Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test 

Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in 

Texas City, Texas 

 EPA 453/R-10-002 

November 2010 

Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, 

Texas

By: 

David Randall and Jeff Coburn 

RTI International 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

Prepared for: 

Brenda Shine, Work Assignment Manager 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Contract No. EP-D-06-118 

Work Assignment No. 4-13 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ES-1

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

2. Storage Tank Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 External Floating Roof Tanks for Crude Oil ............................................................................... 3

2.2 External Floating Roof Tanks for Gasoline and Other Light Distillates ..................................... 8

2.3 Product Storage Tanks ............................................................................................................... 11

3. Wastewater System Emissions ............................................................................................................. 15

3.1 Activated Sludge Unit ............................................................................................................... 15

3.2 API Separator ............................................................................................................................ 16

3.3 Wastewater Collection System Vents ........................................................................................ 16

4. Flare Emissions .................................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Flare No. 6 (Ground flare) ......................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Temporary and Ultracracker Flares ........................................................................................... 18

5. Coker Emissions ................................................................................................................................... 23

6. Recommendations for Future Testing .................................................................................................. 25

7. References ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix A—Storage Tank Characteristics and Properties of Stored Materials Reported by BP 

and TCEQ ........................................................................................................................................... A-1 

Appendix B—Estimation of Emissions from External Floating Roof Tanks Storing Crude Oil ............. B-1 

Appendix C—Estimation of Emissions from External Floating Roof Tanks Storing Gasoline and 

Other Light Distillates ........................................................................................................................ C-1 

Appendix D—Estimation of Emissions from Vertical Fixed Roof Tanks and External Floating 

Roof Tanks Storing Various Products ................................................................................................ D-1 

Appendix E—Activated Sludge Unit Characteristics and Compound Properties Reported by BP .......... E-1 

Appendix F—Flare Gas Flow and Composition Date and Estimated C3+ Emissions ............................. F-1 

i 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

ii 

List of Figures 

1. Comparison of the DIAL results and estimated emissions for Flare No. 6 on July 30, 2007. ............. 17

2. Comparison of the DIAL results and estimated emissions for Flare No. 6 on August 7, 2007. .......... 18

3. Comparison of DIAL results and estimated C3+ emissions from the temporary and ULC 

flares. .................................................................................................................................................... 20

4. Comparison of DIAL results and estimated C3+ emissions from the temporary and ULC 

flares assuming the temporary flare is highly efficient (99.8%) and the ULC flare efficiency is 

50 or 90 percent. ................................................................................................................................... 21

List of Tables 

1. Comparison of DIAL Results and Estimated Emissions ........................................................................ 2

2. Comparison of DIAL and Modeled VOC Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks Storing 

Crude Oil ................................................................................................................................................ 4

3. Comparison of DIAL and Modeled VOC Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks Storing 

Light Distillates ...................................................................................................................................... 9

4. Summary of DIAL Results and Estimated Emissions from Fuel Oil and Other Product Tanks .......... 13

5. Estimated VOC Emissions from Activated Sludge Unit during DIAL Testing ................................... 15
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

Executive Summary 

In July and August 2007, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored testing of numerous “difficult to measure” emission 

sources at a BP petroleum refinery in Texas City, Texas, (crude capacity of 456,000 barrels per calendar 

day [bbl/cd]) using differential absorption LIDAR (DIAL). The testing, which was conducted by National 

Physical Laboratory (NPL), detected emissions of organic compounds with 3 or more carbon atoms. The 

units tested included numerous storage tanks storing a variety of materials, an activated sludge unit, an 

API separator, three flares, and a delayed coker. Throughout this report, the term “emissions” refers to 

C3+ compounds, unless otherwise noted. In addition, all DIAL test data presented in this report are from 

NPL’s test report.1

The primary objective of the DIAL testing was to provide data for comparison with the results of 

emission estimation procedures that are the currently accepted means of determining emission levels for 

these types of sources. Units were selected for testing after considering the constraints of wind direction, 

unit operational status, and available scan paths at the time the test crew was onsite. Thus, the DIAL 

results may not be representative of all tanks and other types of tested units. 

Table 1 presents the average hourly VOC emission rates calculated from the DIAL test data for each 

tested emission source. For storage tanks, the results are presented for groups of tanks rather than 

individual tanks because the DIAL testing generally could not isolate individual tanks. Table 1 also 

presents two sets of estimated emissions. The estimates in the first set were calculated using standard 

accepted estimating procedures along with actual conditions at the time of the DIAL testing. The second 

set of estimates presents the average hourly ozone season emission rates from BP’s 2007 emission 

inventory report. The following key findings and conclusions can be drawn from the test results: 

 For scans under similar conditions the DIAL results often varied widely, by as much as an order 

of magnitude for scans of the flares and some storage tanks. 

 For storage tanks, the average DIAL results generally are higher than both sets of estimated 

emissions described above. 

 The DIAL results cannot be used to assess the validity of default assumptions in the AP-42 

procedures for storage tanks or how well the AP-42 procedures estimate short-term emission rates 

for storage tanks because it appears that the DIAL fluxes often included an unknown quantity of 

emissions from upwind sources, information on the composition and vapor pressure of stored 

material and the condition of seals and fittings is often uncertain or unavailable, and some of the 

scan ranges over which the DIAL fluxes were calculated are unclear. 

 The DIAL results for the activated sludge unit are similar to modeled emissions when modeling is 

conducted using actual conditions at the time of the test. 

 For two of the three flares, the DIAL results are consistent with expected control efficiencies, but 

the efficiency of one flare was considerably worse than expected. 

 The lack of information on the steps in the coker cycle that were operating during the tests makes 

it difficult to assess how well the DIAL results for the coker represent total actual emissions. 

 The refinery was operating at about 50 percent of capacity at the time of testing; this should not 

affect most of the emissions measured from a particular unit, but it complicates the comparison of 

measured volumes to those reported by BP in the annual inventory. 

ES-1 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refin

Table 1. Comparison of DIAL Results and Estimated Emissions 

Source Source Description Compound 

Average 

DIAL flux, 

lb/hra

Estimated emissions using 

standard estimating procedures 

with actual conditions at the time 

of the DIAL test, lb/hr 

Tanks 1020, 1021, 1024, and 1025 

EFRc tanks storing crude oil VOC 6.4d 1.3 – 1.9e 

Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055 

EFR tanks storing crude oil VOC 16.3d 1.8 – 2.3e 

Tanks 501, 502, 503, and 504 

EFR tanks storing light distillates VOC 8.6d 3.0 – 3.9e 

Tank 43 VFRf tank storing fuel oil #6 VOC 2 1.3 

9.3 1.3 

Tanks 60, 63, 11, 12, 18, 42, 61, and 65 

VFR and EFR tanks storing various products 

VOC 9 0.6 – 9.1e 

Tanks 54, 55, 56, and 98 

VFR and EFR tanks storing various products 

VOC 3.1d 0.3 – 9.7e 

Tanks 53 and 55 VFR tanks storing diesel fuel VOC 23.8d 4.8 – 5.2e F-8 EBU Activated sludge unit VOC 30 22 – 55h API separator API separator VOC 7 NDi Wastewater vents Vents from collection system VOC 9 ND Flare #6 Ground flare VOC 13 17k Temporary flare Temporary flare VOC 6 100 – 300k ULC flare Ultracracker flare VOC 192 3 - 25k Coker Unit C Coker VOC 18 ND Coker Unit C Coker while cutting coke Benzene 1.8 ND 

a The tabulated values typically represent the average of calculated fluxes for several scans. b In their 2007 emissions inventory, BP reported average ozone season emissions in lb/d; these values were divided by 24 to estimate th

hourly emission rates. 

c EFR means external fixed roof tank. d The results for storage tanks typically are summarized for a group of tanks because the DIAL scans typically could not isolate individua

the same path and covering the same range were grouped, and the calculated fluxes for the scans in a group were averaged. The ave

scans that apply to a group of tanks were then averaged to obtain the tabulated flux. Note that some groups of scans captured emissio

tanks, while other groups of scans were downwind of only some of the listed tanks. 

ES-2 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refin

ES-3 

e Emissions were estimated for all tanks that appeared to be upwind of a group of scans, and the estimates for the individual tanks were 

of scans, the total emissions were estimated by summing the applicable individual tank emissions estimates. The upper end of the tabu

the average of these sums. The lower end of the range represents the average emissions assuming only the tank(s) to which NPL attriupwind of the scans. 

f VFR means vertical fixed roof tank. g The upper end of the range could not be determined because some of the tanks could not be found in the 2007 emissions inventory. T

of interest also could not be identified in the inventory. 

h The low end of the range is based on pollutant properties used in modeling by BP, the measured benzene concentration, and annual a

other pollutants. The high end of the range is based on using the default pollutant properties in WATER9, the measured benzene conce

assumption that all other pollutant concentrations at the time of DIAL testing were higher than average by the same percentage as ben

I ND means not determined. j NR means not reported in the annual inventory. k Estimated emission rates are based on assumed 98 percent destruction of C3+ hydrocarbons in flare gas at the time of DIAL testing. A 

temporary flare and ultracracker flare because the flow and composition of the flare gas varied significantly during the DIAL test period. 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

Findings and conclusions specific to each type of tested emission unit are summarized below. 

Crude oil storage tanks. On average, the DIAL results for external floating roof tanks storing crude oil 

were at least 3 to 7 times higher than estimates that used conditions at the time of the DIAL testing. One 

factor contributing to this difference is that emissions from upwind sources such as the activated sludge 

unit appear to have been included in the emissions measured in some of the DIAL tests. The estimates 

may also have been biased low due to uncertainties regarding the composition and vapor pressure of the 

stored crude oil. Using the actual temperatures and windspeed during the DIAL test instead of the annual 

averages used in the emissions inventory have minimal effect on the estimated emissions. 

Gasoline and other light distillates storage tanks. The average DIAL results for the group of external 

floating roof storage tanks storing gasoline and other light distillates were about 2 to 3 times higher than 

estimates that are based on using AP-42 procedures and conditions at the time of the DIAL testing. No 

one factor is the clear cause of these differences. However, flare #6 is an upwind source that may have 

contributed to the emissions measured in some of the DIAL tests. The DIAL results are even closer to the 

average emission rates reported in the 2007 emissions inventory, but this similarity may be only a 

coincidence due to assumptions regarding the status of fittings in the inventory calculations that have 

been revised since 2007. 

Diesel fuel, fuel oil #6, and other product storage tanks. The average DIAL results are less than estimated 

emission rates for some groups of product tanks and higher for others. Both the DIAL results and the 

estimates are subject to a number of uncertainties that make it difficult to determine which results are 

more representative of actual emissions. These uncertainties include: (1) types of stored materials and 

their vapor pressures for some tanks, (2) range of some DIAL scans, (3) structural integrity of the fixed 

roofs, (4) possible upwind contributions to some calculated DIAL fluxes, and (5) unexplained variability 

in DIAL results for some scans. 

Activated sludge unit. The DIAL results for the activated sludge unit fall within a range of modeled 

emissions that are based on conditions at the time of the DIAL test and a range of pollutant property data. 

Both the DIAL results and modeled estimates are higher than the emission rate presented in the 2007 

emission inventory primarily because one of two parallel units was shutdown so that the actual flow rate 

to the only operating unit when the DIAL testing was conducted was more than 3 times higher than the 

annual average flow rate. Another difference is that the benzene concentration during the DIAL test 

period was about 30 percent higher than the annual average value. The modeled emissions also vary by 

approximately a factor of two depending on whether WATER9 modeling uses default pollutant properties 

in WATER9 or different values reported by BP. 

API separator. The DIAL results for an API separator were significantly less than the results for the 

activated sludge unit. Estimated emissions for this unit could not be developed because modeling inputs 

such as the wastewater flow, pollutant concentrations, and unit characteristics were unavailable. The 

DIAL results also could not be compared with emissions in the 2007 emission inventory report because 

the applicable separator in the inventory report has not been identified. 

Flare #6. The DIAL results for flare #6 (13 lb/hr) were very similar to the projected emission rate based 

on the hourly flare inlet gas flow and composition measurements and assuming a 98 percent control 

efficiency (17 lb/hr). The average emission rate in the emission inventory report is slightly higher (40 

lb/hr). The difference between these emissions estimates is likely the result of the flare flow rate and/or 

hydrocarbon concentration being lower than average during the days of the DIAL testing. 

Temporary flare. The DIAL results for the temporary flare (7 lb/hr) were less than both the reported 

emissions in the 2007 emission inventory report (196 lb/hr) and an estimate of the emissions developed 

ES-4 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

using the hourly flare inlet gas flow and composition measurements and assuming a 98 percent control 

efficiency (205 lb/hr). The good agreement between the two estimated values suggests that BP estimated 

emissions assuming an efficiency of 98 percent. The DIAL results, however, suggest the actual efficiency 

of the temporary flare was much higher than 98 percent (approximately 99.8 percent). 

Ultracracker flare. The average emissions from DIAL testing of the ultracracker flare were 6 times higher 

than the average hourly emission rate in the 2007 emission inventory report (192 lb/hr versus 31 lb/hr). 

Estimated emissions are even lower (3 lb/hr to 25 lb/hr) when using the actual flow and composition data 

during the DIAL test period and assuming a control efficiency of 98 percent. Over the three days of DIAL 

testing it appears the ultracracker flare efficiency was highly variable between 50 and 90 percent. Possible 

reasons for the low efficiency include: 

 Flare gas flow rate, velocity, and hydrocarbon content at the time of DIAL testing may have been 

much lower than usual, resulting in inadequate mixing for complete combustion. Testing occurred 

at a time when the high-hydrogen overheads stream from the ultracracker unit was being vented 

to the temporary flare because the compressor that normally compresses this stream for recycle to 

the process was off-line. It is not clear if this temporary operation had any effect on the gas flow 

to the ultracracker flare. 

 The steam addition rate may have been too high, thus quenching combustion. 

Coker unit C. Based on the DIAL test data, the VOC emissions from coker unit C were 18 lb/hr, and the 

benzene emissions during the coke cutting operation were 1.8 lb/hr. These results could not be compared 

with estimates in the 2007 emission inventory report because it is not clear which, if any, of the inventory 

estimates are for operations that correspond with the operations measured by the DIAL testing. 

ES-5 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

ES-6 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

1. Introduction 

In July and August 2007, National Physical Laboratory (NPL) conducted emissions tests for numerous 

“difficult to measure” emission sources at a BP petroleum refinery in Texas City, Texas, using NPL’s 

differential absorption LIDAR (DIAL) system.1

 The testing was sponsored by and conducted for the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) with funding provided by both TCEQ and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose of this report is to summarize the DIAL results, 

compare the DIAL results with estimates developed using standard accepted procedures and conditions 

that existed when the DIAL tests were conducted, compare the DIAL results with average ozone-season 

emission rates reported in BP’s 2007 emissions inventory,2

 and assess why DIAL results differ from 

estimates. 

Section 2 of this report addresses emissions from external floating roof tanks and vertical fixed roof tanks 

storing a variety of materials. Sections 3, 4, and 5 address emissions from wastewater sources, flares, and 

delayed cokers, respectively. Recommendations for future testing and references are presented in sections 

6 and 7, respectively. Appendix A provides the data used with AP-42 procedures to estimate emissions 

from storage tanks. Appendixes B, C, and D present details of the emission estimation calculations for 

different groups of storage tanks. Appendix E provides modeling inputs for estimating emissions from the 

activated sludge unit. Appendix F contains the hourly flare gas flow rate and composition data collected 

by BP’s process monitoring instrumentation for the three tested flares, and it presents calculated 

emissions assuming different control efficiencies. 

1 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

2 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

2. Storage Tank Emissions 

2.1 External Floating Roof Tanks for Crude Oil 

NPL conducted DIAL testing downwind of seven external floating roof tanks that stored crude oil. Table 

2 summarizes the results of the DIAL testing and compares these results to emission rates that were 

estimated using AP-42 procedures and to average ozone season emission rates presented in BP’s 2007 

emissions inventory. The comparisons generally apply to groups of tanks rather than individual tanks 

because the DIAL scans typically intercepted plumes from more than one tank, and only the total flux was 

calculated for each scan. These data show the DIAL results were nearly always higher than the other 

estimates (in 14 of the 18 groups of scans listed in Table 2), sometimes by an order of magnitude. For 

some scans, much of the difference appears to be due to influence from upwind sources. However, other 

factors also likely contributed to the differences. A discussion of the various factors and uncertainties that 

affect the DIAL results and estimated VOC emission levels is presented below. 

Comparison of DIAL results and estimated emissions. BP reported crude oil characteristics, tank 

characteristics, the number and type of rim seals and fittings, and the control status of fittings (see 

Appendix A).3

 These data were used with AP-42 procedures to estimate the hourly VOC emissions rate 

from each tank at the time it was subject to DIAL testing. The AP-42 procedures were modified slightly 

to account for actual conditions at the time of DIAL testing to the extent possible. Specifically, 

withdrawal losses were estimated from several of the tanks using actual withdrawal rates during the tests, 

actual wind speeds were used instead of monthly historical averages, and liquid bulk temperatures were 

calculated using historical monthly average ambient temperatures for either July or August (as 

applicable). Actual ambient temperatures during the test days were not available. Details of the 

calculations are presented in Appendix B. 

Table 2 also presents the ozone season emission rates from BP’s 2007 emissions inventory.2

 The emission 

rates reported in the inventory are in lb/d. To allow comparison with the DIAL results and the estimates 

based on modified AP-42 procedures as described above, these daily rates were divided by 24 to obtain 

average hourly emissions. As shown in Table 2, the average hourly emission rates are always higher than 

the hourly rates estimated using AP-42 procedures, but by only a small amount relative to large emission 

fluxes calculated for many of the DIAL scans. A difference between the average rates in the inventory 

and the rates estimated using the actual conditions during the DIAL test period is to be expected because 

the wind speeds used to develop the estimates described above were typically lower than the historical 

monthly averages, and most tanks have no withdrawal losses in the analysis described above. The 

difference, however, cannot be explained fully by these meteorological and operational variations. The 

same seal and withdrawal losses as in BP’s 2007 inventory could be reproduced using the data obtained 

from BP and default parameters in the AP-42 procedures, but fittings losses estimated in this manner are 

much lower than BP’s 2007 estimates. The most likely explanation for the difference is that there are 

unknown differences between the number, type, and/or control status of fittings used in the two analyses. 

3 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refin

Table 2. Comparison of DIAL and Modeled VOC Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks Storing C

Scan ID Nos. 

Tanks 

upwind of 

scans 

according 

to DIAL 

report 

Other 

tanks 

possibly 

upwind 

of scans 

Wind characteristics 

during DIAL tests 

Estimated emissions 

from DIAL testing, 

lb/hr Estimated 

modeled 

emissions, 

lb/hrb

2007 EIQ 

ozone 

season 

emissions. 

lb/d (lb/hr)c Direction 

Average 

speed, 

mph Range Average 

235, 236 1020 1021, 

1024 

ESE 8.0 <1 to 2 1.3 1.2 to 4.7 44 to 133 (1.8 

to 5.5) 

 Withdraw

1024. 

 Testing 

241, 242, 243 1020 1021, 

1025 

S and SSW 7.7 <1 to 3 1.3 1.2 to 3.2 44 to 134 (1.8 

to 5.6) 

 Withdraw Testing 

182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188 

1020, 1021 None SSE 8.7 10 to 20 15.5 2.7 89 (3.7)  Not clea

used or sources 

 Testing 

to 6 pm. 

179 1024 1025 SSE 7.4 5 5 0.9 to 1.6 44 to 89 

(1.8 to 3.7) 

 Testing 

178, 180, 181 1024, 1025 None SE and SSE 8.2 14 to 15 14.7 1.7 89 (3.7)  Testing 

pm. 

323, 324, 325 1024, 1025 None SSE 8.7 4 to 11 6.3 1.8 89 (3.7)  Testing 

am. 

338, 340 1024, 1025 None S and SSW 5.7 1 1.0 1.3 89 (3.7)  Testing 

am. 

138, 139, 140, 141, 148 

1025 None W, SW, and 

S 

5.3 3 to 8 5.4 0.5 45 (1.9)  Testing 

2 pm. 

 Tank 10

upwind f

173, 174, 175, 176 

1025 None SSE 8.6 8 to 13 10.5 0.7 45 (1.9)  Testing 

3:30 pm

319, 320, 321, 322 

1025 None SSE 6.6 <1 to 5 2.9 0.6 45 (1.9)  Testing 

am. 

4 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refin

5 

Scan ID Nos. 

Tanks 

upwind of 

scans 

according 

to DIAL 

report 

Other 

tanks 

possibly 

upwind 

of scans 

Wind characteristics 

during DIAL tests 

Estimated emissions 

from DIAL testing, 

lb/hr Estimated 

modeled 

emissions, 

lb/hrb

2007 EIQ 

ozone 

season 

emissions. 

lb/d (lb/hr)c Direction 

Average 

speed, 

mph Range Average 

157, 158, 159 1052, 1053 None SSE 9.1 13 to 31 22.3 2.3 70 (2.9)  Activate

be almo1052. 

 Withdraw

about 10

164 1052, 1053 None SE 6.7 6 6 2.1 70 (2.9)  Withdraw

about 84

279, 280, 281, 282, 283 

1052, 1053, 1055 

None SW 7.2 18 to 39 24.6 3.1 110 (4.6)  Activate

upwind b

284, 285, 286, 287, 288 

1052 None SW to WSW 8.3 29 to 54 39.6 1.1 37 (1.5)  Activate

upwind sPlume in report fodirectly dsludge u

328, 329, 330, 331 

1052, 1053 None SSE 7.8 12 to 44 24.3 2.1 70 (2.9)  Activate

directly u

156 1053 1052 S 10.3 7 7 1.6 to 2.9 33 to 70 

(1.4 to 2.9) 

 Withdraw

about 10

163, 165, 166, 167, 168 

1053 1052 ESE to SSE 8.6 3 to 7 5.2 1.1 to 2.3 33 to 70 

(1.4 to 2.9) 

 Withdraw

first scanfour scagal/hr w

231, 232, 233 1053 1052 E to ESE 7.1 <1 to 3 1.5 1.0 to 2.2 33 to 70 

(1.4 to 2.9) 

a Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055 have a diameter of 345 ft, and the other four tanks have a diameter of 219 ft. The height of all seven tanks b See Appendix B for calculations. Typically followed the AP-42 procedures, except that actual wind speeds at the time of each set of sca

historical monthly averages, and the liquid bulk temperature was calculated using the estimated daily average ambient temperatures duWithdrawal emissions were estimated for scans of tanks 1020 and 1024 during which material was removed from these two tanks. Whe

the low end is for the tank to which emissions are assigned in the DIAL report, and the upper end includes emissions for both this tank have been upwind of the scans. 

c The lb/hr estimates were obtained by dividing the reported lb/d estimates in the inventory by 24. A range is presented for the same situ

footnote “b”.
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

Possible contribution from upwind sources in the DIAL emissions. The available data suggest that many 

of the calculated fluxes downwind of the crude oil storage tanks included emissions from upwind sources. 

As discussed in more detail below, the highest calculated fluxes for scans downwind of tanks 1052, 1053, 

and 1055 (22 to 40 lb/hr) occurred when the activated sludge unit was upwind. Conversely, when the 

activated sludge unit was not upwind, calculated fluxes were much lower (2 to 6 lb/hr). Similarly, 

unidentified offsite upwind sources may also have contributed to the highest calculated fluxes for tanks 

1020 through 1025 (10 to 20 lb/hr) because these emissions were noted when wind was from one 

direction, but lower emissions (<1 to 8 lb/hr) were measured when wind was from other directions. 

As discussed in section 3.1 of this report, average calculated fluxes downwind of the activated sludge unit 

on August 2nd were about 30 lb/hr. These emission levels are similar to the collective fluxes calculated 

downwind of tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055 later the same day while wind was still from approximately the 

same direction. Figure 2.5 in the DIAL final report presents an image of the plume location in one of 

these scans. Based on the wind direction at the time of this scan, the location of the plume is such that it 

could just as easily be from the activated sludge unit as from tank 1052. Table 2.4 in the DIAL final 

report identifies a few scans as upwind, but it does not appear that any of these scans were directed 

between the tanks and the activated sludge unit. 

Scans on July 28th and August 6th were directed almost due west on the north side of tanks 1052 and 1053. 

The wind direction for these scans was from the south-southeast, which should cause the plume from the 

activated sludge unit to cross the plane of the scans a little to the west of tank 1052. If so, these emissions 

may not have been included in the calculated fluxes for the tanks. However, the DIAL report does not 

indicate the range over which the fluxes were determined, and it is possible that wind near the ground 

close to the tanks could have been disrupted such that some of the emissions from the activated sludge 

unit could be further east than would be predicted from the wind directions measured by the fixed mast 

located on the vehicle that housed the DIAL instrument. 

The highest calculated fluxes for tanks 1020 through 1025 occurred for scans conducted in the afternoon 

while wind was from the southeast. Calculated fluxes were always lower when wind was from another 

direction. Even when wind was from the southeast, calculated fluxes were low when scans were 

conducted in the middle of the night. There should be no other onsite emission sources to the southeast of 

these tanks, but there may be one or more offsite sources. If so, this offsite source may not have operated 

at night. No scans were conducted upwind of these tanks when wind was from the southeast. 

Uncertain characterization of the tank contents. Any differences between the actual and reported 

characteristics of the stored crude oil could cause estimated emissions to be biased either high or low. 

Actual emissions will be a function of the characteristics of the stored crude (primarily vapor pressure, 

but also the molecular weight and density). These characteristics will vary depending on the source of the 

crude, how it has been handled prior to storage, and the amount of time it has been in a storage tank. The 

modeled emissions shown in Table 2 were estimated using data for crude oil as reported by BP. However, 

it is not clear how these characteristics were developed or how well they represent the characteristics of 

the stored crude at the time of the DIAL testing. 

Uncertainty in the condition of fittings and seals. Differences between the actual condition of seals and 

fittings versus norms assumed in estimating methodologies may account for some of the differences in 

DIAL results among the tanks or for differences between DIAL and modeled emissions. The AP-42 

procedures estimate emissions from average-fitting seals and typical fittings. It is not clear whether the 

condition of the seals and fittings on BP’s crude oil storage tanks would be considered better than 

average, average, or worse than average. TCEQ has documented that “strong VOC odors were present 

when the infrared (IR) camera team was on top of the crude tanks.” TCEQ also noted that “hydrocarbon 

vapors were seen by the IR camera coming from the rim seals of some of the crude tanks.”4

 However, the 

6 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

available documentation does not identify which tanks produced the IR-visible emissions, indicate the 

time of the observations, assess whether the results are comparable to results for a tank that has been 

inspected and is in compliance with NSPS/NESHAP seal gap requirements, or indicate if the cameras 

identified any evidence of leaks from deck fittings. 

Issue of non-detectable emissions in DIAL tests. For 6 of the 18 groups of scans in Table 2, the DIAL 

report attributes emissions to only some of the tanks that appear to be upwind of the scans. This may be 

reasonable if either the scan path or the range over which fluxes were calculated were limited in some 

way, but the DIAL report does not indicate that the calculations were so limited. On the other hand, 

emissions may have been assigned to only certain tanks because no emissions were detected from other 

upwind tanks. If so, the modeling to estimate emissions for comparison to the DIAL results should 

include these additional tanks. Therefore, the estimated emissions for these scans are presented as a range 

in Table 2. The low end of the range estimates emissions for the tanks from which DIAL tests detected 

emissions, and the high end of the range estimates emissions for all tanks that appear to be upwind of the 

scan. Note that this issue introduces only minimal uncertainty to the analysis because both the low and 

high ends of the range are less than the DIAL results for three of the six groups of scans, and for the other 

three groups of scans both the low and high ends of the narrow ranges are close to the DIAL results 

(typically within 2 lb/hr). 

Potential issues regarding assumptions in AP-42 procedures. The AP-42 procedures assume crude oil is 

weathered and stabilized. If these assumptions are incorrect, emissions estimates will be biased low. The 

degree of weathering or stabilization of BP’s crude oil cannot be confirmed based on the results of DIAL 

testing and other available information. Analysis of the crude oil is needed to assess the validity of the 

stabilization assumption, and additional studies are needed to resolve the weathering issue. 

The weathering assumption does not appear to be a significant factor in the difference between the DIAL 

results and the modeled estimates. The weathering assumption is incorporated in the AP-42 procedures 

for estimating losses from rim seals and fittings by using a “product factor” that accounts for the effect of 

different types of liquids on evaporative loss.5

 The product factor is 0.4 for crude oil and 1.0 for all other 

organic liquids. The product factor is lower for crude oil because in tests API found the losses from crude 

oil were consistently lower than the losses from other liquids, after normalizing for differences in vapor 

pressure and molecular weight.6

 This result for crude oil was attributed to effects such as weathering of 

the crude (i.e., loss of volatile components near the liquid surface) before testing. Assuming crude is 

weathered and using a product factor of 0.4 may underestimate emissions from a tank in which the liquid 

surface is disturbed, perhaps by mixing caused by adding material to the tank. Results from the testing at 

BP cannot confirm the appropriate product factor, or if weathering effects varied among the tanks. 

However, even if the product factor should be 1, the modeled emissions in Table 2 would increase by a 

factor of only 2.5 (or less for scans with withdrawal losses as well as rim seal and fittings losses). The 

resulting estimated emissions would still be less than the calculated DIAL fluxes for 14 of the 18 groups 

of scans listed in the table. 

Unstabilized crude contains dissolved gasses that will volatilize under the atmospheric pressure 

conditions in a storage tank. If this situation exists, the AP-42 procedures will understate the emissions, 

and the highest DIAL results should be expected while the tank is being filled and for some unknown 

time afterward. The limited data suggest the crude was more likely stabilized than unstabilized. For 

example, calculated fluxes from tank 1025 (scans 138 to 148) and tank 1024 (scan 179) were at about the 

same relatively low levels, but the DIAL testing for tank 1025 were conducted after 8 hours in which 

material was added that raised the level in the tank from about 25 percent of capacity to more than 55 

percent of capacity while no material had been added to or withdrawn from tank 1024 in more than 3 days 

preceding the tests. If the crude was unstabilized, the emissions from tank 1025 should have been higher 

than the emissions from tank 1024. Tank 1052 is the only other tank to which crude oil was added during 

7 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

8 

the DIAL tests, but the results are inconclusive. Although the calculated fluxes from scans concurrent 

with or following the additions were high, which would be consistent with an assumption that the crude 

was unstabilized, these are also the scans most likely affected by upwind sources. Comparisons before 

and after filling the same tank would be more meaningful than these comparisons, but the DIAL testing at 

BP could not be conducted under such conditions. Alternatively, analysis of the crude at the time of the 

DIAL testing would also address the issue of whether the stored crude is stabilized. 

Effect of default ambient temperatures in AP-42 procedures. The AP-42 procedures use default historical 

average ambient temperatures in the calculation of the liquid surface temperatures which in turn are used 

to estimate the vapor pressure of the stored material. Since actual ambient temperatures during the DIAL 

test were not available, the modeled emissions in Table 2 were calculated using the default ambient 

temperatures for Galveston. A sensitivity analysis shows that even if the actual temperatures were 10oF 

higher than the ambient average (highly unlikely that the actual temperatures were this much higher than 

the defaults), the estimated emissions would increase by only 25 to 30 percent, on average, which is far 

less than the difference between the DIAL results and the estimates shown in Table 2. Thus, the lack of 

actual ambient temperature data causes only a small fraction of the difference between the DIAL results 

and the estimated emissions. 

2.2 External Floating Roof Tanks for Gasoline and Other Light Distillates 

NPL measured emissions from four external floating roof tanks that stored light distillates. Tank 501 

stored regular gasoline, tank 502 stored heavy virgin naphtha, tank 503 stored heavy raffinate, and tank 

504 stored alkylate. Table 3 presents the results of the DIAL testing and modeling calculations for six sets 

of scans of these tanks. A discussion of the various factors and uncertainties that affect the DIAL results 

and estimated VOC emission levels is presented below. 

Comparison of DIAL results and estimated emissions. Of the six groups of scans summarized in Table 3, 

only the first four are considered to be valid. The DIAL results for all four groups are higher than the 

estimated emissions, although the difference is less than 5 lb/hr for three of the four groups of scans. The 

scans in the final two groups summarized in Table 3 were conducted when the wind was nearly parallel to 

the scan path, which makes it likely that the scans did not capture all of the emissions from the targeted 

tanks. Thus the results of these scans should not be evaluated with the first four groups of scans and are 

not considered further in this analysis. The estimated emissions were calculated using slightly modified 

AP-42 procedures that accounted for conditions during the DIAL testing to the extent possible. 

Specifically, withdrawal losses were estimated using actual withdrawal rates during the testing, actual 

wind speeds were used instead of monthly historical averages, and liquid bulk temperatures were 

calculated using historical daily average ambient temperatures during either July or August (actual 

ambient temperatures were unavailable). Details of the calculations are presented in Appendix C. 

Although most scans were directed downwind of more than one tank, it is not clear from the DIAL final 

report why collective emissions were reported for so many of the scans; it seems likely that in some scans 

the plumes from each tank would have been spatially separated, and separate range-resolved fluxes could 

have been calculated for each tank. 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refin

Table 3. Comparison of DIAL and Modeled VOC Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks Storing Ligh

Scan ID Nos. 

Tanks 

upwind of 

scans 

according 

to DIAL 

report 

Other 

tanks 

possibly 

upwind 

of scans 

Wind characteristics 

during DIAL tests 

Estimated emissions 

from DIAL testing, lb/hr 

Estimated 

modeled 

emissions, 

lb/hrb

2007 EIQ 

ozone 

season 

emissions. 

lb/d (lb/hr)c Direction C

Average 

speed, 

mph Range Average 

196, 198 

501, 502, 503, 504 

None SW and 

WSW 

5.3 2 to 5 3.5 2.9 206 (8.6)  Scans unlikely 

due to wind di

205, 207, 208 

501, 504 502 SSE, S, 

and SSW 

10.4 2 to 13 8.7 3.5 to 4.3 169 to 188 

(7.0 to 7.8) 

 Flare #6 was d

scans with the 

 The range of m

emissions refleand without em

218, 221 

504 501, 502 S and 

SSW 

9.6 5 5 1.5 to 4.2 84 to 188 

(3.5 to 7.8) 

 Flare #6 emiss

upwind for at lscans. 

 The range of m

emissions refleand without emand 502. 

220, 224 

501, 502, 504 

None SW 9.5 16 to 18 17 4.1 188 (7.8)  Flare #6 was n

tank 504 durin

347, 353, 354, 355 

501, 502, 504 

None SE 6.3 <1 to 8 2.5 3.0 188 (7.8)  NPL cautioned 

was not good scans may not emissions from 

356 503 None SE 6.0 1 1 0.3 18 (0.8)  NPL cautioned 

was not good 

a According to BP, tank 501 stored gasoline, tank 502 stored heavy virgin naphtha, tank 503 stored heavy raffinate, and tank 504 stored 

each tank is 144 ft, and the height is slightly over 40 ft. 

b See Appendix C for calculations. Typically followed the AP-42 procedures, except that the actual wind speeds at the time of each set o

of historical monthly averages, and the liquid bulk temperature was calculated using the estimated daily average ambient temperatures 

Withdrawal emissions were estimated for scans 220 and 224 (and the upper end of the range for scans 218 and 221) based on the act

about 58,800 gal/hr from tank 502 during these scans.. 

c The lb/hr estimates were obtained by dividing the reported lb/d estimates in the inventory by 24. 

9 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

Table 3 also shows BP’s ozone season estimates from their 2007 emissions inventory report. The ozone 

season emissions were reported in pounds per day; these values were divided by 24 to estimate the 

average hourly emissions. The resulting averages are comparable to the DIAL results (higher for some 

scans and lower for others). The estimates in the inventory also are always higher than the estimates that 

were based on the AP-42 procedures. This trend is expected because the wind speed during the DIAL 

testing was similar to or lower than the historical averages for June through August in Galveston, and 

most of the estimates for the DIAL test period do not include withdrawal losses because the tanks were 

not being emptied during the test period. The magnitude of the differences between the two sets of 

estimates, however, appears larger than should be expected based on the differences in meteorological 

and operational conditions. Details of the inventory calculations are unavailable; however, as for the 

crude oil storage tanks, the most likely explanation for the differences is that there are unknown 

differences in the number, type, and/or control status of fittings in the two analyses. 

Without additional information it is not possible to conclude that actual emissions are more accurately 

represented by either the DIAL results or estimated values or that there are any shortcomings in the 

AP-42 estimation procedures. Factors and uncertainties that may affect the results are discussed below. 

Possibility that measured emissions include contribution from upwind source. In the DIAL final report, 

NPL acknowledged flare #6 as a potential upwind source, but they concluded that the flare emissions 

were spatially separated from the tank emissions and thus were not included in the flux calculations for 

the tanks. This may be true, but the DIAL report does not include figures with images of the plumes for 

any of the scans for these tanks, and it does not identify the ranges over which the fluxes were calculated. 

Furthermore, DIAL emissions were relatively high for all but one of the scans when flare #6 was upwind 

of the tanks, while the lowest DIAL emissions were obtained for scans with wind from directions where 

the flare should not have influenced the results 

Uncertainty in characteristics of stored materials. If there are differences between the actual and reported 

vapor pressures and other characteristics of the stored materials, the estimated emissions may be biased 

either high or low. BP reported vapor pressure data for each of the materials stored in these four tanks 

(see Appendix A).3

 However, the characteristics can vary with fluctuations in the composition of a 

particular distillate. It is unclear how well the reported data represent the characteristics of the stored 

materials during the test period because samples of the stored materials at that time were not collected and 

analyzed. 

Issue of non-detectable emissions in DIAL tests. The DIAL report attributes emissions to only some of 

the tanks that appear to be upwind of the second and third groups of scans in Table 3. This may be 

reasonable if either the scan path or the range over which fluxes were calculated were limited in some 

way, but the DIAL report does not indicate that the calculations were so limited. On the other hand, 

emissions may have been assigned to only certain tanks because no emissions were detected from other 

upwind tanks. If so, the modeling to estimate emissions for comparison to the DIAL results should 

include these additional tanks. Therefore, the estimated emissions for these scans are presented as a range 

in Table 3. The low end of the range estimates emissions for the tanks from which DIAL tests detected 

emissions, and the high end of the range estimates emissions for all tanks that appear to be upwind of the 

scan. Note that both the low and high estimates are less than the DIAL results. 

Uncertainty in DIAL estimates of emissions from flare #6. It is possible that on July 30th, when flare #6 

was upwind of the tanks, that the DIAL results for scans between the tanks and the flare understated the 

actual emissions from the flare. On July 30th DIAL emissions downwind of all of the tanks except the 

raffinate tank were 11 to 18 lb/hr. Over approximately the same time period, DIAL data resulted in 

estimated emissions upwind of the tanks (and downwind of flare #6) that were generally about 3 lb/hr, 

which suggests the flare did not contribute significantly to the measured emissions from the tanks. 

10 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

However, on August 7th DIAL results downwind of the flare were 18 lb/hr, which is similar to the DIAL 

results downwind of the tanks on July 30th. As discussed in section 4.1 of this report, the flow and 

composition of gas burned in flare #6 were similar on July 30th and August 7th. If the flare operation was 

similar on both July 30th and August 7th, then the DIAL results downwind of the flare should have been 

similar as well. If the DIAL results on August 7th more closely represent the actual emissions from the 

flare on both days, then the DIAL results downwind of the tanks may be due more to emissions from the 

flare than is suggested by the July 30th data alone. 

Uncertainty in the condition of fittings and seals. The actual condition of seals and fittings relative to 

norms assumed in estimating methodology may account for some of the differences between the DIAL 

results and estimated emissions. The AP-42 rim seal loss factors are for average-fitting seals, and the AP42 deck fitting loss factors are for typical fittings. It is not clear whether the condition of the seals and 

fittings on BP’s storage tanks for gasoline and light distillates would be considered better than average, 

average, or worse than average. TCEQ has documented that when using an IR camera they saw only 

“very small amounts of hydrocarbon vapor coming from the rim seals of the gasoline tanks”.4

 However, 

the documentation does not provide the time of the observations, indicate if there were any differences in 

the observations among the four tanks, assess whether the results are comparable to results for a tank that 

has been inspected and is in compliance with NSPS/NESHAP seal gap requirements, or indicate if there 

was any evidence of leaks from deck fittings. 

2.3 Product Storage Tanks 

NPL conducted scans downwind of numerous tanks that were storing products such as diesel fuel, fuel oil 

# 6, kerosene, and light naphtha. Most of these products were stored in vertical fixed roof tanks; naphtha 

was stored in tanks with external floating roofs. NPL attributed calculated fluxes to only five of the tanks 

that appear to have been upwind of the scans (tanks 43, 53, 55, 60, and 63). Several of the diesel and oil 

storage tanks were nominally heated during the DIAL test period (typically between 90oF and 106oF). 

Only tank 43 was storing material at a temperature significantly above ambient levels (148oF).7

Table 4 summarizes the results of DIAL testing and two sets of modeling results for the scans downwind 

of product storage tanks. One modeling approach estimated emissions using AP-42 procedures and 

conditions at the time of DIAL testing. For example, working losses from tanks 43 and 53 were estimated 

based on the actual filling rates during the DIAL testing, assuming the saturation factor is 1. See 

Appendix D for details of the calculations. The second set of modeled emissions consists of the average 

ozone season emission rates presented in BP’s 2007 emissions inventory. The inventory data are 

incomplete because information for some of the tanks could not be found in the inventory. For most 

groups of scans in Table 4 the DIAL results are comparable to or greater than the modeled emission rates. 

However, there is considerable uncertainty in both the DIAL and modeling results, as discussed below. 

Uncertainty in the range over which DIAL fluxes were calculated. Except for the scans of tank 43, it was 

not possible to direct scans in such a way as to isolate individual storage tanks. In addition, although the 

DIAL report documents the path of most scans, it does not identify the range over which concentrations 

were measured or the range over which fluxes were calculated. Without this information, it is not clear if 

the calculated fluxes actually represent emissions from tanks other than the five to which NPL attributed 

emissions, if the emissions from some tanks should be considered to be below the DIAL detection limit, 

or if emissions from some tanks were beyond the range of the scans. Therefore, as in the analyses for 

crude oil and light distillate storage tanks, the modeled emissions estimates are presented as a range in 

Table 4 to reflect the uncertainty regarding the range of the scans and the range over which the DIAL 

fluxes were calculated. For example, Table 2.1 in the DIAL report shows the path of scans from 

location 1. All calculated fluxes for these scans are attributed to tank 55 in the DIAL report. However, 

based on the wind direction and the length of the arrow representing the scan paths, it appears that the 

11 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

12 

scans should also have captured any emissions from tanks 54, 56, and 98, and possibly even from tanks 

80 and 97 as well. For the purposes of this review, it has been assumed that the scans may have captured 

emissions from tanks 54, 56, and 98 in addition to emissions from tank 55. Similarly, Figure 2.8 in the 

DIAL report shows the scan path from location 7 passes downwind of at least 8 tanks (another 4 were out 

of service during the DIAL test period). The DIAL report attributes the bulk of the calculated emissions to 

only 1 of these 8 tanks. For the purposes of this analysis, the upper bound on the modeled emissions 

assumes that the fluxes were calculated over the full range of the scans, thus capturing emissions from all 

8 upwind tanks. 

Uncertain characterization of the tank contents. Uncertainty regarding the types of material being stored 

and their vapor pressures and molecular weights could have resulted in either over- or under-estimation of 

the actual emissions. It is not clear what material was stored in some of the product tanks because the 

listed material varied from one document to another. For example, in response to an EPA request, BP 

indicated that tank 43 was storing fuel oil #6, but BP’s 2007 emissions inventory report identified the tank 

as a diesel emission point and that one of the pollutants was fuel oil.2,3 TCEQ indicated the tank was 

storing light cycle oil.8

Characteristics for diesel fuel, furnace oil, kerosene, and light naphtha were provided by BP3

 and TCEQ,8

but it is not clear how well the reported characteristics reflect the actual characteristics of the stored 

materials because samples of the stored materials were not collected and analyzed at the time of the DIAL 

test. Furthermore, none of the available data are clearly for fuel oil #6. In calculations of emissions from 

tanks 43 and 60 in Appendix D, it was assumed that characteristics for furnace oil represent the 

characteristics of fuel oil #6. If this assumption is incorrect, the estimated emissions are likely low. 

Possible contribution from upwind sources in the measured DIAL emissions. Although subject to 

considerable uncertainty, it appears likely that some of the emissions measured downwind of tank 55 are 

due to contributions from an upwind source. Two scans upwind of tank 55 were conducted on July 26th. 

One of the scans was conducted at the end of a period of varying wind direction and low wind speeds. 

This scan resulted in an estimated flux less than detection. However, because scans downwind of tank 55 

under similar wind conditions were discounted as being unreliable, this scan also should be discounted. 

The other scan was conducted 9 minutes later when the wind shifted to the east-southeast and picked up 

to nearly 5 m/s. This wind pattern continued for the next 2 hours when scans downwind of tank 55 were 

conducted. The estimated flux for this upwind scan was 7 lb/hr, which is comparable to the average of the 

measured emissions from all subsequent scans downwind of tank 55. It is not clear how well only one 

scan represents the average upwind flux, or whether the actual emissions fluctuate over time. Some point 

in the hydrogen plant appears to be the source of this flux, but the specific source cannot be identified 

because information about operation of the hydrogen plant during the DIAL measurements is unavailable, 

and the range in the scan path over which the flux was determined is not described in the final DIAL 

report. 

Potential limitation of AP-42 procedures. One potential limitation of the AP-42 procedures is that they do 

not estimate emissions from leaks or from vents on freely vented tanks. For example, leaks may occur 

from a fixed roof tank of bolted or riveted construction in which the roof or shell plates are not vapor 

tight. In such cases, there could be emissions from diffusion, and the emissions could be exacerbated in 

windy conditions. The potential for leaks from the tested tanks cannot be assessed because information 

regarding the construction and integrity of the tanks is unavailable. Whether or not emissions from the 

tested tanks were occurring from leaks (or vents) could have been resolved by conducting a scan of the 

roof surface with an optical gas imaging camera. 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refin

Table 4. Summary of DIAL Results and Estimated Emissions from Fuel Oil and Other Product Ta

Scan ID Nos. 

Tanks 

upwind of 

scans 

according 

to DIAL 

report 

Other tanks 

possibly 

upwind of 

scans 

Wind 

direction 

during DIAL 

tests 

Estimated emissions 

from DIAL testing, 

lb/hr Estimated 

modeled 

emissions

, lb/hra

2007 EIQ 

ozone 

season 

emissions. 

lb/d (lb/hr)b Range Average C

382, 383, 384 43 None SSW and SW 1 to 3 2 1.3 3.7 (0.2)  Tank 43 store

characteristicsimilar to thosunderestimat

 Tank 43 filled 

during the DIA

388, 389, 390 43 None SSW and SW 7 to 13 9.3 1.3 3.7 (0.2)  Same as abo399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404 

60, 63 11, 12, 18, 

42, 61, 65c

S and SSW 4 to 15 9 0.6 to 9.1 110 to ?? 

(4.6 to ??) 

 Could not find 

in the invento

79, 80, 82, 84 55 54, 56, 98d SE and SSE <1 to 3 1.9 0.3 to 8.4 0.2 to ?? 

(0.01e to ??) 

 Could not find 

96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108 

55 54, 56, 98d ESE and SSE <1 to 14 4.3 0.2 to 11.1 0.2 to ?? 

(0.01e to ??) 

 Could not find 

377, 378, 379, 380 

53 55 S and SSW 13 to 32 23.8 4.8 to 5.2 23.4 (1.0)  Tank 53 bein

gal/hr during 

369, 373, 374 55, 66 S 4 to 8 6  Not clear whe

directed becanear tank 55. further. 

a See Appendix D for calculations. Followed the AP-42 procedures, except modified the standing loss and working loss equations to calc

instead of lb/yr. When a range is presented, the low end is for the tank(s) to which emissions were attributed in the DIAL report, and the 

emissions for all tanks that appear to have been upwind of the scan. 

b The lb/hr estimates were obtained by dividing the reported lb/d estimates in the inventory by 24. A range is presented for the same situ

footnote “a”. 

c Other tanks upwind of the scans were out of service (tanks 17, 44, 59, and 64). d The DIAL report does not indicate the range of the scans. It is possible that additional tanks could have been upwind if the range extene Likely too low because emissions were estimated using a vapor pressure based on a temperature of 0oF. Average emissions are about 

a temperature of 100oF is used. 

13 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

Uncertainty in DIAL measurements. There are some unusual patterns in measurement results for tank 43 

(and possibly tank 53) that cannot be explained without additional information from the test crew. As 

shown in Table 5, tank 43 was tested over a period of 1.5 hours on August 8th. Three scans were 

conducted downwind, followed by three scans upwind, and then another three scans downwind. Average 

calculated DIAL fluxes during the first three scans were 2 lb/hr, which as shown in Table 4 is close to the 

estimated emissions if the stored material is accurately represented by the characteristics for furnace oil. 

The average measured emission rate in the second set of downwind scans was over 9 lb/hr. In addition, 

the individual scan results spanned more than an order of magnitude (from 1 lb/hr in the first set of scans 

to 13 lb/hr in the second set of scans). The wind speed and direction during both sets of downwind scans 

were essentially the same, the temperature of the stored material was essentially constant, and the tank 

level rose by no more than 1 foot. Thus, it is not clear why the measured emissions are significantly 

different in the two sets of downwind scans. The issue of whether something in the operation of the DIAL 

instrument itself could have changed as a result of moving the instrument to conduct upwind scans and 

then back to the original position to conduct additional downwind scans, and an assessment of which 

group of scans is likely more accurate than the other, should be addressed in the final DIAL report. 

Inventory may have underestimated emissions for heated tanks. Information from BP indicates that 

emissions in the 2007 inventory for tanks 53 and 55 were calculated assuming no breathing losses.9

 As 

noted above, however, these tanks were only nominally heated, and the liquid temperature fluctuated. The 

tanks also were not insulated, so the vapor would still expand with solar input. Thus, the inventory likely 

underestimates emissions from these tanks. The procedures and input data for inventory calculations of 

other heated tanks (e.g., tanks 43 and 60) are not available. 

14 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

3. Wastewater System Emissions 

3.1 Activated Sludge Unit 

Three scans were conducted downwind of an activated sludge unit on August 2nd. The measured fluxes 

ranged from 15 to 42 lb/hr with an average of 31 lb/hr. In the 2007 emission inventory report, the 

estimated emissions from this activated sludge unit were 6.7 lb/hr. This estimate was reproduced as part 

of this analysis by using WATER9 modeling with inputs provided by BP (see Appendix E).10 The 

reported inputs show BP used property values for some compounds that differed from the defaults in 

WATER9. The most significant were a much higher biodegradation rate constant for benzene (120 l/g-hr 

versus 1.4 l/g-hr) and small (rather than no) hydrolysis rates for xylenes. 

Although the measured emissions are significantly higher than the annual average in the inventory, 

Table 5 shows the measured emissions fall within a range of modeled emissions that are based on the 

actual wastewater flow rate and a range of possible pollutant concentrations at the time of DIAL testing. 

Table 6 also shows the estimated emissions approximately double when using the default pollutant 

properties in WATER9 instead of the property values reported by BP. The actual flow was more than 3 

times the average value (because an adjacent unit was drained and temporarily out of service at the time 

of the DIAL test), and the average benzene concentration from several wastewater samples in early 

August was about 30 percent higher than the annual average concentration. Actual concentrations for 

other pollutants are unavailable. Using the actual flow rate and assuming all of the other compounds in 

the wastewater on August 2nd were also 30 percent higher than their annual average values results in 

estimated emissions of either 29 or 55 lb/hr, depending on whether the modeling uses BP’s reported 

property values or the default values in WATER9. Table 5 also shows the lower estimates obtained when 

assuming benzene was the only pollutant at a concentration above its annual average and if all pollutants 

are at their annual average concentrations. 

Table 5. Estimated VOC Emissions from Activated Sludge Unit during DIAL Testing 

Condition 

Emissions, lb/hra

Using default 

compound properties 

in WATER9 

Using compound 

properties reported 

by BP 

1. All compounds in the wastewater are at the average hourly 

concentration BP used to develop the estimated emissions 

for the 2007 emissions inventory report 

43 21 

2. Benzene concentration is 30% higher than in BP’s 2007 

analysisb 46 22 

3. Concentrations of all compounds are 30% higher than in 

BP’s 2007 analysis 

55 29 

a Average flow to the activated sludge unit was about 16,800 gal/min on August 2nd. Reported characteristics of the 

activated sludge unit and compound properties used by BP are presented in Appendix E. Composition of the 

wastewater is claimed confidential.9

b According to BP, the benzene concentration in wastewater to the activated sludge unit in several samples in early 

August was about 30% higher than the concentration used in the estimate for the 2007 emission inventory report. 

Data for the other compounds are unavailable. 

The default benzene biodegradation constant in WATER9 is based primarily on data for treatment units at 

sites other than petroleum refineries.11 The benzene content in the wastewater in these units may have 

been lower than in refinery wastewater because the microorganisms in these systems are not as 

acclimated to benzene, and thus this average biodegradation rate is lower than it would be when 

considering only treatment units at a refinery. The biodegradation rate constant reported by BP is from 

15 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

16 

biorate tests specifically for this unit using wastewater with a mixture of pollutants. Thus, the most 

appropriate biodegradation rate constant for benzene in refinery wastewater treatment units is likely much 

closer to the value reported by BP than the default value in WATER9. Using the actual wastewater 

conditions at the time of the DIAL testing, the benzene biodegradation rate reported by BP, and defaults 

in WATER9 for other parameters, would narrow the range of estimates relative to that shown in Table 5. 

The narrowed range, however, still includes 30 lb/hr, suggesting that the estimation procedures and DIAL 

testing are in good agreement. 

3.2 API Separator 

Two scans were conducted downwind of the API separator that is located in the northeast corner of surge 

basin number 2 (south of all of the crude oil storage tanks and east of the activated sludge unit). 

Calculated fluxes were 5 and 8 lb/hr. An estimate of emissions from this unit using WATER9 has not 

been developed because information on the flow rate and composition of the wastewater to this unit and 

characteristics of the unit itself are unavailable. In addition, it is not clear how the DIAL results compare 

to the estimated average emissions in the 2007 emission inventory report because the EPN for this unit 

has not been provided. 

3.3 Wastewater Collection System Vents 

In two scans downwind of the coker unit, VOC fluxes of 9 lb/hr were calculated from some unit at a 

considerable distance south of the coker (closer to the DIAL instrument). These emissions were traced to 

wastewater vent pipes. No information about the characteristics of the vent operation or the wastewater is 

available. Therefore, estimates of the emissions for comparison to the DIAL results cannot be performed. 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

4. Flare Emissions 

4.1 Flare No. 6 (Ground flare) 

DIAL testing of Flare No. 6 (a ground flare) was conducted on July 30th and August 7th, 2007. On 

July 30th, hydrocarbon emissions (C3 hydrocarbons and heavier) calculated from the test data were 

consistent at approximately 3 to 4 lb/hr. Emissions calculated using test data from just after midnight on 

August 7th were approximately 37 lb/hr, but the rate dropped rather quickly to an average of 

approximately 18 lb/hr. The flow rate and composition of the gases combusted in the flare were measured 

hourly by BP.12 These data were used to determine the mass rate of C3+ hydrocarbons sent to the flare. 

Emissions from the flare were then projected assuming the flare had a control efficiency of 98 percent 

(i.e., the emissions from the flare were assumed to be 2% of the total mass rate of C3+ hydrocarbons fed 

to the flare). Figures 1 and 2 provide a comparison of the DIAL results and estimated emissions for July 

30th and August 7th, respectively. As seen by these figures, the DIAL results and estimated emissions 

agree reasonably well. The flare control efficiency appears to exceed 99 percent on July 30th, but 

marginally achieved the assumed 98 percent control efficiency on August 7th. See Appendix F for the 

measured flare gas flow and composition data and estimated controlled emissions. 

Figure 1. Comparison of the DIAL results and estimated C3+ emissions 

for Flare No. 6 on July 30, 2007. 

17 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

Figure 2. Comparison of the DIAL results and estimated C3+ emissions 

for Flare No. 6 on August 7, 2007. 

The data for Flare No. 6 appear to indicate that the DIAL results and predicted emissions are in 

reasonable agreement. Both the DIAL testing and flare flow and composition monitors suggest that the 

emissions were high at midnight of August 7th but quickly dropped and stabilized near 18 lb/hr. The 

DIAL report suggests the emissions on August 7th averaged approximately 22 lb/hr, but this is due to the 

limited measurement and assuming the 37 lb/hr reading existed 20 percent of the time. The flare flow rate 

and composition measurements suggest that this higher emissions rate likely existed for only 4 percent of 

the day. 

The emissions from Flare No. 6 reported in the TCEQ inventory for 2007 averaged 40 lb/hr, which is 

significantly more than the average emissions determined by the DIAL testing and at least twice as much 

as predicted based on the mass flow of hydrocarbons to Flare No. 6 during the two days of testing. 

Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the emissions reported for Flare No. 6 are likely estimated from the 

flare flow rate and hydrocarbon concentrations assuming a default flare efficiency of 98 percent. As the 

available data indicate, Flare No. 6 appears to achieve this 98 percent control efficiency. As such, the 

difference in the annual emissions and those predicted in Figures 1 and 2 are likely the result of the flare 

flow rate and/or hydrocarbon concentration being lower than average during the days of the test. 

4.2 Temporary and Ultracracker Flares 

On August 9th, 10th, and 11th, flare emissions were measured from a temporary flare and from the 

ultracracker (ULC) flare. The temporary flare was installed to combust a high hydrogen content gas 

18 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

stream from the ultracracker. This high hydrogen gas stream, under normal circumstances, is compressed 

and recycled back to the unit.13 However, the hydrogen stream compressor was off-line (being 

repaired/replaced) and the temporary flare was being used to combust this gas stream until the compressor 

could be brought back on-line. The flow rate and composition of the gases combusted in the flares were 

measured hourly by BP.7

 The temporary flare received approximately 13,700 standard cubic feet per 

minute (scfm) of hydrogen rich gas (approximately 80 vol%). The C3+ hydrocarbon content of this gas 

was approximately 10 percent on August 9th and 10th, and it was approximately 4 percent on August 11th. 

Based on the large flame of the temporary flare, the DIAL testing initially targeted only the temporary 

flare. While measuring the emissions from the temporary flare, a strong plume was observed, which 

correlated to the position of the ULC flare. The ULC flare received approximately 1,100 scfm during 

August 9th and most of August 10th. Starting at around 7 PM on August 10th and for all of August 11th, the 

ULC flare received approximately 3,800 scfm. While the ULC flare flow was 1,100 scfm, the average 

C3+ hydrocarbon content averaged 2 vol% (and nitrogen and methane were both about 40 vol%); when 

the ULC flare flow was 3,800 scfm, the average C3+ hydrocarbon content averaged 1 vol% (and methane 

was 70-85 vol%). All DIAL testing on August 10th was conducted before the flow rate jumped up. 

All of the DIAL measurements of the ULC flare also included the temporary flare. Based on plume 

visualization, the majority of the combined emissions were attributed to the ULC flare. Additionally, a 

limited number of scans were conducted on August 11th of just the temporary flare. These scans support 

the conclusion that the majority of the combined emissions from the ULC and temporary flares were 

released from the ULC flare. 

The flow rate and composition of the gases combusted in both the temporary and ULC flare were 

measured hourly by BP. See Appendix F for BP’s flare gas flow and composition monitoring data. These 

data were used to determine the mass rate of C3+ hydrocarbons sent to each flare. Emissions from each 

flare were then projected assuming the flare had a control efficiency of 98 percent (i.e., the emissions 

from the flare were assumed to be 2% of the total mass rate of C3+ hydrocarbons fed to the flare). Figure 

3 provides a comparison of the calculated DIAL fluxes and the predicted emissions combined for the two 

flares. From Figure 3, it appears that there is reasonable agreement in the combined emissions from these 

two flares. However, contrary to the DIAL results, the large majority of the predicted emissions from 

these flares arises from the much higher flow and hydrocarbon content of the gases sent to the temporary 

flare. When the concentration of C3+ hydrocarbons in the gas sent to the temporary flare dropped on 

August 11th, there was no corresponding drop in the DIAL emissions rates. On the contrary, the average 

of the DIAL emissions on August 11th is approximately twice that of the DIAL emissions on August 9th or 

10th. Most of the DIAL results fall below the predicted emissions for both flares on August 9th and 10th, 

whereas most of the DIAL results on August 11th are well above the predicted emissions from both flares. 

The higher DIAL emissions on August 11th tend to correspond to the higher flow rate to the ULC flare, 

which appears to support the DIAL study results that the emissions from the two flares were 

predominately arising from the ULC flare. 

19 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

20 

0.000

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

400.000

8/9/07 0:00 8/10/07 0:00 8/11/07 0:00 8/12/07 0:00

VOC Emissions (lb/hr)

ULC Flare Projected Emissions

Combined ULC and Temporary 

Flare Projected Emissions

DIAL Measured Emissions

Figure 3. Comparison of DIAL results and estimated C3+ emissions 

from the temporary and ULC flares. 

Based on the limited scans of just the temporary flare, which were conducted between 12 pm and 1 pm on 

August 11th, the control efficiency of the temporary flare was estimated to be approximately 99.8 percent. 

Using the inlet hydrocarbon rate to the temporary flare, the emissions from the temporary flare were recalculated assuming this higher (99.8%) control efficiency is accurate and that it applied throughout the 3-

day test period. These values were then added to the predicted emissions for the ULC flare assuming two 

different ULC flare control efficiencies (50 and 90 percent). The results of this analysis are provided in 

Figure 4 and in Table F-3 in Appendix F. 

The DIAL and predicted emissions compare reasonably well when one assumes the temporary flare is 

highly efficient and the ULC flare is inefficient. Looking at both Figures 3 and 4, the improved 

correlation between the DIAL and predicted emissions seen in Figure 4 also supports the DIAL study 

conclusion that most of the emissions are released from the ULC flare. Based on the data as presented in 

Figure 4, the ULC flare control efficiency appears variable between 50 and 90 percent. 

It is unclear why the ULC flare control efficiency was so poor. The testers noted that the flare had “an 

almost invisible flame during daylight, but was observed to be lit at night.” The lack of a visible flame 

may be caused by the sheer size of the flare. The actual dimensions of the flare are confidential.9

However, the ULC flare is an emergency-sized flare with a large diameter. 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

21 

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

8/9/07 0:00 8/10/07 0:00 8/11/07 0:00 8/12/07 0:00

C3+ Hydrocarbon Emissions (lb/hr)

Combined ULC and Temp Flare 

Projected Emissions if ULC 

efficiency is 50%

Combined ULC and Temp Flare 

Projected Emissions if ULC 

efficiency is 90%

DIAL Emission Measurement

Figure 4. Comparison of DIAL results and estimated C3+ emissions from the temporary 

and ULC flares assuming the temporary flare is highly efficient (99.8%) 

and the ULC flare efficiency is 50 or 90 percent. 

Using the reported diameter and the highest measured flow rate results in a very small flow velocity at the 

flare tip. Due to the large diameter of the ULC flare, there may have been inadequate mixing for complete 

combustion. That is, pilot flames on the circumference of the flare may not effectively light off the flare 

gas near the center of the flare. The increased flow on August 11th, however, would suggest that the 

efficiency should have increased rather than decreased. Also, the ULC flare is steam assisted. While the 

steam should help to mix the gases, too much steam may impact the efficiency of the flare. An EPA study 

determined that flare efficiency (both combustion efficiency and hydrocarbon destruction efficiency) 

declines with increases in the steam-to-flare gas ratio above 4.14 Using flare gas composition data and 

approximate steam addition rates provided by BP, the steam-to-flare gas ratios (i.e., lb steam per lb of 

total flare gas, including methane and ethane) were determined to be greater than 6 for most hours on 

August 9th and 10th.

7,15 See Table F-3 in Appendix F for the steam and flare gas data and resulting ratios. 

These high steam rates could account for the low estimated control efficiencies on these days. However, 

over steaming does not appear to be the cause of the low control efficiency on August 11th because the 

steam-to-flare gas ratio most hours was between 2 and 3. Finally, the ULC flare has a steam tip near the 

center of the flare with pilot lights around the circumference. This design may contribute to poor 

combustion of gases in the center flow region of the flare. Over steaming the flare gas may also explain 

why the flame was nearly invisible during the day. 

The TCEQ inventory for the temporary flare shows the average estimated emissions to be 196 lb/hr.2

 This 

is very close to the estimated average emissions of 205 lb/hr on August 9th through August 11th obtained 

when assuming the inlet C3+ compounds are controlled to 98 percent. Thus if the average inlet C3+ load 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

22 

to the flare on August 9th through August 11th was close to the annual average inlet load used to develop 

the inventory estimate, then the much lower DIAL emissions suggest the modeling estimates overstate the 

actual emissions from the temporary flare. 

In contrast to the temporary flare, the apparent control efficiency for the ULC flare was well below 98 

percent. The TCEQ inventory for the ULC flare show that the average projected C3+ emissions rate for 

the flare was estimated to be 28 lb/hr. However, at the flow rate and compositions measured during the 

testing program, the average emissions projected for the flare assuming a 98 percent control efficiency 

suggests that the average emissions rate would be under 7 lb/hr. This might suggest that the flow to the 

ULC flare during the DIAL testing program may have been lower than average ULC flare flows or that 

the hydrocarbon content of the gas was unusually low (assuming the inventory estimates are based on a 

control efficiency of 98 percent). BP confirmed that both the flow and composition at the time of the 

DIAL test were not representative of normal operation.16 Based on the DIAL results and the projected 

emissions for the flare at lower control efficiencies (i.e., approximately 50 percent), the ULC flare 

emissions appear to be 100 to 200 lb/hr. If the hydrocarbon flow to the ULC flare is typically higher than 

when the DIAL testing was conducted, the annual emissions may be even higher. On the other hand, if 

the steam addition rate is fixed based on the typically higher gas flow rate, this may explain why the flare 

was getting poor control efficiency (over steaming) at the lower flow rates and the flare control efficiency 

may be much improved at higher flare gas flow rates. Due to the limited duration of the DIAL testing, it is 

difficult to draw strong conclusions regarding the accuracy of the annual inventory for the ULC flare. 

Additional testing also is needed to determine the control efficiency when the flare is operating under 

normal conditions. 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

5. Coker Emissions 

Delayed coking is a semibatch process utilizing two coke drums and a single fractionator tower 

(distillation column) and coking furnace. A feed stream of heavy residues is introduced to the 

fractionating tower. The bottoms from the fractionator are heated to about 900 to 1000°F in the coking 

furnace, and then fed to an insulated coke drum where thermal cracking produces lighter (cracked) 

reaction products and coke. The reaction products produced in the coke drum are fed back to the 

fractionator for product separation. After the coke drum becomes filled with coke, the feed is alternated to 

the parallel (empty) coke drum, and the filled coke drum is purged and cooled, first by steam injection, 

and then by water addition. A coke drum blowdown system recovers hydrocarbon and steam vapors 

generated during the quenching and steaming process. Once cooled, the coke drum is vented to the 

atmosphere, opened, and then high pressure water jets are used to cut the coke from the drum. After the 

coke cutting cycle, the drum is closed and preheated to prepare the vessel for going back on-line (i.e., 

receiving heated feed). A typical coking cycle will last for 16 to 24 hours on-line and 16 to 24 hours 

cooling and decoking. Volatile organic compounds may be emitted throughout the coking/decoking cycle, 

but the primary periods when emissions are expected are from blowdown (if not controlled) and from the 

atmospheric venting and opening of the coke drum. 

At BP, numerous DIAL scans were conducted downwind of coker unit C. The scans were conducted over 

40 to 120 minute spans on five different days. Emissions calculated from the DIAL test data ranged from 

about 4 lb/hr in one set of scans, to 11 lb/hr in two sets of scans, and 31 lb/hr in two sets of scans. 

According to the DIAL report, the scans were conducted during parts of several operating cycles of the 

coker. Process data, however, are not available, which means the DIAL results cannot be correlated with 

any specific step(s) in the operating cycle. Without process data, it is also not clear whether the measured 

emissions can be extrapolated to estimate total emissions from an entire cycle of coker operation. Due to a 

lack of accepted procedures for estimating emissions from cokers, the 2007 emission inventory report 

also did not include estimates of emissions from the coker that could be compared with the DIAL results. 

Total VOC emissions calculated from the DIAL test data at BP appear to be considerably lower than 

emissions obtained from a DIAL test of a coker in Alberta.17 At least a small difference is to be expected 

because the Alberta test data included ethane emissions. However, a more complete comparison is not 

possible because design and operating characteristics of both cokers are not available, and as noted above, 

it is not clear what portions of the coking cycle were operating during the testing at BP. 

Based on test data from several refineries, C3+ VOC emissions from coker atmospheric vents are about 

60 lb/cycle.18-22 If the average measured emissions at BP were extrapolated over the entire 20-hour coker 

cycle, the total emissions would be significantly more than 60 lb. This is to be expected because the BP 

data supposedly include emissions from more than the atmospheric vent (and the atmospheric vent 

operates for only a small portion of the coker cycle). 

A separate set of scans measured benzene emissions from the coker. Generally, benzene emissions 

calculated from the test data were at or below detection, but during coke cutting operations the calculated 

emissions were nearly 2 lb/hr. These results appear to be in line with results from other tests, but 

comparisons are difficult because the various tests were not conducted on the same basis. For example, 

stack testing at two refineries in California found benzene emissions from coker atmospheric vents to be 

about 0.1 lb/cycle (or 0.1 to 0.4 lb/hr if the total emissions are averaged over the entire time the vents 

were open), but these data do not include coke cutting or other fugitive emissions.20,21 Benzene emissions 

from the atmospheric vent on the coker at another refinery may have been as high as 6 lb/cycle, assuming 

the ratio of benzene to toluene concentrations obtained during the pretest also applied during the actual 

test runs when only toluene was measured above the detection limit.22 Averaged over the 3 hours the vent 

23 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

24 

was open, the benzene emissions would have been about 2 lb/hr, but about half of the total emissions may 

have occurred in the first hour if the trend in the benzene emissions matches the trend for toluene 

emissions. Finally, in the DIAL test at an Alberta refinery, benzene emissions from the entire coker area 

were calculated to be about 3 lb/hr over the coker cycle, but emissions for specific steps in the cycle are 

not available.17

 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

6. Recommendations for Future Testing 

For DIAL tests of any sources, measure upwind conditions simultaneously with downwind measurements 

to ensure emissions from the tested unit can be isolated. Minimize the number of scans for which only 

combined fluxes from two or more sources can be determined. 

For DIAL tests of cokers, collect process data during the testing, and conduct testing during each step in 

the cycle, to provide a better understanding of how emissions vary over the cycle. If possible, test coker 

operation and ancillary facilities (e.g., coke piles and wastewater holding ponds) separately. 

Conduct DIAL tests of flares under a range of operating conditions. Collect data on flare gas flow rate 

and chemical composition during the test. Also collect steam rates, if applicable, and determine the flare 

tip diameter. 

Shortly before DIAL tests of storage tanks with external floating roofs, conduct inspections and seal gap 

measurements to assess whether the seals and fittings are in better or worse than average condition. For 

DIAL tests of fixed roof tanks, assess the integrity of the roofs. Use optical imaging camera during DIAL 

testing to scan floating and fixed roofs for leaks. 

As part of DIAL tests for storage tanks, determine the composition of stored material so that vapor 

pressure of the stored material (and for crude oil, the degree of stabilization) can be determined. Also 

measure temperature and throughput of the stored material during the test and for a few hours before the 

test. 

Reevaluate the AP-42 product factor for crude oil by comparing the crude oil handling procedures and 

actual storage tank operating procedures with the procedures used in the original API tests from which the 

current product factor was developed. 

In DIAL test reports, include more figures showing plume images and identify the scan range over which 

fluxes are calculated. 

25 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

26 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

7. References 

1. NPL (National Physical Laboratory). 2008. Measurement of VOC emissions from petrochemical 

industry sites in the Houston area using Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL) during summer 

2007. Draft. February. 

2. TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). 2009. EIQ Report. BP Products North 

America, Inc. RN102535077. April 30. 

3. LaRocca, P. 2009a. Email from P. LaRocca, BP Products North America, Inc., to B. Shine 

EPA/OAQPS. Storage tank data for Texas City refinery. August 25. 

4. Hildebrand, S. 2009. TCEQ Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL) Project—Summer 2007. 

Presented at NPRA Environmental Conference. Denver, Colorado. September. 

5. U. S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). AP-42. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors. Volume I. Fifth Edition. Section 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks. Available at: 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html. 

6. API (American Petroleum Institute). 1994. Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards: 

Chapter 19: Evaporative Loss Measurement, Section 2, Evaporative Loss From Floating Roof 

Tanks, Preliminary Draft. December. 

7. Duke, J. 2008. Email from J. Duke, BP, to B. Shine, EPA/OAQPS. Tank data and gas flow and 

composition data for the temporary flare and ULC flare. December 17. 

8. TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). 2010. Differential Absorption LIDAR 

Study. Final Report. March 29. 

9. Duke, J. 2009a. Letter and Attachments from J. Duke, BP Products North America, to B. Shine, 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS. Confidential information in response to email sent 6-3-09. June 17. 

10. LaRocca, P. 2009b. Email from P. LaRocca, BP Products North America, Inc., to B. Shine, 

EPA/OAQPS. WATER9 modeling inputs for Texas City refinery. August 5. 

11. Coburn, J., C. Allen, D. Green, and K.Leese. 1988. Site visits of aerated and nonaerated 

impoundments. Summary report. Research Triangle Park, NC. Prepared for the Hazardous Waste 

Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 

12. LaRocca, P. 2010. Email from P. LaRocca, BP Products North America, to B. Shine, 

EPA/OAQPS. Gas flow and composition data for flare #6. January 19. 

13. Hermanson, R. 2009. Letter from R. Hermanson, BP America Inc., to EPA Docket Center 

(2822T). BP America Comments on Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for 

Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 14, 2007. 

February 5. Docket item no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0304. 

14. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Flare Efficiency Study. EPA-600/2-83-052. 

Prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc. July. 

27 
Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

28 

15. Duke, J. 2009b. Email from J. Duke, BP Texas City Refinery, to B. Shine, USEPA/OAQPS. 

Responses to DIAL data questions. June 3. 

16. LaRocca, P. 2010. Letter from P. LaRocca, BP Texas City Refinery, to B. Shine, U.S. 

EPA/OAQPS. BP comments on EPA’s report of the 2007 DIAL study. July 20. 

17. Alberta Research Council. 2006. Refinery Demonstration of Optical Technologies for 

Measurement of Fugitive Emissions and for Leak Detection. March. 

18. URS Corporation. 2008. Source Test Report of the Coker Steam Vent for Non-Methane and NonEthane Volatile Organic Compounds. Prepared for CITGO Refining and Chemicals Company 

LP, Corpus Christi, TX. April 25. 

19. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2004a. Source Test Report 03-194 

Conducted at Chevron/Texaco Refinery, El Segundo, California—Volatile Organic Compound 

(VOC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions from a Coke Drum 

Stream Vent. May 14. 

20. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2004c. Source Test Report 03-198 

Conducted at ExxonMobil Refinery, Torrance, California—Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), 

Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions from a Coke Drum Stream Vent. 

March 4. 

21. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2004d. Source Test Report 03-200 

Conducted at Shell Oil Refinery, Wilmington, California—Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), 

Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions from a Coke Drum Stream Vent. 

July 1. 

22. URS Corporation. 2008. Source Test Report of the Coker Steam Vent. Prepared for Hovensa, 

LLC, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. September 8. 
A-1 

Appendix A 

Storage Tank Characteristics and Properties of Stored 

Materials Reported by BP and TCEQ 
A-2 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
A-3 

Table A-1. Dimensions of Storage Tanks at BP Refinery in Texas City, Texas 

Tank Product Stored Roof Type 

Tank 

Diameter 

(feet) 

Tank Height 

(feet) 

43 High Sulfur Fuel Oil #6 FRT 117 41.67 

60 High Sulfur Fuel Oil #6 FRT 117 41.67 

63 High Sulfur Decant Oil FRT 117 41.8 

53 Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel FRT 120 39.96 

55 Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel FRT 150 39.44 

66 Mid Virgin Distillate FRT 70 46.4 

54 Diesel FRT 120 39.79 

56 Diesel FRT 150 39.35 

98 Light naphtha EFRT 150 48 

11 Light naphtha EFRT 117 41.8 

12 Light naphtha EFRT 117 41.8 

501 Regular Gasoline EFRT 144 40.44 

502 Heavy Virgin Naphtha EFRT 144 40.17 

503 Heavy Raffinate EFRT 144 40.04 

504 Alkylate EFRT 144 40.29 

1020 Crude Oil EFRT 219 47.54 

1021 Low Sulfur Crude Oil EFRT 219 47.6 

1024 Low Sulfur Crude Oil EFRT 219 47.63 

1025 Low Sulfur Crude Oil EFRT 219 47.65 

1052 Heavy Crude Oil EFRT 345 47.54 

1053 Crude Oil EFRT 345 47.27 

1055 Low Sulfur Crude Oil EFRT 345 47.96 
A-4 

Table A-2. Streams in BP Texas City TANKS Database 

Name Mol Wt 

Vapor 

Mol Wt 

Liquid 

density REID VP 

ASTM 

Slope 

Total HAP 

wt% 

Benzene 

wt% 

Vapor pressure 

constants 

Tru

A B 6

bp gasoline 92 64 6 13 3 24.02 4 11.644 5043.6 6.9bp alkylate 97 67 6 11.6 1.89 30.66 3 12.054 5342.9 5.8bp crude oil 217 50 7 9 0 4.73 0.25 10.695 4589.2 6.4bp heavy virgin naphtha 

112 90 6 3.4 1.39 17.03 2 12.858 6488.6 1.4

bp heavy raffinate 183 139 7 2.3 0.69 6.37 2 13.599 7126.8 0.8bp diesel 202 151 8 0.025 2 0.34 0.03 14.532 10202.1 0.0bp decanted oil 217 163 8 0.02 0.81 0 0.015 16.236 11276.3 0.0bp furnace oil 217 163 8 0.0019 0.85 0.01 17.514 13317.9 0.0bp resid 410 195 9 0.0000003 3 0 0.001 17.026 18025.6 0.0kerosene 162 130 0.05 1.5 light naphtha 123 92 12.3 0.77 
A-5 

Table A-3. Type of Floating Roof, Rim Seal, and Guidepole for External Floating Roof Tanks at BP’s Texas 

Rim Seal Type 

Welded Tanks, Avg-Fitting Rim Seals

Mechanical-Shoe Primary Seal

A with NO Secondary Seal

 B w/ Shoe-Mtd Secondary Seal Guidepole 

Code Type 

Deck Cover 

Gasket 

C w/ Rim-Mtd Secondary Seal 

Liquid-Mounted Primary Seal A Unslotted No 

 D with NO Secondary Seal B Unslotted Yes 

Floating Roof Type E with a Weather Shield C Unslotted No 

A steel pontoon-type EFR (API 650 App. C-type) (default for EFRTs and Domed EFRTs) 

F w/ Rim-Mtd Secondary Seal D Unslotted Yes 

Vapor-Mounted Primary Seal E Unslotted Yes 

B steel double-deck EFR (API 650 App. C-type) G with NO Secondary Seal F Slotted Y or N C alum. bolted deck IFR (API 650 App. H-type) (default for IFRTs) 

H with a Weather Shield G Slotted Y or N 

I w/ Rim-Mtd Secondary Seal H Slotted Yes 

Click here to enter bolted deck constr. Add’l Mech-Shoe Seals, Special Conditions I Slotted Yes D steel welded deck IFR (API 650 App. H-type) (includes steel-pan type) 

J w/ NO Secondary Seal – tight fitting J Slotted Yes 

K w/ Rim-Mtd Secondary Seal – tight fitting K Slotted Yes 

 OR L w/ NO Sec. – Riveted Tank (loose fitting) L Slotted Yes 

E no floating roof (Fixed-Roof Tank) M w/Rim-Mtd Sec.-Riveted Tank (loose fitting)

Tank ID No. Enter the code letter Enter the code letter Code letter QuantityTank 501 A C E 1Tank 502 A C H 1Tank 503 A C K 1Tank 504 A C D 1Tank 1020 A C D 2Tank 1021 A C H 2Tank 1024 A C I 1Tank 1025 A C E 2Tank 1052 B C E 1Tank 1053 B C E 1Tank 1055 B C E 1Tank 98 A B K 1Tank 11 A C E 1Tank 12 A C E 1
A-6 

Table A-4. Other Fittings for External Floating Roof Tanks at BP’s Texas City Refinerya

Tank 

ID No. 

Access Hatch Gauge Float Gauge Hatch Vacuum Breaker Deck Drain 

Leg Pontoon Area 

(or IFR) 

Leg Center 

Double 

Code Quantity Code Quantity Code Quantity Code Quantity Code Quantity Code Quantity Code Q

Tank 501 C 1 0 B 1 B 2 0 A 10 A Tank 502 C 2 0 B 1 B 3 0 A 10 A Tank 503 C 2 0 B 1 B 3 0 A 10 A Tank 504 C 2 0 B 1 0 0 A 10 A Tank 1020 C 4 0 B 1 B 3 0 A 22 A Tank 1021 C 3 C 1 A 1 B 3 0 A 22 A Tank 1024 C 3 0 B 1 B 3 0 A 22 A Tank 1025 C 3 B 1 B 1 B 3 0 A 22 A Tank 1052 C 3 0 B 3 B 3 A 8 0 A Tank 1053 C 3 0 B 2 B 3 A 12 0 A Tank 1055 C 5 B 1 B 5 B 5 A 14 0 A Tank 98 C 2 0 B 1 B 2 0 A 24 A Tank 11 C 1 0 B 1 B 2 0 A 8 A Tank 12 C 2 0 B 1 B 2 0 A 8 A a Code “A” means ungasketed, code “B” means gasketed, and code “C” means bolted and gasketed. 
B-1 

Appendix B 

Estimation of Emissions from External Floating Roof 

Tanks Storing Crude Oil 
B-2 

[This page intentionally left blank] 
B-3 

Table B-1. Inputs for Estimating Emissions from External Floating Roof 

Tanks 1020, 1021, 1024, and 1025 

Parameter Characteristic Variable Value 

Contents Crude 

Diameter, ft 219 

Color White 

Condition Good 

Shell Lt rust 

Construction Welded 

Primary seal Mech shoe 

Secondary seal Rim mounted 

Deck Steel pontoon 

C 0.006 

KRA 0.6 

KRB 0.4 

n 1 

alpha 0.17 

Vapor pressure coefficients A 10.695 

 B 4589.2 

 C 

Vapor molecular weight MV 50 

Product factor KC 0.4 

Reid vapor pressure RVP 0 

Liquid molecular weight ML 217 

Liquid density, lb/gal density 7 

Atmospheric pressure, psia P 14.703 

City Galveston, TX 

 
B-4 

Table B-2. Wind Speeds Measured During DIAL Scans of External 

Floating Roof Tanks 1020, 1021, 1024, and 1025 

Wind speeds in Table 2.4 of the DIAL final report: 

Scan # 

Wind Speed, 

m/s 

138 2.3 

139 2.5 

140 1.9 

141 2.2 

148 3 

Average 2.38 

(5.32 mph) 

173 4.1 

174 4 

175 4.1 

176 3.2 

Average 3.85 

(8.61 mph) 

319 2.8 

320 2.9 

321 2.9 

322 3.3 

Average 2.98 

(6.65 mph) 

178 3.4 

180 3.6 

181 4 

Average 3.67 m/s 

(8.20 mph) 

323 3.8 

324 4.2 

325 3.7 

Average 3.90 m/s 

(8.72 mph) 

Scan # Wind Speed, m/s

338 2.9 

340 2.2 

Average 2.55 

(5.70 mph) 

179 3.30 

(7.38 mph) 

182 3.7 

183 4.3 

184 3.7 

186 3.9 

187 3.8 

188 4 

Average 3.90 

(8.72 mph) 

235 3.5 

236 3.7 

Average 3.60 

(8.05 mph) 

241 3.5 

242 3.6 

243 3.2 

Average 3.43 

(7.68 mph) 
B-5 

Table B-3. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1020 

Scans 

182+ 

Scans 

235+ 

Scans 

241+ 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi FfiVac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 38.322 36.893 36.09USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 2 8.6 12 0.81 121.12 114.60 110.9Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 22 2 0.37 0.91 86.238 83.271 81.61Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 73 0.82 0.53 0.14 109.70 109.14 108.8Roof drain,open 0 1.5 0.21 1.7 0 0 0 Rim vent, wmag 3 0.71 0.1 1 3.9620 3.8211 3.742GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.5856 0.5770 0.572Auto gfw, u/g 0 4.3 17 0.38 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 4 1.6 0 1 6.4 6.4 6.4 

366.33 354.71 348.1

Emissions, lb/yr 

Vac Brk, gask 204.73 197.09 192.8USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 647.08 612.23 592.6Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 460.71 444.86 436.0Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 586.07 583.10 581.3Roof drain,open 0 0 0 Rim vent, wmag 21.166 20.413 19.99GH/SW, wma gask 3.1288 3.0827 3.057Auto gfw, u/g 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 34.190 34.190 34.19

Total 1957.1 1895.0 1860.
B-6 

Table B-4. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1021 

Scans 

182+ 

Scans 

235+ 

Scans 

241+ 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi FfiVac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 38.322 36.893 36.095Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper 2 41 48 1.4 1290.9 1162.7 1093.3Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 22 2 0.37 0.91 86.238 83.271 81.613Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 73 0.82 0.53 0.14 109.70 109.14 108.82Roof drain,open 0 1.5 0.21 1.7 0 0 0Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.6413 2.5474 2.4952GH/SW, wma ugask 1 2.3 0 1 2.3 2.3 2.3Auto gfw, b/g 1 2.8 0 1 2.8 2.8 2.8Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 0 1 4.8 4.8 4.8

1537.7 1404.5 1332.3

Emissions, lb/yr

Vac Brk, gask 204.73 197.09 192.83Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper 6896.6 6211.9 5841.2Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 460.71 444.86 436.00Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 586.07 583.10 581.36Roof drain,open 0 0 0Rim vent, wmag 14.110 13.609 13.330GH/SW, wma ugask 12.287 12.287 12.287Auto gfw, b/g 14.958 14.958 14.958Access Hatch, b/g 25.643 25.643 25.643

Total 8215.1 7503.5 7117.6
B-7 

Table B-5. Calculation of Fitting Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1024 

Scans 

178+ 

Scan 

179 

Scans 

323+ 

Scans 

338+ 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Vac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 37.211 35.456 38.322 31.828 Sl gp well, gsc w/sleeve 1 11 46 1.4 542.35 469.48 590.28 330.56 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 22 2 0.37 0.91 83.932 80.282 86.238 72.694 Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 80 0.82 0.53 0.14 119.75 118.96 120.22 117.06 Roof drain,open 0 1.5 0.21 1.7 0 0 0 0 Rim vent, wmag 3 0.71 0.1 1 3.8524 3.6801 3.9620 3.3278 GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.5789 0.5683 0.5856 0.5466 Auto gfw, b/g 0 2.8 0 1 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 0 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 

792.48 713.22 844.41 560.83 

Emissions, lb/yr

Vac Brk, gask 198.79 189.41 205.01 170.27 Sl gp well, gsc w/sleeve 2897.4 2508.1 3157.8 1768.4 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 448.40 428.89 461.35 388.89 Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 639.76 635.52 643.16 626.29 Roof drain,open 0 0 0 0 Rim vent, wmag 20.581 19.660 21.195 17.803 GH/SW, wma gask 3.0930 3.0364 3.1332 2.9242 Auto gfw, b/g 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 25.643 25.643 25.678 25.678 

Total 4233.7 3810.3 4517.4 3000.3 
B-8 

Table B-6. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1025 

Scans 

138+ 

Scans 

 173+ 

Scans 

319+ 

Scans 

178+ 

Scans 

323+ 

Scans 

338+ 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi 

Vac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 30.997 38.084 33.891 37.211 38.322 31.828 USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 2 14 3.7 0.78 48.647 58.046 52.572 56.924 58.350 49.788 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 22 2 0.37 0.91 70.948 85.745 77.015 83.932 86.238 72.694 Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 74 0.82 0.53 0.14 107.83 111.11 109.32 110.77 111.20 108.28 Roof drain,open 0 1.5 0.21 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.1653 2.6256 2.3516 2.5682 2.6413 2.21857 GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.54164 0.58424 0.55896 0.57896 0.58568 0.54660 Auto gfw, b/ug 1 4.3 17 0.38 32.325 37.945 34.805 37.327 38.110 33.069 Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 0 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 

298.25 338.94 315.32 334.11 340.25 303.23 

Emissions, lb/yr

Vac Brk, gask 165.60 203.46 181.30 198.79 205.01 170.27 USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 259.88 310.10 281.25 304.10 312.16 266.35 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 379.02 458.080 412.01 448.39 461.35 388.89 Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 576.06 593.61 584.87 591.77 594.92 579.31 Roof drain,open 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rim vent, wmag 11.567 14.027 12.580 13.720 14.130 11.868 GH/SW, wma gask 2.8936 3.1212 2.9903 3.0929 3.1332 2.9242 Auto gfw, b/ug 172.69 202.71 186.20 199.41 203.88 176.91 Access Hatch, b/g 25.643 25.643 25.678 25.643 25.678 25.678 

Total 1593.4 1810.8 1686.9 1784.9 1820.3 1622.2 
B-9 

Table B-7. Calculation of RIM Seal Emissions and Total Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks 1020, 102

Tank Scan # 

Scan 

Date TAA, R TAA, F

TB, 

deg R I v, mph TLA, R TLA, F 

Stock liq. temp, R (1) 

Withdrawal rate 

during test, gal/hr 

Pva P* 

RIM seal loss 

lb/yr lb/hr 

1025 138+ 7/28 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 5.32 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.2671 3,193 0.365 1025 173+ 7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 8.61 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.2671 4,732 0.540 1025 319+ 8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 6.65 545.5 85.8 549 0 9.792 0.2675 3,822 0.436 1025 178+ 7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 8.20 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.2671 4,540 0.518 1025 323+ 8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 8.72 545.5 85.8 549 0 9.792 0.2675 4,791 0.547 1025 338+ 8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 5.70 545.5 85.8 549 0 9.792 0.2675 3,376 0.385 1025 179 7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 7.38 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.2671 4,157 0.474 1025 241+ 7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 7.68 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.2671 4,296 0.490 1024 178+ 7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 8.20 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.2671 4,540 0.518 1024 179 7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 7.38 545.4 85.7 545 0 9.784 0.2671 4,157 0.474 1024 323+ 8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 8.72 545.5 85.8 NA 0 9.792 0.2675 4,791 0.547 1024 338+ 8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 5.70 545.5 85.8 NA 0 9.792 0.2675 3,376 0.385 1024 235+ 7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 8.05 545.4 85.7 545 273000 9.784 0.2671 4,471 0.510 1021 182+ 7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 8.72 545.4 85.7 546 0 9.784 0.2671 4,785 0.546 1021 235+ 7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 8.05 545.4 85.7 546 0 9.784 0.2671 4,471 0.510 1021 241+ 7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 7.68 545.4 85.7 546 0 9.784 0.2671 4,296 0.490 1020 182+ 7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 8.72 545.4 85.7 543 105000 9.784 0.2671 4,785 0.546 1020 235+ 7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 8.05 545.4 85.7 544 105000 9.784 0.2671 4,471 0.510 1020 241+ 7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 7.68 545.4 85.7 544 105000 9.784 0.2671 4,296 0.490 

(1) Using these temperatures reported by BP instead of the calculated liquid surface temperatures would increase Pva slightly.
B-10 

Table B-8. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for External 

Floating Roof Tanks 1020, 1021, 1024, and 1025 

DIAL scans 

DIAL 

emissions, 

lb/hr 

Modeled range 

 EIQ low EIQ high 

 Tanks 

clearly 

upwind of 

scans 

Other 

tanks that 

may be 

upwind 

low, 

lb/hr 

high, 

lb/hr 

Scans 138, 139, 140, 141, 148 5.4 0.55 0.55 1.9 1.9 1025 

Scans 173, 174, 175, 176 10.50 0.75 0.75 1.9 1.9 1025 

Scans 319, 320, 321, 322 2.9 0.63 0.63 1.9 1.9 1025 

Scans 179 5 0.91 1.58 1.8 3.7 1024 1025

Scans 178, 180, 181 14.7 1.72 1.72 3.7 3.7 1024, 1025 

Scans 323, 324, 325 6.3 1.82 1.82 3.7 3.7 1024, 1025 

Scans 338, 340 1.00 1.30 1.30 3.7 3.7 1024, 1025 

Scans 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188* 15.50 2.71 2.71 3.7 3.7 1020, 1021 

Scans 235, 236 1.3 1.18 4.71 1.8 5.5 1020 1021, 1024

Scans 241, 242, 243 1.3 1.15 3.15 1.8 5.6 1020 1021, 1025

6.4 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.5

*Not clear which scan path is used (or if any upwind tanks) 
B-11 

Table B-9. Inputs for Estimating Emissions from External Floating Roof 

Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055 

Parameter Characteristic Variable Value 

Contents Crude 

Diameter, ft 345 

Color White 

Condition Good 

Shell Lt rust 

Construction Welded 

Primary seal Mech shoe 

Secondary seal Rim mounted 

Deck Double deck 

C 0.006 

KRA 0.6 

KRB 0.4 

n 1 

alpha 0.17 

Vapor pressure coefficients A 10.695 

 B 4589.2 

 C 

Vapor molecular weight MV 50 

Product factor KC 0.4 

Reid vapor pressure RVP 9 

Liquid molecular weight ML 217 

Liquid density, lb/gal Density 7 

Atmospheric pressure, psia P 14.703 

City Galveston, TX 
B-12 

Table B-10. Wind Speeds Measured During DIAL Scans of External 

Floating Roof Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055 

Wind speeds from Table 2.4 of the DIAL report: 

Scan # Wind Speed, m/s 

157 4.3 

158 4.1 

159 3.8 

Average 4.07 

(9.10 mph) 

164 3 

(6.71 mph)

279 3.2 

280 2.5 

281 3.4 

282 3.9 

283 3.0 

Average 3.20 

(7.16 mph) 

284 3.1 

285 3.9 

286 4.6 

287 4.2 

288 2.8 

Average 3.72 

(8.32 mph) 

Scan # Wind Speed, m/s 

328 3.9 

329 3.6 

330 3.1 

331 3.4 

Average 3.50 

(7.83 mph) 

156 4.60 

(10.29 mph) 

163 1.8 

165 4.3 

166 4.8 

167 4.5 

168 3.8 

Average 3.84 

(8.59 mph) 

231 3.2 

232 3.0 

233 3.3 

Average 3.17 

(7.08 mph) 

 

 
B-13 

Table B-11. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1052 

Scans 157+ Scan 164 Scans 279+ Scans 284+ Scans 328+ Scan 156 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi 

Vac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 39.113 34.011 34.9758 37.465 36.415 41.633 USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 29.678 26.366 27.005 28.626 27.946 31.260 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0 2 0.37 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deck leg, dbl deck 212 0.82 0.53 0.14 319.44 313.37 314.63 317.63 316.41 321.97 Roof drain,open 8 1.5 0.21 1.7 51.091 35.306 38.009 45.597 42.289 60.202 Rim vent, wmag 3 0.71 0.1 1 4.0403 3.5392 3.6332 3.8774 3.7741 4.2908 GH/SW, wma gask 3 0.47 0.02 0.97 1.7714 1.6790 1.6964 1.7414 1.7224 1.817 Auto gfw, u/g 0 4.3 17 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 0 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 

449.93 419.07 424.75 439.74 433.36 465.98 

Emissions, lb/yr

Vac Brk, gask 208.95 181.70 187.11 200.43 194.81 222.41 USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 158.55 140.85 144.47 153.14 149.50 167.00 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deck leg, dbl deck 1706.5 1674.1 1683.2 1699.2 1692.7 1720.0 Roof drain,open 272.94 188.62 203.34 243.93 226.239 321.61 Rim vent, wmag 21.584 18.907 19.436 20.743 20.190 22.923 GH/SW, wma gask 9.4634 8.9700 9.0756 9.3166 9.2147 9.7086 Auto gfw, u/g 0 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 25.643 25.643 25.678 25.678 25.678 25.643 

Total 2403.7 2238.8 2272.4 2352.5 2318.4 2489.4 
B-14 

Table B-12. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1053 

Scans 157+ Scan 156 Scans 163+ Scan 164 Scans 231+ 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Vac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 39.113 41.633 38.037 34.011 34.815 USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 29.678 31.260 28.992 26.366 26.899 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0 2 0.37 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 Deck leg, dbl deck 212 0.82 0.53 0.14 319.44 321.97 318.27 313.37 314.43 Roof drain,open 12 1.5 0.21 1.7 76.637 90.303 71.190 52.960 56.325 Rim vent, wmag 3 0.71 0.1 1 4.0403 4.2908 3.9338 3.5392 3.6175 GH/SW, wma gask 2 0.47 0.02 0.97 1.1809 1.2115 1.1679 1.1193 1.1290 Auto gfw, u/g 0 4.3 17 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 0 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 

474.89 495.47 466.40 436.16 442.01 

Emissions, lb/yr

Vac Brk, gask 208.96 222.41 203.20 181.70 185.99 USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 158.55 167.00 154.88 140.85 143.70 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0 0 0 0 0 Deck leg, dbl deck 1706.6 1720.0 1700.3 1674.1 1679.7 Roof drain,open 409.42 482.42 380.32 282.93 300.91 Rim vent, wmag 21.585 22.923 21.015 18.907 19.326 GH/SW, wma gask 6.3090 6.4724 6.2393 5.9800 6.0316 Auto gfw, u/g 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 25.643 25.643 25.643 25.643 25.643 

Total 2537.0 2647.0 2491.7 2330.2 2361.4 
B-15 

Table B-13. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1055 

Scans 279+ 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi 

Vac Brk, gask 5 6.2 1.2 0.94 58.293

USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 27.005

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0 2 0.37 0.91 0 

Deck leg, dbl deck 295 0.82 0.53 0.14 437.82

Roof drain,open 14 1.5 0.21 1.7 66.516

Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.4221

GH/SW, wma gask 5 0.47 0.02 0.97 2.8274

Auto gfw, u/g 1 4.3 17 0.38 35.662

Access Hatch, b/g 5 1.6 0 1 8 

638.54

Emissions, lb/yr

Vac Brk, gask 311.41

USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 144.27

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0 

Deck leg, dbl deck 2338.9

Roof drain,open 355.35

Rim vent, wmag 12.939

GH/SW, wma gask 15.104

Auto gfw, u/g 190.51

Access Hatch, b/g 42.738

Total 3411.3
B-16 

Table B-14. Calculation of RIM Seal Emissions and Total Emissions for External Floating Roo

Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055 

Tank Scan # Scan Date TAA, R TAA, F

TB, 

deg R I v, mph TLA, R TLA, F

Stock liq. temp, R (1) 

Withdrawal rate during

test, gal/hr 

Pva 

(psi) P* 

RIM seal loss 

lb/yr lb/hr 

1052 157+ 7/28/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 9.10 545.4 85.7 538 0 9.784 0.2671 7,812 0.892 1052 164 7/29/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 6.71 545.4 85.7 538 84000 (2) 9.784 0.2671 6,053 0.691 1052 279+ 8/2/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.16 545.5 85.8 NA 0 (3) 9.792 0.2675 6,392 0.730 1052 284+ 8/2/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 8.32 545.5 85.8 NA 0 (4) 9.792 0.2675 7,251 0.828 1052 328+ 8/6/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.83 545.5 85.8 539 0 9.792 0.2675 6,887 0.786 1052 156 7/28/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 10.29 545.4 85.7 538 0 9.784 0.2671 8,692 0.992 1052 163+ 7/29/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 8.59 545.4 85.7 538 35000 9.784 0.2671 7,439 0.849 1052 231+ 7/31/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 7.08 545.4 85.7 538 77000 9.784 0.2671 6,328 0.722 1053 157+ 7/28/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 9.10 545.4 85.7 546 105000 9.784 0.2671 7,812 0.892 1053 156 7/28/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 10.29 545.4 85.7 546 105000 9.784 0.2671 8,692 0.992 1053 163+ 7/29/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 8.59 545.4 85.7 NA 0 9.784 0.2671 7,439 0.849 1053 164 7/29/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 6.71 545.4 85.7 NA 0 9.784 0.2671 6,053 0.691 1053 231+ 7/31/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 7.08 545.4 85.7 NA 0 9.784 0.2671 6,328 0.722 1053 279+ 8/2/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.16 545.5 85.8 NA 0 9.792 0.2675 6,392 0.730 1053 328+ 8/6/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.83 545.5 85.8 549 0 9.792 0.2675 6,887 0.786 1055 279+ 8/2/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.16 545.5 85.8 NA 0 9.792 0.2675 6,392 0.730 

(1) Using these temperatures reported by BP instead of the calculated liquid surface temperatures would increase Pva slightly. (2) Several hours of alternately filling and withdrawing. Withdrew 84000 gal in hour during which this scan was conducted. (3) No data from BP; TCEQ noted withdrawal rate of 58,780 gal/hr for tank 1052 on 8/2. (4) No data from BP; TCEQ noted withdrawal rate of 73,903 gal/hr for tank 1052 on Aug 2. (5) Using these temperatures reported by BP instead of the calculated liquid surface temperatures would have little effect on Pva. 
B-17 

Table B-15. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for External Floating Roof 

Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055 

DIAL scans 

DIAL 

emissions, 

lb/hr 

Modeled range 

 EIQ low EIQ high 

Tanks clearly 

upwind of scans 

Other 

tanks that 

may be 

upwind 

low, 

lb/hr 

high, 

lb/hr 

Scans 157, 158, 159 22.3 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 1052, 1053 

Scan 164 6 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.9 1052, 1053 

Scans 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 24.6 3.1 3.1 4.6 4.6 1052, 1053, 1055 

Scans 284, 285, 286, 287, 288 39.6 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.5 1052 

Scans 328, 329, 330, 331 24.3 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.9 1052, 1053 

Scan 156 7 1.6 2.9 1.4 2.9 1053 1052

Scans 163, 165, 166, 167, 168 5.2 1.1 2.3 1.4 2.9 1053 1052

Scans 231, 232, 233 1.5 1.0 2.2 1.4 2.9 1053 1052

Average 16.3 1.8 2.3 2.4 2.9
B-18 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
C-1 

Appendix C 

Estimation of Emissions from External Floating Roof 

Tanks Storing Gasoline and Other Light Distillates 
C-2 

[This page intentionally left blank] 
C-3 

Table C-1. Inputs for Estimating Emissions from External Floating Roof 

Tanks 501, 502, 503, and 504 

Parameter Variable Tank 501 Tank 502 Tank 503 Tank 504 

Contents gasoline naphtha raffinate alkylate 

Diameter 144 ft 144 ft 144 ft 144 ft 

Color white white white white 

Condition Good Good Good Good 

Shell Lt rust Lt rust Lt rust Lt rust 

Construction Welded Welded Welded Welded 

Primary seal Mech shoe Mech shoe Mech shoe Mech shoe 

Secondary seal RIM mounted RIM mounted RIM mounted RIM mounted 

Deck pontoon pontoon pontoon pontoon 

Shell clingage factor (Cs) 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 

Rim seal loss factor (KRA) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Rim seal loss factor (KRB) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

Wind speed exponent (n) 1 1 1 1 

Solar absorptance (alpha) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 

Vapor pressure coefficients A 11.644 12.858 13.599 12.054 

B 5043.6 6488.6 7126.8 5342.9 

C 

Vapor molecular weight MV 62 90 139 67 

Product factor KC 1 1 1 1 

Reid vapor pressure, psia RVP 13 3.4 2.3 11.6 

Liquid molecular weight ML 92 112 183 97 

Slope of ASTM distillation curve S 3 1.39 0.69 1.89 

Liquid density, lb/gal Density 5.6 6 7 6 

Atmospheric pressure, psia P 14.703 14.703 14.703 14.703 

 

City Galveston, TX 
C-4 

Table C-2. Wind Speeds Measured During DIAL Scans of External 

Floating Roof Tanks 501, 502, 503, and 504 

Wind speeds from Table 2.4 of the DIAL report: 

Scan # Wind Speed, m/s 

196 2.5 

198 2.2 

Average 2.35 

(5.26 mph) 

205 5.5 

207 4.9 

208 3.5 

Average 4.63 

(10.36 mph) 

218 4.1 

221 4.5 

Average 4.3 

(9.62 mph) 

Scan # Wind Speed, m/s 

220 4 

224 4.5 

Average 4.25 

(9.51 mph) 

347 3.1 

353 2.7 

354 2.6 

355 2.9 

Average 2.825 

(6.32 mph) 

356 2.7 

(6.04 mph) 

 
C-5 

Table C-3. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 501 

Scans 196+ Scans 205+ Scans 220+ Scans 347+ Scans 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi F

Vac Brk, gask 2 6.2 1.2 0.94 20.567 27.860 26.654 22.110 26.Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 24.222 31.358 30.227 25.800 30.Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 10 2 0.37 0.91 32.108 42.458 40.761 34.316 40.Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 25 0.82 0.53 0.14 36.401 37.986 37.776 36.816 37.Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.1559 2.8710 2.7509 2.3046 2.7GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.5407 0.6067 0.5957 0.5546 0.5Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 0 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4

120.79 147.94 143.56 126.70 144

Emissions, lb/yr 

Vac Brk, gask 421.91 571.52 546.79 454.36 550Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 496.88 643.27 620.08 530.20 623Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 658.67 870.99 836.17 705.21 840Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 746.73 779.25 774.94 756.58 775Rim vent, wmag 44.226 58.895 56.433 47.361 56.GH/SW, wma gask 11.093 12.446 12.220 11.397 12.Auto gfw, u/u 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 98.467 98.467 98.467 98.640 98.

Total 2478.0 3034.9 2945.1 2603.8 295
C-6 

Table C-4. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 502 

Scans 196+ Scans 220+ Scans 347+ Scans 205+ Scans 

Fitting Nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi FfVac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 30.850 39.982 33.165 41.790 40.2Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 41 48 1.4 338.42 722.75 425.86 810.37 734.Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 10 2 0.37 0.91 32.108 40.761 34.316 42.458 40.9Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 28 0.82 0.53 0.14 40.769 42.309 41.234 42.544 42.3Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.1559 2.7509 2.3046 2.8710 2.76GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.5407 0.5957 0.5546 0.6067 0.59Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 

448.05 852.35 540.64 943.84 864.

Emissions, lb/yr 

Vac Brk, gask 135.83 176.03 146.20 183.99 177.Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1490.0 3182.2 1877.4 3567.9 3231Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 141.36 179.46 151.28 186.94 180.Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 179.50 186.28 181.77 187.32 186.Rim vent, wmag 9.4923 12.112 10.160 12.640 12.1GH/SW, wma gask 2.3809 2.6229 2.4449 2.6713 2.62Auto gfw, u/u 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 14.089 14.089 14.106 14.089 14.0

Total 1972.7 3752.8 2383.4 4155.6 3804
C-7 

Table C-5. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 503 

Tank 503 Scans 196+ Scan 356 

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi FfiVac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 30.850 32.558 Sl gp well, gsc w/sl&wiper 1 8.3 4.4 1.6 43.679 52.480 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 10 2 0.37 0.91 32.108 33.739 Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 28 0.82 0.53 0.14 40.769 41.118 Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.1559 2.2655 GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.5407 0.5509 Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 3.2 

153.30 165.91 

Emissions, lb/yr 

Vac Brk, gask 131.89 139.38 Sl gp well, gsc w/sl&wiper 186.74 224.66 Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 137.27 144.43 Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 174.30 176.03 Rim vent, wmag 9.2173 9.6988 GH/SW, wma gask 2.3119 2.3587 Auto gfw, u/u 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 13.681 13.699 

Total 655.4 710.3 
C-8 

Table C-6. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 504 

Scans 

196+ 

Scans 

205+ 

Scans 

218+ 

Scans 

220+ 

Sca

34

Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Vac Brk, gask 0 6.2 1.2 0.94 0 0 0 0 0 Unsl gp well, gsc w/sleeve 1 14 3.7 0.78 24.222 31.358 30.376 30.227 25.Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 10 2 0.37 0.91 32.108 42.458 40.983 40.761 34.Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 28 0.82 0.53 0.14 40.769 42.544 42.341 42.309 41.Rim vent, wmaug 1 0.71 0.1 1 1.0779 1.4355 1.3833 1.3754 1.1GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.5407 0.6067 0.5971 0.5957 0.5Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3

 101.91 121.60 118.88 118.46 106

Emissions, lb/yr 

Vac Brk, gask 0 0 0 0 0 Unsl gp well, gsc w/sleeve 416.85 539.66 522.76 520.20 444Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 552.57 730.69 705.31 701.48 591Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 701.62 732.18 728.68 728.13 710Rim vent, wmaug 18.551 24.704 23.806 23.671 19.GH/SW, wma gask 9.3065 10.441 10.277 10.252 9.5Auto gfw, u/u 0 0 0 0 0 Access Hatch, b/g 55.0709 55.070 55.070 55.070 55.

 Total 1754.0 2092.8 2045.9 2038.8 183
C-9 

Table C-7. Calculation of RIM Seal Emissions and Total Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks 501, 50

Tank Scan # Scan Date TAA, R TAA, F

TB, 

deg R I v, mph TLA, R TLA, F

Stock liq. temp, R (1) 

Withdrawal rate during 

test, gal/hr 

Pva 

(psi) P* 

RIM seal loss 

lb/yr lb/hr 

501 196+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 5.26 545.41 85.74 NA NA 10.9863 0.3309 7,984 0.911 501 205+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 10.36 545.41 85.74 NA NA 10.9863 0.3309 14,019 1.600 501 220+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 9.51 545.41 85.74 NA NA 10.9863 0.3309 13,006 1.485 501 347+ 8/7/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 6.32 545.46 85.79 82 0 10.9961 0.3315 9,256 1.057 501 218+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 9.62 545.41 85.74 NA NA 10.9863 0.3309 13,138 1.500 502 196+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 5.26 545.41 85.74 83 0 2.6150 0.0489 1,714 0.196 502 220+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 9.51 545.41 85.74 83 58800 2.6150 0.0489 2,791 0.319 502 347+ 8/7/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 6.32 545.46 85.79 85 0 2.6180 0.0490 1,986 0.227 502 205+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 10.36 545.41 85.74 83 0 2.6150 0.0489 3,009 0.343 502 218+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 9.62 545.41 85.74 83 58800 2.6150 0.0489 2,820 0.322 503 196+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 5.26 545.41 85.74 79 0 1.7026 0.0308 1,664 0.190 503 356 8/7/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 6.04 545.46 85.79 88 0 1.7047 0.0308 1,859 0.212 504 196+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 5.26 545.41 85.74 90 0 9.5629 0.2569 6,698 0.765 504 205+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 10.36 545.41 85.74 90 0 9.5629 0.2569 11,761 1.343 504 218+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 9.62 545.41 85.74 90 0 9.5629 0.2569 11,022 1.258 504 220+ 7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 1846 9.51 545.41 85.74 90 0 9.5629 0.2569 10,911 1.246 504 347+ 8/7/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 1736 6.32 545.46 85.79 90 0 9.5719 0.2573 7,763 0.886 

(1) Using these temperatures reported by BP instead of the calculated liquid surface temperature typically would increase Pva slightly. 
C-10 

Table C-8. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for External Floating Roof 

Tanks 501, 502, 503, and 504 

DIAL Scans 

DIAL 

emissions, 

lb/hr 

Modeled Range 

EIQ Low EIQ High 

Tanks upwind 

of scans 

(low end of range) 

Other 

tanks that 

may be 

upwind 

(high end) 

low, 

lb/hr 

high, 

lb/hr 

Scans 196, 198 3.5 2.84 2.84 8.6 8.6 501,502,503,504 

Scans 205, 207, 208 8.7 3.53 4.35 7 7.8 501.504 502 

Scans 218, 221 5 1.5 4.17 3.5 7.8 504 501,502 

Scans 220, 224* 17 4.13 4.13 7.8 7.8 501,502,504 

Scans 347, 353, 354, 355* 2.5 2.95 2.95 501,502,504 

Scan 356 1 0.3 0.3 503 

Average: 8.6 3.0 3.9 6.7 8.0 

*Flux not good for calculating DIAL emissions. 
D-1 

Appendix D 

Estimation of Emissions from Vertical Fixed Roof 

Tanks and External Floating Roof Tanks Storing 

Various Products 
D-2 

[This page intentionally left blank] 
D-3 

Table D-1. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 54, 55, and 56 

Tank 55 Tank 54 Tank 56 Tank 53 Tank 55 Tank 54 Ta

Given: Diameter, D 150 120 (2) 150 (2) 120 150 120 (2) Shell Height, HS 39.44 39.79 (2) 39.35 (2) 39.96 39.44 39.79 (2) Max Liq. Height, HLX Working Vol, V gal Turnovers, N Filling rate during DIAL, Q 

gal 0 0 0 58,000 0 0 bbl 0 0 0 1,381.0 0 0 

Color White White (2) White (2) White White White (2) Condition Good Poor (2) Good (2) Good Good Poor (2) alpha 0.17 0.34 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.34 Roof (cone or dome) cone cone cone cone cone cone cone roof slope, SR 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 Location Texas City, TX Texas City, TX Texas City, TX Texas City, TX Texas City, TX Texas City, TX TexaPA, psia 14.703 14.703 14.703 14.703 14.703 14.703 Pressure vent, PBP psig 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Vacuum Vent, PBV psig -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 DIAL test date 25-Jul 25-Jul 25-Jul 7-Aug 26-Jul 26-Jul scan numbers 79, 80, 82, 84 79, 80, 82, 84 79, 80, 82, 84 377,378,379,380 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 96, 97, 9

 101, 102, 106, 107, 

108 

 101, 102, 106, 107, 

108

 101, 102, 

Tank shell radius 75 60 75 60 75 60 TAX R 546.97 (3) 546.97 (3) 546.97 (3) 547.37 (3) 546.97 ( 3) 546.97 (3) 

C 30.72 30.72 30.72 30.94 30.72 30.72 

TAN R 538.87 ( 3) 538.87 (3) 538.87 (3) 538.87 (3) 538.87 (3) 538.87 (3) 

C 26.22 26.22 26.22 26.22 26.22 26.22 

TAA R 542.92 542.92 542.92 543.12 542.92 542.92 

C 28.47 28.47 28.47 28.58 28.47 28.47 

Solar insolation, I 1846 (3) 1846 (3) 1846 (3) 1736 (3) 1846 (3) 1846 (3) 
D-4 

Table D-1. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 54, 55, and 56 (conti

Tank 55 Tank 54 Tank 56 Tank 53 Tank 55 Tank 54 T

Contents: Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel A 14.532 14.532 14.532 14.532 14.532 14.532 B 10202.1 10202.1 10202.1 10202.1 10202.1 10202.1 C MV 151 151 151 151 151 151 Avg. Liq. Height, HL 14 (4) 16.5 (5) 20 (6) 21 20.9 16.5 (5)  (during DIAL scans) Vapor Space Volume ft3 477,174 277,541 369,554 228,570 355,240 277,541 Vapor Space Outage ft 27.003 24.540 20.913 20.210 20.103 24.540 Roof Outage ft 1.563 1.250 1.563 1.250 1.563 1.250 Roof Height ft 4.6875 3.7500 4.6875 3.7500 4.6875 3.7500 Vapor Density lb/ft3 0.0005982 0.0004713 0.0004934 0.0005668 0.0005982 0.0004713 Liquid Surface Temp R 558.32 550.72 552.16 556.58 558.32 550.72 

F 98.65 91.05 92.49 96.91 98.65 91.05 C 37.03 32.81 33.61 36.06 37.03 32.81 

Bulk Temp R 566 (7) 548 (2) 555 (8) 563 566 548 (2) 

F 106.33 88.33 95.33 103.33 106.33 88.33 

Vapor pressure psia 0.0237 0.0184 0.0194 0.0224 0.0237 0.0184 Vapor Space Expansion Factor, Ke 

0.0263 0.0421 0.0263 0.0259 0.0263 0.0421 

Delta TV R 14.61896 23.40592 14.61896 14.38336 14.61896 23.40592 
D-5 

Table D-1. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 54, 55, and 56 (conti

Tank 55 Tank 54 Tank 56 Tank 53 Tank 55 Tank 54 T

Highlighted calcs below not needed when true VP<0.1 psia 

TLX R 562.0 556.6 555.8 560.2 562.0 556.6 

C 39.1 36.1 35.6 38.1 39.1 36.1 F 102.3 96.9 96.1 100.5 102.3 96.9 

TLN R 554.7 544.9 548.5 553.0 554.7 544.9 

C 35.0 29.6 31.6 34.1 35.0 29.6 F 95.0 85.2 88.8 93.3 95.0 85.2 

PVX psia 0.02673 0.02241 0.02186 0.02522 0.02673 0.02241 

PVN psia 0.02104 0.01512 0.01712 0.01990 0.02104 0.01512 

Delta PV psia 0.00569 0.00729 0.00474 0.00532 0.00569 0.00729 

Vented Vapor Saturation Factor, Ks 

0.9671 0.9766 0.9790 0.9765 0.9753 0.9766 

STANDING LOSS lb/hr 0.3027 0.2242 0.1957 0.1365 0.2273 0.2242 Turnover factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 KP 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 WORKING LOSS lb/hr 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.67 0.00 0.0000 TOTAL LOSS lb/hr 0.303 0.224 0.196 4.81 0.227 0.224 (1) Data in Table are from BP or calculated, except where noted. (2) From TCEQ. (3) Value based on historical averages for July and August in Galveston; actual data for test dates not available. (4) Approximation; slightly less than level at midnight on 7/26. No data from BP before midnight on 7/26. TCEQ did not indicate filling on 7/25. 

(5) No data available for 7/25 or 7/26. Value listed is from 7/27. (6) Assumed half full; no data available. (7) Elevated temperature reported by BP; not a calculated value. (8) Assumed. Temp 93 F on 7/27 and dropping slowly. No data for 7/25-7/26. 
D-6 

Table D-2. AP-42 Modeling Input Parameters for 

EFR Tank 98a

Contents light naphtha Diameter, ft 150 Color white Condition poor Shell Lt rust Construction Welded Primary seal Mech shoe Secondary seal Shoe mounted Deck pontoon Shell clingage factor (Cs) 0.0015 Zero wind speed rim seal loss factor (KRA) 1.6 Wind speed dependent rim seal loss factor (KRB) 0.3 Seal-related wind speed exponent (n) 1.6 Tank paint solar absorptance (alpha) 0.34 Vapor pressure coefficients  A 12.542  B 5590.15  C Vapor molecular weight (MV) 92 Product factor (KC) 1 Reid vapor pressure (RVP) 12.3 Liquid molecular weight (ML) 123 Slope of ASTM distillation 0.77  curve (S) Liquid density, lb/gal Atmospheric pressure, psia 14.703 City Galveston, TX aMost of the data are from the TCEQ report, reference 8. Vapor pressure 

coefficients are from BP, reference 3. Factors are from AP-42, reference 5. 

Table D-3. Wind Speeds Measured Durin

Tank 98a

Date Scan No. 

Wind speed, 

m/s Date 

7/25/2007 79 4.5 7/26/2007 

80 4.1 82 4.7 84 4.9 

Average 4.55 

(10.18 mph) 

      

aData are from Table 2.2 in reference 1. 
D-7 

Table D-4. Calculated Emissions from Fittings on EFR Tank 98 Using Conditions During DIAL Test 

Scans Scans

79+ 96+

Fitting nf

a KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi

Vac Brk, gask 2 6.2 1.2 0.94 27.5986 27.599

Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper&sleeve 1 8.3 4.4 1.6 110.13 110.13

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 24 2 0.37 0.91 101.02 101.02

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 36 0.82 0.53 0.14 54.637 54.637

Rim vent, wmaug 2 0.68 1.8 1 27.008 27.008

GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.60434 0.60434

Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0

Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 3.2

 324.19 324.19

 Emissions, lb/yrb 

Vac Brk, gask 766.65 766.65

Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper&sleeve 3059.2 3059.2

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 2806.1 2806.1

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 1517.7 1517.7

Rim vent, wmaug 750.26 750.26

GH/SW, wma gask 16.788 16.788

Auto gfw, u/u 0 0

Access Hatch, b/g 88.892 88.892

Total 9,005.6 9,005.6 a

Data are from reference 1. 

b

Emissions estimated using AP-42 procedures, assuming conditions during the DIAL test applied 

 all year. 

Table D-5. Calculated Rim Seal and Withdrawal Emissions for EFR Tank 98 

When Using Conditions During the DIAL Test 

Parameters Scans 79+ Scans 96+ 

Scan date 7/25/2007 7/26/2007 

Daily average ambient temperature (TAA), °R 542.92 542.92 

 (July data) (July data) 

Daily average ambient temperature, °F 83.25 83.25 

Liquid bulk temperature, °R 543.96 543.96 

Solar insolation factor (I), Btu/ft2·d 1846 1846 

Average wind speed (v), mph 10.18 13.00 

Daily average liquid surface temperature (TLA), °R 548.5 548.5 

Daily average liquid surface temperature, °F 88.8 88.8 

Stock liquid temperature, °R NA NA 

Withdrawal rate during test, gal/hr 0 0 

True vapor pressure (Pva), psia 10.476 10.476 

Vapor pressure function (P*) 0.3019 0.3019 

Rim seal emissions, lb/yra 57,856 82,358 

Withdrawal emissions, lb/hr 0 0 a

Emissions estimated using AP-42 procedures, assuming conditions during the DIAL test applied all year. 
D-8 

Table D-6. Modeled Average Hourly Emissions From EFR Tank 98 During DIAL Test 

Scans Rim seal loss, lb/hr Fitting loss, lb/hr Withdrawal loss, lb/hr Total loss, lb/hr 

79+ 6.605 1.028 0 7.6 

96+ 9.402 1.028 0 10.4 

Table D-7. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 54, 

55, 56, and EFR Tank 98 

DIAL scans 

DIAL 

Emissions, 

lb/hr 

Modeled Range 

EIQ 

low 

EIQ 

high 

Tanks clearly 

upwind of 

DIAL scans 

Other tanks 

possibly 

upwind 

Low, 

 b/hr 

High, 

lb/hr 

Scans 79, 80, 82, 84* 1.9 0.3 8.4 1.0 NA 55 54, 56, 98 

Scans 96, 97, 98, 99, 

100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 

108* 

4.3 0.2 11.1 1.0 NA 55 54, 56, 98 

Average: 3.1 0.3 9.7 1.0 

Scans 377,378,379,380* 23.8 4.8 5.2 53 55 

* Maybe others as well, depending on length of scan. 
D-9 

Table D-8. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 43, 18, 42, 60, 61, 63, an

Tank 43 Tank 60 Tank 63 Tank 61 Tank 42 Tank 

Diameter, D 117 117 117 117 (2) 117 (2) Shell Height, HS 41.67 41.67 41.8 41.8 (2) 39.44 (2) Max Liq. Height, HLX Working Vol, V gal Turnovers, N Filling rate during DIAL, Q gal 41000 0 0 0 0 

bbl 976.2 0 0 0 0 

Color Black (2) Black (2) Black (2) Black (2) Black (2) BCondition Poor (2) Good (2) Poor (2) Poor (2) Poor (2) Galpha 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Roof (cone or dome) cone cone cone cone cone cone roof slope, SR 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 0.Location Texas City, TX Texas City, TX Texas City, TX Texas City, TX Texas City, TX Texas CityPA, psia 14.703 14.703 14.703 14.703 14.703 14Pressure vent, PBP psig 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Vacuum Vent, PBV psig -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 DIAL test date 8-Aug 8-Aug 8-Aug 8-Aug 8-Aug 8scan numbers 382,383,384, 399,400,401, 399,400,401, 399,400,401, 399,400,401, 399,400

 388,389,390 402,403,404 402,403,404 402,403,404 402,403,404 402,403

Tank shell radius 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 TAX R 547.37 (3) 547.37 (3) 547.37 (3) 547.37 (3) 547.37 (3) 54

C 30.94 30.94 30.94 30.94 30.94 3

TAN R 538.87 (3) 538.87 (3) 538.87 (3) 538.87 (3) 538.87 (3) 53

C 26.22 26.22 26.22 26.22 26.22 2

TAA R 543.12 543.12 543.12 543.12 543.12 54

C 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 2

Solar insolation, I 1736 (3) 1736 (3) 1736 (3) 1736 (3) 1736 (3) Contents: Furnaceoil (4) Furnaceoil (4) Decantoil LCCO LCCO furnaS 2.05 (2) 2.05 (2) RVP 0.06 (2) 0.06 (2) 0.
D-10 

Table D-8. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 43, 18, 42, 60, 61, 63, and 65 (

Tank 43 Tank 60 Tank 63 Tank 61 Tank 42 Tank 

A 17.514 17.514 16.236 14.124 (5) 14.124 (5) 17B 13317.9 13317.9 11276.3 9478.69 (5) 9478.69 (5) 1331C MV 163 163 163 163 163 Avg. Liq. Height, HL 24.5 3.7 21.9 21 (6) 20 (6)  (during DIAL scans) Vapor Space Volume ft3 197,704 421,332 227,055 236,731 222,109 233Vapor Space Outage ft 18.389 39.189 21.119 22.019 20.659 21Roof Outage ft 1.219 1.219 1.219 1.219 1.219 1Roof Height ft 3.6563 3.6563 3.6563 3.6563 3.6563 3.Vapor Density lb/ft3 0.0001808 0.0000508 0.0006328 0.0017948 0.0026743 0.000Liquid Surface Temp R 592.76 559.72 564.20 563.08 577.64 57

F 133.09 100.05 104.53 103.41 (7) 117.97 (7) 12C 56.16 37.80 40.29 39.67 47.76 4

Bulk Temp R 608 (8) 549 (8) 557 (8) 555 581 

F 148.33 89.33 97.33 95.33 121.33 12

Vapor pressure psia 0.0071 0.0019 0.0235 0.0665 0.1017 0.Vapor Space Expansion Factor, Ke 0.0959 0.0959 0.0959 0.0959 0.0935 0.

Delta TV R 53.26976 53.26976 53.26976 53.26976 53.26976 53.2

Highlighted calcs below not needed when true VP<0.1 psia 

TLX R 606.1 573.0 577.5 576.4 591.0 5

C 63.6 45.2 47.7 47.1 55.2 F 146.4 113.4 117.8 116.7 131.3 1

TLN R 579.4 546.4 550.9 549.8 564.3 5

C 48.8 30.4 32.9 32.3 40.4 F 119.8 86.7 91.2 90.1 104.6 1

PVX psia 0.01156 0.00326 0.03727 0.09816 0.14720 0.0

PVN psia 0.00421 0.00105 0.01450 0.04425 0.06904 0.0

Delta PV psia 0.00735 0.00221 0.02277 0.05391 0.07816 0.0
D-11 

Table D-8. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 43, 18, 42, 60, 61, 63, and 65 (

Tank 43 Tank 60 Tank 63 Tank 61 Tank 42 Tank 

Vented Vapor Saturation Factor, Ks 0.9932 0.9961 0.9744 0.9280 0.8998 0.STANDING LOSS lb/hr 0.1419 0.0852 0.5594 1.5752 2.0814 0.Turnover factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.KP 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.WORKING LOSS lb/hr 1.1229 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LOSS lb/hr 1.265 0.085 0.559 1.58 2.08 (1) Data in table from BP or calculated, except where noted. (2) From TCEQ. (3) Value based on historical averages for August in Galveston; actual data for test dates not available. (4) BP information indicates this tank was storing fuel oil #6; assumed characteristics for furnace oil approximate those of fuel oil #6. (5) Calculated using equations in Figure 7.1-15 of AP-42. (6) Assumed half full. (7) From TCEQ. Assumed bulk temperature that gives this result. (8) Elevated temperature reported by BP; not a calculated value. 
D-12 

Table D-9. AP-42 Modeling input Parameters for EFR Tanks 11 

and 12a

Parameters tank 11 tank 12 

Contents light 

naphtha 

light 

naphtha 

Diameter, ft 117 117 Volume Turnovers Color white white Condition Good Good Shell Lt rust Lt rust Construction Welded Welded Primary seal Mech shoe Mech shoe Secondary seal Rim 

mounted 

Rim 

mounted 

Deck pontoon pontoon Shell clingage factor (Cs) 0.0015 0.0015 Zero wind speed rim seal loss factor (KRA) 0.6 0.6 Wind speed dependent rim seal loss factor (KRB) 

0.4 0.4 

Seal-related wind speed exponent (n) 1 1 Tank paint solar absorptance factor (alpha) 0.17 0.17 Vapor pressure coefficients 

A 12.542 12.542 

 B 5590.15 5590.15  C Vapor molecular weight (MV) 92 92 Product factor (Kc) 1 1 Reid vapor pressure (RVP) 12.3 12.3 Liquid molecular weight (ML) 123 123 Slope of ASTM distillation curve (S) 0.77 0.77 Liquid density, lb/gal Atmospheric pressure (P), psia 14.703 14.703 City Galveston, 

TX 

Galveston, 

TX 

aMost of the data are from the TCEQ report, reference 8. Vapor pressure 

 coefficients are from BP, reference 3. Factors are from AP-42, reference 5. 

Table D-10. Wind Speeds Measured 

EFR Tanks 11 and 

Scan No. 

399 400 401 402 403 404 

Average 

aData are from Table 2.2 in reference 1. 
D-13 

Table D-11. Calculated Emissions From Fittings on EFR Tank 11 Using Conditions During DIAL 

Test 

 Scans

 399+

Fitting nfa KFA KFb m Ffi 

Vac Brk, gask 2 6.2 1.2 0.94 19.418 

Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 23.014 

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 8 2 0.37 0.91 24.365 

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 17 0.82 0.53 0.14 24.511 

Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.0463 

GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.53052 

Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 

Access Hatch, b/g 1 1.6 0 1 1.6 

 

 95.485 

 

 Emissions, lb/yrb

Vac Brk, gask 487.52 

Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 577.79 

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 611.71 

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 615.39 

Rim vent, wmag 51.376 

GH/SW, wma gask 13.319 

Auto gfw, u/u 0 

Access Hatch, b/g 80.340 

 

Total 2437.4 a

Data are from reference 1. 

b

Emissions estimated using AP-42 procedures, assuming conditions during the DIAL test applied all year. 
D-14 

Table D-12. Calculated Emissions From Fittings on EFR Tank 12 Using Conditions During DIAL 

Test 

 Scans 

 399+ 

Fitting nfa KFA KFb m Ffi 

Vac Brk, gask 2 6.2 1.2 0.94 19.418 

Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 23.014 

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 8 2 0.37 0.91 24.365 

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 17 0.82 0.53 0.14 24.511 

Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.0463 

GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.53052 

Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 

Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 

 97.085 

 Emissions, lb/yrb

Vac Brk, gask 487.52 

Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 577.79 

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 611.71 

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 615.39 

Rim vent, wmag 51.376 

GH/SW, wma gask 13.319 

Auto gfw, u/u 0 

Access Hatch, b/g 80.340 

Total 2437.4 a

Data are from reference 1. 

b

Emissions estimated using AP-42 procedures, assuming conditions during the DIAL test applied all year. 

Table D-13. Calculated Rim Seal and Withdrawal Emissions for EFR 

Tanks 11 and 12 When Using Conditions During the DIAL Test 

Scans Scans 399+ 

Scan date 8/8/2007 

Daily average ambient temperature (TAA), °R 543.12 

 (Aug data) 

Daily average ambient temperature, °F 83.45 

Liquid bulk temperature, °R 543.14 

Solar insolation factor (I), Btu/ft2·d 1736 

Average wind speed (v), mph 4.47 

Daily average liquid surface temperature (TLA), °R 545.46 

Daily average liquid surface temperature, °F 85.793 

Stock liquid temperature, °R NA 

Withdrawal rate during test, gal/hr 0 

True vapor pressure (Pva), psia 9.9055 

Vapor pressure function (P*) 0.2729 

Rim seal emissions, lb/yra 7,019 

Withdrawal emissions, lb/hr 0 a

Emissions estimated using AP-42 procedures, assuming conditions during the DIAL test applied all year. 
D-15 

Table D-14. Modeled Average Hourly Emissions From EFR Tank 98 During DIAL Test 

Scans Rim seal loss, lb/hr Fitting loss, lb/hr Withdrawal loss, lb/hr Total loss, lb/hr 

11 399+ 0.801 0.274 0.00 

12 399+ 0.801 0.278 0.00 

Table D-15. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 

54, 55, 56, and EFR Tank 98 

DIAL scans 

DIAL 

Emissions, 

lb/hr 

Modeled Range 

EIQ, Low EIQ, High 

Tanks clearly 

upwind of DIAL 

scans 

Other tanks that may 

Low, b/hr High, lb/hr be upwind 

Scans 382, 383, 384 2 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 43 

Scans 388, 389, 390 9.3 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 43 

Scans 399-404 9 0.6 9.1 4.6 NA 60, 63 11, 12, 18, 42, 61, 65

Upwind <1 4.7 11,12,18 

* Maybe others as well, depending on length of scan. 
D-16 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
E-1 

Appendix E 

Activated Sludge Unit Characteristics and Compound 

Properties Reported by BP 
E-2 

[This page intentionally left blank] 
E-3 

Table E-1. Activated Sludge Unit Parameters for WATER9 Modeling 

Unit Name Parameter WATER9 Input 

F-8 Activated Sludge Unit Wastewater Temperature (°C) 29 

Length of Aeration Unit (m) 56.8 

Width of Aeration Unit (m) 56.8 

Depth of Aeration Unit (m) 6.7 

Area of Agitation (each aerator, m2) 400 

Total Number of Agitators in the Unit 5 

Power of agitation (each aerator, HP) 150 

Impeller Diameter (cm) 274.32 

Impeller Rotation (RPM) 47 

Agitator Mechanical Efficiency 0.83 

Aerator Effectiveness, alpha 0.83 

If there is a plug flow, enter 1 0 

Overall Biorate (mg/g bio-hour) 19 

Aeration Air Flow (m3/s) 0.133 

Activated Sludge Biomass (g/l) 3 

If covered, then enter 1 0 

Agitator Pump Rate (m3/s each) 4 

 pH 7.25 
E-4 

Table E-2. Pollutant Properties in BP WATER9 Modeling 

Parameter 

Generic 

Organic 

Material Ammonia Benzene

Ethylbenzene MTBE Naphthalene Styrene Toluene 1,3,5-TMB Xylene Xylene (m-) X

Molecular Weight 100 17.03 78.11 106.2 83.1 128.2 104.2 92.4 120.2 106.2 106.2 Vapor Pressure, mmHg at 25°C 

25 7470 95.2 10 185.949 0.23 7.3 30 2.4 8.5 8 

Density 1 0.6818 0.874 0.87 0.97 1.14 0.9 0.87 1.02 1.02 0.86 Boiling Point (°C) 125 -33.4 80 136.2 64 218 145 110.7 163.037 140 139 Antoine's Coefficients, a 6.859312 7.55466 6.905048 6.975 6.85249 7.3729 6.945357 6.954 7.07436 7.940135 7.009 Antoine's Coefficients, b 1354.71 1002.711 1211.033 1424.255 1103.737 1968.36 1437.432 1344.8 1569.22 2090.317 1462.266 1Antoine's Coefficients, c 215.5096 247.885 220.7996 213.21 222.72 222.61 208.38 219.48 209.58 273.16 215.11 Henry's Law Constants MeasuredInd. Estim. DIPPR911 Yaws & Yang, 1992 

S 

Mackay & 

Shiu 1981 L S

Kartkopf 1973 

M S 

RTI Yaws & 

Yang, 1992 

S 

Yaws & Yang, 

1992 S 

Mackay & Shiu 

1981 L S 

Superfund Staudingner 

1996 L S 

D

K, (y/x) 25 °C 1 3.3799 308.33 437.807 34.722 66.693 150.149 356.67 326.794 389.684 413 2K, (y/x) 100 °C 10 0 1930 4270 267 710 1720 2100 1.13E+05 3786.025 3250 Dl (cm2/s) 9.57E-06 6.93E-05 1.02E-05 7.80E-06 1.05E-05 7.50E-06 8.00E-06 8.60E-06 8.67E-06 9.34E-06 7.80E-06 1Dv (cm2/s) 0.0782 0.259 0.088 0.075 0.1024 0.059 0.071 0.087 0.0602 0.0737 0.07 Solubility (ppmw) 210.297 4.82E+05 1796.573 152 3.66E+04 80.318 300 515 2 169.334 200 Hydrolysis Rate (l/s) 0 5.60E-10 0 0 5012 0 0 0 0 0.091 0.07 Log10 Octanol-Water 0 0.23 2.15 3.15 0.94 3.37 3.16 2.69 3.9997 3.15 3.2 Kmax (mg/g-hr) 19 19 19.1 6.8 17.56 42.47 31.1 73.48 31.1 40.8 31.1 K1 (l/g-hr) 1.1 0.043 120 2.1 0.712684 1 0.11 2.4 4.469394 1.8 2.219942 
E-5 

Table E-3. Default Pollutant Parameters in WATER9 that Differ from Values Used by BP 

Parameter 

Generic 

Organic Material Ammonia Benzene

Ethylbenzene MTBE Naphthalene Styrene Toluene 1,3,5-TMB Xylene Xylene (m-) 

Molecular Weight 88.13 Vapor Pressure, mmHg at 25 °C 

 250 

Density 0 Boiling Point (°C) 55.2 Antoine's Coefficients, a 0 Antoine's Coefficients, b 0 Antoine's Coefficients, c 0 K, (y/x) 25 °C K, (y/x) 100 °C 0 Dl (cm2/s) 0 Dv (cm2/s) 0 Solubility (ppmw) 8,000 1,790 0 Hydrolysis Rate (l/s) 0 0 Log10 Octanol-Water 2.13 Kmax (mg/g-hr) 0 K1 (l/g-hr) 0 1.4 
E-6 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
F-1 

Appendix F 

Flare Gas Flow and Composition Data and Estimated 

C3+ Controlled Emissions 
F-2 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
F-3 

Table F-1. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for Flare No. 6 

PV Label 

PV Name 

Eng Unit 

MW 

Agg Type 

Date 

TORCH 6 Sel 

Flow Valid 

Flow 

Mscf/hr 

1H 

Value 

CO2 

Carbon dioxide

mole% 

44.00 

1H 

Value 

C2H4

Ethylene 

mole% 

28.05 

1H 

Value 

C2H6

Ethane 

mole% 

30.07 

1H 

Value 

C2H2

Acetylene 

mole% 

26.04 

1H 

Value 

H2

Hydrogen 

mole% 

2.00 

1H 

Value 

O2 

Oxygen 

mole% 

16.00 

1H 

Value 

N2 

Nitrogen 

mole% 

28.00 

1H 

Value 

CH4

Methane 

mole% 

16.04 

1H 

Value 

7/30/2007 0:00 32.613 0.5167 0 3.4919 0 0 0 2.4815 83.108

7/30/2007 1:00 32.659 0.5240 0 3.1919 0 0 0 2.7656 83.404

7/30/2007 2:00 33.024 0.5219 0 3.5339 0 0 0 2.5172 83.719

7/30/2007 3:00 32.849 0.5346 0 3.4284 0 0 0 2.7949 83.913

7/30/2007 4:00 33.244 0.5274 0 3.2423 0 0 0 2.5329 84.571

7/30/2007 5:00 33.375 0.5243 0 3.7864 0 0 0 2.8356 83.813

7/30/2007 6:00 33.213 0.5310 0 3.4451 0 0 0 2.6267 85.817

7/30/2007 7:00 33.414 0.5420 0 3.5173 0 0 0 2.8172 84.213

7/30/2007 8:00 33.559 0.5307 0 3.7420 0 0 0 2.5639 84.135

7/30/2007 9:00 36.978 0.5473 0 3.2971 0 0 0 2.8269 84.343

7/30/2007 10:00 36.993 0.5419 0 3.9721 0 0 0 2.5949 83.547

7/30/2007 11:00 37.340 0.5739 0 3.3550 0 0 0 2.7906 83.456

7/30/2007 12:00 37.998 0.5578 0 3.8770 0 0 0 2.5959 81.844

7/30/2007 12:38 

7/30/2007 12:50 

7/30/2007 13:00 38.841 0.5412 0 3.7654 0 0 0 2.7985 81.345

7/30/2007 14:00 37.237 0.5399 0 3.4987 0 0 0 2.7660 81.306

7/30/2007 14:52 

7/30/2007 15:00 34.741 0.5419 0 3.0280 0 0 0 2.4746 81.636

7/30/2007 15:03 

7/30/2007 15:16 

7/30/2007 15:55 

7/30/2007 16:00 29.996 0.5448 0 3.2335 0 0 0 2.6417 80.973

7/30/2007 16:44 

7/30/2007 16:55 

7/30/2007 17:00 28.226 0.5178 0 3.1107 0 0 0 2.7176 80.639

7/30/2007 18:00 27.552 0.5292 0 3.2531 0 0 0 2.4881 80.541

7/30/2007 19:00 28.878 0.5113 0 3.6702 0 0 0 2.6654 79.337

7/30/2007 20:00 31.722 0.5105 0 3.2158 0 0 0 2.6222 80.469

7/30/2007 21:00 32.469 0.5151 0 2.9536 0 0 0 2.5825 81.729

7/30/2007 22:00 36.385 0.5089 0 2.8610 0 0 0 2.5745 81.999

7/30/2007 23:00 41.731 0.4765 0 2.9099 0 0.8263 0 4.2064 72.323

8/7/2007 0:00 34.180 1.1882 0 2.7139 0 1.2264 0.0248 5.2379 58.904

8/7/2007 0:25 

8/7/2007 0:44 

8/7/2007 1:00 33.356 1.1194 0 3.5409 0 0.3031 0.0249 2.9891 77.200

8/7/2007 1:02 

8/7/2007 2:00 33.004 1.1512 0 3.5855 0 0.1256 0.0187 2.8070 79.939

8/7/2007 3:00 33.334 1.1371 0 3.8070 0 0 0 2.4933 81.040

8/7/2007 4:00 33.042 1.1251 0 3.6424 0 0 0 2.7251 81.687

8/7/2007 5:00 32.606 1.1339 0 3.6343 0 0 0 2.5741 81.267

8/7/2007 5:52 

8/7/2007 6:00 32.566 1.1497 0 3.5395 0 0 0 2.7481 81.641

8/7/2007 6:10 

8/7/2007 7:00 32.500 1.1441 0 3.6443 0 0 0 2.5459 82.080

8/7/2007 8:00 32.987 1.1555 0 3.5984 0 0 0 2.6923 82.196

8/7/2007 9:00 37.572 1.1447 0 3.6552 0 0 0 2.5220 81.689

8/7/2007 10:00 36.969 1.1443 0 3.5430 0 0 0 2.7030 81.251

8/7/2007 11:00 36.691 1.1494 0 3.6207 0 0 0 2.5989 81.327

8/7/2007 12:00 36.988 1.1433 0 3.5452 0 0 0 2.6780 80.090

8/7/2007 13:00 36.495 1.1314 0 3.5726 0 0 0 2.5947 79.974

8/7/2007 14:00 35.027 1.1386 0 3.5755 0 0 0 2.6141 79.794

8/7/2007 15:00 31.459 1.1131 0 3.5789 0 0 0 2.5809 79.437

8/7/2007 16:00 27.497 1.1223 0 3.5161 0 0 0 2.5824 79.412

8/7/2007 17:00 25.604 1.1122 0 3.5750 0 0 0 2.5147 79.742

8/7/2007 18:00 27.845 1.1161 0 3.5969 0 0 0 2.6393 79.206

8/7/2007 19:00 30.275 1.0983 0 3.6399 0 0 0 2.5323 79.312

8/7/2007 20:00 32.742 1.1041 0 3.6949 0 0 0 2.6270 79.549

8/7/2007 21:00 33.908 1.0918 0 3.7181 0 0 0 2.5889 79.742

8/7/2007 22:00 33.774 1.0969 0 3.6234 0 0 0 2.5866 79.880

8/7/2007 23:00 34.009 1.0897 0 3.6466 0 0 0 2.4449 80.197
F-4 

Table F-1. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for Flare No. 6 (continued) 

PV Label 

PV Name 

Eng Unit 

MW 

Agg Type 

Date 

CO 

Carbon 

monoxide 

mole% 

28.00 

1H 

Value 

C3H8 

Propane 

mole% 

44.09 

1H 

Value 

C4H10 

Isobutane 

mole% 

58.12 

1H 

Value 

H2S

Hydrogen 

sulfide 

mole% 

34.00 

1H 

Value 

C4H10 

Butane 

mole% 

58.12 

1H 

Value 

C4H8 

1-Butene 

mole% 

56.10 

1H 

Value 

C4H8

trans 2-

Butene 

mole% 

56.10 

1H 

Value 

C4H8 

cis 2-Butene 

mole% 

56.10 

1H 

Value 

C4H6 

1,3-Butadiene 

mole% 

54.09 

1H 

Value 

7/30/2007 0:00 0 0.3462 0.3119 0 0.1497 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 1:00 0 0.3057 0.3015 0 0.1497 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 2:00 0 0.3213 0.3067 0 0.1497 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 3:00 0 0.3152 0.3214 0 0.1498 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 4:00 0 0.2996 0.3245 0 0.1498 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 5:00 0 0.3370 0.3204 0 0.1602 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 6:00 0 0.3342 0.2884 0 0.1593 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 7:00 0 0.3329 0.2746 0 0.1498 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 8:00 0 0.4079 0.2851 0 0.1498 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 9:00 0 0.3839 0.3225 0 0.1727 0.00208 0 0 0

7/30/2007 10:00 0 0.4992 0.3266 0 0.1747 0.00312 0 0 0

7/30/2007 11:00 0 0.4367 0.3140 0 0.1747 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 12:00 0 0.5277 0.2472 0 0.1745 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 12:38 

7/30/2007 12:50 

7/30/2007 13:00 0 0.7407 0.4291 0 0.2109 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 14:00 0 0.6073 0.3406 0 0.1682 0.00207 0 0 0

7/30/2007 14:52 

7/30/2007 15:00 0 0.4557 0.3197 0 0.1516 0.00520 0 0 0

7/30/2007 15:03 

7/30/2007 15:16 

7/30/2007 15:55 

7/30/2007 16:00 0 0.4233 0.3600 0 0.1494 0.00310 0 0 0

7/30/2007 16:44 

7/30/2007 16:55 

7/30/2007 17:00 0 0.4171 0.3829 0 0.1557 0.00311 0 0 0

7/30/2007 18:00 0 0.4618 0.3341 0 0.1494 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 19:00 0 0.5839 0.3682 0 0.1577 0.00311 0 0 0

7/30/2007 20:00 0 0.4971 0.3787 0 0.1598 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 21:00 0 0.3895 0.3770 0 0.1527 0.00830 0 0 0

7/30/2007 22:00 0 0.3115 0.3697 0 0.1620 0.00415 0 0 0

7/30/2007 23:00 0 8.3158 0.3426 0 0.1319 0.01243 0 0 0

8/7/2007 0:00 0 18.6166 0.2091 0 0.1170 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 0:25 

8/7/2007 0:44 

8/7/2007 1:00 0 3.5306 0.4991 0 0.1722 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 1:02 

8/7/2007 2:00 0 1.6714 0.3031 0 0.1495 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 3:00 0 0.8120 0.4892 0 0.1682 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 4:00 0 0.6327 0.3303 0 0.1496 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 5:00 0 0.6157 0.4569 0 0.1682 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 5:52 

8/7/2007 6:00 0 0.5837 0.3500 0 0.1558 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 6:10 

8/7/2007 7:00 0 0.5892 0.4499 0 0.1683 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 8:00 0 0.5756 0.3398 0 0.1746 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 9:00 0 0.6108 0.3781 0 0.1839 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 10:00 0 0.6137 0.4850 0 0.1952 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 11:00 0 0.7239 0.3416 0 0.1786 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 12:00 0 0.9502 0.4564 0 0.1971 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 13:00 0 0.7290 0.4086 0 0.1836 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 14:00 0 0.6554 0.3806 0 0.1732 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 15:00 0 0.6436 0.4602 0 0.1648 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 16:00 0 0.6155 0.4196 0 0.1679 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 17:00 0 0.6064 0.3743 0 0.1586 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 18:00 0 0.6114 0.4426 0 0.1534 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 19:00 0 0.6144 0.4009 0 0.1595 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 20:00 0 0.8314 0.3721 0 0.1576 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 21:00 0 0.8418 0.4044 0 0.1680 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 22:00 0 0.6075 0.4023 0 0.1742 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 23:00 0 0.6003 0.3971 0 0.1638 0 0 0 0
F-5 

Table F-1. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for Flare No. 6 (continued) 

PV Label 

PV Name 

Eng Unit 

MW 

Agg Type 

Date 

H2O 

Water 

mole% 

18.00 

1H 

Value 

C5 Plus 

mole% 

1H 

Value 

Propylene 

mole% 

42.08 

1H 

Value 

Assumed 

MW 

C5+ 

Calculated 

C3+ entering 

Flare 6, 

lb/hr 

Anticipated 

C3+ 

emissions, 

lb/hr 

(98% reduction) 

DIAL 

Emissions, 

lb/hr 

7/30/2007 0:00 0 9.5939 0 80 696.66 13.9 

7/30/2007 1:00 0 9.3576 0 80 679.29 13.6 

7/30/2007 2:00 0 8.9303 0 80 657.97 13.2 

7/30/2007 3:00 0 8.5423 0 80 628.09 12.6 

7/30/2007 4:00 0 8.3522 0 80 621.86 12.4 

7/30/2007 5:00 0 8.2233 0 80 617.00 12.3 

7/30/2007 6:00 0 6.7981 0 80 512.31 10.2 

7/30/2007 7:00 0 8.1528 0 80 609.70 12.2 

7/30/2007 8:00 0 8.0541 0.1311 80 613.73 12.3 

7/30/2007 9:00 0 8.0521 0.0520 80 675.35 13.5 

7/30/2007 10:00 0 8.2901 0.0499 80 699.48 14.0 

7/30/2007 11:00 0 8.8489 0.0499 80 746.47 14.9 

7/30/2007 12:00 0 10.1263 0.0499 80 862.19 17.2 

7/30/2007 12:38 3

7/30/2007 12:50 3

7/30/2007 13:00 0 10.1190 0.0499 80 903.36 18.1 3

7/30/2007 14:00 0 10.7217 0.0498 80 900.28 18.0 

7/30/2007 14:52 3

7/30/2007 15:00 0 11.3460 0.0415 80 877.42 17.5 

7/30/2007 15:03 11

7/30/2007 15:16 2

7/30/2007 15:55 3

7/30/2007 16:00 0 11.6341 0.0374 80 776.20 15.5 

7/30/2007 16:44 3

7/30/2007 16:55 4

7/30/2007 17:00 0 12.0058 0.0498 80 754.00 15.1 

7/30/2007 18:00 0 12.1714 0.0716 80 745.27 14.9 

7/30/2007 19:00 0 12.6739 0.0290 80 816.51 16.3 

7/30/2007 20:00 0 12.1030 0.0436 80 856.48 17.1 

7/30/2007 21:00 0 11.2540 0.0384 80 814.18 16.3 

7/30/2007 22:00 0 11.1670 0.0426 80 902.44 18.0 

7/30/2007 23:00 0 10.3817 0.0737 80 1352.73 27.1 

8/7/2007 0:00 0 11.7583 0.0041 80 1605.83 32.1 

8/7/2007 0:25 37

8/7/2007 0:44 22

8/7/2007 1:00 0 10.5955 0.0249 80 918.26 18.4 

8/7/2007 1:02 13

8/7/2007 2:00 0 10.2239 0.0249 80 800.24 16.0 

8/7/2007 3:00 0 10.0280 0.0249 80 771.61 15.4 

8/7/2007 4:00 0 9.6910 0.0166 80 725.15 14.5 

8/7/2007 5:00 0 10.1350 0.0145 80 752.69 15.1 

8/7/2007 5:52 18

8/7/2007 6:00 0 9.8261 0.0062 80 723.05 14.5 

8/7/2007 6:10 18

8/7/2007 7:00 0 9.3718 0.0062 80 696.23 13.9 

8/7/2007 8:00 0 9.2589 0.0093 80 693.14 13.9 

8/7/2007 9:00 0 9.8056 0.0104 80 837.16 16.7 

8/7/2007 10:00 0 10.0587 0.0062 80 850.14 17.0 

8/7/2007 11:00 0 10.0399 0.0197 80 838.55 16.8 

8/7/2007 12:00 0 10.8807 0.0591 80 929.90 18.6 

8/7/2007 13:00 0 11.3629 0.0435 80 941.19 18.8 

8/7/2007 14:00 0 11.6437 0.0249 80 918.30 18.4 

8/7/2007 15:00 0 11.9970 0.0249 80 851.24 17.0 

8/7/2007 16:00 0 12.1398 0.0249 80 749.84 15.0 

8/7/2007 17:00 0 11.8917 0.0249 80 682.39 13.6 

8/7/2007 18:00 0 12.2097 0.0249 80 763.66 15.3 

8/7/2007 19:00 0 12.2174 0.0249 80 829.24 16.6 

8/7/2007 20:00 0 11.6395 0.0249 80 863.60 17.3 

8/7/2007 21:00 0 11.4204 0.0249 80 881.30 17.6 

8/7/2007 22:00 0 11.6048 0.0249 80 881.96 17.6 

8/7/2007 23:00 0 11.4355 0.0249 80 874.86 17.5 
F-6 

Table F-2. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for the Temporary Flare 

Date 

Flare Header 

Flow Tag 

(High) 

MSCFH 

Flare Header 

Flow Tag 

(Low) 

MSCFH 

Carbon 

Dioxide 

44.00 

mole % 

Ethylene 

28.05 

mole % 

Ethane 

30.07 

mole % 

Acetylene 

26.04 

mole % 

Hydrogen 

2.00 

mole % 

Oxygen 

16.00 

mole % 

Nitrogen 

28.00 

mole % 

8/9/07 0:00 858 399.74 0.11 0.00 1.94 0.00 80.48 0.00 1.17 

8/9/07 1:00 859 399.74 0.11 0.00 1.96 0.00 80.24 0.03 1.24 

8/9/07 2:00 895 399.74 0.08 0.01 1.96 0.00 80.66 0.04 1.26 

8/9/07 3:00 892 399.77 0.04 0.01 1.89 0.00 82.05 0.03 1.15 

8/9/07 4:00 861 399.78 0.05 0.00 1.92 0.00 80.58 0.03 1.26 

8/9/07 5:00 877 399.78 0.04 0.01 1.95 0.00 80.38 0.03 1.14 

8/9/07 6:00 872 399.81 0.04 0.00 1.92 0.00 80.59 0.02 1.29 

8/9/07 7:00 898 399.81 0.04 0.00 1.96 0.00 80.31 0.03 1.32 

8/9/07 8:00 858 399.78 0.05 0.01 1.96 0.00 79.94 0.04 1.34 

8/9/07 9:00 859 399.76 0.04 0.00 1.95 0.00 79.87 0.04 1.30 

8/9/07 10:00 839 399.74 0.04 0.00 2.03 0.00 78.92 0.04 1.44 

8/9/07 11:00 855 399.72 0.04 0.01 1.99 0.00 79.21 0.04 1.43 

8/9/07 12:00 842 399.70 0.04 0.00 1.99 0.00 79.06 0.03 1.42 

8/9/07 13:00 839 399.70 0.04 0.01 2.00 0.00 78.73 0.03 1.46 

8/9/07 14:00 868 399.68 0.04 0.01 1.99 0.00 79.16 0.03 1.45 

8/9/07 15:00 856 399.67 0.04 0.01 1.98 0.00 79.67 0.00 1.11 

8/9/07 16:00 869 399.67 0.04 0.01 1.95 0.00 80.46 0.00 0.43 

8/9/07 17:00 804 399.64 0.04 0.01 2.38 0.00 77.27 0.00 0.39 

8/9/07 18:00 753 399.63 0.04 0.00 2.28 0.00 78.02 0.00 0.66 

8/9/07 19:00 753 399.65 0.04 0.00 2.21 0.00 78.20 0.00 1.15 

8/9/07 20:00 759 399.68 0.05 0.00 2.19 0.00 78.67 0.00 1.12 

8/9/07 21:00 767 399.70 0.08 0.00 2.12 0.00 79.27 0.00 1.07 

8/9/07 22:00 754 399.71 0.09 0.00 2.10 0.00 79.37 0.00 1.06 

8/9/07 23:00 772 399.72 0.10 0.00 2.07 0.00 79.61 0.00 1.08 

8/10/07 0:00 753 399.74 0.10 0.00 2.03 0.00 79.88 0.00 1.04 

8/10/07 1:00 758 399.74 0.10 0.00 2.04 0.00 79.80 0.00 1.05 

8/10/07 2:00 769 399.75 0.10 0.00 1.99 0.00 80.37 0.00 1.03 

8/10/07 3:00 756 399.78 0.10 0.00 2.01 0.00 79.87 0.00 1.06 

8/10/07 4:00 767 399.78 0.10 0.00 1.95 0.00 80.04 0.00 1.00 

8/10/07 5:00 769 399.78 0.09 0.00 1.96 0.00 80.21 0.00 0.96 

8/10/07 6:00 792 399.81 0.08 0.00 1.91 0.00 80.67 0.00 1.02 

8/10/07 7:00 778 399.81 0.08 0.00 1.90 0.00 80.61 0.00 1.05 

8/10/07 8:00 776 399.78 0.07 0.01 1.92 0.00 80.43 0.00 1.01 

8/10/07 9:00 765 399.76 0.07 0.01 1.91 0.00 80.41 0.01 0.94 

8/10/07 10:00 756 399.74 0.06 0.01 1.89 0.00 79.95 0.01 1.20 

8/10/07 11:00 761 399.70 0.05 0.01 1.91 0.00 80.00 0.00 1.13 

8/10/07 12:00 748 399.69 0.05 0.01 1.89 0.00 79.82 0.01 1.34 

8/10/07 13:00 748 399.67 0.04 0.00 1.90 0.00 79.84 0.01 1.22 

8/10/07 14:00 755 399.67 0.04 0.01 1.82 0.00 80.69 0.00 0.82 

8/10/07 15:00 743 399.66 0.04 0.01 1.81 0.00 80.34 0.00 0.87 

8/10/07 16:00 764 399.66 0.04 0.01 1.75 0.00 81.55 0.00 0.83 

8/10/07 17:00 756 399.63 0.05 0.01 1.78 0.00 81.66 0.00 0.84 

8/10/07 18:00 777 399.63 0.04 0.01 1.69 0.00 81.93 0.00 0.74 

8/10/07 19:00 773 399.64 0.04 0.00 1.69 0.00 81.34 0.00 0.75 

8/10/07 20:00 777 399.68 0.04 0.00 1.64 0.00 81.80 0.00 0.53 

8/10/07 21:00 767 399.70 0.04 0.00 1.77 0.00 80.89 0.00 0.20 

8/10/07 22:00 800 399.70 0.04 0.00 2.22 0.00 77.74 0.00 0.21 

8/10/07 23:00 825 399.71 0.04 0.00 1.85 0.00 80.71 0.00 0.25 

8/11/07 0:00 805 399.71 0.07 0.00 1.70 0.00 82.51 0.00 0.48 

8/11/07 1:00 779 399.74 0.09 0.00 1.69 0.00 82.09 0.00 0.53 

8/11/07 2:00 800 399.76 0.08 0.00 1.73 0.00 83.83 0.00 0.54 

8/11/07 3:00 834 399.78 0.08 0.01 1.70 0.00 84.27 0.00 0.54 

8/11/07 4:00 847 399.78 0.10 0.01 1.66 0.00 83.57 0.00 0.52 

8/11/07 5:00 839 399.78 0.10 0.01 1.67 0.00 83.95 0.00 0.51 

8/11/07 6:00 860 399.78 0.12 0.00 1.62 0.00 83.40 0.00 0.50 

8/11/07 7:00 873 399.78 0.12 0.00 1.65 0.00 83.21 0.00 0.51 

8/11/07 8:00 865 399.77 0.12 0.01 1.62 0.00 83.46 0.00 0.50 

8/11/07 9:00 845 399.74 0.12 0.01 1.64 0.00 83.09 0.00 0.50 

8/11/07 10:00 884 399.71 0.09 0.01 1.68 0.00 84.28 0.00 0.51 

8/11/07 11:00 904 399.69 0.09 0.01 1.70 0.00 84.22 0.00 0.49 

8/11/07 12:00 860 399.67 0.11 0.00 1.52 0.00 84.66 0.00 0.48 

8/11/07 13:00 858 399.65 0.14 0.00 1.65 0.00 82.92 0.00 0.50 

8/11/07 14:00 872 399.63 0.13 0.00 1.72 0.00 82.64 0.00 0.49 

8/11/07 15:00 893 399.63 0.10 0.00 1.70 0.00 84.11 0.00 0.49 

8/11/07 16:00 866 399.62 0.09 0.01 1.70 0.00 84.20 0.00 0.51 

8/11/07 17:00 891 399.60 0.10 0.01 1.71 0.00 83.85 0.00 0.45 

8/11/07 18:00 888 399.63 0.09 0.00 1.71 0.00 84.20 0.00 0.49 

8/11/07 19:00 906 399.66 0.09 0.00 1.72 0.00 83.79 0.00 0.51 

8/11/07 20:00 895 399.69 0.10 0.01 1.66 0.00 84.23 0.00 0.50 

8/11/07 21:00 922 399.70 0.10 0.00 1.67 0.00 84.03 0.00 0.53 

8/11/07 22:00 934 399.70 0.11 0.00 1.57 0.00 83.67 0.00 0.49 

8/11/07 23:00 915 399.73 0.11 0.00 1.61 0.00 82.82 0.00 0.51 

8/12/07 0:00 
F-7 

Table F-2. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for the Temporary Flare (continued) 

Date 

Methane 

16.04 

mole % 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

28.00 

mole % 

Propane 

44.09 

mole % 

Isobutane 

58.12 

mole % 

Hydrogen 

Sulfide 

34.00 

mole % 

Butane 

58.12 

mole % 

1-Butene/ 

Isobutylene 

56.10 

mole % 

Trans - 2 -

Butene 

56.10 

mole % 

Cis - 2 -

Butene 

56.10 

mole % 

8/9/07 0:00 6.84 0.00 2.68 1.33 0.00 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 1:00 6.90 0.01 2.70 1.35 0.00 1.19 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 2:00 6.64 0.01 2.71 1.34 0.00 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 3:00 5.63 0.00 2.64 1.30 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 4:00 6.70 0.01 2.65 1.33 0.00 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 5:00 7.20 0.00 2.67 1.32 0.00 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 6:00 7.13 0.00 2.62 1.29 0.00 1.14 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 7:00 7.20 0.00 2.68 1.32 0.00 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 8:00 7.12 0.01 2.71 1.35 0.00 1.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 9:00 7.23 0.01 2.68 1.35 0.00 1.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 10:00 7.29 0.01 2.80 1.43 0.00 1.29 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 11:00 7.25 0.00 2.72 1.37 0.00 1.23 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 12:00 7.19 0.01 2.74 1.39 0.00 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 13:00 7.17 0.00 2.75 1.40 0.00 1.28 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 14:00 7.17 0.00 2.69 1.33 0.00 1.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 15:00 7.19 0.00 2.67 1.31 0.00 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 16:00 7.17 0.00 2.63 1.28 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 17:00 8.77 0.00 3.19 1.53 0.00 1.36 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 18:00 8.38 0.00 3.06 1.47 0.00 1.29 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 19:00 8.12 0.00 2.96 1.42 0.00 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 20:00 8.04 0.00 2.90 1.37 0.00 1.21 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 21:00 7.96 0.00 2.80 1.31 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 22:00 7.91 0.00 2.79 1.29 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/9/07 23:00 7.87 0.00 2.75 1.26 0.00 1.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 0:00 7.77 0.00 2.70 1.24 0.00 1.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 1:00 7.69 0.00 2.72 1.26 0.00 1.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 2:00 7.65 0.00 2.63 1.19 0.00 1.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 3:00 7.53 0.00 2.71 1.27 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 4:00 7.51 0.00 2.65 1.24 0.00 1.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 5:00 7.56 0.01 2.65 1.21 0.00 1.09 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 6:00 7.52 0.00 2.56 1.15 0.00 1.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 7:00 7.43 0.00 2.58 1.17 0.00 1.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 8:00 7.49 0.01 2.60 1.17 0.00 1.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 9:00 7.45 0.00 2.60 1.17 0.00 1.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 10:00 7.41 0.00 2.59 1.22 0.00 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 11:00 7.40 0.00 2.60 1.21 0.00 1.14 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 12:00 7.30 0.00 2.61 1.20 0.00 1.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 13:00 7.38 0.01 2.61 1.19 0.00 1.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 14:00 7.31 0.00 2.51 1.14 0.00 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 15:00 7.10 0.01 2.52 1.19 0.00 1.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 16:00 7.10 0.00 2.39 1.09 0.00 0.92 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 17:00 7.05 0.00 2.44 1.11 0.00 0.94 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 18:00 6.70 0.01 2.32 1.05 0.00 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 19:00 7.48 0.00 2.30 1.04 0.00 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 20:00 7.38 0.00 2.26 1.04 0.00 0.86 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 21:00 8.14 0.00 2.40 1.10 0.00 0.91 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 22:00 9.37 0.00 2.98 1.37 0.00 1.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/10/07 23:00 8.48 0.00 2.54 1.15 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 0:00 9.55 0.00 2.32 1.05 0.00 0.81 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 1:00 10.80 0.00 2.29 1.06 0.00 0.83 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 2:00 9.37 0.00 2.40 1.13 0.00 0.89 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 3:00 9.18 0.00 2.32 1.07 0.00 0.83 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 4:00 9.98 0.00 2.26 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 5:00 9.60 0.00 2.26 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 6:00 10.39 0.00 2.16 1.01 0.00 0.78 0.01 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 7:00 10.44 0.00 2.20 1.04 0.00 0.81 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 8:00 10.22 0.00 2.19 1.04 0.00 0.81 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 9:00 10.48 0.00 2.23 1.07 0.00 0.84 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 10:00 9.11 0.00 2.32 1.11 0.00 0.89 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 11:00 9.22 0.00 2.31 1.08 0.00 0.86 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 12:00 9.40 0.00 2.07 0.98 0.00 0.77 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 13:00 10.64 0.00 2.21 1.07 0.00 0.85 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 14:00 10.84 0.00 2.26 1.06 0.00 0.84 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 15:00 9.36 0.00 2.28 1.08 0.00 0.85 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 16:00 9.12 0.00 2.32 1.13 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 17:00 9.60 0.00 2.30 1.10 0.00 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 18:00 9.21 0.00 2.30 1.10 0.00 0.86 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 19:00 8.80 0.01 2.34 1.14 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 20:00 9.23 0.00 2.27 1.11 0.00 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 21:00 9.32 0.00 2.28 1.14 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 22:00 10.23 0.00 2.11 1.02 0.00 0.78 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/11/07 23:00 10.81 0.00 2.18 1.09 0.00 0.85 0.02 0.00 0.00 

8/12/07 0:00 
F-8 

Table F-2. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for the Temporary Flare (continued) 

Date 

1,3 Butadiene 

54.09 

mole % 

Water 

18.00 

mole % 

Total C5+ 

mole % 

Propylene 

42.08 

mole % 

GC Calculated 

Net Heating 

Value 

btu/scf 

GC Calculated 

Molecular 

Weight 

mole % 

Backout MW 

of C5+ 

Temp Flare 

VOC entering 

(C3+), 

lb/hr 

Total C3+ in 

gas to temp 

flare, 

mole % 

Predicted Temp 

Flare Emissions @ 

99.8%, 

lb/hr 

8/9/07 0:00 0.00 0.00 4.24 0.00 600.69 9.69 79.48 13634.34 9.45 27.269 

8/9/07 1:00 0.00 0.00 4.25 0.00 602.53 9.77 79.70 13733.34 9.50 27.467 

8/9/07 2:00 0.00 0.00 4.12 0.00 596.16 9.62 79.76 14054.57 9.37 28.109 

8/9/07 3:00 0.00 0.00 4.10 0.00 585.10 9.32 79.69 13788.20 9.20 27.576 

8/9/07 4:00 0.00 0.01 4.26 0.00 599.33 9.67 79.42 13699.11 9.45 27.398 

8/9/07 5:00 0.00 0.00 4.08 0.00 597.29 9.60 80.06 13669.52 9.27 27.339 

8/9/07 6:00 0.00 0.00 3.94 0.00 588.28 9.43 79.84 13147.60 9.00 26.295 

8/9/07 7:00 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 592.59 9.53 79.62 13711.33 9.14 27.423 

8/9/07 8:00 0.00 0.00 4.26 0.00 604.76 9.83 79.86 13779.02 9.54 27.558 

8/9/07 9:00 0.00 0.00 4.32 0.00 606.10 9.83 79.12 13816.72 9.57 27.633 

8/9/07 10:00 0.00 0.00 4.68 0.00 626.99 10.34 79.51 14500.75 10.23 29.002 

8/9/07 11:00 0.00 0.00 4.70 0.00 622.32 10.24 79.83 14592.13 10.03 29.184 

8/9/07 12:00 0.00 0.00 4.85 0.00 628.22 10.37 79.53 14685.38 10.25 29.371 

8/9/07 13:00 0.00 0.00 5.10 0.00 637.42 10.61 79.75 15158.54 10.55 30.317 

8/9/07 14:00 0.00 0.00 4.89 0.00 626.57 10.34 79.84 15058.35 10.14 30.117 

8/9/07 15:00 0.00 0.00 4.84 0.00 622.70 10.15 79.55 14623.02 10.00 29.246 

8/9/07 16:00 0.00 0.00 4.87 0.00 623.06 9.93 79.44 14781.59 9.95 29.563 

8/9/07 17:00 0.00 0.00 5.02 0.00 668.02 10.90 79.56 15058.79 11.13 30.118 

8/9/07 18:00 0.00 0.00 4.76 0.00 649.23 10.56 79.57 13437.19 10.62 26.874 

8/9/07 19:00 0.00 0.00 4.61 0.00 635.33 10.42 79.55 13003.47 10.28 26.007 

8/9/07 20:00 0.00 0.00 4.41 0.00 624.03 10.16 79.63 12613.40 9.91 25.227 

8/9/07 21:00 0.00 0.00 4.21 0.00 611.02 9.87 79.68 12202.25 9.50 24.404 

8/9/07 22:00 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.00 609.23 9.83 79.63 11951.33 9.45 23.903 

8/9/07 23:00 0.00 0.00 4.12 0.00 603.06 9.72 79.73 12004.79 9.28 24.010 

8/10/07 0:00 0.00 0.00 4.09 0.00 599.36 9.62 79.65 11576.75 9.17 23.154 

8/10/07 1:00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00 603.41 9.71 79.59 11866.71 9.32 23.733 

8/10/07 2:00 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 588.97 9.39 79.46 11408.33 8.86 22.817 

8/10/07 3:00 0.00 0.01 4.26 0.00 604.79 9.75 79.31 11970.79 9.42 23.942 

8/10/07 4:00 0.00 0.00 4.38 0.00 605.65 9.75 79.60 12217.92 9.41 24.436 

8/10/07 5:00 0.00 0.00 4.22 0.00 599.50 9.60 79.77 11933.67 9.19 23.867 

8/10/07 6:00 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.00 586.69 9.34 79.65 11737.86 8.79 23.476 

8/10/07 7:00 0.00 0.00 4.12 0.00 589.97 9.41 79.42 11719.11 8.93 23.438 

8/10/07 8:00 0.00 0.00 4.23 0.00 595.04 9.52 79.65 11909.11 9.06 23.818 

8/10/07 9:00 0.00 0.00 4.37 0.01 599.43 9.59 79.41 11932.13 9.20 23.864 

8/10/07 10:00 0.00 0.00 4.47 0.00 606.25 9.82 79.43 12150.22 9.47 24.300 

8/10/07 11:00 0.00 0.00 4.54 0.00 608.52 9.84 79.72 12336.44 9.51 24.673 

8/10/07 12:00 0.00 0.00 4.66 0.00 609.16 9.93 79.30 12216.12 9.58 24.432 

8/10/07 13:00 0.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 611.31 9.94 79.53 12280.00 9.59 24.560 

8/10/07 14:00 0.00 0.00 4.66 0.00 603.25 9.64 79.51 12056.96 9.31 24.114 

8/10/07 15:00 0.00 0.00 5.09 0.00 619.10 10.01 79.68 12658.87 9.83 25.318 

8/10/07 16:00 0.00 0.00 4.30 0.00 583.67 9.21 79.88 11415.38 8.72 22.831 

8/10/07 17:00 0.00 0.00 4.10 0.00 579.25 9.09 79.54 11039.97 8.60 22.080 

8/10/07 18:00 0.00 0.00 4.61 0.00 587.43 9.28 79.72 11964.93 8.88 23.930 

8/10/07 19:00 0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 586.48 9.26 79.90 11628.43 8.69 23.257 

8/10/07 20:00 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 583.12 9.11 79.37 11528.61 8.61 23.057 

8/10/07 21:00 0.00 0.00 4.53 0.00 600.05 9.37 79.56 11822.29 8.96 23.645 

8/10/07 22:00 0.00 0.00 4.92 0.00 651.65 10.49 79.47 14114.37 10.42 28.229 

8/10/07 23:00 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.00 590.73 9.17 79.76 12081.26 8.65 24.163 

8/11/07 0:00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.00 498.82 7.17 80.80 7036.56 5.68 14.073 

8/11/07 1:00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 473.47 6.63 83.90 5250.22 4.72 10.500 

8/11/07 2:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 453.51 6.15 4734.53 4.44 9.469 

8/11/07 3:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 446.68 6.00 4699.65 4.24 9.399 

8/11/07 4:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 449.54 6.08 4692.85 4.16 9.386 

8/11/07 5:00 0.00 0.01 0.00 447.17 6.02 4641.26 4.16 9.283 

8/11/07 6:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 446.88 6.02 4544.65 3.97 9.089 

8/11/07 7:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.29 6.10 4729.29 4.07 9.459 

8/11/07 8:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 448.62 6.06 4681.49 4.06 9.363 

8/11/07 9:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 452.83 6.15 4688.32 4.16 9.377 

8/11/07 10:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 449.37 6.06 5118.76 4.34 10.238 

8/11/07 11:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 448.04 6.02 5148.18 4.27 10.296 

8/11/07 12:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 436.98 5.80 4388.33 3.82 8.777 

8/11/07 13:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 453.72 6.18 4765.48 4.16 9.531 

8/11/07 14:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 456.81 6.24 4860.99 4.18 9.722 

8/11/07 15:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 448.41 6.02 5047.32 4.24 10.095 

8/11/07 16:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.82 6.06 5057.53 4.37 10.115 

8/11/07 17:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 451.43 6.08 5095.85 4.29 10.192 

8/11/07 18:00 0.00 0.01 0.00 448.35 6.03 5073.14 4.28 10.146 

8/11/07 19:00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 469.25 6.51 71.32 6500.60 5.09 13.001 

8/11/07 20:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 448.31 6.03 5101.59 4.27 10.203 

8/11/07 21:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.84 6.10 5362.94 4.34 10.726 

8/11/07 22:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 445.16 5.98 4898.64 3.93 9.797 

8/11/07 23:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 454.19 6.18 5066.32 4.14 10.133 

8/12/07 0:00 
F-9 

Table F-3. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Data for the ULC Flare and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for Both the Temporary and ULC Flares 

Date

Flare Low Range 

Flow 

mscfh 

Flare High 

Range Flow 

mscfh 

Flare Gas 

Carbon Dioxide 

44.00 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Ethylene 

28.05 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Ethane 

30.07 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Acetylene 

26.04 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Hydrogen 

2.00 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Oxygen 

16.00 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Nitrogen 

28.00 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Methane 

16.04 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

28.00 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Propane 

44.09 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Isobutane 

58.12 

mole % 

8/9/07 0:00 56.03 0.00 0.80 0.03 2.26 0.00 13.30 0.17 34.95 46.75 0.00 0.52 0.13

8/9/07 1:00 56.05 0.00 0.78 0.03 2.18 0.00 13.29 0.17 35.06 46.82 0.00 0.52 0.13

8/9/07 2:00 55.99 0.00 0.80 0.03 2.16 0.00 13.28 0.17 35.09 46.82 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/9/07 3:00 56.95 0.00 0.78 0.03 2.30 0.00 13.29 0.18 35.38 46.40 0.00 0.52 0.13

8/9/07 4:00 55.27 0.00 0.78 0.04 2.19 0.00 13.54 0.18 35.42 46.23 0.00 0.53 0.13

8/9/07 5:00 55.51 0.00 0.78 0.03 2.27 0.00 13.69 0.18 35.68 45.68 0.00 0.55 0.15

8/9/07 6:00 57.05 0.00 0.78 0.03 1.89 0.00 13.64 0.18 35.99 45.73 0.00 0.55 0.16

8/9/07 7:00 60.09 0.00 0.75 0.03 1.57 0.00 14.14 0.17 37.80 43.47 0.00 0.64 0.21

8/9/07 8:00 63.23 0.00 0.63 0.31 2.01 0.00 18.49 0.17 37.04 38.25 0.00 1.13 0.33

8/9/07 8:50 

8/9/07 9:00 58.17 0.00 0.71 0.18 2.31 0.00 15.35 0.18 36.07 42.90 0.00 0.86 0.22

8/9/07 9:01 

8/9/07 9:15 

8/9/07 9:29 

8/9/07 9:43 

8/9/07 9:57 

8/9/07 10:00 56.89 0.00 0.79 0.06 2.16 0.00 13.59 0.16 34.92 46.53 0.00 0.56 0.15

8/9/07 10:11 

8/9/07 10:27 

8/9/07 10:57 

8/9/07 11:00 60.85 0.00 0.80 0.05 2.15 0.00 12.96 0.15 34.33 47.79 0.00 0.52 0.15

8/9/07 11:15 

8/9/07 12:00 59.88 0.00 0.77 0.04 2.11 0.00 12.85 0.15 34.90 47.36 0.00 0.48 0.15

8/9/07 13:00 63.48 0.00 0.77 0.03 2.05 0.00 12.63 0.14 34.67 47.94 0.00 0.45 0.13

8/9/07 14:00 62.09 0.00 0.80 0.03 2.28 0.00 12.80 0.15 35.20 46.87 0.00 0.51 0.14

8/9/07 14:17 

8/9/07 14:53 

8/9/07 15:00 140.93 108.07 0.79 0.03 1.86 0.00 10.85 0.16 48.57 35.85 0.00 0.45 0.13

8/9/07 15:11 

8/9/07 16:00 78.53 84.72 0.39 0.01 1.07 0.00 58.82 0.09 16.44 22.07 0.00 0.23 0.05

8/9/07 17:00 92.60 11.95 0.77 0.03 2.22 0.00 13.92 0.13 35.43 45.36 0.00 0.55 0.19

8/9/07 18:00 114.76 19.22 0.37 0.01 1.78 0.00 24.89 0.11 44.37 23.18 0.00 1.26 0.46

8/9/07 19:00 74.01 0.00 0.77 0.03 2.36 0.00 12.12 0.15 35.83 46.72 0.00 0.56 0.13

8/9/07 20:00 61.90 0.00 0.71 0.03 2.08 0.00 13.92 0.17 36.92 43.93 0.00 0.59 0.20

8/9/07 21:00 61.66 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.85 0.00 14.46 0.18 39.82 40.98 0.00 0.51 0.15

8/9/07 22:00 60.80 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.97 0.00 14.36 0.18 40.40 40.48 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/9/07 23:00 61.13 0.00 0.65 0.03 1.84 0.00 14.41 0.18 40.44 40.52 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 0:00 60.69 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.91 0.00 14.44 0.18 40.54 40.36 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 1:00 61.22 0.00 0.65 0.03 1.84 0.00 14.40 0.18 40.56 40.50 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 2:00 60.34 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.86 0.00 14.51 0.18 40.68 40.28 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 3:00 59.60 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.90 0.00 14.69 0.18 40.73 40.05 0.00 0.49 0.13

8/10/07 4:00 60.42 0.00 0.67 0.03 1.84 0.00 14.46 0.18 39.93 41.15 0.00 0.48 0.13

8/10/07 5:00 58.93 0.00 0.67 0.03 1.99 0.00 14.47 0.18 40.26 40.65 0.00 0.49 0.13

8/10/07 6:00 58.30 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.86 0.00 14.41 0.18 40.07 41.02 0.00 0.51 0.13

8/10/07 7:00 59.46 0.00 0.67 0.03 1.85 0.00 14.42 0.18 40.14 40.99 0.00 0.49 0.13

8/10/07 8:00 59.26 0.00 0.67 0.03 1.88 0.00 14.41 0.18 39.99 41.13 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 9:00 65.74 0.00 0.68 0.04 1.89 0.00 14.67 0.16 38.31 41.94 0.00 0.58 0.28

8/10/07 9:51 

8/10/07 10:00 60.96 0.00 0.89 0.03 2.26 0.00 12.22 0.15 31.14 49.23 0.00 0.82 0.81

8/10/07 10:12 

8/10/07 10:31 

8/10/07 10:40 

8/10/07 11:00 61.06 0.00 0.70 0.05 1.98 0.00 13.26 0.16 37.21 44.34 0.00 0.58 0.29

8/10/07 11:32 

8/10/07 12:00 65.28 0.00 0.66 0.04 1.84 0.00 13.90 0.16 38.23 42.95 0.00 0.53 0.27

8/10/07 12:01 

8/10/07 12:29 

8/10/07 13:00 67.42 0.00 0.74 0.04 1.98 0.00 12.88 0.08 32.55 46.65 0.00 0.90 1.12

8/10/07 13:11 

8/10/07 13:30 

8/10/07 13:45 

8/10/07 14:00 65.73 0.00 0.89 0.03 2.40 0.00 10.46 0.12 29.53 51.18 0.00 0.87 1.03

8/10/07 15:00 64.00 0.00 0.74 0.03 1.96 0.00 12.48 0.15 36.71 45.44 0.00 0.51 0.26

8/10/07 15:23 

8/10/07 15:42 

8/10/07 16:00 63.73 0.00 0.75 0.03 1.95 0.00 13.20 0.15 36.33 44.79 0.00 0.58 0.30

8/10/07 16:01 

8/10/07 16:28 

8/10/07 17:00 66.57 0.00 0.71 0.03 2.05 0.00 13.54 0.15 38.01 43.12 0.00 0.52 0.22

8/10/07 18:00 103.42 95.26 0.75 0.03 1.83 0.00 13.31 0.15 35.89 45.09 0.00 0.63 0.43

8/10/07 19:00 200.00 324.07 1.23 0.01 3.09 0.00 7.42 0.03 11.68 73.86 0.00 0.83 0.47

8/10/07 20:00 200.00 510.32 1.39 0.00 2.99 0.00 5.53 0.03 11.63 77.53 0.00 0.47 0.07

8/10/07 21:00 200.00 379.32 1.07 0.00 2.65 0.00 31.40 0.01 4.52 59.56 0.00 0.36 0.04

8/10/07 22:00 200.00 252.55 1.46 0.00 3.01 0.00 3.12 0.09 7.76 83.62 0.00 0.52 0.08

8/10/07 23:00 200.00 248.81 1.15 0.00 2.10 0.00 9.89 0.14 18.19 66.39 0.00 0.84 0.20

8/11/07 0:00 200.00 297.89 1.41 0.00 3.52 0.00 3.19 0.03 7.43 83.42 0.00 0.65 0.09

8/11/07 1:00 200.00 295.31 1.39 0.00 2.53 0.00 2.93 0.03 6.89 85.59 0.00 0.31 0.06

8/11/07 2:00 200.00 291.31 1.54 0.00 2.41 0.00 2.88 0.03 7.07 85.61 0.00 0.23 0.05

8/11/07 3:00 200.00 289.26 1.48 0.00 3.36 0.00 2.83 0.03 7.12 84.67 0.00 0.30 0.04

8/11/07 4:00 200.00 288.73 1.40 0.00 3.14 0.00 3.01 0.04 7.57 84.21 0.00 0.38 0.05

8/11/07 5:00 200.00 288.62 1.52 0.00 4.07 0.00 2.96 0.04 7.13 83.51 0.00 0.43 0.05

8/11/07 6:00 200.00 294.17 1.42 0.00 2.73 0.00 2.88 0.05 7.20 85.13 0.00 0.31 0.05

8/11/07 7:00 200.00 161.04 1.47 0.00 3.38 0.00 3.50 0.14 9.36 81.52 0.00 0.29 0.05

8/11/07 8:00 200.00 140.40 1.35 0.00 3.32 0.00 4.38 0.15 11.46 78.52 0.00 0.37 0.06

8/11/07 9:00 200.00 140.82 1.40 0.00 2.70 0.00 4.27 0.15 11.44 79.29 0.00 0.34 0.06

8/11/07 10:00 200.00 144.40 1.34 0.00 3.39 0.00 4.78 0.15 12.38 76.77 0.00 0.43 0.15

8/11/07 11:00 200.00 142.48 1.34 0.00 2.63 0.00 4.27 0.15 11.38 78.68 0.00 0.41 0.26

8/11/07 11:30 

8/11/07 11:40 

8/11/07 12:00 178.32 72.47 1.33 0.00 2.83 0.00 4.86 0.15 13.40 76.26 0.00 0.36 0.13

8/11/07 12:21 

8/11/07 12:53 

8/11/07 13:00 152.50 33.91 1.19 0.00 3.22 0.00 6.34 0.08 17.96 69.38 0.00 0.46 0.20

8/11/07 13:12 

8/11/07 13:32 

8/11/07 14:00 153.68 32.83 1.21 0.00 2.38 0.00 6.13 0.15 17.56 71.18 0.00 0.35 0.09

8/11/07 15:00 154.48 30.11 1.27 0.00 2.80 0.00 6.33 0.15 17.22 71.00 0.00 0.32 0.08

8/11/07 16:00 153.64 29.19 1.23 0.00 2.69 0.00 6.34 0.15 17.14 71.22 0.00 0.33 0.08

8/11/07 17:00 160.91 43.12 1.28 0.00 2.62 0.00 6.30 0.15 17.11 71.31 0.00 0.38 0.08

8/11/07 17:21 

8/11/07 17:46 

8/11/07 18:00 178.30 69.54 1.28 0.00 3.58 0.00 5.39 0.15 14.79 73.70 0.00 0.39 0.07

8/11/07 19:00 174.11 70.88 1.27 0.00 2.61 0.00 5.30 0.15 14.45 75.10 0.00 0.38 0.08

8/11/07 20:00 173.40 72.06 1.35 0.00 3.11 0.00 5.48 0.15 14.74 74.06 0.00 0.43 0.10

8/11/07 21:00 173.62 70.97 1.31 0.00 3.35 0.00 5.33 0.15 14.27 73.96 0.00 0.52 0.18

8/11/07 22:00 195.08 133.80 1.34 0.00 2.90 0.00 4.80 0.15 13.01 76.39 0.00 0.44 0.16

8/11/07 23:00 200.00 149.47 1.41 0.00 3.37 0.00 4.13 0.14 10.84 79.13 0.00 0.43 0.08

8/12/07 0:00 
F-10 

Table F-3. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Data for the ULC Flare and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for Both the Temporary and ULC Flares (continued) 

Date

Flare Gas 

Hydrogen 

Sulfide 

34.00 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Butane 

58.12 

mole % 

Flare Gas 1-

Butene/ 

Isobutylene 

56.10 

mole % 

Flare Gas Trans 

- 2 -Butene 

56.10 

mole % 

Flare Gas Cis - 2 

-Butene 

56.10 

mole % 

Flare Gas 1,3 

Butadiene 

54.09 

mole % 

Flare Gas Water 

18.00 

mole % 

Flare Gas Total 

C5+ 

mole % 

Flare Gas 

Propylene 

42.08 

mole % 

Flare ULC NHV 

hourly avg 

Btu/scf 

Flare Gas GC 

Calcd 

Molecular 

Weight 

MW 

Backout MW of 

C5+ 

ULC Flare VOC 

entering (C3+), 

lb/hr 

8/9/07 0:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.03 542.33 19.77 84.51 168.82

8/9/07 1:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.03 540.49 19.74 86.19 163.04

8/9/07 2:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.03 539.00 19.72 84.63 158.53

8/9/07 3:00 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.03 536.08 19.72 80.31 153.57

8/9/07 4:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.03 534.50 19.72 87.55 155.19

8/9/07 5:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.03 532.91 19.76 83.63 160.12

8/9/07 6:00 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.03 523.52 19.78 83.42 169.89

8/9/07 7:00 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.03 512.85 20.07 90.55 219.24

8/9/07 8:00 0.09 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.19 0.08 522.19 19.77 83.57 310.27

8/9/07 8:50 

8/9/07 9:00 0.06 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.05 537.29 19.77 81.60 212.03

8/9/07 9:01 

8/9/07 9:15 

8/9/07 9:29 

8/9/07 9:43 

8/9/07 9:57 

8/9/07 10:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.03 544.07 19.77 90.41 180.77

8/9/07 10:11 

8/9/07 10:27 

8/9/07 10:57 

8/9/07 11:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.03 548.70 19.77 86.62 189.97

8/9/07 11:15 

8/9/07 12:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 550.74 19.81 78.58 182.87

8/9/07 13:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.03 549.74 19.90 90.14 209.02

8/9/07 14:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.03 536.49 19.90 78.66 193.82

8/9/07 14:17 

8/9/07 14:53 

8/9/07 15:00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.03 423.18 21.73 76.45 450.87

8/9/07 15:11 

8/9/07 16:00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 433.45 10.52 68.98 154.36

8/9/07 17:00 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.03 521.67 19.84 75.14 321.65

8/9/07 18:00 0.02 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.97 0.02 499.23 20.91 80.94 1072.23

8/9/07 19:00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.04 523.63 20.18 81.82 257.51

8/9/07 20:00 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.04 523.67 20.07 79.56 229.06

8/9/07 21:00 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.03 496.21 20.25 83.07 215.98

8/9/07 22:00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.03 490.48 20.25 79.48 194.61

8/9/07 23:00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.03 489.03 20.25 81.51 200.53

8/10/07 0:00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.03 487.70 20.30 85.83 201.46

8/10/07 1:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.03 486.25 20.30 88.13 203.94

8/10/07 2:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.03 483.64 20.30 89.21 198.40

8/10/07 3:00 0.07 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.03 485.11 20.23 85.47 185.98

8/10/07 4:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.03 489.27 20.23 94.56 199.21

8/10/07 5:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.03 488.89 20.23 87.42 184.99

8/10/07 6:00 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.03 488.28 20.17 85.47 180.52

8/10/07 7:00 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.03 487.31 20.13 83.19 175.49

8/10/07 8:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.03 489.09 20.13 85.76 175.58

8/10/07 9:00 0.13 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.03 560.06 20.15 82.47 251.35

8/10/07 9:51 

8/10/07 10:00 0.25 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.03 586.22 20.59 83.21 408.71

8/10/07 10:12 

8/10/07 10:31 

8/10/07 10:40 

8/10/07 11:00 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.03 532.18 20.32 89.52 249.16

8/10/07 11:32 

8/10/07 12:00 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.03 536.75 20.27 87.18 256.75

8/10/07 12:01 

8/10/07 12:29 

8/10/07 13:00 0.29 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 0.03 648.02 20.99 79.32 551.11

8/10/07 13:11 

8/10/07 13:30 

8/10/07 13:45 

8/10/07 14:00 0.39 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 0.07 650.25 21.35 84.51 587.68

8/10/07 15:00 0.11 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.03 554.91 20.60 94.73 303.72

8/10/07 15:23 

8/10/07 15:42 

8/10/07 16:00 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.03 541.23 20.58 93.17 329.81

8/10/07 16:01 

8/10/07 16:28 

8/10/07 17:00 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.03 529.02 20.49 90.43 294.47

8/10/07 18:00 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.03 636.82 20.36 81.76 506.18

8/10/07 19:00 0.25 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.01 790.81 18.29 78.46 1250.98

8/10/07 20:00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.01 736.32 17.80 73.80 635.06

8/10/07 21:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 738.49 13.22 86.89 499.37

8/10/07 22:00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 810.50 17.70 70.60 326.23

8/10/07 23:00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.01 777.09 18.44 84.33 877.41

8/11/07 0:00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 803.49 17.84 127.38 493.63

8/11/07 1:00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 830.92 17.51 106.90 319.70

8/11/07 2:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 830.32 17.45 83.26 207.62

8/11/07 3:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 830.80 17.63 101.96 249.72

8/11/07 4:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 835.34 17.63 99.53 282.75

8/11/07 5:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 837.45 17.86 114.73 391.30

8/11/07 6:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 825.47 17.65 139.41 362.80

8/11/07 7:00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 806.57 17.86 97.83 211.26

8/11/07 8:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 790.31 18.13 122.09 321.32

8/11/07 9:00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 783.80 17.95 96.41 255.14

8/11/07 10:00 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 793.38 18.22 80.45 365.74

8/11/07 11:00 0.14 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 793.05 18.33 92.14 520.92

8/11/07 11:30 

8/11/07 11:40 

8/11/07 12:00 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 766.06 18.35 98.52 367.29

8/11/07 12:21 

8/11/07 12:53 

8/11/07 13:00 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 738.90 18.84 72.91 393.43

8/11/07 13:12 

8/11/07 13:32 

8/11/07 14:00 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 730.11 18.77 105.87 404.12

8/11/07 15:00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 734.75 18.77 110.75 407.77

8/11/07 16:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.01 734.99 18.63 97.22 365.91

8/11/07 17:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 746.06 18.52 80.43 333.82

8/11/07 17:21 

8/11/07 17:46 

8/11/07 18:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 759.87 18.52 94.40 366.10

8/11/07 19:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 760.14 18.27 81.41 320.48

8/11/07 20:00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 766.90 18.32 73.05 296.79

8/11/07 21:00 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 776.91 18.58 81.26 449.59

8/11/07 22:00 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 791.37 18.38 84.94 456.21

8/11/07 23:00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 797.24 18.17 112.10 365.62

8/12/07 0:00 
F-11 

Table F-3. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Data for the ULC Flare and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for Both the Temporary and ULC Flares (continued) 

Date 

Total HC entering ULC 

flare, lb/hr 

Total flare gas mass, 

lb/hr 

Approx. steam 

addition rate, lb/hr 

Steam-to-HC ratio, 

lb/lb 

Steam-to-total flare 

gas, lb/lb 

Downwind DIAL 

Emissions Data Both 

Flares C3+ (lb/hr) DIAL Temp Flare Only Windspeed, m/s 

Temp Flare VOC 

entering (C3+) (From 

Table F-2), 

lb/hr 

Combined VOC from 

Temp Flare and ULC 

Flare (C3+), 

lb/hr 

8/9/07 0:00 1378.59 2918.15 20000 14.5 6.9 13,634 13,803 

8/9/07 1:00 1371.81 2914.31 20000 14.6 6.9 13,733 13,896 

8/9/07 2:00 1364.96 2907.30 20000 14.7 6.9 14,055 14,213 

8/9/07 3:00 1377.09 2958.74 20000 14.5 6.8 13,788 13,942 

8/9/07 4:00 1334.12 2870.84 20000 15.0 7.0 13,699 13,854 

8/9/07 5:00 1334.32 2889.42 20000 15.0 6.9 13,670 13,830 

8/9/07 6:00 1360.67 2972.51 20000 14.7 6.7 13,148 13,317 

8/9/07 7:00 1400.98 3182.72 20000 14.3 6.3 13,711 13,931 

8/9/07 8:00 1449.35 3318.86 20000 13.8 6.0 13,779 14,089 

8/9/07 8:50 76

8/9/07 9:00 1382.54 3046.29 20000 14.5 6.6 13,817 14,029 

8/9/07 9:01 100 1.8 

8/9/07 9:15 127 1.8 

8/9/07 9:29 129 1.5 

8/9/07 9:43 50 1.2 

8/9/07 9:57 56 0.6 

8/9/07 10:00 1400.91 2964.31 20000 14.3 6.7 14,501 14,682

8/9/07 10:11 243 1.7 

8/9/07 10:27 164 1.3 

8/9/07 10:57 43 1.3 

8/9/07 11:00 1526.83 3170.32 20000 13.1 6.3 14,592 14,782

8/9/07 11:15 374 3 

8/9/07 12:00 1485.03 3122.82 20000 13.5 6.4 14,685 14,868

8/9/07 13:00 1601.30 3324.00 20000 12.5 6.0 15,159 15,368

8/9/07 14:00 1539.16 3255.41 20000 13.0 6.1 15,058 15,252

8/9/07 14:17 126 4.1 

8/9/07 14:53 243 4.4 

8/9/07 15:00 2799.30 8073.26 20000 7.1 2.5 14,623 15,074

8/9/07 15:11 181 4.4 

8/9/07 16:00 1018.16 2111.33 20000 19.6 9.5 14,782 14,936

8/9/07 17:00 2264.13 4839.83 20000 8.8 4.1 15,059 15,380

8/9/07 18:00 2361.58 6348.69 20000 8.5 3.2 13,437 14,509

8/9/07 19:00 1860.81 3941.31 20000 10.7 5.1 13,003 13,261

8/9/07 20:00 1483.56 3275.20 20000 13.5 6.1 12,613 12,842

8/9/07 21:00 1376.87 3284.49 20000 14.5 6.1 12,202 12,418

8/9/07 22:00 1332.30 3238.23 20000 15.0 6.2 11,951 12,146

8/9/07 23:00 1339.27 3256.01 20000 14.9 6.1 12,005 12,205

8/10/07 0:00 1331.36 3239.99 20000 15.0 6.2 11,577 11,778

8/10/07 1:00 1343.78 3268.20 20000 14.9 6.1 11,867 12,071

8/10/07 2:00 1317.23 3220.35 20000 15.2 6.2 11,408 11,607

8/10/07 3:00 1287.08 3168.42 20000 15.5 6.3 11,971 12,157

8/10/07 4:00 1340.50 3211.67 20000 14.9 6.2 12,218 12,417

8/10/07 5:00 1292.87 3133.77 20000 15.5 6.4 11,934 12,119

8/10/07 6:00 1279.81 3092.57 20000 15.6 6.5 11,738 11,918

8/10/07 7:00 1295.25 3146.26 20000 15.4 6.4 11,719 11,895

8/10/07 8:00 1296.69 3136.30 20000 15.4 6.4 11,909 12,085

8/10/07 9:00 1518.54 3488.09 20000 13.2 5.7 11,932 12,183

8/10/07 9:51 567 3.8 

8/10/07 10:00 1789.76 3330.75 20000 11.2 6.0 12,150 12,559

8/10/07 10:12 159 2.7 

8/10/07 10:31 172 3.1 

8/10/07 10:40 190 3.1 

8/10/07 11:00 1492.96 3271.94 20000 13.4 6.1 12,336 12,586

8/10/07 11:32 142 3 

8/10/07 12:00 1540.67 3484.97 20000 13.0 5.7 12,216 12,473

8/10/07 12:01 95 2.6 

8/10/07 12:29 102 3 

8/10/07 13:00 1989.85 3759.39 20000 10.1 5.3 12,280 12,831

8/10/07 13:11 169 3.3 

8/10/07 13:30 209 3.2 

8/10/07 13:45 24 3.1 

8/10/07 14:00 2137.84 3732.59 20000 9.4 5.4 12,057 12,645

8/10/07 15:00 1635.46 3474.09 20000 12.2 5.8 12,659 12,963

8/10/07 15:23 57 2.4 

8/10/07 15:42 191 3.2 

8/10/07 16:00 1638.28 3460.03 20000 12.2 5.8 11,415 11,745

8/10/07 16:01 36

8/10/07 16:28 80

8/10/07 17:00 1618.89 3592.92 20000 12.4 5.6 11,040 11,334

8/10/07 18:00 2631.66 5560.25 20000 7.6 3.6 11,965 12,471

8/10/07 19:00 12176.38 15825.97 50000 4.1 3.2 11,628 12,879

8/10/07 20:00 18591.76 24095.21 50000 2.7 2.1 11,529 12,164

8/10/07 21:00 10859.98 12756.16 50000 4.6 3.9 11,822 12,322

8/10/07 22:00 9867.49 11906.30 50000 5.1 4.2 14,114 14,441

8/10/07 23:00 8283.21 12216.18 20000 2.4 1.6 12,081 12,959

8/11/07 0:00 11842.52 14197.50 46000 3.9 3.2 7,037 7,530

8/11/07 1:00 11608.67 13705.09 46000 4.0 3.4 5,250 5,570

8/11/07 2:00 11319.91 13446.18 46000 4.1 3.4 4,735 4,942

8/11/07 3:00 11386.12 13508.41 46000 4.0 3.4 4,700 4,949

8/11/07 4:00 11292.66 13508.45 46000 4.1 3.4 4,693 4,976

8/11/07 5:00 11524.85 13703.32 46000 4.0 3.4 4,641 5,033

8/11/07 6:00 11598.90 13760.77 46000 4.0 3.3 4,545 4,907

8/11/07 7:00 7646.93 9458.11 46000 6.0 4.9 4,729 4,941

8/11/07 8:00 7494.51 9607.67 20000 2.7 2.1 4,681 5,003

8/11/07 9:00 7394.35 9505.79 20000 2.7 2.1 4,688 4,943

8/11/07 10:00 7402.07 9667.65 20000 2.7 2.1 5,119 5,484

8/11/07 11:00 7597.17 9722.02 20000 2.6 2.1 5,148 5,669

8/11/07 11:30 301

8/11/07 11:40 311

8/11/07 12:00 6522.77 8662.04 20000 3.1 2.3 15 4,388 4,756

8/11/07 12:21 4

8/11/07 12:53 1

8/11/07 13:00 5260.90 7610.47 20000 3.8 2.6 4,765 5,159

8/11/07 13:12 88

8/11/07 13:32 244

8/11/07 14:00 5323.84 7625.55 20000 3.8 2.6 4,861 5,265

8/11/07 15:00 5393.28 7659.33 20000 3.7 2.6 5,047 5,455

8/11/07 16:00 5325.10 7562.14 20000 3.8 2.6 5,058 5,423

8/11/07 17:00 5524.18 7882.05 20000 3.6 2.5 5,096 5,430

8/11/07 17:21 326

8/11/07 17:46 311

8/11/07 18:00 6433.80 8744.64 20000 3.1 2.3 5,073 5,439

8/11/07 19:00 6215.13 8423.36 20000 3.2 2.4 6,501 6,821

8/11/07 20:00 6158.73 8420.31 20000 3.2 2.4 5,102 5,398

8/11/07 21:00 6345.02 8568.67 20000 3.2 2.3 5,363 5,813

8/11/07 22:00 7211.91 9512.44 20000 2.8 2.1 4,899 5,355

8/11/07 23:00 7597.79 9646.37 20000 2.6 2.1 5,066 5,432

8/12/07 0:00 
F-12 

Table F-3. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Data for the ULC Flare and Estimated Controlled 

Emissions for Both the Temporary and ULC Flares (continued) 

Date 

Anticipated C3+ Emissions (assuming 98% reduction), lb/hr Estimated Temp flare C3+ emissions 

(assuming 99.8% reduction) 

(From Table F-2), 

lb/hr 

Combined C3+ emissions assuming 99.8% reduction in temp flare 

and the following reduction in ULC flare, lb/hr 

From ULC 

flare 

From Temp 

flare 

From both

flares 50% 90% 

8/9/07 0:00 3.376 272.69 276.06 27.27 111.68 44.15

8/9/07 1:00 3.261 274.67 277.93 27.47 108.99 43.77

8/9/07 2:00 3.171 281.09 284.26 28.11 107.38 43.96

8/9/07 3:00 3.071 275.76 278.84 27.58 104.36 42.93

8/9/07 4:00 3.104 273.98 277.09 27.40 104.99 42.92

8/9/07 5:00 3.202 273.39 276.59 27.34 107.40 43.35

8/9/07 6:00 3.398 262.95 266.35 26.30 111.24 43.28

8/9/07 7:00 4.385 274.23 278.61 27.42 137.04 49.35

8/9/07 8:00 6.205 275.58 281.79 27.56 182.70 58.59

8/9/07 8:50 

8/9/07 9:00 4.241 276.33 280.58 27.63 133.65 48.84

8/9/07 9:01 

8/9/07 9:15 

8/9/07 9:29 

8/9/07 9:43 

8/9/07 9:57 

8/9/07 10:00 3.615 290.02 293.63 29.00 119.38 47.08

8/9/07 10:11 

8/9/07 10:27 

8/9/07 10:57 

8/9/07 11:00 3.799 291.84 295.64 29.18 124.17 48.18

8/9/07 11:15 

8/9/07 12:00 3.657 293.71 297.37 29.37 120.81 47.66

8/9/07 13:00 4.180 303.17 307.35 30.32 134.83 51.22

8/9/07 14:00 3.876 301.17 305.04 30.12 127.02 49.50

8/9/07 14:17 

8/9/07 14:53 

8/9/07 15:00 9.017 292.46 301.48 29.25 254.68 74.33

8/9/07 15:11 

8/9/07 16:00 3.087 295.63 298.72 29.56 106.74 45.00

8/9/07 17:00 6.433 301.18 307.61 30.12 190.94 62.28

8/9/07 18:00 21.445 268.74 290.19 26.87 562.99 134.10

8/9/07 19:00 5.150 260.07 265.22 26.01 154.76 51.76

8/9/07 20:00 4.581 252.27 256.85 25.23 139.76 48.13

8/9/07 21:00 4.320 244.04 248.36 24.40 132.39 46.00

8/9/07 22:00 3.892 239.03 242.92 23.90 121.21 43.36

8/9/07 23:00 4.011 240.10 244.11 24.01 124.27 44.06

8/10/07 0:00 4.029 231.54 235.56 23.15 123.88 43.30

8/10/07 1:00 4.079 237.33 241.41 23.73 125.70 44.13

8/10/07 2:00 3.968 228.17 232.13 22.82 122.02 42.66

8/10/07 3:00 3.720 239.42 243.14 23.94 116.93 42.54

8/10/07 4:00 3.984 244.36 248.34 24.44 124.04 44.36

8/10/07 5:00 3.700 238.67 242.37 23.87 116.36 42.37

8/10/07 6:00 3.610 234.76 238.37 23.48 113.74 41.53

8/10/07 7:00 3.510 234.38 237.89 23.44 111.18 40.99

8/10/07 8:00 3.512 238.18 241.69 23.82 111.61 41.38

8/10/07 9:00 5.027 238.64 243.67 23.86 149.54 49.00

8/10/07 9:51 

8/10/07 10:00 8.174 243.00 251.18 24.30 228.66 65.17

8/10/07 10:12 

8/10/07 10:31 

8/10/07 10:40 

8/10/07 11:00 4.983 246.73 251.71 24.67 149.25 49.59

8/10/07 11:32 

8/10/07 12:00 5.135 244.32 249.46 24.43 152.81 50.11

8/10/07 12:01 

8/10/07 12:29 

8/10/07 13:00 11.022 245.60 256.62 24.56 300.12 79.67

8/10/07 13:11 

8/10/07 13:30 

8/10/07 13:45 

8/10/07 14:00 11.754 241.14 252.89 24.11 317.95 82.88

8/10/07 15:00 6.074 253.18 259.25 25.32 177.18 55.69

8/10/07 15:23 

8/10/07 15:42 

8/10/07 16:00 6.596 228.31 234.90 22.83 187.73 55.81

8/10/07 16:01 

8/10/07 16:28 

8/10/07 17:00 5.889 220.80 226.69 22.08 169.31 51.53

8/10/07 18:00 10.124 239.30 249.42 23.93 277.02 74.55

8/10/07 19:00 25.020 232.57 257.59 23.26 648.75 148.35

8/10/07 20:00 12.701 230.57 243.27 23.06 340.59 86.56

8/10/07 21:00 9.987 236.45 246.43 23.64 273.33 73.58

8/10/07 22:00 6.525 282.29 288.81 28.23 191.34 60.85

8/10/07 23:00 17.548 241.63 259.17 24.16 462.87 111.90

8/11/07 0:00 9.873 140.73 150.60 14.07 260.89 63.44

8/11/07 1:00 6.394 105.00 111.40 10.50 170.35 42.47

8/11/07 2:00 4.152 94.69 98.84 9.47 113.28 30.23

8/11/07 3:00 4.994 93.99 98.99 9.40 134.26 34.37

8/11/07 4:00 5.655 93.86 99.51 9.39 150.76 37.66

8/11/07 5:00 7.826 92.83 100.65 9.28 204.93 48.41

8/11/07 6:00 7.256 90.89 98.15 9.09 190.49 45.37

8/11/07 7:00 4.225 94.59 98.81 9.46 115.09 30.58

8/11/07 8:00 6.426 93.63 100.06 9.36 170.02 41.49

8/11/07 9:00 5.103 93.77 98.87 9.38 136.94 34.89

8/11/07 10:00 7.315 102.38 109.69 10.24 193.11 46.81

8/11/07 11:00 10.418 102.96 113.38 10.30 270.76 62.39

8/11/07 11:30 

8/11/07 11:40 

8/11/07 12:00 7.346 87.77 95.11 8.78 192.42 45.51

8/11/07 12:21 

8/11/07 12:53 

8/11/07 13:00 7.869 95.31 103.18 9.53 206.25 48.87

8/11/07 13:12 

8/11/07 13:32 

8/11/07 14:00 8.082 97.22 105.30 9.72 211.78 50.13

8/11/07 15:00 8.155 100.95 109.10 10.09 213.98 50.87

8/11/07 16:00 7.318 101.15 108.47 10.12 193.07 46.71

8/11/07 17:00 6.676 101.92 108.59 10.19 177.10 43.57

8/11/07 17:21 

8/11/07 17:46 

8/11/07 18:00 7.322 101.46 108.78 10.15 193.20 46.76

8/11/07 19:00 6.410 130.01 136.42 13.00 173.24 45.05

8/11/07 20:00 5.936 102.03 107.97 10.20 158.60 39.88

8/11/07 21:00 8.992 107.26 116.25 10.73 235.52 55.68

8/11/07 22:00 9.124 97.97 107.10 9.80 237.90 55.42

8/11/07 23:00 7.312 101.33 108.64 10.13 192.94 46.69

8/12/07 0:00 

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

Publication N