Performance evaluation of a steam-assisted flare at high turndown using passive fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

Performance Evaluation of a SteamAssisted Flare at High Turndown Using Passive Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy Presented by Scott Evans Clean Air Engineering Presented at the International Flame Research Foundation TOTeM 10/01/2010 Maui, HI Thursday, September 30, 2010 1 Acknowledgements Ruth Cade, Marathon Petroleum Company Brian Wilt, Marathon Petroleum Company Dr. Robert Spellicy, IMACC Dr. Jim Seebold, Chevron (Ret.) Dr. Laura Kinner, Emission Monitoring Jim Franklin, John Zink Thursday, September 30, 2010 2 3 Thursday, September 30, 2010 3 The Flare Test An Allegorical Tale Thursday, September 30, 2010 4 Test Preparation Thursday, September 30, 2010 5 The Test Thursday, September 30, 2010 6 Data Analysis Thursday, September 30, 2010 7 Overview The Issues The Flare The Test Program The PFTIR Instrument The Test Method Results Conclusions Thursday, September 30, 2010 8 The Issues What is the Operating Envelope of a steamassisted flare under various conditions? What parameters can flare operators use to ensure good combustion on an ongoing basis? Thursday, September 30, 2010 9 The Issues Over-­‐steamed Low  combus6on  efficiency Incipient  Smoke  Point High  combus6on  efficiency Under-­‐steamed  -­‐  Smoking High  combus6on  efficiency Thursday, September 30, 2010 10 API 521 ! Thursday, September 30, 2010 11 Performance Test of a Steam-Assisted Elevated Flare With Passive FTIR FINAL REPORT May 2010 Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC Texas Refining Division 502 10th Street South Texas City, Texas 77590 Testing Conducted September 15 - 24, 2009 Prepared by Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Project No: 10810 Thursday, September 30, 2010 Testing Conducted at Marathon Texas City Refinery 12 The Flare View from the PFTIR location Thursday, September 30, 2010 13 The Flare Thursday, September 30, 2010 14 The Flare Automatic Steam Control System Components Thursday, September 30, 2010 15 The Flare Automatic Steam Control System Thursday, September 30, 2010 16 The Test Program Test Test Test Test Test A - Base load. Flow rates: 1900 and 1100 B - Addition of RFG. Flow rate: 4000 lb/hr C - Addition of saturated gas (propane). Flow rate: 5500 lb/hr D - Addition of unsaturated gas (olefins). Flow rate: 4000 lb/hr E - More olefins. Higher flow rate: 8500 lb/hr Thursday, September 30, 2010 17 The Test Program Thursday, September 30, 2010 18 The Test Method </./>?@A$32>.@12BC$7@CD/AE$ F2>.@0>$62GA2.E$!$73$41/.2$ 34-56$41/.2$-2H>$!$IB1E$"#(#$ "#)$ /010(232#4#5!!6#*,78# !"(#9#!"#:,7;<87#$=>,<+&+?@>A'# "##$ (')$ ('#$ (&)$ (")$ (%#$ Relative Accuracy CO2: 11.5% ("#$ !"(#$)'# (#)$ ')$ (##$ &)$ '#$ %)$ &#$ ")$ #)$ %#$ Relative Accuracy CO: 6.1% "#$ !")$ #$ !%)$ !&)$ (*+*#$ (&+##$ (&+(#$ -./012.$34-56$78"$9"###:$ 7;<=$78"$ -./012.$34-56$78$ 7;<=$78$ Thursday, September 30, 2010 !"#$%%&'# (%)$ (&#$ *+&,#$--.&&'# (&+"#$ !"#$ (&+,#$ (&+%#$ (&+*#$ 19 The Test Method Wind Effects Thursday, September 30, 2010 20 The Test Method ! Good Alignment ! Poor Alignment Thursday, September 30, 2010 21 Picture of Horse's Head Note:  Suspicious  Data.   Camera  may  not  be  at   op6mum  angle 22 Thursday, September 30, 2010 22 The Test Method Invalid Data if… 1. Wind direction falls within the blue zone AND 2. Wind Speed > 5 mph Thursday, September 30, 2010 23 The Test Method Actual Wind Conditions During Test Thursday, September 30, 2010 24 The Test Method Why Not? Quan%ta%ve   Specia%on • Units are in concentration x pathlength • In order to quantify, you must know plume depth • What is the depth of the flare plume at the point of measurement? Thursday, September 30, 2010 25 26 Thursday, September 30, 2010 26 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) ./0/1234$561037689$:39;/4<$ =6103>1$?6@460<$A$:5$B7/06$C%"*"D$ E6F/G$:>1<$?6@460<$A$./>4$B7/06$C%"")D$ ;.4<"-4)5(=)>.?5&)!-4/)!"#@5<-&"() A)3.<-.&)8%(&)0B5&.)C"5=2) !*)D&E)3:67)0F<.9-#-(5</2) TXC A19/A11 Conditions Vent Gas Flow: ~1900/1100 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~880/743 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~56/51% Hydrogen: ~16/16% Nitrogen: ~27/32% MW: 22/22 Tip Velocity: ~3/1.5 fps *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ "+"$ *+"$ %+"$ ,+"$ &+"$ -+"$ '+"$ !+"$ 34.5#)4")6.(4)75&)85'")09$:9$2) Note:  Yellow  data  points  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 27 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) :6160;2<$=/012>/?@$82@A6<9$ ./01230$B/C</19$D$8=$E>61/$F%"*"G$ 4/567$8309$B/C</19$D$:63<$E>61/$F%"")G$ *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ ;.4<"-4)5(=)>.?5&)!-4/)!"#@5<-&"() A)3.<-.&)8%(&)0B5&.)C"5=2) !*)D&E)3:67)0F<.9-#-(5</2) TXC A19/A11 Conditions Vent Gas Flow: ~1900/1100 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~880/743 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~56/51% Hydrogen: ~16/16% Nitrogen: ~27/32% MW: 22/22 Tip Velocity: ~3/1.5 fps Detroit A Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~550 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~900 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~65% Hydrogen: ~20% Nitrogen: ~15% MW: 22 Tip Velocity: ~4 fps ./01230$ 4/567$8309$ "+"$ *+"$ %+"$ ,+"$ &+"$ -+"$ '+"$ !+"$ 34.5#)4")6.(4)75&)85'")09$:9$2) Note:  Yellow  data  points  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 28 28 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) ./0/1234$561037689$:39;/4<$ =6103>1$?6@460<$A$:5$B7/06$C%"*"D$ E6F/G$:>1<$?6@460<$A$./>4$B7/06$C%"")D$ ;.4<"-4)5(=)>.?5&)!-4/)!"#@5<-&"() A)3.<-.&)8%(&)05==.=)8.B(.</)C%.9)75&2) !*)D&E)3:67)0F<.9-#-(5</2) TXC B Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~4200 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~900 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~65% Hydrogen: ~18% Nitrogen: ~18% MW: 21 Tip Velocity: ~7 fps *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ "+"$ *+"$ %+"$ ,+"$ &+"$ -+"$ '+"$ !+"$ 34.5#)4")6.(4)75&)85'")09$:9$2) Note:  Yellow  data  points  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 31 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) :6160;2<$=/012>/?@$82@A6<9$ ./01230$B/C</19$D$8=$E>61/$F%"*"G$ 4/567$8309$B/C</19$D$:63<$E>61/$F%"")G$ ;.4<"-4)5(=)>.?5&)!-4/)!"#@5<-&"() A)3.<-.&)8%(&)05==.=)8.B(.</)C%.9)75&2) !*)D&E)3:67)0F<.9-#-(5</2) TXC B Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~4200 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~900 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~65% Hydrogen: ~18% Nitrogen: ~18% MW: 21 Tip Velocity: ~7 fps *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ Detroit B Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~1600 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~1000 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~65% Hydrogen: ~20% Nitrogen: ~15% MW: 22 Tip Velocity: ~5.5 fps ./01230$ 4/567$8309$ "+"$ *+"$ %+"$ ,+"$ &+"$ -+"$ '+"$ !+"$ 34.5#)4")6.(4)75&)85'")09$:9$2) Note:  Yellow  data  points  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 32 32 This condition does not reflect routine operation for either facility. Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) ./0/1234$561037689$:39;/4<$ =6103>1$?6@460<$A$:5$B7/06$C%"*"D$ E6F/G$:>1<$?6@460<$A$./>4$B7/06$C%"")D$ ;.4<"-4)5(=)>.?5&)!-4/)!"#@5<-&"() !)3.<-.&)8%(&)05==.=)A9.B(&2) !*)C&D)3:67)0E<.9-#-(5</2) TXC D/E Conditions Vent Gas Flow: ~4200/9000 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~1900/2200 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~77/87% Hydrogen: ~6/3% Nitrogen: ~16/8% MW: 39/43 Tip Velocity: ~4/7 fps *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ "+"$ *+"$ %+"$ ,+"$ &+"$ -+"$ '+"$ !+"$ 34.5#)4")6.(4)75&)85'")09$:9$2) Note:  Yellow  data  points  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 34 34 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) :6160;2<$=/012>/?@$82@A6<9$ ./01230$B/C</19$D$8=$E>61/$F%"*"G$ 4/567$8309$B/C</19$D$:63<$E>61/$F%"")G$ ;.4<"-4)5(=)>.?5&)!-4/)!"#@5<-&"() !)3.<-.&)8%(&)05==.=)A9.B(&2) !*)C&D)3:67)0E<.9-#-(5</2) TXC D/E Conditions Vent Gas Flow: ~4200/9000 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~1900/2200 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~77/87% Hydrogen: ~6/3% Nitrogen: ~16/8% MW: 39/43 Tip Velocity: ~4/7 fps *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ Detroit C Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~1700 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~1670 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~88% Hydrogen: ~8% Nitrogen: ~6% MW: 34 Tip Velocity: ~4 fps ./01230$ 4/567$8309$ "+"$ *+"$ %+"$ ,+"$ &+"$ -+"$ '+"$ !+"$ 34.5#)4")6.(4)75&)85'")09$:9$2) Note:  Yellow  data  points  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 35 35 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) I2926J:C$K069:F0EL$4:LM2C7$ KD/NA$DF290$/0363$O$%"")O%"*"$ *""#$ )'#$ )!#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ''#$ '!#$ '&#$ '%#$ '"#$ ('#$ (!#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !'#$ !!#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ ;<)=<)>)!)3.?-.&)@)A.4?"-4)5(B)C.D5&)!-4/) !*)E&F)3:67)0G?.9-#-(5?/2) .$/0123$4567$ .$8069:56$ ;$/0123$4567$ ;$8069:56$ 4$/0123$4567$ 4$8069:56$ Common point for both facilities and all conditions (approx.) .$<09503$=$;230$>:2?$ ;$<09503$=$;230$>:2?$@$A0BC097$DE0F$G23$ 4$<09503$=$;230$>:2?$@$HF0BC3$ "+"$ *+"$ %+"$ ,+"$ &+"$ -+"$ !+"$ (+"$ 34.5#)4")6.(4)75&)85'")09$:9$2) TXC  C  Condi6on  above    is  a  combina6on  of  TXC  Condi6ons  D  and  E.  It  is  not  related  to  the  Condi6on  C  in  the  TXC  report.  It  is  called  Condi6on  C  here  simply   for  consistency  with  the  Detroit  designa6ons. Thursday, September 30, 2010 38 38 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) -./.0123$450/26578$928:.3;$ <50/2=0$>5?35/;$@$94$A6./5$B%"*"C$ D5E.F$9=0;$>5?35/;$@$-.=3$A6./5$B%"")C$ A.7B"-7)5(C)=.D5&)!-7/)!"#E5B-&"() F)G.B-.&)H%(&)0<5&.)I"5C2) !*)J&K)!34)68:)0LB.;-#-(5B/2) TXC A19/A11 Conditions Vent Gas Flow: ~1900/1100 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~880/743 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~56/51% Hydrogen: ~16/16% Nitrogen: ~27/32% MW: 22/22 Tip Velocity: ~3/1.5 fps *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ "$ *""$ %""$ +""$ &""$ ,""$ '""$ !""$ !"#$%&'"()3"(.)45&)6.7)8.5'(9):5;%.)0<=>?&,@2) Note:  Yellow  data  point  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 39 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) 9505/:1;$<./01=.>?$71?@5;8$ -./012/$A.B;.08$C$7<$D=50.$E%"*"F$ 3.456$72/8$A.B;.08$C$952;$D=50.$E%"")F$ A.7B"-7)5(C)=.D5&)!-7/)!"#E5B-&"() F)G.B-.&)H%(&)0<5&.)I"5C2) !*)J&K)!34)68:)0LB.;-#-(5B/2) TXC A19/A11 Conditions Vent Gas Flow: ~1900/1100 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~880/743 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~56/51% Hydrogen: ~16/16% Nitrogen: ~27/32% MW: 22/22 Tip Velocity: ~3/1.5 fps *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ Detroit A Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~550 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~900 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~65% Hydrogen: ~20% Nitrogen: ~15% MW: 22 Tip Velocity: ~4 fps -./012/$ 3.456$72/8$ "$ *""$ %""$ +""$ &""$ ,""$ '""$ !""$ !"#$%&'"()3"(.)45&)6.7)8.5'(9):5;%.)0<=>?&,@2) Note:  Yellow  data  points  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 40 40 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) -./.0123$450/26578$928:.3;$ <50/2=0$>5?35/;$@$94$A6./5$B%"*"C$ D5E.F$9=0;$>5?35/;$@$-.=3$A6./5$B%"")C$ A.7B"-7)5(C)=.D5&)!-7/)!"#E5B-&"() <)F.B-.&)G%(&)05CC.C)G.H(.B/)I%.;)45&2) !*)J&K)!34)68:)0LB.;-#-(5B/2) *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ TXC B Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~4200 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~900 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~65% Hydrogen: ~18% Nitrogen: ~18% MW: 21 Tip Velocity: ~7 fps "$ *""$ %""$ +""$ &""$ ,""$ '""$ !""$ !"#$%&'"()3"(.)45&)6.7)8.5'(9):5;%.)0<=>?&,@2) Note:  Yellow  data  point  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 42 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) 9505/:1;$<./01=.>?$71?@5;8$ -./012/$A.B;.08$C$7<$D=50.$E%"*"F$ 3.456$72/8$A.B;.08$C$952;$D=50.$E%"")F$ A.7B"-7)5(C)=.D5&)!-7/)!"#E5B-&"() <)F.B-.&)G%(&)05CC.C)G.H(.B/)I%.;)45&2) !*)J&K)!34)68:)0LB.;-#-(5B/2) *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ TXC B Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~4200 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~900 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~65% Hydrogen: ~18% Nitrogen: ~18% MW: 21 Tip Velocity: ~7 fps Detroit B Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~1600 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~1000 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~65% Hydrogen: ~20% Nitrogen: ~15% MW: 22 Tip Velocity: ~5.5 fps -./012/$ 3.456$72/8$ "$ *""$ %""$ +""$ &""$ ,""$ '""$ !""$ !"#$%&'"()3"(.)45&)6.7)8.5'(9):5;%.)0<=>?&,@2) Note:  Yellow  data  point  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 43 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) ./0/1234$561037689$:39;/4<$ =6103>1$?6@460<$A$:5$B7/06$C%"*"D$ E6F/G$:>1<$?6@460<$A$./>4$B7/06$C%"")D$ A.7B"-7)5(C)=.D5&)!-7/)!"#E5B-&"() !)F.B-.&)G%(&)05CC.C)H;.I(&2) !*)J&K)!34)68:)0LB.;-#-(5B/2) *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ TXC D/E Conditions Vent Gas Flow: ~4200/9000 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~1900/2200 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~77/87% Hydrogen: ~6/3% Nitrogen: ~16/8% MW: 39/43 Tip Velocity: ~4/7 fps "$ *""$ %""$ +""$ &""$ ,""$ '""$ !""$ (""$ )""$ *-"""$ *-*""$ !"#$%&'"()3"(.)45&)6.7)8.5'(9):5;%.)0<=>?&,@2) Note:  Yellow  data  point  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 45 45 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) :6160;2<$=/012>/?@$82@A6<9$ ./01230$B/C</19$D$8=$E>61/$F%"*"G$ 4/567$8309$B/C</19$D$:63<$E>61/$F%"")G$ A.7B"-7)5(C)=.D5&)!-7/)!"#E5B-&"() !)F.B-.&)G%(&)05CC.C)H;.I(&2) !*)J&K)!34)68:)0LB.;-#-(5B/2) *""#$ )(#$ )'#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ((#$ ('#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !(#$ !'#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ TXC D/E Conditions Vent Gas Flow: ~4200/9000 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~1900/2200 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~77/87% Hydrogen: ~6/3% Nitrogen: ~16/8% MW: 39/43 Tip Velocity: ~4/7 fps Detroit C Condition Vent Gas Flow: ~1700 lb/hr Vent Gas NHV: ~1670 Btu/scf Hydrocarbons: ~88% Hydrogen: ~8% Nitrogen: ~6% MW: 34 Tip Velocity: ~4 fps ./01230$ 4/567$8309$ "$ *""$ %""$ +""$ &""$ ,""$ '""$ !""$ (""$ )""$ *-"""$ *-*""$ !"#$%&'"()3"(.)45&)6.7)8.5'(9):5;%.)0<=>?&,@2) Note:  Yellow  data  point  indicate  visible  emissions  were  observed.   Thursday, September 30, 2010 46 46 Results !"#$%&'"()*+,-.(,/)012) H1815I9B$J/589E/DK$39KL1B6$ JC.M@$CE18/$./252$N$%"")N%"*"$ AB)<B)C)!)D.E-.&)F)G.7E"-7)5(H)=.I5&)!-7/) !*)J&K)!34)68:)0LE.;-#-(5E/2) *""#$ )'#$ )!#$ )&#$ )%#$ )"#$ ''#$ '!#$ '&#$ '%#$ '"#$ ('#$ (!#$ (&#$ (%#$ ("#$ !'#$ !!#$ !&#$ !%#$ !"#$ -$./012$3456$ -$7/58945$ :$./012$3456$ :$7/58945$ 3$./012$3456$ 3$7/58945$ Both "$ *""$ %""$ +""$ Both &""$ DET -$;/84/2$<$:12/$=91>$ :$;/84/2$<$:12/$=91>$?$@/AB/86$CD/E$F12$ 3$;/84/2$<$:12/$=91>$?$GE/AB2$ TXC ,""$ !""$ (""$ '""$ )""$ *"""$ **""$ !"#$%&'"()3"(.)45&)6.7)8.5'(9):5;%.)0<=>?&,@2) Lines show minimum BTU/scf for >98% CE for each condition Thursday, September 30, 2010 49 49 Results ! Thursday, September 30, 2010 50 Results ! Thursday, September 30, 2010 51 51 Results Opera6onal  Stability  During  Long  Term  Stability  Tests ;<=&2!)*&>7?&2345& )$!!!" !"#$%&'()*+,&-./#+01'2345,& ($!!!" '$!!!" 01"2345" &$!!!" 2167" 86"2345" %$!!!" 9%" #$!!!" !" *+,"#-#" *+,"%-#" *+,"%-%" *+,"%-&" *+,"%-'" *+,"%-(" *+,"%-)" *+,"%-." *+,"%-/" 6/7&8/9":%& 012%34%5".6"789")% )!" (!" !"#$%&$'($)*% '!" &!" /$" %!" +/0" 1$" $!" #!" !" *+,"#-#" *+,"$-#" *+,"$-$" *+,"$-%" *+,"$-&" *+,"$-'" *+,"$-(" *+,"$-)" *+,"$-." +,)%-,./$'% 52 Thursday, September 30, 2010 52 Results LTS: Variability Chart of CE v15a Variability Gauge Page 1 of 2 Variability   Variability Chart for CE v15a of  Long  Term  Stability  Test  Results One  Minute  Average  Data 1.00 0.99 CE v15a 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 Rep within Test 53 Thursday, September 30, 2010 53 Results A11: Variability Chart of CE v15a Variability Gauge Page 1 of 1 MPC  TXC  Test  Condi6on  A11 Demonstra6ng  Increased  Variability  as  CE  Declines Variability Chart for CE v15a 1.00 0.90 Combustion Efficiency 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Rep within Test 54 Thursday, September 30, 2010 54 Flare Performance Conclusions • A flare can be operated with greater than 300 Btu/scf vent gas NHV and still be over-steamed. • The Texas City Main Flare can likely achieve 98% combustion efficiency during turndown operation with proper steam delivery system design Thursday, September 30, 2010 55 Flare Performance Conclusions • Operating a flare near the incipient smoke point results in consistently high combustion efficiency. Thursday, September 30, 2010 56 PFTIR Conclusions • Still in R&D stage but looks promising • Limited blind validation (TCEQ as we speak) • EPA seems to love it • Potentially good trending tool • Cannot quantitatively speciate • CE precision ±2% at high CE. Precision degrades rapidly with lower CEs • CE bias: ??? Thursday, September 30, 2010 57 Upcoming Projects • Hydrogen effect • Nitrogen dilution • Effect of tip velocity on minimum Btu required for flame stability • More robust precision study of method • Bob's continuing improvement of PFTIR hardware and software 58 Thursday, September 30, 2010 58 TCEQ/UT Flare Test Tulsa, OK 09/16/10 Thursday, September 30, 2010 59 Final Thoughts TCEQ/UT Test • Extractive samples are intended to be "ground truth" against which remote sensing technologies to be judged • My observation was that with variable winds, sampling device not always properly located within plume • How researchers treat extractive data will be key 60 Thursday, September 30, 2010 60 Thanks Scott Evans [e-mail] Thursday, September 30, 2010 61