthia Vodopivec Environmental, Health and Safety Manager FirstLight Power Resources Services, LLC 20 Church Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 RE: 2009 Waterbury Compliance Oil Test Results Dear Cynthia, Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the Waterbury Compliance Oil Test Report with results while firing ULSK in August 2009. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments. Best Regards, Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc.
Field Data Sheets ...........................................................................................................Appendix A Results Summary Sheets................................................................................................Appendix B Analytical Laboratory Results .......................................................................................Appendix C Equipment Calibration Data Sheets ...............................................................................Appendix D Calibration Gas Cylinder Certifications ....................................................................... Appendix E Process Data Sheets……………………………………………………………………Appendix F
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 1 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
1.0 INTRODUCTION Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. (Air Tox) of Willington, CT was retained by FirstLight Power Resources Services, LLC to perform compliance testing for the Waterbury Generation facility in Waterbury, CT. This facility is addressed in the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) Permit No. 0300 (Town No. 192, Premises No. 0005). The purpose of this compliance test program was to determine facility stack emissions while firing ultra-low sulfur kerosene (ULSK) for the recently-installed General Electric LMS 100 PA simple cycle combustion turbine. The GE LMS 100 PA turbine generates a nominal capacity of 96 megawatts (MW) of power firing ULSK and highly efficient control equipment. Below is a summary of the compliance testing parameters Air Tox performed for the facility while firing ULSK:
• Nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions • Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions • Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions • Particulate Matter (PM) total filterable portion only, as defined in Part
V.B.1 of the NSR permit 192-0030 • Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) • Sulfuric Acid emissions • Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined in Part V.B.2 of the NSR
permit 192-0030 The diagnostic test program was conducted during the week of August 7-8, 2009. The test program was performed under the supervision of Mr. Eric Dithrich, Senior Environmental Engineer of Air Tox. Field operations during the performance of this test program were completed with the assistance of Jason Ward, Environmental Engineer, Bethany Thienel, Project Manager, and Matthew Martunas, Assistant Project Manager, all of Air Tox. Also assisting were Air Tox Environmental Technicians Dominik Grzywacz, Andrew Warren, Zachary Hill and Michael Pomykala. Mr. Timothy McCandless, site manager at Waterbury Generation, LLC coordinated the process and operations prior to and throughout the test program. Mr. Mark Spiro, Air Pollution Control Engineer of the CT DEP was present both days to witness the test program. Mr. John DeGirolamo of the CT DEP was present August 7, 2009 to conduct an inspection of the facility Continuous Opacity Monitoring System. Section 2.0 of this compliance test report presents the results of the sampling program. A description of the facility process and operations is presented in Section 3.0. Sampling and analytical methodologies, including sampling trains, are presented in Section 4.0. The Air Tox Quality Assurance Plan is detailed in Section 5.0.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 2 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS All sampling and analyses performed during this test program were carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Connecticut DEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Testing was based on the requirements outlined in the CT DEP-issued NSR permit (No. 192-0030). A detailed summary of the test methodology is presented below. 2.1 Sampling Program Emission measurements were performed at the turbine exhaust stack sampling location for the parameters listed below in Tables 2-1, in accordance with the respective test methodologies while the unit operated above 90% of base load while firing ULSK on August 7 and 8, 2009. All emissions data in this report is presented as the average of triplicate test runs for compliance comparison with the permit emission rate limits.
TABLE 2-1
SAMPLING PARAMETERS & METHODOLOGY WHILE FIRING ULSK
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 3 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
2.2 Emission Limits Table 2-2 lists the Criteria Pollutant and Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) parameters’ calculated µg/m3 emissions limits based on actual flow rates, lbs/hr emissions limits, and ppmdv @15% O2 (as applicable) emissions limits for ULSK, as noted in the facility permit.
TABLE 2-2
ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS LIMITS WHILE FIRING ULSK from site Permit No. 192-0030.
PAH (total CT DEP list) N/A 2.188 Selenium N/A 88.13
Sulfuric Acid N/A 440.65
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 4 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
2.3 Criteria Pollutant Emission Measurements Methods 1, 2, and 4 were utilized for the turbine sampling to calculate the NOX, CO, and VOC emission concentrations in parts per million volume dry (ppmvd) corrected to 15 percent oxygen (O2). These methods were also utilized for the turbine sampling to calculate the NOX, CO, VOC, and PM emission rates in pounds per hour (lbs/hr). ASTM Method D6348 was used to measure NH3 emissions concentrations and percent moisture to calculate NH3 emissions rates. Triplicate (3) test runs were performed to demonstrate compliance with permitted emission limits for NOX, CO, VOC, and NH3 while the turbine operated at greater than 90% load firing ULSK. Results of the August 7, 2009 testing are presented below in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 Compliance NOx, CO, VOC and NH3 Results
Waterbury Generation, LLC Gas Turbine at 90% Load Firing ULSK
August 7, 2009
CONSTIUENT UNITS Test Run No. 1
Test Run No. 2
Test Run No. 3 Average Limit
Time - 10:00-10:59 11:07-12:06 12:15-13:14 Power Output MW 93.3 93.2 93.3 93.3
2.3.1 NOx and CO Emission Measurements Three (3) one-hour test runs were performed for NOX and CO in accordance with 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, Reference Methods 7E and 10. Sampling was performed on the turbine’s exhaust stack while firing ULSK, while the facility operated the turbine at greater than 90% load on August 7, 2009.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 5 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
2.3.2 VOC Emission Measurements Three (3) one-hour test runs were performed for VOCs in accordance with 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, Reference Method 25A. Sampling was performed on the turbine’s exhaust stack while firing ULSK, while the facility operated the turbine at greater than 90% load on August 7, 2009. 2.3.3 Particulate Matter and Sulfuric Acid Emission Measurements Three (3) one-hour test runs were performed for particulate matter and sulfuric acid in accordance with 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, Reference Methods 5 & 8 in a combined-method sampling train. Sampling was performed on the turbine’s exhaust stack while firing ULSK, as the facility operated the turbine at greater than 90% load on August 8, 2009. The three particulate matter samples were analyzed and emissions results were calculated in terms of pounds per hour (lbs/hr). The average particulate matter emission rate for the compliance testing was determined to be 6.93 lbs/hr for particulate matter, which falls within the current permit limit of 28.0 lbs/hr for the total filterable portion. The average sulfuric acid emission rate was determined to be 80.4 µg/m3; the calculated sulfuric acid MASC limit for this test program is 440.65µg/m3. These August 8, 2009 compliance test results are summarized in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Compliance Particulate Matter and Sulfuric Acid results
Waterbury Generation, LLC Gas Turbine at 90% Load Firing ULSK
August 8, 2009
TEST NUMBER: 1 2 3 TIME :
UNITS 08:23-09:41 10:39-11:54 12:31-13:47
AVERAGE
SAMPLE CONDITIONS Meter Volume Vmstd dscf 34.1 35.3 34.7 34.7 Isokinesis I % 94.3 95.6 96.5 95.5 Total Particulate Catch PMt mg 6.1 5.3 5.2 5.5 STACK CONDITIONS Stack Gas Flowrate Qsd dscf/min 326,420 334,360 324,870 328,550 Average Stack Temperature Ts °F 815.3 817.6 818.4 817.1 O2 in Stack Gas O2 % 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 CO2 in Stack Gas CO2 % 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 EMISSION RATES Limit Average Particulate Emission Rate 28.0 lb/hr 7.73 6.63 6.44 6.93
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 6 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Air Tox also conducted diagnostic HAPs emission testing as indicated in Section V.B.2 of the NSR permit 192-0030. Testing was in accordance with the methodologies described below. 2.4.1 Ammonia Emission Measurements Three (3) one-hour test runs were performed for NH3 in accordance with ASTM D6348. Sampling was performed on the turbine’s exhaust stack while firing ULSK, while the facility operated the turbine at greater than 90% load on August 7, 2009. Ammonia results are listed in Table 2-3 above. 2.4.2 Formaldehyde Emission Measurements Three (3) one-hour test runs were performed for formaldehdye in accordance with a modified version of CARB 430M on August 7, 2009 between 08:30 and 13:10. Sampling was performed on the turbine’s exhaust stack while firing ULSK, as the facility operated the turbine at greater than 90% load. The samples were shipped to Atmospheric Analysis & Consulting, Inc. of Ventura, California for analysis of formaldehyde by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Mr. Sucha Parmar, Ph.D., Laboratory Director, Atmospheric Analysis & Consulting, Inc. was the laboratory contact responsible for the analysis. The average formaldehyde emission rate from the compliance test program was 0.921µg/m3; the calculated MASC limit for this test program is 266.06µg/m3. Results are summarized below in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5 Compliance Formaldehyde Results
Waterbury Generation, LLC August 7, 2009
Analyte Units Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3 Average Limit
Formaldehyde
µg/m3
0.942 0.971 0.851 0.921 266.06
(calculated MASC)
2.4.3 Benzene and 1,3 Butadiene Emission Measurements
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 7 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Three (3) one-hour test runs were performed for Benzene and 1,3 Butadiene in accordance with a modified version of modified EPA Reference Method 18 on August 7, 2009 between 08:30 and 13:10. Sampling was performed on the turbine’s exhaust stack while firing ULSK and while the facility operated the turbine at greater than 90% load. The samples were shipped to Maxxam Analytics, Inc. of Mississauga, Ontario for analysis of benzene and 1,3 butadiene by gas chromatography (GC). Clayton Johnson, Project Manager, Maxxam Analytics, Inc. was the laboratory contact responsible for the analysis. The benzene samples’ emission measurements were calculated based on the detection limits adjusted per sample and based on the required dilution for the impinger catch/condensate samples. The detection limit used for the benzene charcoal tubes was 2.0µg/sample. The detection limit used for the 1,3 butadiene condensate samples was 6 µg/L; the detection limit used for the 1,3 butadiene charcoal tubes was 0.0010 mg/sample. Calculating a benzene MASC value for this compliance testing results in a MASC limit of 3325.571µg/m3; the average emissions rate for benzene was 27.5µg/m3. Calculating a 1,3 butadiene MASC value for this compliance testing results in a MASC limit of 4.88E+05 µg/m3; the average emissions rate for 1,3 butadiene was 440µg/m3. Note than many of the results were ‘non-detect’ or fell below the analytical detection limit. Results are summarized below in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6 Compliance Benzene and 1,3 Butadiene Results
Waterbury Generation, LLC August 7, 2009
Analyte Units Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3 Average Limit
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 8 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Three (3) two-hour test runs were performed for PAHs in accordance with SW 846 method 0010. Sampling was performed on the turbine’s exhaust stack while firing ULSD and while the facility operated the turbine at greater than 90% load on August 7, 2009. The PAH samples were analyzed and calculated in terms of micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for naphthalene and PAHtotal. The average naphthalene emission rate was determined to be 0.042µg/m3. The calculated naphthalene MASC for this compliance test program is 21,875.09µg/m3. The average PAHtotal emission rate was determined to be 0.262 µg/m3. The calculated PAHtotal MASC for this diagnostic test program is 2.188µg/m3. Note than the results for many of the parameters were ‘non-detect’ or fell below the analytical detection limit. Results are summarized below in Table 2-7.
Waterbury Generation, LLC Gas Turbine at 90% Load Firing ULSK
August 7, 2009
TEST NUMBER: 1 2 3 TIME :
UNITS 8:31-10:52 11:29-13:54 14:30-16:45
AVERAGE
SAMPLE CONDITIONS Meter Volume Vmstd dscf 64.31 64.74 61.91 63.65 Isokinesis I % 97.3 96.9 99.1 97.8 Total Naphthalene µg 0.2085 0.1892 0.1986 0.1988 PAHTOTAL µg 0.9933 1.2608 1.4312 1.2284
STACK CONDITIONS Stack Gas Flowrate Qsd dscf/min 326,214 329,586 308,280 321,360 Average Stack Temperature Ts °F 821 822 822 822 O2 in Stack Gas O2 % 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 CO2 in Stack Gas CO2 % 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 9 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
An approximately 500 ml ULSK fuel sample was taken from the fuel oil storage tank during the ULSK compliance test program, and was sent to the Mt. Tom Generation Company, LLC Analytical Laboratory, located in West Springfield, MA. Madhu P. Shah was the laboratory contact responsible for handling the sample and reporting the results. Note than results for most metal parameters fall below the analytical detection limit. Results were reported in ppb and are converted to µg/m3 using the 10 ppb analytical detection limit (except for Be, which was analyzed separately, and reported at the lower detection limit of 5 ppb) and the actual gallons of fuel flow for a representative sampling timeframe (the 8/8/09 Particulate Matter and Sulfuric Acid sampling). Calculated MASC values are shown based on the results of the compliance test program. Results are summarized below in Table 2-8.
Selenium < 10 0.326 88.13 3.0 PROCESS AND OPERATIONS
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 10 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Waterbury Generation, LLC operates a simple cycle combustion turbine, electricity-generating unit rated at approximately 96 MW. The facility is called the Waterbury Generation Station, or WatGen, the emissions stack designation is Stack No. 4, and the emissions unit designation is Unit 10. The maximum gross heat input of the dual-fuel operating turbine is 886.5 MMBtu/hr on gas and 802.4 MMBtu/hr on ULSK fuel. 3.1 Facility Description The facility consists of a General Electric model LMS 100 PA turbine generator capable of firing either pipeline natural gas or ULSK fuel. The unit is equipped with water injection for controlling NOx emissions, as well as SCR and an oxidation catalyst. The unit is capable of burning either natural gas or ultra low sulfur kerosene (ULSK) fuel. Continuous emissions monitoring are performed for the unit utilizing test ports on the exhaust stack. NOx emissions are controlled by selective catalytic reduction (SCR) employing 19% aqueous ammonia (NH3), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are controlled by a CO catalyst. Water is injected at the turbine inlet to effect evaporative cooling and to increase thermal efficiency. In addition, water injected into the combustion zone also assists in the reduction of NOx emissions. Pollutant emissions from the turbine operations, including startup and shutdown, are monitored by the CEMS. Pollutant emissions to be monitored by the CEMS include opacity, NOx, CO, CO2, and NH3. 3.2 Facility CEMS Description The Waterbury Generation, LLC facility CEMS used for determining the outlet emissions is based on the sample extraction technique. The CEMS utilizes a dual-range Thermo Model 42i LS NOx analyzer for NOx emissions, a Thermo Model 42i LS NOX analyzer with a NH3 converter for NH3 emissions, a Model 48i for CO measurements, and a Model 410i for CO2 measurements; the Thermo analyzers are manufactured by Thermo Environmental Instruments (TEI) of Franklin, MA. In addition to the CEMS, the opacity is measured using a Land Instruments 4500mkII+ for the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). The data acquisition and system control is handled by a combination of components, including an I/O data controller, a PC with CEMView software data buffer, and a main PC located in the facility control room with the CEMView software installed. The CEMView software is a product of Nexus Solutions of London, Ontario. The main PC has Cartwright reporting software installed to generate quarterly XML emissions and QA data reports for submittal to the US EPA. As part of the sample extraction and control, an M&C model SP200-H sampling probe, NH3 converter, O’Brien heated sample line, and M&C compressor sample cooler is utilized. The CEMS sample port and RM sample ports are located on the exhaust stack platform, and are approximately 105 feet above grade. The CEMS Data Acquisition and Reporting is controlled by a Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS). The DAHS provides automated data monitoring and management capabilities to the CEMS using Nexus Solutions CEMView with Cartwright software for generating quarterly XML emissions and QA reports according to 40 CFR 75 on a Windows platform.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 11 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
The CEMS has a CEMView Data Buffer PC, an input/output signal data controller, and a main PC. The Nexus Data Buffer PC stores and reads data from the main PC on a 1-second interval. This PC uses the second-data to generate and store one (1)-minute data. The main PC then uses the 1-minute data to form and store 15-minute and 60-minute averages. The main PC indicates any occurrence of specification limit exceedances or CEMS operational problems. The computer polls for the data once every minute to extract the data from the input/output signal controller and stores it in the main computer. Using the CEMView and Cartwright computer software, necessary reports are generated in the required format for submittal to the applicable regulatory agencies. Each electronic report submitted to the EPA is in an XML format. All hourly data is recorded in Standard Time; thus, adjustments for daylight savings are not allowed. Each quarterly report is required to be submitted within 30 days of the end of each quarter. The EPA acknowledges receipt of all reports received electronically. All information reported to EPA Region I and the CT DEP is maintained on file for a minimum of three years (40 CFR 75 §75.54).
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 12 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
4.0 REFERENCE METHOD SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY For the three one-hour compliance test runs, continuous emissions monitoring were performed by Air Tox at the exhaust stack to determine the concentration of O2, CO2, CO, NOX according to EPA Reference Methods 3A, 10, 7E and 19 for comparison to the facility CEMS. O2 and CO2 concentrations were recorded to calculate stack gas molecular weight necessary to determine volumetric flow rates, and to report NOx, CO, VOC and NH3 concentrations corrected to 15% O2. VOCs were measured using Reference Method 25A, while NH3 was measured using ASTM Method D6348. 4.1 Instrument Reference Method Sampling Stack gas was drawn through a heated sintered stainless steel probe, heated Teflon sample line (300°F nominal), and a stainless steel sample conditioner by a leakless Teflon diaphragm pump. The sample was then pumped through a manifold under slightly positive pressure with a bypass to the atmosphere. Samples are continuously drawn from this manifold to the instruments listed below:
TABLE 4-1
REFERENCE METHOD (RM) ANALYZERS
Analyzer Parameter Model No. Instrument Range Thermo Electron TOC (propane) 51 0 – 100 ppm
CAI O2 & CO2 ZRH 0 – 25% Thermo Electron NOx 42C 0 – 10 ppm
CAI CO ZRH 0 - 200 ppm The model 42CHL NOX analyzer is equipped with a NOX converter. The converter efficiency was checked prior to the testing program according to the procedure listed in 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Section 7.1.4 and 8.2.4, EPA Reference Method 7E. A schematic of the gaseous reference method sampling configuration is presented in Figure 4-1.
The analyzer outputs are continuously recorded using an ESC 8816 data logger supported by ESC's software on a PC. The signals from the analyzers are "viewed" by the data logger at 1-second intervals, from which one-minute averages are formed. The ESC software was then used to generate reports for discrete test periods. Printouts of these periods were contained in the Appendix of this test report. 4.2 Analyzer Calibrations A multiple point (zero, mid, and span) calibration was performed directly on the O2/CO2, CO, and NOX analyzers (bypassing the sample transport and conditioning system) at the beginning of the test program to determine calibration error and demonstrate analyzer linearity.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 13 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Figure 4-1 Gaseous Reference Method System Sampling Schematic
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 14 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
For the THC analyzer measuring VOCs, a two (2)-point (zero and span) calibration was performed directly on the analyzer (bypassing the sample transport and conditioning system) at the beginning of the test program to demonstrate analyzer linearity and calculate a predicted response for the low-level and mid-level gases. Calibration error is then determined by introducing the low-level and mid-level gases to the sampling system and comparing the actual response values with the predicted response calculations. A zero and mid-level bias check and calibration drift check was also performed on all analyzers prior to and after each test run (approximately every hour, as applicable). An injection point at the sample extraction probe was used for the introduction of gases to the entire sample transport and conditioning system for pre- and post-run calibration checks. EPA Protocol 1 gases, at concentrations within the ranges specified in each test method, were used for all calibrations. Calibration drift, if any, was used to correct the average test run concentrations. Procedures and calculations contained in each EPA Reference Method specific to the parameter were used to determine the average corrected stack concentration of the measured constituents for each test run. 4.3 Ammonia Emission Measurement by ASTM D6348 The test method for measuring ammonia slip was ASTM Standard Method D6348. System flow rate, system pressure, and temperature testing were continuously measured. The sampling system consisted of an unheated inconel sampling probe. Following the sample there was a heated glass fiber filter. A heated stainless steel “tee” preceded the filter and facilitate system calibration and spiking. A heated Teflon sample line delivered the sample gas to the FTIR instrumentation system, which was located at ground level in an environmentally-controlled trailer. The FTIR instrumentation consists of a medium-high resolution interferometer, heated fixed path absorption cell, a detector, electronics package, and a computer. The gas transport path inside the FTIR was heated to 180 °C (356 °F) while the absorption cell was maintained at 150 °C (302 °F). A diagram of the FTIR sampling system is presented in Figure 4-2. Certified gas cylinder mixtures (accurate to 62%) of the analyte at concentration near the emission source levels were obtained. Analyte spiking was used to verify the effectiveness of the sampling system for the target analyte. Analyte spiking was performed at the beginning and the end of the entire test program by introducing the spike gas at a point prior to the filter. The spiking was done after the acquisition of the pre- and post-test CTS spectra. High purity nitrogen or zero air was used for purging sample lines, sampling system components, for diluting sample and calibration gases, and for system leak checks. MKS software was used to control the sampling system, acquire spectra and post-process the spectra to provide quantification of the analyte in the sample. All sample runs were identified with a unique file name. At the beginning and end of each data sampling day, a calibration transfer standard (CTS) gas was passed through the FTIR gas cell. The results were analyzed to verify that they were within 5% of the certified value. Reference spectra were obtained for each analyte and interferant, CTS, and tracer gas. Spectra were obtained from the EPA spectral library on the Emission Measurement Technical
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 15 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Information Center (EMTIC) or were prepared by a qualified individual. The initial sample spectra were evaluated to determine if the sample matrix was consistent with the pre-test assumptions and if the instrument configurations were suitable.
Figure 4-2 FTIR Sampling Schematic
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 16 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
4.4 Manual Emission Measurements Concurrent with the instrumental measurements detailed above, measurements were performed utilizing manual test methods to determine stack gas molecular weight, moisture content, and volumetric flow rate. 4.4.1 Stack Gas Molecular Weight Determination Molecular weight was determined using calculations listed in EPA Reference Method 3. As detailed above, the composition of the gas stream was continuously analyzed for carbon dioxide concentration, concurrent with each test run, in accordance with EPA Reference Method 3A. This data, together with the measured oxygen concentrations, allows the stack gas molecular weight to be calculated. 4.4.2 Stack Gas Moisture Content Measurement Stack gas moisture content was determined according to EPA Reference Method 4. Using EPA Reference Method 4, moisture runs were performed in conjunction with the EPA Reference Method 5 testing, detailed later in this report. 4.4.3 Volumetric Flow Measurement Concurrent with EPA Reference Method 5 testing, exhaust stack volumetric flow rate was determined in accordance with EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2. Velocity measurements were recorded at each of twenty-four (24) traverse points in the 138.5” I.D. stack (six points per each of four sampling ports located 90° apart from each other). Figure 4-3 shows the stack configuration and sample port locations.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 17 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Figure 4-3 Sample Port Location Schematic
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 18 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
4.4.4 Particulate Matter Measurement Particulate sampling was performed using an EPA Reference Method 5 sampling train. A total of three (3) one-hour test runs were performed for this compliance test program. The sampling train consisted of a nozzle, probe, filter, four impingers, a flexible umbilical line, vacuum pump, dry gas meter, and an orifice flow meter. The stainless steel nozzle was attached to a stainless steel probe with a stainless steel liner, which was heated to prevent condensation. A Whatman EPM 2000 (or equivalent) fiberglass filter paper supported in a 3-1/2 inch glass filter holder was used as the collection media. The filter assembly was enclosed in a heated box to maintain temperatures at 248° F +/- 25° F. An ice bath containing four impingers was attached to the back end of the filter via a flexible umbilical tube. The first, third, and forth impingers were of the modified Greenburg-Smith design, while the second was of the standard Greenburg-Smith design. The first two impingers contained 100 ml of deionized water, the third impinger was empty, serving as a moisture dropout, and the fourth contained 200 grams of silica gel to remove any remaining moisture.
Flexible tubing, a vacuum gauge, needle valves, a leakless vacuum pump, bypass valve, dry gas meter, calibration orifice and inclined manometer completed the sampling train. The stack velocity pressure was measured using a pitot tube and inclined manometer according to EPA Method 2. The stack temperature was monitored by a thermocouple connected to a potentiometer. A schematic of the sampling train is presented in Figure 4-4. A calculator was used to quickly determine the orifice pressure drop required for given pitot velocity pressures and stack temperatures during sampling to maintain isokinetic sampling conditions. Sampling flow was adjusted by means of the bypass valve. Before and after each particulate test run, the sampling train was leak-checked (acceptable at 0.02 cubic feet per minute or less). The moisture content of the exhaust gases was determined during each particulate test run as part of this sampling train according to EPA Reference Method 4. Test data was recorded on field data sheets presented in the Appendix to this report. At the end of each test, two sample containers were used as follows:
Container No. 1 Filter. Container No. 2 Acetone wash of probe and front half of filter holder. The probe and nozzle were washed and brushed three times. Container was labeled and sealed for transport.
Moisture volume from the impingers was determined to the nearest 0.5 mL H2O or 0.5 gram H2O. Silica gel from the fourth impinger was weighed on-site to the nearest 0.5 gram, following each test run. The remaining samples were transported to the laboratory where the following analyses were performed:
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 19 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Container No. 1 Transferred the filter and any loose particulate matter from the sample container to a tared glass weighing dish, desiccated, dried to a constant weight. Results were reported to the nearest 0.1 mg.
Container No. 2 Transferred the acetone washing to a tared beaker and evaporated to
dryness at ambient temperature and pressure. Desiccated and dried to a constant weight. Results were reported to the nearest 0.1 mg.
An Excel® spreadsheet was used to calculate emission rates in grains per dry standard cubic foot and pounds per hour. The spreadsheet also calculated percent moisture, molecular weight of the stack gas at stack conditions, and the percent isokinesis. Copies of these test summary spreadsheets are included in the Appendix of this report. Complete sampling train calibrations were performed before and after this compliance test program. Complete pre/post test calibration forms are included in the Appendix of this final report.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 20 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Figure 4-4 Particulate Matter Sampling Schematic
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 21 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
4.4.5 Formaldehyde Measurement The stack emissions concentration of formaldehyde was determined utilizing the California Air Resource Board (CARB) Method 430M. Three (3) one-hour non-isokinetic test runs were performed for this compliance test program. Emissions were expressed in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), presented as the average of the three (3) one-hour test runs. A Teflon probe was attached to two mini impingers in series (each impinger containing an aqueous acidic solution of 2,4-denitrophenyl-hydrazine (DNPH)), an ice bath, flexible tubing, a vacuum gauge, needle valves, a leakless vacuum pump, a bypass valve, and a dry gas meter. The impingers each contained 15 ml DNPH, and the third impinger contained silica gel. Samples were collected at a flow rate of approximately 0.5 liters per minute (±10%). A schematic of the sampling train is presented in Figure 4-5. Upon completion of each one-hour sample run, the train components were moved to a clean area to minimize the chances of contamination during sample recovery. Samples were recovered and placed in one sample container, as follows:
Container No. 1 Contents of impingers 1 & 2. Rinsed each impinger and connecting glassware with 2 ml DNPH Solution. Deposited rinses into this container. Container was labeled and sealed for transport.
The recovered samples were transported to the laboratory where the following analysis was performed:
Container No. 1 Performed analysis by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in accordance with Section 9 of CARB Method 430M.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 22 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 23 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
4.4.6 PAH Measurement The measurement of PAHs was performed in accordance with SW Method 846-0010. A total of three (3) two-hour isokinetic test runs were performed for this compliance test program. This method was essentially a modified version of EPA Reference Method 5. The train consisted of a calibrated glass nozzle, a heated glass-lined probe, a heated glass fiber filter encased in a glass holder with a Teflon-coated frit, a Graham spiral-type condenser, a water-jacketed sorbent module containing cleaned XAD-2 resin, and five Greenburg-Smith impingers. The sorbent module was positioned vertically and sample gas flowed downward to prevent channeling. The first impinger was modified to serve as a moisture knockout by shortening the stem. Impingers two and three were each charged with 100 ml HPLC water. The fourth impinger was empty, while the fifth contained 200 grams of indicating silica gel. Glassware connections were sealed with Teflon O-rings that eliminated leaks without the use of silicone grease. The sampling probe and filter temperatures were maintained at or below 248° F +/- 25° F. The remainder of the train consisted of flexible tubing, a vacuum gauge, a leak-free vacuum pump with by-pass and fine adjustments, a calibrated dry gas meter, a calibrated orifice and a dual inclined manometer. The stack velocity pressure was measured using a pitot tube and inclined manometer according to EPA Method 2. The stack temperature was monitored by a thermocouple connected to a potentiometer. A calculator was used to quickly determine the orifice pressure drop required for pitot velocity pressure changes and stack temperature changes in order to maintain isokinetic sampling conditions. Sampling flow was adjusted by means of the bypass valve. Before and after each test run, the sampling train was leak-checked (acceptable at less than 0.02 cubic feet per minute). The moisture content of the exhaust gases was also determined during each test run as part of this sampling train according to EPA Reference Method 4. All five impingers were weighed to the nearest 0.5 grams before and after each test. Test data was recorded on the field data sheets presented in the Appendix of this report. A schematic of the sampling train is presented in Figure 4-6. Upon completion of each two-hour sample run, the train components were moved to a relatively clean area to minimize the chances of contamination during sample recovery. The nozzle was sealed upon completion of the leak check with methylene chloride-rinsed aluminum foil to prevent loss of sample. The condenser/sorbent module was removed from the impinger train and sealed with glass caps. The sample train was then inspected for abnormal conditions and completely disassembled. Samples were recovered and placed in four sample containers, as follows:
Container No. 1 - Filter. Container No. 2 - Probe, nozzle and front half of the filter holder were
brushed and rinsed in triplicate with methanol/methylene chloride (1:1) into the same
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 24 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
container. The container was sealed, labeled and the sample liquid level marked.
XAD-2 Adsorbent Module - The Module was removed from sample train,
immediately sealed with hexane-rinsed aluminum foil, and stored on ice for transport to the laboratory.
Container No. 3 - The volume of the condensate in the spiral condenser
and the knockout impinger was determined and the solutions deposited into a 950 ml amber glass sample jar. The container was sealed, labeled and the sample liquid level marked.
Container No. 4 - The back half of the filter holder, connecting
glassware, and condenser were washed three times with methylene chloride and deposited in a 950 ml amber glass container. The container was sealed, labeled, and the sample liquid level was marked.
The contents of the first three impingers were measured to the nearest 1.0 ml to determine moisture gain, and then were discarded. The silica gel from the fourth impinger was weighed to the nearest 0.5 grams following each test run and saved for future use.
The samples were transported to the laboratory where the following analysis was performed:
All Containers listed above - Sample analysis was performed as described in SW
Method 0010 and EPA SW-846 Method 8270. Sample fractions were extracted with a Soxhlet apparatus, combined and analyzed for PAHs using high resolution gas chromatography for separation, and low resolution mass spectrometry for qualifications and quantification.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 25 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Figure 4-6 PAH Sampling Schematic
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 26 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
4.4.7 Sulfuric Acid Measurement The exhaust stack concentration of sulfuric acid was determined utilizing Reference Method 8. Three (3) 1-hour isokinetic test runs were performed simultaneously with EPA Method 5 to determine the emissions of sulfuric acid in the stack gas exhaust. The train consisted of a calibrated glass nozzle, a heated glass-lined probe, a heated glass fiber (pre-cleaned) filter encased in a glass holder with a Teflon-coated frit, and four impingers. The first impinger (modified Greenburg-Smith) was charged with 100 ml of 80% isopropanol and the second and third impingers (Greenburg-Smith) and (modified Greenburg-Smith) were each charged with 100 ml of 3% H2O2. The fourth impinger contained 200 grams of indicating silica gel to remove any remaining moisture. A schematic of the sampling train is presented in Figure 4-7. Prior to testing, all sample train components were cleaned and assembled in accordance with Section 8.3 of Reference Method 5. Glassware connections utilized Teflon O-rings to provide a leak-free seal without the use of silicone grease. Prior to and following sampling, the sample train was sealed with Parafilm to prevent contamination. Upon completion of each one-hour sample run, the train components were moved to a relatively clean area to minimize the chances of contamination during sample recovery. The sample train was then inspected for abnormal conditions and completely disassembled. Samples were recovered and placed in four sample containers, as follows:
Container No. 1 Contents of impinger 1. Contents were measured to determine moisture gain and deposited into sample jar. The nozzle, probe, and front half of the train were rinsed with 80% isopropanol solution. The washes were deposited into this container. Container was labeled and sealed for transport.
Container No. 2 Contents of impingers 2 & 3. Contents were measured
to determine moisture gain and deposited into sample jar. The back half of the filter holder, the first three impingers, and connecting glassware were rinsed in triplicate with 100 ml deionized water. Container was labeled and sealed for transport.
Container No. 3 - Silica Gel. Contents were weighed to
nearest 0.5 g and discarded.
The samples were transported to Maxxam Analytics, Inc. where the following analysis was performed:
Containers No. 1 & 2 Perform analysis in accordance with Sections 11.2.1 EPA
Reference Method 8.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 27 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
Figure 4-7 Sulfuric Acid Sampling Schematic
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 28 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
4.4.8 Benzene and 1,3 Butadiene Measurements Sampling for benzene and 1,3 butadiene was performed in accordance with a modified version of EPA Method 18, employing charcoal tubes in series, as well as two moisture knockout impingers and an impinger with silica gel for drying the gas sample prior to passing through the low-flow sampling pump. The first charcoal tube was considered the “front-half” sample while the second was considered the “back-half” sample, and was used to collect any breakthrough sample. Identical trains were used for each sampling run; one train was dedicated to benzene sampling; the other was dedicated to 1,3 butadiene sampling. Sample analysis was performed by Maxxam Analytics, Inc. of Ontario, Canada. The sample train was designed to collect the sample through a ¼” Teflon sample line and two charcoal tubes in series, and condensing the remainder of the moisture in the stack gas sample into a chilled impinger solution (25mL HPLC water), and finally drying it with silica gel. The stack gas was then pulled off the silica gel impinger and through a low-flow sampling pump. The flow rate of the low-flow sampling pump was determined prior to each test run, with the train intact, and was adjusted to ensure a consistent sampling rate prior to each subsequent test run. Test runs were sixty (60) minutes in length, and the total gas volume sampled was calculated using the flow rate determined prior to each test run. Upon completion of each one-hour sample run, the train components were moved to a clean area to minimize the chances of contamination during sample recovery. Samples were recovered and placed in sample containers, as follows:
Container No. 1 Contents of impinger 1. Rinsed each impinger and connecting glassware and tubing with 10 ml HPLC water. Deposited rinses into this container. Container was labeled, sealed and chilled for transport.
Container No. 2 Charcoal tubes were removed, labeled and sealed for
transport. The recovered samples were transported to the laboratory where the following analysis was performed:
Container No. 1 & 2 Performed analysis by GC/FID for the impinger catch and charcoal tubes to determine the concentration of benzene or 1,3 butadiene.
4.4.9 Metals Measurement A ULSK fuel sample was take from the fuel oil storage tank during the ULSK compliance test program, and sent to the Mt. Tom Generation Company, LLC Analytical Laboratory, located in West Springfield, MA. Madhu P. Shah was the laboratory contact responsible for handling the sample and reporting the results.
Air Tox Environmental Company, Inc. Page No. 29 Project No. 9020 - Waterbury Generation, LLC Compliance ULSK Test Program
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE The project manager listed in Section 1.0 is responsible for implementation of the quality assurance program as applied to this project. 5.1 Sampling Quality Assurance Implementation of quality assurance procedures for source measurement programs is designed so work is done:
♦ By competent, trained individuals experienced in the methodologies being used. ♦ Using properly calibrated equipment. ♦ Using approved procedures for sample handling and documentation.
Measurement devices, pitot tubes, dry gas meters, thermocouples and portable gas analyzers are uniquely identified and calibrated with documented procedures and acceptance criteria before and after the field effort. Records of all calibration data are maintained in the files and were presented in the Appendix of this report. Data was recorded on standard forms. Field notebooks are used to record observations and miscellaneous elements affecting data, calculations, or evaluation.
Specific details of the Air Tox QA program for stationary air pollution sources may be found in “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems,” Volume III (EPA-600/4-7-027b). 5.2 EPA Reference Methods Calibration gases utilized for instrumental analysis methods are prepared in accordance with EPA Protocol 1 or certified to be within ±2% of the cylinder “tag” value concentration. Analyzer linearity, bias, calibration drift, and calibration drift corrections are determined in accordance with the specific Reference Methods utilized in this test program.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A Field Data Sheets
APPENDIX A.1 Particulate Matter and Sulfuric Acid Testing
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE in. HG 30.40STACK AREA SQ. FT 104.57NOZZLE DIAMETER INCHES 0.188DRY GAS METER CAL FACTOR [Y] ******** 0.9820METER ORIFICE COEFFICIENT [dH@] ******** 1.78PITOT COEFFICIENT ******** 0.84STATIC PRESSURE IN. H2O 1.8SAMPLE DURATION MINUTES 60
***ESTIMATES TO SET-UP NOMOGRAPH***ESTIMATED MOISTURE PERCENT 12.0ESTIMATED MW STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.8
*NOTE UPON COMPLETION OF TESTING, ENTER IMPINGER VOLUMES AND ACTUAL STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW TO OBTAIN THE ACTUAL MOISTURES AND ISOKINETICS.
AVG SQUARE ROOT OF DELTA P IN. H2O 1.5037AVG DELTA H IN. H20 1.03AVG METER TEMPERATURE DEG. F 74.1AVG STACK TEMPERATURE DEG. F 815.3SAMPLE VOLUME CU. FT 34.450
MOISTURE PERCENT 5.2VOL. OF LIGUID - IMPINGERS GRAMS 24.0VOL. OF LIGUID - SILICA GEL GRAMS 16.0
***STACK GAS ANALYSIS***CO2 PERCENT 5.7O2 PERCENT 13.2CO PERCENT 0.0N2 PERCENT 81.11FUEL FACTOR Fo 1.353MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.84EXCESS AIR PERCENT 160.4STACK VELOCITY FPM 7797VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, ACTUAL ACFM 815,328 VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE,DRY STD DSCFM 326,419
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE in. HG 30.40STACK AREA SQ. FT 104.57NOZZLE DIAMETER INCHES 0.188DRY GAS METER CAL FACTOR [Y] ******** 0.9820METER ORIFICE COEFFICIENT [dH@] ******** 1.78PITOT COEFFICIENT ******** 0.84STATIC PRESSURE IN. H2O 1.8SAMPLE DURATION MINUTES 60
***ESTIMATES TO SET-UP NOMOGRAPH***ESTIMATED MOISTURE PERCENT 12.0ESTIMATED MW STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.8
*NOTE UPON COMPLETION OF TESTING, ENTER IMPINGER VOLUMES AND ACTUAL STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW TO OBTAIN THE ACTUAL MOISTURES AND ISOKINETICS.
AVG SQUARE ROOT OF DELTA P IN. H2O 1.5455AVG DELTA H IN. H20 1.10AVG METER TEMPERATURE DEG. F 73.5AVG STACK TEMPERATURE DEG. F 817.6SAMPLE VOLUME CU. FT 35.696
MOISTURE PERCENT 5.5VOL. OF LIGUID - IMPINGERS GRAMS 36.0VOL. OF LIGUID - SILICA GEL GRAMS 8.0
***STACK GAS ANALYSIS***CO2 PERCENT 5.7O2 PERCENT 13.2CO PERCENT 0.0N2 PERCENT 81.1FUEL FACTOR Fo 1.352MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.80EXCESS AIR PERCENT 161.4STACK VELOCITY FPM 8026VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, ACTUAL ACFM 839,276 VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE,DRY STD DSCFM 334,363
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE in. HG 30.40STACK AREA SQ. FT 104.57NOZZLE DIAMETER INCHES 0.188DRY GAS METER CAL FACTOR [Y] ******** 0.9820METER ORIFICE COEFFICIENT [dH@] ******** 1.78PITOT COEFFICIENT ******** 0.84STATIC PRESSURE IN. H2O 1.8SAMPLE DURATION MINUTES 60
***ESTIMATES TO SET-UP NOMOGRAPH***ESTIMATED MOISTURE PERCENT 12.0ESTIMATED MW STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.0
*NOTE UPON COMPLETION OF TESTING, ENTER IMPINGER VOLUMES AND ACTUAL STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW TO OBTAIN THE ACTUAL MOISTURES AND ISOKINETICS.
AVG SQUARE ROOT OF DELTA P IN. H2O 1.5348AVG DELTA H IN. H20 1.09AVG METER TEMPERATURE DEG. F 86.9AVG STACK TEMPERATURE DEG. F 818.4SAMPLE VOLUME CU. FT 35.892
MOISTURE PERCENT 8.0VOL. OF LIGUID - IMPINGERS GRAMS 52.0VOL. OF LIGUID - SILICA GEL GRAMS 12.0
***STACK GAS ANALYSIS***CO2 PERCENT 5.7O2 PERCENT 13.2CO PERCENT 0.0N2 PERCENT 81.1FUEL FACTOR Fo 1.353MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.52EXCESS AIR PERCENT 161.7STACK VELOCITY FPM 8012VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, ACTUAL ACFM 837,858 VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE,DRY STD DSCFM 324,893
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-1 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = 1.113 Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 8:30 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 5 End Time 9:30 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (m^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 1023.0700 100 Static Pressure: 1.8 in H2O
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-2 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = 1.113 Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 10:17 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 5 End Time 11:17 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (m^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 1023.6600 89 Static Pressure: 1.8 in H2O
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-3 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = 1.113 Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 12:10 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 5 End Time 13:10 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (m^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 1024.0000 88 Static Pressure: 1.8 in H2O
2 5 903 10 924 155 20 946 257 30 868 35 879 40 87
10 45 8611 50 8512 55 86
60 1024.3500
Impinger RecoveryImpinger Vol or Wt TotalNumber Initial Final Catch
1 15 N/A2 15 N/A
Silica Gel
Final Reading: 0.000 Average 88 Average of In & Out Meter TemperaturesTotal Volume: 0.350 Avg Square Root DELTA P
Total Moisture Catch: Calculated Moisture Content:
0.5 LPM
Determination of Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde in Emissions from Stationary Sources
Rev 2/96 ECD
Formaldehyde Summary WorksheetWaterbury Generation, LLCTurbine Exhaust StackConditions: >90% Load Project No. 9020 - Oil Compliance Test Program
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-1 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = N/A Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 8:30 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 10 End Time 9:30 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (ft^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 0.0000 Static Pressure: in H2O
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-2 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = N/A Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 10:17 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 10 End Time 11:17 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (ft^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 0.000 Static Pressure: in H2O
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-3 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = N/A Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 12:10 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 10 End Time 13:10 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (ft^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 0.000 Static Pressure: in H2O
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-1 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = N/A Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 8:30 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 10 End Time 9:30 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (ft^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 0.0000 Static Pressure: in H2O
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-2 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = N/A Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 10:17 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 10 End Time 11:17 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (ft^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 0.000 Static Pressure: in H2O
Project No. 9020 Test Number T-3 Pb = 30.2 (in Hg) Cp= Train Leak Checks: Pre-Test cfm in HgTesters Initials AW Test Date 8/7/2009 Nozzle Size Y = N/A Post-Test cfm in Hg
Test Time(min) 60 Start Time 12:10 Nozzle No. Probe No. Orsat Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/AMin Per Point 10 End Time 13:10 C/K Factor Pitot No. Pitot Leak Check: Pre-Test N/A Post-Test N/A
Filter No. Final Orsat Analysis N/A O2% N/A CO2%
Port Point Time Meter deltaP deltaH Temperatures VacuumVolume Stack Probe Htr Box Filter Cond Out Module Meter Comments
(min) (ft^3) (in H2O) (in H2O) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) In (°F) Out (°F) (in Hg)A 1 0 0.000 Static Pressure: in H2O
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE in. HG 30.20STACK AREA SQ. FT 104.57NOZZLE DIAMETER INCHES 0.180DRY GAS METER CAL FACTOR [Y] ******** 0.9820METER ORIFICE COEFFICIENT [dH@] ******** 1.78PITOT COEFFICIENT ******** 0.84STATIC PRESSURE IN. H2O 1.8SAMPLE DURATION MINUTES 120
***ESTIMATES TO SET-UP NOMOGRAPH***ESTIMATED MOISTURE PERCENT 12.0ESTIMATED MW STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.8
*NOTE UPON COMPLETION OF TESTING, ENTER IMPINGER VOLUMES AND ACTUAL STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW TO OBTAIN THE ACTUAL MOISTURES AND ISOKINETICS.
AVG SQUARE ROOT OF DELTA P IN. H2O 1.5470AVG DELTA H IN. H20 0.93AVG METER TEMPERATURE DEG. F 78.1AVG STACK TEMPERATURE DEG. F 820.7SAMPLE VOLUME CU. FT 65.973
MOISTURE PERCENT 7.9VOL. OF LIGUID - IMPINGERS GRAMS 103.0VOL. OF LIGUID - SILICA GEL GRAMS 15.0
***STACK GAS ANALYSIS***CO2 PERCENT 5.7O2 PERCENT 13.2CO PERCENT 0.0N2 PERCENT 81.12FUEL FACTOR Fo 1.353MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.53EXCESS AIR PERCENT 159.1STACK VELOCITY FPM 8108VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, ACTUAL ACFM 847,883 VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE,DRY STD DSCFM 326,214
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE in. HG 30.20STACK AREA SQ. FT 104.57NOZZLE DIAMETER INCHES 0.180DRY GAS METER CAL FACTOR [Y] ******** 0.9820METER ORIFICE COEFFICIENT [dH@] ******** 1.78PITOT COEFFICIENT ******** 0.84STATIC PRESSURE IN. H2O 1.8SAMPLE DURATION MINUTES 120
***ESTIMATES TO SET-UP NOMOGRAPH***ESTIMATED MOISTURE PERCENT 12.0ESTIMATED MW STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.8
*NOTE UPON COMPLETION OF TESTING, ENTER IMPINGER VOLUMES AND ACTUAL STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW TO OBTAIN THE ACTUAL MOISTURES AND ISOKINETICS.
AVG SQUARE ROOT OF DELTA P IN. H2O 1.5650AVG DELTA H IN. H20 0.95AVG METER TEMPERATURE DEG. F 85.5AVG STACK TEMPERATURE DEG. F 822.3SAMPLE VOLUME CU. FT 67.325
MOISTURE PERCENT 8.0VOL. OF LIGUID - IMPINGERS GRAMS 106.0VOL. OF LIGUID - SILICA GEL GRAMS 14.0
***STACK GAS ANALYSIS***CO2 PERCENT 5.7O2 PERCENT 13.2CO PERCENT 0.0N2 PERCENT 81.11FUEL FACTOR Fo 1.353MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.52EXCESS AIR PERCENT 160.4STACK VELOCITY FPM 8209VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, ACTUAL ACFM 858,460 VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE,DRY STD DSCFM 329,586
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE in. HG 30.20STACK AREA SQ. FT 104.57NOZZLE DIAMETER INCHES 0.180DRY GAS METER CAL FACTOR [Y] ******** 0.9820METER ORIFICE COEFFICIENT [dH@] ******** 1.78PITOT COEFFICIENT ******** 0.84STATIC PRESSURE IN. H2O 1.8SAMPLE DURATION MINUTES 120
***ESTIMATES TO SET-UP NOMOGRAPH***ESTIMATED MOISTURE PERCENT 12.0ESTIMATED MW STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.0
*NOTE UPON COMPLETION OF TESTING, ENTER IMPINGER VOLUMES AND ACTUAL STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW TO OBTAIN THE ACTUAL MOISTURES AND ISOKINETICS.
AVG SQUARE ROOT OF DELTA P IN. H2O 1.4674AVG DELTA H IN. H20 0.84AVG METER TEMPERATURE DEG. F 79.9AVG STACK TEMPERATURE DEG. F 822.3SAMPLE VOLUME CU. FT 63.733
MOISTURE PERCENT 8.3VOL. OF LIGUID - IMPINGERS GRAMS 104.0VOL. OF LIGUID - SILICA GEL GRAMS 15.0
***STACK GAS ANALYSIS***CO2 PERCENT 5.7O2 PERCENT 13.2CO PERCENT 0.0N2 PERCENT 81.12FUEL FACTOR Fo 1.353MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS lb/lbMole 28.49EXCESS AIR PERCENT 159.1STACK VELOCITY FPM 7701VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, ACTUAL ACFM 805,297 VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE,DRY STD DSCFM 308,280
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
Sulfuric Acid Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 20 µg/m3
Sulfuric Acid CT MASC (H>20 m) 440.654 µg/m3
0.441 mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 825238 acfm
Formaldehyde Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 12 µg/m3
Formaldehyde CT MASC (H>20 m) 266.060 µg/m3
0.266 mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 825238 acfm
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 825238 acfm
1, 3 Butadiene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 22000 µg/m3
1, 3 Butadiene CT MASC (H>20 m) 4.88E+05 µg/m3
487.777 mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Average Measured Ammonia Concentration: 2.8 ppm at 15% O2
1.3 lbs/hr1370.86 µg/m3
T-1 2.9 ppm at 15% O2
1.36 lbs/hr1419.82 µg/m3
T-2 2.8 ppm at 15% O2
1.32 lbs/hr1370.86 µg/m3
T-3 2.7 ppm at 15% O2
1.3 lbs/hr1321.91 µg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
1.40E+06 acmh392.141 m3/sec 2.000997401
Stack Height (H) = 38.10 meters 125.0 feet
H Distance = 4.47(H-20)^1.28 182.03
Arsenic Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 0.05 µg/m3
Arsenic CT MASC (H>20 m) 1.102 µg/m3
0.001 mg/m3
Measured Arsenic Concentration: Less than 3.26E-01 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 5980less than 10 ppbless than 0.01 mgless than 4.54E+05 µgless than 3.26E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limitless than 1.54E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by 1/2 detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
1.40E+06 acmh392.141 m3/sec 2.000997401
Stack Height (H) = 38.10 meters 125.0 feet
H Distance = 4.47(H-20)^1.28 182.03
Beryllium Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 0.01 µg/m3
Beryllium CT MASC (H>20 m) 0.220 µg/m3
0.000 mg/m3
Measured Beryllium Concentration: Less than 0.1628 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 5980less than 5 ppbless than 0.005 mgless than 2.27E+05 µgless than 1.63E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limitless than 1.54E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by 1/2 detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
1.40E+06 acmh392.141 m3/sec 2.000997401
Stack Height (H) = 38.10 meters 125.0 feet
H Distance = 4.47(H-20)^1.28 182.03
Cadmium Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 0.4 µg/m3
Cadmium CT MASC (H>20 m) 8.813 µg/m3
0.009 mg/m3
Measured Cadmium Concentration: Less than 0.3256 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 5980less than 10 ppbless than 0.01 mgless than 4.54E+05 µgless than 3.26E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limitless than 1.54E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by 1/2 detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
1.40E+06 acmh392.141 m3/sec 2.000997401
Stack Height (H) = 38.10 meters 125.0 feet
H Distance = 4.47(H-20)^1.28 182.03
Chromium Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 2.5 µg/m3
Chromium CT MASC (H>20 m) 55.082 µg/m3
0.055 mg/m3
Measured Chromium Concentration: 0.4689 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 598014.4 ppb
0.0144 mg6.54E+05 µg4.69E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line(greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
1.40E+06 acmh392.141 m3/sec 2.000997401
Stack Height (H) = 38.10 meters 125.0 feet
H Distance = 4.47(H-20)^1.28 182.03
Mercury Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 1 µg/m3
Mercury CT MASC (H>20 m) 22.033 µg/m3
0.022 mg/m3
Measured Mercury Concentration: Less than 0.3256 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 5980less than 10 ppbless than 0.01 mgless than 4.54E+05 µgless than 3.26E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limitless than 1.54E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by 1/2 detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
1.40E+06 acmh392.141 m3/sec 2.000997401
Stack Height (H) = 38.10 meters 125.0 feet
H Distance = 4.47(H-20)^1.28 182.03
Manganese Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 20 µg/m3
Manganese CT MASC (H>20 m) 440.654 µg/m3
0.441 mg/m3
Measured Manganese Concentration: 1.7160 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 598052.7 ppb
0.0527 mg2.40E+06 µg1.72E+00 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limit1.54E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by 1/2 detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
1.40E+06 acmh392.141 m3/sec 2.000997401
Stack Height (H) = 38.10 meters 125.0 feet
H Distance = 4.47(H-20)^1.28 182.03
Nickel Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 5 µg/m3
Nickel CT MASC (H>20 m) 110.163 µg/m3
0.110 mg/m3
Measured Nickel Concentration: 0.4428 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 598013.6 ppb
0.0136 mg6.18E+05 µg4.43E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
1.40E+06 acmh392.141 m3/sec 2.000997401
Stack Height (H) = 38.10 meters 125.0 feet
H Distance = 4.47(H-20)^1.28 182.03
Lead Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 3 µg/m3
Lead CT MASC (H>20 m) 66.098 µg/m3
0.066 mg/m3
Measured Lead Concentration: Less than 0.3256 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 5980less than 10 ppbless than 0.01 mgless than 4.54E+05 µgless than 3.26E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limitless than 1.54E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by 1/2 detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
H Distance = 182.0271
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 830807 acfm
Measured Selenium Concentration: Less than 0.3256 µg/m3
597459815985
avg. gals fuel burned/hr 5980less than 10 ppbless than 0.01 mgless than 4.54E+05 µgless than 3.26E-01 µg/m3 calculated as reported by detection limitless than 2.50E+06 µg/m3 calculated as reported by 1/2 detection limit
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Naphthalene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 1000 µg/m3
Naphthalene CT MASC (H>20 m) 21875.097 µg/m3
21.875 mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Total PAH Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) 0.1 µg/m3
Total PAH CT MASC (H>20 m) 2.188 µg/m3
0.002 mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
2-Methylnaphthalene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
2-Methylnapthalene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Acenaphthylene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Acenaphthylene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Acenaphthene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Acenaphthene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Phenanthrene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Phenanthrene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Anthracene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Anthracene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Fluoranthene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Fluoranthene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Benzo(a)anthracene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Benzo(a)anthracene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Benzo(b)fluroanthene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Benzo(b)fluroanthene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Benzo(k)fluroanthene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Benzo(k)fluroanthene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Benzo(e)pyrene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Benzo(e)pyrene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Benzo(a)pyrene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Benzo(a)pyrene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Hazardous Limiting Value (HLV) N/A µg/m3
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene CT MASC (H>20 m) #VALUE! µg/m3
#VALUE! mg/m3
MASC Calculation Waterbury Generation, LLC
MASC For Stack Height of Greater Than 20 Meters
Distance from discharge point to nearest property line (greater of actual distance v. H Distance) (x) = 182.03 meters 33 feetAverage actual flow rate (v) = 837213 acfm
Ethylene CTS standard Results - Air-Tox MKS FTIR System #1Lower Region Upper Region Lower Upper Prev CTS Lower
Date Dif.-nominal 949.43 pk Dif.-nominal 2988.4 pk Standard Con 900-1000cm-1 reg 2800-3050cm-1 reg Region % dif. Region % dif. Region % dif.[cm-1] [cm-1] PPM reported conc. PPM reported conc. PPM
====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. SCC and CALA have approved this reporting process and electronic report format.
Maxxam ID D J 1 9 2 7 D J 1 9 2 8 D J 1 9 2 9 D J 1 9 3 0Sampling Date 2009/08/08 2009/08/08 2009/08/08 2009/08/08COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A U n i t s BLANK-80% T1-80% IPA T2-80% IPA T3-80% IPA DL QC Batch
N/A = Not ApplicableRDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch
Maxxam ID D J 1 9 3 1 D J 1 9 3 2 D J 1 9 3 3 D J 1 9 3 4Sampling Date 2009/08/08 2009/08/08 2009/08/08 2009/08/08COC Number N/A N/A N/A N/A U n i t s BLANK-3%H2O2 T1-3%H2O2 T2-3%H2O2 T3-3%H2O2 DL QC Batch
Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit areliable calculation.
Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX C.3 Formaldehyde Testing
Analytical Laboratory Results
APPENDIX C.4 Benzene and 1,3 Butadiene Testing
Analytical Laboratory Results
Your Project #: 9020 Site: WATERBURY GENERATION, LLC
Date Date MethodAnalyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method ReferenceOrganic Compound Analysis 7 2009/08/18 2009/08/19 NIOSH/OSHA methods G C / F I D
Sample Matrix: Water# Samples Received: 7
Date Date MethodAnalyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method ReferenceVOST Condensate (8260Cmod) 7 N/A 2009/08/18 BRL SOP-00305 EPA 8260Cmod(M0030)
* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.
Maxxam ID D J 1 1 2 7 D J 1 1 3 3 D J 1 1 3 4 D J 1 1 3 5Sampling Date 2009/08/07 2009/08/07 2009/08/07 2009/08/07 U n i t s BENZENE T-1-BENZENE-FH T-1-BENZENE-BH T-2-BENZENE-FH R D L QC Batch MDL
BLANK
Benzene ug ND ND ND ND 2.0 1910239 1.0
ND = Not detectedRDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch
Maxxam ID D J 1 1 3 6 D J 1 1 6 0 D J 1 1 6 1Sampling Date 2009/08/07 2009/08/07 2009/08/07 U n i t s T-2-BENZENE-BH T-3-BENZENE-FH T-3-BENZENE-BH R D L QC Batch MDL
Benzene ug ND ND ND 2.0 1910239 1.0
ND = Not detectedRDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch
VOCCOND-W: All condensate samples were received in 43mL VOC vials with varying amounts of headspace in vial.VOCCHAR-W: Sample DJ1199, for 1,3-butadiene, was analyzed 4 minutes beyond 12 hour BFB tune window.
TUBE-FID: The data reported for benzene is the average from triplicate injections as per Method 18.
Sample DJ1143-01: VOCCOND-W: Sample volume received = 37 mL. Used 1.2X dilution due to insufficient sample size. Detection limits havebeen adjusted accordingly.
Sample DJ1144-01: VOCCOND-W: Sample volume received = 33 mL. Used 1.3X dilution due to insufficient sample size. Detection limits havebeen adjusted accordingly.
Sample DJ1145-01: VOCCOND-W: Sample volume received = 27.4 mL. Used 1.6X dilution due to insufficient sample size. Detection limits havebeen adjusted accordingly.
Sample DJ1146-01: VOCCOND-W: Sample volume received = 39 mL. Used 1.1X dilution due to insufficient sample size. Detection limits havebeen adjusted accordingly.
Sample DJ1147-01: VOCCOND-W: Sample volume received = 29.6 mL. Used 1.5X dilution due to insufficient sample size. Detection limits havebeen adjusted accordingly.
Sample DJ1174-01: VOCCOND-W: Sample volume received = 30.5 mL. Used 1.4X dilution due to insufficient sample size. Detection limits havebeen adjusted accordingly.
Sample DJ1175-01: VOCCOND-W: Sample volume received = 28 mL. Used 1.5X dilution due to insufficient sample size. Detection limits havebeen adjusted accordingly.
Samples have been corrected for desorption efficiencies if average percent recoveries are less than 80% (does not apply to gravimetric andinorganic analysis).
Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency.
Page 8 of 9
Validation Signature Page
Maxxam Job #: A9A3667
The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).
KAREN NICOL, C.E.T., Supervisor, Semi-Volatiles
MAUREEN SMITH, Supervisor, Volatiles
====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. SCC and CALA have approved this reporting process and electronic report format.
Page 9 of 9
Volatile Organics Analysis Data SheetsTentatively Identified Compounds
SAMPLE#: DJ1149
Field ID#: 1,3-BUT-BLANK-IMP. CATCH
Concentration UnitsNumber of TICs found:__________ ug/L
CAS # Compound Name RT Est. Conc. Match %
1. 1,3-butadiene < 7 ug/L2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
10.
Maxxam Analytics
Volatile Organics Analysis Data SheetsTentatively Identified Compounds
SAMPLE#: DJ1150
Field ID#: T-1 1,3-BUT-IMP.1 CATCH
Concentration UnitsNumber of TICs found:__________ ug/L
CAS # Compound Name RT Est. Conc. Match %
1. 1,3-butadiene < 8 ug/L2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
10.
Maxxam Analytics
Volatile Organics Analysis Data SheetsTentatively Identified Compounds
SAMPLE#: DJ1152
Field ID#: T-1 1,3-BUT-IMP.2 CATCH
Concentration UnitsNumber of TICs found:__________ ug/L
CAS # Compound Name RT Est. Conc. Match %
1. 1,3-butadiene < 7 ug/L2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
10.
Maxxam Analytics
Volatile Organics Analysis Data SheetsTentatively Identified Compounds
SAMPLE#: DJ1154
Field ID#: T-2 1,3-BUT-IMP.1 CATCH
Concentration UnitsNumber of TICs found:__________ ug/L
CAS # Compound Name RT Est. Conc. Match %
1. 1,3-butadiene < 6 ug/L2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
10.
Maxxam Analytics
Volatile Organics Analysis Data SheetsTentatively Identified Compounds
SAMPLE#: DJ1155
Field ID#: T-2 1,3-BUT-IMP.2 CATCH
Concentration UnitsNumber of TICs found:__________ ug/L
CAS # Compound Name RT Est. Conc. Match %
1. 1,3-butadiene < 6 ug/L2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10.
Maxxam Analytics
Volatile Organics Analysis Data SheetsTentatively Identified Compounds
SAMPLE#: DJ1198
Field ID#: T-3 1,3-BUT-IMP.1 CATCH
Concentration UnitsNumber of TICs found:__________ ug/L
CAS # Compound Name RT Est. Conc. Match %
1. 1,3-butadiene < 8 ug/L 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10.
Maxxam Analytics
Volatile Organics Analysis Data SheetsTentatively Identified Compounds
SAMPLE#: DJ1199
Field ID#: T-3 1,3-BUT-IMP.2 CATCH
Concentration UnitsNumber of TICs found:__________ ug/L
CAS # Compound Name RT Est. Conc. Match %
1. 1,3-butadiene < 7 ug/L 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10.
Maxxam Analytics
Page 1 of 3Tue, 08/25/09 3:56 PM
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Clayton JohnsonMaxxam Analytics6740 Campobello Rd.Mississauga, ON, L5N 2L8CANADA
9232035 "Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons" is the sum of all peaks in the chromatogram minus the solventand requested analyte peaks and was quantitated against n-hexane.
LOD = Limit of Detection = MDL = Method Detection Limit, A statistical estimate of method/media/instrument sensitivity.LOQ = Limit of Quantitation = RL = Reporting Limit, A verified value of method/media/instrument sensitivity.ND = Not Detected, Testing result not detected above the LOD or LOQ.** No result could be reported, see sample comments for details.< This testing result is less than the numerical value.( ) This testing result is between the LOD and LOQ and has higher analytical uncertainty than values at or above the LOQ.
Definitions
The results provided in this report relate only to the items tested.Samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted.Samples have not been blank corrected unless otherwise noted.This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of ALS Laboratory Group.
General Lab Comments
ALS Laboratory Group is accredited by AIHA for specific fields of testing as documented in its current scope of accreditation(ID#101574) which is available on request by contacting your project manager or view on the internet at http://www.aiha.org. Thequality systems implemented in the laboratory apply to all methods performed by ALS Laboratory Group regardless of this currentscope of accreditation which does not include performance based methods, modified methods, and methods applied to matricesnot listed in the methods.
ALS DataChem provides professional analytical services for all samples submitted. ALS Laboratory Group is not in a position tointerpret the data and assumes no responsibility for the quality of the samples submitted.
ALL the information contained in this report has been reviewed for accuracy and checked against all quality control requirementsoutlined in each applicable method.This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from Mt.Tom Generating Co.LLC Analytical Laboratory.
1Page of 2
09-1258Work OrderSample Analysis
10As-Arsenic Total Less Than ppb EPA 200.910.00 08/26/09 dfp10Cd-Cadmium Total Less Than ppb EPA 200.710.00 08/26/09 dfp
14.4Cr-Chromium Total ppb EPA 200.710.00 08/26/09 dfp10.0Hg-Mercury Total Less Than ppb EPA 245.110.00 08/26/09 dfp52.7Mn-Manganese Total ppb EPA 200.710.00 08/26/09 dfp13.6Ni-Nickel Total ppb EPA 200.710.00 08/26/09 dfp
10Pb-Lead Total Less Than ppb EPA 200.710.00 08/26/09 dfp10Se-Selenium Total Less Than ppb EPA 200.910.00 08/26/09 dfp
Note: Standard Meter usually refers to a calibrated Method 5 module used as a reference.Acceptance/Passing criteria: Each run should be at least 30 minutes (approximately 3 cubic feet passing through the Method 26 Module). Each calibration should be at least 2 runs (but no more than 3 consecutive runs), and the average Y value should be ±0.05 of the Pre-Cal Y Method 26 Module.
Cubic Meters to Cubic Feet--Conversion WorkSheet: Cubic Feet per Run WorkSheet for Standard Meter:
Pre-Test Calibration: Perform one >10 cf run with each orifice.Post-Test Calibration: Perform three >10 cf runs with orifice corresponding to average Delta H from test program.
Each Y must be within ±0.02 of average. Final Y must be greater than 0.97 and less than 1.03.Individual ΔH@s must be ±0.20 from average.
APPENDIX E Calibration Gas Cylinder Certifications
APPENDIX F
Process Data Sheets
APPENDIX F.1 Particulate Matter and Sulfuric Acid Testing
Process Data Sheets
Name:
7:23 13.28 Q 0.9 Q 5.63 Q 5946 Q 93.4
7:24 13.28 Q 0.9 Q 5.63 Q 5977 Q 93.3
7:25 13.28 Q 0.9 Q 5.63 Q 5955 Q 93.2
7:26 13.28 Q 0.9 Q 5.63 Q 5966 Q 93.0
7:27 13.28 Q 0.9 Q 5.63 Q 5982 Q 93.3
7:28 13.28 Q 0.9 Q 5.63 Q 5996 Q 93.3
7:29 13.28 Q 0.9 Q 5.63 Q 5953 Q 93.0
7:30 13.28 Q 0.9 Q 5.63 Q 5949 Q 93.4
7:31 13.27 Q 0.9 Q 5.64 Q 5959 Q 93.0
7:32 13.27 Q 0.9 Q 5.64 Q 5993 Q 93.3
7:33 13.26 Q 0.9 Q 5.65 Q 5967 Q 93.5
7:34 13.26 Q 0.9 Q 5.65 Q 5970 Q 93.5
7:35 13.25 Q 0.9 Q 5.66 Q 5972 Q 92.6
7:36 13.24 Q 0.9 Q 5.66 Q 5971 Q 93.1
7:37 13.24 Q 0.9 Q 5.67 Q 5965 Q 93.0
7:38 13.23 Q 0.9 Q 5.67 Q 5955 Q 93.2
7:39 13.22 Q 0.9 Q 5.68 Q 5958 Q 93.5
7:40 13.22 Q 0.9 Q 5.68 Q 5984 Q 93.7
7:41 13.22 Q 0.9 Q 5.68 Q 5949 Q 92.8
7:42 13.21 Q 0.9 Q 5.69 Q 5975 Q 93.0
7:43 13.21 Q 0.9 Q 5.69 Q 5987 Q 93.5
7:44 13.20 Q 0.9 Q 5.69 Q 5968 Q 93.0
7:45 13.19 Q 0.9 Q 5.70 Q 5990 Q 93.8
7:46 13.19 Q 0.9 Q 5.70 Q 5981 Q 93.1
7:47 13.19 Q 0.9 Q 5.70 Q 5975 Q 93.0
7:48 13.18 Q 0.9 Q 5.71 Q 6001 Q 93.5
7:49 13.18 Q 0.9 Q 5.71 Q 5983 Q 93.0
7:50 13.18 Q 0.9 Q 5.71 Q 5958 Q 93.5
7:51 13.16 Q 0.9 Q 5.72 Q 5981 Q 92.8
7:52 13.16 Q 0.9 Q 5.72 Q 5940 Q 93.0
7:53 13.16 Q 0.9 Q 5.72 Q 5989 Q 93.4
7:54 13.17 Q 0.9 Q 5.72 Q 5976 Q 92.7
7:55 13.16 Q 0.9 Q 5.72 Q 5984 Q 93.7
7:56 13.16 Q 0.9 Q 5.72 Q 5958 Q 92.7
7:57 13.16 Q 0.9 Q 5.73 Q 5967 Q 93.2
7:58 13.15 Q 0.9 Q 5.73 Q 5949 Q 93.2
7:59 13.15 Q 0.9 Q 5.73 Q 5965 Q 93.1
8:00 13.15 Q 0.8 Q 5.73 Q 5976 Q 93.4
8:01 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.73 Q 5969 Q 93.3
8:02 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5992 Q 93.4
8:03 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5958 Q 93.1
NOTE: CEMS Time is 1 hr behind real time.
MW/day% ppmv % gal/hr
1-min average report for the period from 8/8/2009 7:23:00 AM to 8/8/2009 8:41:59 AMSource: Boiler 1
Calculated O2
CO @ 15% O2 CO2 Flow Oil Unit Load
8:04 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5971 Q 93.1
8:05 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5987 Q 93.4
8:06 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5963 Q 92.6
8:07 13.13 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5961 Q 92.6
8:08 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5968 Q 93.5
8:09 13.13 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5992 Q 93.8
8:10 13.13 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5989 Q 93.6
8:11 13.13 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5943 Q 93.0
8:12 13.13 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5973 Q 93.6
8:13 13.13 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5970 Q 93.4
8:14 13.12 Q 0.8 Q 5.75 Q 6005 Q 93.2
8:15 12.63 C 1.7 C 6.12 C 5955 Q 93.0
8:16 2.75 C 2.4 C 14.73 C 5990 Q 93.2
8:17 0.00 C 0.0 C 18.18 C 5967 Q 93.5
8:18 2.18 C -0.1 C 15.66 C 5975 Q 93.0
8:19 18.74 C 0.2 C 1.59 C 5991 Q 93.5
8:20 20.57 C 1.4 C 0.24 C 5989 Q 93.0
8:21 20.62 C 7.6 C 0.21 C 5957 Q 93.4
8:22 20.63 C 523.2 C 0.20 C 5973 Q 93.2
8:23 20.64 C 553.8 C 0.20 C 5970 Q 93.6
8:24 20.64 C 504.4 C 0.20 C 5981 Q 92.9
8:25 20.64 C 33.1 C 0.20 C 5976 Q 93.0
8:26 20.64 C 3.9 C 0.19 C 5975 Q 93.0
8:27 20.64 C 2.4 C 0.19 C 6014 Q 93.4
8:28 20.64 C 18.6 C 0.19 C 6010 Q 93.5
8:29 20.64 C 28.9 C 0.19 C 5976 Q 92.6
8:30 20.38 M 28.4 M 0.39 M 5979 Q 93.5
8:31 15.33 P 5.2 P 4.12 P 5949 Q 92.9
8:32 13.15 Q 0.7 Q 5.73 Q 5993 Q 93.2
8:33 13.13 Q 0.7 Q 5.75 Q 5982 Q 92.9
8:34 13.12 Q 0.7 Q 5.75 Q 5978 Q 93.1
8:35 13.13 Q 0.8 Q 5.75 Q 5977 Q 93.1
8:36 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5972 Q 92.7
8:37 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.73 Q 6005 Q 92.9
8:38 13.15 Q 0.8 Q 5.73 Q 5984 Q 93.4
8:39 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.73 Q 5961 Q 93.0
8:40 13.14 Q 0.8 Q 5.73 Q 5975 Q 93.7
8:41 13.13 Q 0.8 Q 5.74 Q 5994 Q 93.2
Max 13.28 0.9 5.75 6014 93.8
Min 13.12 0.7 5.63 5940 92.6
Avg 13.19 0.9 5.70 5974 93.2
#Valid 62 62 62 79 79
Q - Using Oil �F - Frozen FIFO �# - Incomplete Array �S - Transient State
I - Invalid �U - User Data �D - Process Down �C - Calibration
M - Maintenance �E - Error �O - Out-of-Control �N - Not Calibrated