EPA/600/R-09/132

October 2009 

Measurement of Emissions from Produced Water Ponds: 

Upstream Oil and Gas Study #1 

Final Report 
 

EPA/600/R-09/132

October 2009 

Measurement of Emissions from Produced Water Ponds: 

Upstream Oil and Gas Study #1
 

Final Report 

by 

Eben Thoma 

Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 
Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

List of Appendices ii
 

List of Tables iii
 

List of Figures vii
 

List of Acronyms ix
 

Executive Summary xi
 

1. Introduction 1
 

1.1	 Background 1
 

1.2	 Phase 1 Project and Report Description 2
 

2. Description of Test Sites and Measurement Methods 5
 

2.1	 The Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel Test Sites 5
 

2.2	 Description of EPA OTM 10 Measurements 9
 

2.3	 OP-FTIR VOC Analysis and Calculation of Estimated VOC Flux 13
 

2.4	 Description of SUMMA Canister Measurements 16
 

2.5	 Description of Water Sampling 17
 

3. Results and Discussion 21
 

3.1	 Results Summary Approach 21
 

3.2	 AM Flux Summary for the Williams Rulison Facility 23
 

3.3	 AM Flux Summary for the EnCana Benzel Facility 29
 

3.4	 Results of OP-FTIR VOC Concentration Analysis and Estimated VOC 

Fluxes Using Ratio Method 34
 

3.5	 Results of Canister Measurements 39
 

3.6	 Summary of Water Analysis Results 52
 

4. Summary 57
 

5. Quality Assurance/Quality Control 59
 

5.1	 Instrument Calibration 59
 

5.2	 Assessment of DQI Goals 59
 

i 
5.2.1	 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement 61
 

5.2.2	 DQI Checks for TO-15 Can Measurements 62
 

5.2.3	 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction 
 

Measurements 62
 

5.2.4	 DQI Checks for the Topcon Theodolite 62
 

5.2.5	 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance 63
 

5.2.6	 Difficulties Encountered 63
 

5.3 Estimate of Uncertainty for OT M 10 Emission Measurements 64
 

5.4 EPA and ARCADIS Audits and Corrective Actions	 68
 

6. References 69

List of Appendices 

Appendix A: OTM 10 Alkane Mixture Flux Values 

Appendix B: ERG SUMMA Canister Data 

Appendix C: EPA R8 Water Analysis 

Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

List of Tables 

Table E-1. Summary of AM Emission Flux Results from William Rulison and EnCana 

Benzel Sites xii 

Table E-2. Summary of Estimated select VOC Emission Rates from William Rulison 

and EnCana Benzel Sites xii 

Table 2-1. Optical Configuration Details for the Williams Facility Setup 11 

Table 2-2. Optical Configuration Details for the EnCana Facility Setup 11 

Table 2-3. Instrument Operation Time Periods for the EPA OTM 10 Method 13 

Table 2-4. Periods of OP-FTIR VOC Analysis 14 

Table 2-5. Detection Limits for Optimal OP-FTIR Setup with Clean, Fully Populated 

Retroreflector Arrays 15 

Table 2-6. Periods of SUMMA Canister/ OP-FTIR VOC Analysis 16 

Table 2-7. SUMMA Canisters Deployed at the Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel 

Facilities 18 

Table 3-1. Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the 

Configuration used at the Williams Rulison Facility on August 6, 2008 24 

Table 3-2. Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the 

Configuration used at the Williams Rulison Facility on August 7, 2008 25 

Table 3-3. Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the 

Configuration used at the Williams Rulison Facility on August 8, 2008 26 

Table 3-4. Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the 

Configuration used at the Williams Rulison Facility on August 9, 2008 27 

Table 3-5. Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results(g/s) for the 

Configuration used at the EnCana Benzel Facility on August 12, 2008 30 

Table 3-6. Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the 

Configuration used at the EnCana Benzel Facility on August 13, 2008 31 

Table 3-7. Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the 

Configuration used at the EnCana Benzel Facility on August 14, 2008 32 

Table 3-8. Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the 

Configuration used at the EnCana Benzel Facility on August 15, 2008 33 

Table 3-9. Summary of OP-FTIR VOC Concentration Determinations (concentrations 

in ppb) 35 

Table 3-10. Summary of OP-FTIR VOC to AM Mass Concentration Ratio Calculations 37 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-11. Summary of the Average Mass Concentration Ratios of VOC to Alkane 

Mixture, for the Williams and EnCana sites 38 

Table 3-12. Estimated Emission Flux Values (g/s) of select VOCs from the Williams and 

EnCana Sites 38 

Table 3-13. Comparison of Canister and OP-FTIR Results 39 

Table 3-14. Summary Canister Summary from the Williams and EnCana Sites 41 

Table 3-15. Summary Water Analysis from the Williams Site 55 

Table 3-16. Summary Water Analysis from the EnCana Site 55 

Table 4-1. AM Emission Flux Results from William Rulison and EnCana Benzel Sites 57 

Table 4-2. Summary of Estimated VOC Emission Rates (in grams per second) from 

William Rulison and EnCana Benzel Sites 58 

Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description 60 

Table 5-2. Measurement Quality Objectives for the Project 60 

Table 5-3. Results of Flux Values Calculated by the VRPM Fit Explorer Program With 

a Fixed Peak Plume Concentration Location and Varying Values of the σy 

Parameter 66 

Table 5-4. Results of Flux Values Calculated by the VRPM Fit Explorer Program with a 

Fixed σy Parameter and Varying Peak Plume Concentration Locations 67 

Table A-1. Relative Absorption Factor (AF) of Select Hydrocarbon Species in the 

2804.2 cm-1 to 3001.2 cm-1 Spectral Range (values are normalized to nOctane) A-7 

Table A-2. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 6, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-14 

Table A-3. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 6, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-15 

Table A-4. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 6, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-16 

Table A-5. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 6, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-17 

Table A-6. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 7, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-18 

Table A-7. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 7, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-21 

Table A-8. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 7, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-24 

iv 
Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-9.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 7, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-27 

Table A-10.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 8, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-30 

Table A-11.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 8, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-32 

Table A-12.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 8, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-34 

Table A-13.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 8, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-36 

Table A-14.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 9, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-38 

Table A-15.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 9, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-40 

Table A-16.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 9, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-42 

Table A-17.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 9, 2008 at the 

Williams Rulison Facility A-44 

Table A-18.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 12, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-47 

Table A-19.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 12, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-49 

Table A-20.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 12, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-51 

Table A-21.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 12, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-54 

Table A-22.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 13, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-57 

Table A-23.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 13, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-61 

Table A-24.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 13, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-66 

Table A-25.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 13, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-69 

Table A-26.	 Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 14, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-72 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-27. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 14, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-76 

Table A-28. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 14, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-80 

Table A-29. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 14, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-83 

Table A-30. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 15, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-86 

Table A-31. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 15, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-88 

Table A-32. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 15, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-90 

Table A-33. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 15, 2008 at the 

EnCana Benzel Facility A-92 

vi 
List of Figures 

Figure 2-1.	 Williams Rulison Facility 6
 

Figure 2-2	 Details of the Site Layout for Williams Rulison Facility 7
 

Figure 2-3.	 EnCana Benzel Facility 8
 

Figure 2-4.	 Four Corner Configuration 10
 

Figure 2-5.	 Location of Water Sampling Points at the Williams Facility 19
 

Figure 2-6.	 Location of Water Sampling Points at the EnCana Facility 20
 

Figure 3-1.	 Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 6, 2008 at the Williams 

Rulison Facility 24
 

Figure 3-2.	 Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 7, 2008 at the Williams 

Rulison Facility 25
 

Figure 3-3.	 Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 8, 2008 at the Williams 

Rulison Facility 26
 

Figure 3-4.	 Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 9, 2008 at the Williams 

Rulison Facility 27
 

Figure 3-5.	 Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 12, 2008 at the EnCana 

Benzel Facility 30
 

Figure 3-6.	 Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 13, 2008 at the EnCana 

Benzel Facility 31
 

Figure 3-7.	 Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 14, 2008 at the EnCana 

Benzel Facility 32
 

Figure 3-8.	 Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 15, 2008 at the EnCana 

Benzel Facility 33
 

Figure 3-9.	 Summary of Downwind Canisters SNMOC Analysis for the Williams Facility 42
 

Figure 3-10.	 Summary of Downwind Canisters SNMOC Analysis for the EnCana Facility 43
 

Figure 3-11.	 Williams 8/7/08, Canister TNAPC11 and OP-FTIR Path E4. 45
 

Figure 3-12.	 Williams 8/8/08, Canisters 648 and 926 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E4 and 

Canister 3639A Compared to OP-FTIR Path A1 46
 

Figure 3-13.	 Williams 8/9/08, Canister ER047 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E4 and 

Canisters ER038 and ER001 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A1 47
 

Figure 3-14.	 EnCana 8/12/08, Canister ER029 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 48
 

Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

vii 
Figure 3-15.	 EnCana 8/13/08, Canister 3255 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 and 
 

Canisters ER043 and 444 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 49
 

Figure 3-16.	 EnCana 8/13/08, Canister TNAPC20 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 and 
 

Canisters 3254 and 167601 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 50
 

Figure 3-17.	 EnCana 8/14/08, Canister ER061 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 and 

Canisters ER064 and ER069 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 51
 

Figure 3-18.	 EnCana 8/14/08, Canister 15280 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 and 
 

Canisters 988 and 3248 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 53
 

Figure 3-19.	 EnCana 8/15/08, Canister ER021 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A1 and 

Canisters ER085 and ER114 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 54
 

Figure A-1.	 Comparison of the Absorption Bands of Several Species in the C-H Stretch 

Region A-4

Figure A-2.	 Summa Canister SNMOC Analysis Showing Compound Distribution 
 

(Section 3.5) A-8
 

Figure A-3.	 Estimation of Contribution to AM Band, SNMOC Result Multiplied by AF A-9
 

Figure A-4.	 Normalized Concentration vs. Molecular Weight for the Distribution of 

Figure A-3 A-10
 

Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

viii 
 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

List of Acronyms 

AM Alkane Mixture 

CCF Concordance Correlation Factor 

DQI Data Quality Indicator(s) 

ECPB Emissions Characterization and Prevention Branch 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

GC-MS Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy 

MDL Minimum detection limit 

MCR Mass Concentration Ratio 

N OUT North Pond Outlet 

OAQPS EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OP-FTIR Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

ORS Optical Remote Sensing 

OTM 10 EPA ORS Test Method OTM 10 

PAC Path averaged concentration 

PI Principal Investigator 

PIC Path integrated concentration 

QA Quality Assurance 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

QC Quality Control 

RSD Relative Standard Deviation 

S South 

S OUT South Pond Outlet 

SNMOC Speciated non-methane organic compounds 

SOP Standard Operating Procedures 

SP IN Skim Pond Inlet 

SP OUT Skim Pond Outlet 

SSE Sum of Squared Errors 

AM Alkane Mixture 

TAM Time Averaging Method 

TO Toxic Organic 

UOGEM1 Upstream Oil and Gas Emission Measurement study, Phase 1 

VOA Volatile Organics Analysis 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VRPM Vertical Radial Plume Mapping 

ix 
Table of Contents 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

x 
 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Executive Summary 

Significant uncertainty exists regarding air pollutant emissions from upstream oil and 

gas production operations. Oil and gas operations present unique and challenging 

emission testing issues due to the large variety and quantity of potential emission 

sources. To improve emission knowledge for this sector, a project team with 

representatives from United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), EPA Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) and their contractors, EPA Region 8, and the states of Colorado 

and Wyoming was formed and is working to define and execute a multi-phased 

research effort. This report summarizes Phase I of the effort, which helps address an 

immediate need of EPA Region 8 and states to improve understanding of volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions from oil and gas produced water evaporation 

ponds. Phase I field measurements focused on a subset of VOCs that are commonly 

found in oil and gas production operations and are quantifiable using area source 

measurement method EPA OTM 10 (EPA, 2006) and related techniques. This subset 

includes mixture of alkanes, benzene, toluene, xylenes, methanol, and methane. 

This report presents emission flux estimates from the holding evaporation ponds at the 

Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel facilities in Western Colorado acquired August 6-

9 and 12-15, 2008, respectively. The primary measurement approach was EPA OTM 

10 using two open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) instruments deployed 

around the ponds to provide mass emission flux estimates for an alkane mixture (AM) 

by spectroscopic analysis of the infrared absorption features in the C-H stretch spectral 

region around 2900 cm-1. The AM was chosen for analysis since it was robustly 

quantifiable by the utilized methodology whereas other species of interest were 

frequently below detection limits of the OP-FTIRs so could not be used for standard 

OTM 10 flux measurements. Estimates of emission flux for select VOCs, which were 

quantifiable by OP-FTIR using time averaging techniques, were also produced. These 

estimates utilized a VOC to AM mass concentration ratio calculation determined when 

the AM concentrations were relatively high. 

Table E-1 presents a summary of the AM emission flux results from the two sites. The 

values in the table represent the average of all valid 20-minute AM flux estimates 

calculated over a four-day period at each site with standard deviation in parenthesis 

and number of values indicated. The uncertainty estimate for the individual flux 

measurements comprising this average is estimated at ± 40%. The uncertainty in the 

overall average is likely driven by the temporal variability in the source emissions. 

xi 
 

 

Executive Summary 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

 

Table E-1. Summary of AM Emission Flux Results from William Rulison and EnCana 

Benzel Sites 

Site Source Average AM Flux 

[g/s] 

Number of 

Values 

Williams Evaporation Pond 0.20 (0.33) 27 

Williams Skim Pond 0.90 (0.58) 15 

EnCana Evaporation Pond 0.07 (0.06) 65 

Table E-2 presents a summary of emission flux estimates for select VOCs produced 

using a mass concentration ratio technique. For this estimate, the compound to AM 

mass concentration ratio and AM emission flux results for similar time periods were 

utilized to produce the emission rates estimate. The values of Table E-2 include 

underlying uncertainty in AM flux measurement average in addition to significant VOC 

to AM concentration ratio uncertainty so the values should be considered estimates. 

Table E-2.	 Summary of Estimated select VOC Emission Rates from William Rulison and 

EnCana Benzel Sites 

Site Source Area Benzene 

(g/s) 

Toluene 

(g/s) 

m-Xylene 

(g/s) 

o-Xylene 

(g/s) 

p-Xylene 

(g/s) 

Methanol 

(g/s) 

Methane 

(g/s) 

Williams Evaporation Pond 0.018 0.040 0.016 0.040 0.020 0.001 0.017 

Williams Skim Pond 0.078 0.181 0.072 0.182 0.088 0.006 0.074 

EnCana Evaporation Pond 0.029 0.023 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.002 0.007 

To provide supporting information, the concentration of the AM and select VOCs were 

determined using one-hour SUMMA canister sampling deployed at positions around 

the ponds. The canisters were analyzed with EPA Method TO-15 and SNMOC 

analysis and were compared to OP-FTIR measurements for similar time periods. 

Additionally, water samples were taken during the campaign and these results are 

included as supporting information. 

Note that the emission estimates presented in this report represent a snapshot in time 

consisting of day-time observations over consecutive four-day periods at each facility 

during the month of August. Diurnal and seasonal effects in addition to changing 

process variables were not evaluated as part of this study. Since these variables may 

have a significant effect on emissions, extrapolation of the results contained in this 

report involves significant uncertainty. As a specific example, methanol-water 

concentrations are known to vary seasonally so the emission data contained in this 

report is may not be typical. 

xii 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Background 

EPA Region 8 and, in particular the State of Colorado, is home to numerous oil and gas 

production operations (also called upstream operations). In recent years, Colorado has seen 

ozone levels that exceed national ambient air quality standards with levels increasing at 

several sites. It is thought that emissions of volatile organic carbon (VOC) ozone precursor 

compounds from upstream oil and gas operations may contribute in part to these 

exceedance episodes. With the continued increase in oil and gas production operations 

coupled with new lowered ozone standards, the potential for exceedance episodes may 

increase. Emissions of VOCs including hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) is a general concern 

to the public and press prompting regular inquiries to the affected state agencies and Region 

8. In addition to air quality issues, emissions from upstream oil and gas operations include a 

significant proportion of methane which is a potent greenhouse gas and could become a key 

concern if regulating agencies moves to greenhouse gas emissions quantification, reporting 

and control. 

Significant uncertainty exists regarding air pollutant emissions from upstream oil and gas 

production operations which start with well completion and work-over activities, to well-site 

operations through to midstream production and waste handling. Models exist to estimate 

emissions from some of these emission sources such as: amine units, glycol dehydrators 

and oil/condensate storage tanks. These modeled emissions represent only a fraction of the 

emissions and may underestimate these emissions from oil and gas production activities. 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is currently conducting a project to 

compare modeled emissions from condensate tanks to actual emission measurements. 

Development and application of tools to quantify both VOC and methane emissions would 

help the regulatory community, citizens, and industry better assess emission contributions 

from upstream oil and gas operations in Colorado, the other states in Region 8, and in 

Region 6 which also has the same concerns. Data collected in our field testing can be used 

to develop a more robust inventory of oil and gas operation emissions from which mitigation 

options can be quantified and compared. This can ultimately lead to more effective control of 

ozone precursors and greenhouse gases and protection of air quality. 

Oil and gas fields provide very unique and challenging testing issues due to their large 

variety and quantity of emissions sources. For example, one 30 mile by 15 mile section of 

Garfield County in Colorado contains over 3,000 well sites and Weld County in Colorado 

contains over 20,000 well sites. Producing oil or gas well sites each require various 

combinations of supporting process equipment such as separators, dehydrators, generators, 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

natural gas powered pneumatic devices, injection wells, heaters, compressors/engines, 

storage tanks, land farms, and produced water ponds. In addition to all these potential 

emissions sources, there are also a variety of activities such as well drilling, well completion, 

well work-over, and loading/unloading of oil/produced water into trucks which have the 

potential to generate organic emissions. There is little or no data regarding the emissions 

from most of these sources and activities. 

A project team with representatives from EPA OAQPS, EPA ORD and their contractors, EPA 

Region 8, and the states of Colorado and Wyoming are working to define and execute a 

multi-phased research effort to address this important issue. Phase I of the of the upstream 

oil and gas emissions measurement program (UOGEM1) helps address the immediate need 

of Region 8 and states to improve understanding of VOC emissions from oil and gas 

produced water evaporation ponds (produced water generally refers to water that this coemitted with oil and gas as part of the production process). These emissions data will help 

stakeholders increase understanding regarding the accuracy of their emission inventories 

and further residual risk knowledge and potential environmental impact of this source 

category. This report may also provide a basis for future protocols for testing this source 

category. 

1.2 Phase 1 Project and Report Description 

Phase I of UOGEM1 involved a two-week testing project designed to improve understanding 

of VOC emissions from oil and gas produced water evaporation ponds. The field campaign 

was conducted at the Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel facilities in Western Colorado 

from August 6-9 and 12-15, 2008 respectively. The measurement campaign focused on a 

subset of VOCs that are commonly found in oil and gas production operations and are 

quantifiable using EPA area source method OTM 10 and related techniques. This subset 

includes mixture of alkanes, benzene, toluene, xylenes, methanol, and methane. 

This report presents emission flux estimates from the holding evaporation ponds at the 

Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel facilities in Western Colorado acquired August 6-9 and 

12-15, 2008, respectively. The primary measurement approach was OTM 10 using two 

open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) instruments deployed in a four corners 

configuration to provide mass emission flux estimates for an alkane mixture (AM) by 

spectroscopic analysis of the infrared absorption features in the C-H stretch spectral region 

around 2900 cm-1. The AM, further described in Appendix A, was chosen for analysis since it 

was robustly quantifiable by the utilized methodology whereas other species of interest were 

frequently below detection limits of the OP-FTIRs so could not be used for standard OTM 10 

flux measurements. Estimates of emission flux for select VOCs, which were quantifiable by 

2 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

OP-FTIR using time averaging techniques, were also produced. These estimate utilized a 

VOC to AM mass concentration ratio calculation based on the AM flux data for similar time 

periods. These estimates were produced when AM concentrations were relatively high. To 

provide supporting information, the concentration of an estimated AM along with select 

speciated VOCs were determined using SUMMA canister sampling with EPA Method TO-15 

and SNMOC analysis. These results were compared to the OP-FTIR measurements to help 

inform overall results. Water samples from the ponds were also acquired and analyzed to 

help support the overall study. 

Section 2 of the report provides a description of the Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel 

facilities, information of the measurement methods used, and the location of the 

measurement configurations used at each site. Section 3 presents the results of the OTM 10 

AM flux surveys conducted at each site along with supporting canister and water sampling 

information. Section 4 presents a summary of the findings, and Section 5 discusses quality 

assurance/quality control of the measurements and uncertainty extimations. 

Appendix A presents information on the AM calculation and the OTM 10 measurements 

collected during the campaign. Appendix B contains the results of the SUMMA canister 

analysis and Appendix C contains the results of the water analysis. 

The Phase 1 project was conducted by ARCADIS U.S., Inc. (ARCADIS), Durham, NC, under 

EPA ORD contract No. EP-C-04-023, Work Assignment No. 4-49. ARCADIS executed the 

field campaign, analyzed the OP-FTIR and OTM 10 data, and produced data tables and 

descriptions in Section 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and AM concentration data tables in Appendix A. 

ARCADIS provided parts of Section 5, contributed to the descriptions in Section 2, and 

provided wind direction summaries included Section 3.5. The Summa canister laboratory 

analysis contained in Appendix B was performed by Eastern Research Group Inc., 

Morrisville, NC under subcontract to ARCADIS. 

EPA Personnel were primary authors on the body and summary sections of the report, 

produced the canister and water data summary analyses and comparative descriptions and 

graphs of Section 3.5 and 3.6, the uncertainty discussion and simulations in Section 5, and 

the AM descriptions and graphs in Appendix A. The water analysis contained in Appendix C 

was performed by EPA Region 8. 

This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research & Development, U.S. EPA, and 

approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the 

views and policies of the agency nor does mention of trade names or commercial products 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

3 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

4 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

2. Description of Test Sites and Measurement Methods 

The following section describes the two test sites and the utilized measurement methods. 

Section 2.1 describes the Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel facilities and shows the 

layout of each site. Section 2.2 describes the EPA OTM 10, Vertical Radial Plume Mapping 

(VRPM) method used to assess mass emission flux of the alkane mixture (AM) from the 

sites. Section 2.3 describes emission flux estimates for select VOCs that were quantifiable 

by OP-FTIR using extended time averaging techniques. Section 2.4 describes the 

supporting SUMMA canister concentration measurements made at each of the ponds. 

Section 2.5 describes supplemental water sampling activities conducted on site. Detailed 

information on OTM 10 averaging periods and data analysis and OP-FTIR spectral analysis 

is contained in Sections 3 and Appendix A. 

2.1 The Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel Test Sites 

The two test sites chosen for this study were selected based on logistical and access factors. 

The first site, the Williams Rulison Facility, was tested from August 6-9, 2008 and is shown in 

Figures 2-1 and 2-2. The second site, the EnCana Benzel Facility, was tested from August 

12-15, 2008 and is shown in Figure 2-3. 

The Williams Rulison facility had a complex layout compared to the EnCana Benzel Facility, 

and Figure 2-2 identifies the details that surround the large evaporation apron and the two 

evaporation holding ponds. As explained by Williams personnel, water from the oil and gas 

production operations is delivered by truck or a small pipe line to Tank A where the first 

stage of oil-water separation occurs, then to Tank E for the second stage of separation). Oil 

from both stages is pumped to Tank B, oil sales. The water is passed through to the Tank G 

at then enters the skim pond. The water passes through the skim pond operation and then 

into the north evaporation pond (North Pond) where aeration is employed to assist aerobic 

bio-treatment of the water. Water exits the North Pond at its west side and enters the South 

Pond. At the east side of the South Pond, water is pumped back into the North Pond. Some 

water from the South Pond is also pumped to Tank C, the frac water loadout. This water is 

trucked back to the field to be used again in drilling operations. The large evaporation apron 

to the north of the North Pond is used to evaporate water through misting sprayers. This 

process occurs infrequently and was not performed during the test period. Since the misting 

operation was not used during the study, no estimate of emission from this potential source 

could be made. The evaporation apron had shallow pockets of standing water (likely to be 

rain water). Note the figures presented below are stock satellite images and are not 

representative of site conditions during the study. For example, there was very little standing 

water in the evaporation apron during the study. 

5 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2-1. Williams Rulison Facility 

Location: Approximately 2 miles north of Rulison, CO (Lat: 39.508858; Long: -

107.918335). The magnetic declination was calculated to be -15.8525o. 

Site Process Description: Water is trucked into the facility. The receiving tanks are heated to induce 

separation. Then the water flows to heated polishing tanks before entering 

the oil-water separators. At the outlet of the oil-water separators, the water 

is injected with aerobic bacteria to reduce hydrocarbons. There is extensive 

separation prior to ponds. 

Dimensions of Ponds: There are two ponds at the site. The exact dimensions of the ponds are not 

known. However, we estimated that the first pond has a surface area about 

of 3.1 acres, and the second pond has a surface area of about 2.7acres. 

6 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Apron 

Figure 2-2 Details of the Site Layout for Williams Rulison Facility 

7 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

Figure 2-3. EnCana Benzel Facility 

Location: Approximately 10 miles south of Rifle, CO. (Lat: 39.500149; Long: -

107.739334). The magnetic declination was calculated to be -15.6575o. 

Site Process Description: Water is piped into facility via a pipeline. There will be some separation prior 

to the facility. There is only one stage of separation using chemical 

demulsifying agents prior to the pond. Minimal separation prior to ponds. 

Dimensions of Pond: There is one pond at the site with dimensions of 350’ x 150’ and a surface 

area of 1.2 acres. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

The daily incoming flow (volume) for the Williams facility for August 6, 7 and 8, 2008 was 

4700, 6400, and 4900 barrels per day, respectively, into Building A as shown in Figure 2-2. 

On each day of testing, ARCADIS personnel also took a number of flow measurements from 

the meter located outside of Building A. The flow rates were highly variable, and ranged as 

follows: August 6, from a reverse flow reading at one point to 6.2 barrels/min; August 7, from 

2.3 to 15.5 barrels/min; and August 8, from 1.7 to 14.9 barrels/min. 

The second site, the EnCana Benzel Facility, was tested from August 12-15, 2008 and is 

shown in Figure 2-3. Water is piped into tanks on the northern side of the pond, which can 

be seen under the red line connecting the scissor jack and the EPA FTIR (ID E123). These 

tanks are where the one-stage separation using chemical demulsifying agents occurs prior to 

the water bring pumped into the pond. The brown areas north of the pond and tanks are 

racks of used pipes, another likely source of hydrocarbons. A neighboring facility can be 

seen north of the pipe racks. No in coming flow information was available to be recorded 

during monitoring at the Benzel facility. EnCana later provided an estimate of ∼285 barrels 

per day average throughput during the week of the study. 

2.2 Description of EPA OTM 10 Measurements 

The estimate of alkane mixture (AM) mass emission flux from facility sources was produced 

using EPA method OTM 10 with open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) 

spectroscopy deployed in a four corner configuration. The measurement approach includes 

two steps: (1) acquisition and analysis of path-integrated concentration (PIC) data of air 

pollutants along multiple plane-configured optical paths using OP-FTIR, and (2) the 

analytical approach which calculates the mass emission flux estimate for the upwind source. 

The approach utilizes the vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) plane-integrating computer 

algorithm with the acquired multi-path PIC data and wind vector information as primary 

inputs. 

The acquisition of PIC data was accomplished using a three-beam OTM 10 setup for each 

flux plane. Utilizing both the ARCADIS (A) and EPA (E) OP-FTIR instruments, a four corner 

configuration was set up around the pond sources (Figure 2-4). In this configuration, 4 flux 

planes provide continuous measurement coverage under changing wind directions. The flux 

planes are labeled with a letter (A or E) representing the OP-FTIR system along with the 

beam paths (123 or 456) to form unique identifiers. Alternating scans were made between 

the two VRPM planes of each OP-FTIR. The red lines in Figures 2-1 and 2-3 show the actual 

placement of this configuration at the William Rulison and EnCana Benzel facilities, 

respectively. At both facilities, the position of the VRPM planes were chosen to maximize the 

9 
Source

6

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

capture of emissions from the ponds taking into account the suspected source locations and 

site constraints. 

E123

E456

A123

A456

1

2

3

5

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

Source 

E123 

E456 

A123 

A456 

1 

2 

3 

6 

5 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Figure 2-4. Four Corner Configuration 

Tables 2-1 and 2-2 present details of the placement of the optical components for the four 

corner configurations at the Williams and EnCana Benzel facilities. 

The acquired OP-FTIR data must be analyzed to produce a PIC value. For this project, OPFTIR data reduction focused on the PIC values of the AM by spectroscopic analysis of the 

infrared absorption features in the C-H stretch spectral region around 2900 cm-1. The AM is 

composed of a variety of hydrocarbons but the infrared signature for fuel base mixtures is 

usually dominated by C-4 to C-8 alkanes (butane, pentane, hexane, heptane, octane). The 

AM analysis was executed for a combined group of compounds since performing spectral 

analysis of each individual species was not possible due to the similarity in the shapes of 

their absorption bands. The spectral analysis of the AM is further described in Appendix A. 

The AM was chosen for analysis since it was robustly quantifiable whereas other species of 

interest were frequently below detection limits of the OP-FTIRs so could not be used for 

standard OTM 10 flux measurements. Estimates of emission flux for select VOCs, which 

were quantifiable by OP-FTIR using extended time averaging were also produced and is 

described in Section 2.3. 

10 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

Table 2-1. Optical Configuration Details for the Williams Facility Setup 

Mirror 

Number 

OP-FTIR to 

Retroreflector 

Distance (m) 

Approximate 

Retroreflector 

Height (m) 

Optical Path 

Angle from 

North (deg) 

A1 142.3 1 148.5 

A2 142.0 4.8 148.8 

A3 142.8 8.6 148.5 

A4 185.3 1 32.4 

A5 187.6 2.9 32.3 

A6 187.2 8.1 33.3 

E1 148.3 1 232.2 

E2 150.2 4.4 232.5 

E3 149.7 8.2 232.3 

E4 219.1 1 328.2 

E5 220.3 3.5 328.4 

E6 220.6 8.7 328.5 

Table 2-2. Optical Configuration Details for the EnCana Facility Setup 

Mirror 

Number 

OP-FTIR to 

Retroreflector 

Distance (m) 

Approximate 

Retroreflector 

Height (m) 

Optical Path 

Angle from 

North (deg) 

A1 128.4 1 334.2 

A2 129.3 3.7 333.9 

A3 129.9 9.3 334.1 

A4 109.7 1 54.4 

A5 109.7 5.2 54.4 

A6 110.1 9.5 54.9 

E1 104.1 1 268.2 

E2 104.1 3.9 268.2 

E3 104.4 9.4 268.8 

E4 74.0 1 154.2 

E5 80.2 4.2 154.6 

E6 81.2 8.2 154.9 

11 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

A ⎧⎪ 1 ⎡(r ⋅ cosθ − 1 r )

2 (r ⋅sinθ − m )

2 ⎤⎪

⎫ 2 1 z G(A,σ , m ) = exp⎨− ⎢ + ⎥⎬ (2-1) z z 2 2 2π (4r1 )σ z 2 σ ⎩

⎪ ⎣ (4r1 ) z ⎦⎭

⎪

 

i

SSE(A,σ z , mz ) = ∑⎜

⎛

⎜PACi − ∫

r

G(ri ,θ i , A,σ mz )dr / ri

⎟

⎞

⎟

2 

(2-2) 

i ⎝ 0 ⎠

 

The OTM 10 analytical procedure was used to produce the AM flux estimate by inputting the 

multi-beam AM PIC values along with wind information and configuration data into the 

VRPM algorithm. The VRPM method is generally discussed in EPA OTM 10 “Optical remote 

sensing for emission characterization from non-point sources” which describes direct 

measurement of pollutant mass emission flux from area sources using ground-based optical 

remote sensing (ORS). The VRPM computer algorithm uses a smooth basis function 

minimization routine of a bivarate Gaussian function to generate mass emission flux 

information from species concentration and wind data. For this measurement campaign, the 

VRPM configuration utilized a three-beam configuration which leads to a reduced form of the 

bivarate Gaussian in polar coordinates (r, θ). The standard deviation in the crosswind 

direction was set at one half the length of vertical plane (r1) for this project. 

Where: 

A = normalizing coefficient, adjusts for the peak value of the bivariate surface; 

mz = peak location in Cartesian coordinates; 

σz = vertical standard deviation in Cartesian coordinates; 

r1 = length of VRPM plane; 

A, mz, and σz are the unknown parameters to be retrieved by the fitting procedure. An error 

function (SSE) for minimization is defined as: 

Where PACi is the measured path-averaged concentration (PAC) value for the i

th beam. The 

SSE function is minimized using the Simplex method to solve for the three unknown 

parameters. This process is for determining the vertical gradient in concentration. It allows an 

accurate integration of concentrations across the vertical plane as the long-beam ground 

level PAC provides a direct integration of concentration at the lowest level. 

12 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Once the parameters of the function are found for a specific run, the VRPM procedure 

calculates the concentration values for every square elementary unit in a vertical plane. 

Then, the VRPM procedure integrates the values, incorporating wind speed data at each 

height level to compute the flux. This enables the direct calculation of the flux in grams per 

second (g/s), using wind speed data in meters per second (m/s). Further information on the 

VRPM method for area source emission measurements in general can be found in 

Hashmonay and Yost 1999, Thoma et al. 2005, U.S. EPA 2006, U.S. EPA 2007 with specific 

details of this deployment in U.S. EPA 2008. An analysis of OTM 10 measurement 

uncertainty for this project is contained in Section 5.3. 

Table 2-3 describes the instrument operation time periods for the OTM 10 measurements for 

this study. The instrument operational times represent those periods when instrumentation 

was operating within acceptable limits. Note that valid flux data time periods represent a 

subset of instrument operation time periods when data acceptance criteria were met. Valid 

flux data time periods are detailed in Appendix A. As it requires 1 to 2 hours to get the 

equipment set up and operational each day, the start time for operation was usually in the 

mid morning. The end time was dictated primarily by site access limitation (no night work) or 

by weather events (8/9). Additional information on equipment operational requirements and 

data quality indicators is contained in Section 5 and Appendix A. 

Table 2-3. Instrument Operation Time Periods for the EPA OTM 10 Method

 Date Start Time End Time 

Williams Rulison 

8/6/2008 14:20 16:40 

8/7/2008 10:20 17:40 

8/8/2008 10:20 16:40 

8/9/2008 11:40 15:00 

8/12/2008 12:00 18:20 

EnCana Benzel 

8/13/2008 10:20 17:40 

8/14/2008 9:20 16:20 

8/15/2008 9:40 14:20 

2.3 OP-FTIR VOC Analysis and Calculation of Estimated VOC Flux 

As discussed in previous sections, the AM was chosen for flux analysis since it was present 

at high enough concentrations to be quantified at standard OTM 10 time resolution (30 

second integration time) whereas other species of interest were frequently below the OP13 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

FTIR detection limits on one or more optical paths so could not be used for OTM 10 flux 

measurements. Using a time-averaging approach, many of these compounds could be 

quantified and estimates of emission flux for select VOCs were produced using a mass 

concentration ratio calculation based on the AM flux data for similar time periods. 

Analysis of the OP-FTIR data was performed to determine concentrations of benzene, 

toluene, m-xylene, o-xylene, p-xylene, methanol, and methane. The select VOC analysis 

was done for time periods when relatively high alkane mixture (AM) emissions were 

detected. Table 2-4 presents a summary of the time periods when the analysis was 

performed. The table also indicates the measurement path from which the data was 

collected. Here the term VOC represents one or more of the target compounds listed above 

and is not inclusive of all VOCs. Note that methane did not require the time averaging 

method. 

Table 2-4. Periods of OP-FTIR VOC Analysis 

Measurement Path Site Compound 

Analyzed 

Start Time 

(MDT) 

End Time 

(MDT) 

EPA-806_1353-M4 Williams Methane 8/6/2008 16:00 8/6/2008 16:40 

EPA-807_1356-M4 Williams VOC 8/7/2008 14:01 8/7/2008 15:59 

ARC-807_1102-M4 Williams VOC/methane 8/7/2008 14:02 8/7/2008 14:58 

EPA-807_1022-M4 Williams Methane 8/7/2008 16:01 8/7/2008 17:40 

EPA-808_1153-M4 Williams VOC/methane 8/8/2008 13:27 8/8/2008 14:24 

ARC-808_1004-M4 Williams VOC 8/8/2008 16:00 8/8/2008 16:46 

EPA-808_1153-M4 Williams VOC/methane 8/8/2008 16:01 8/8/2008 16:50 

ARC-808_1004-M1 Williams VOC 8/8/2008 16:02 8/8/2008 16:49 

ARC-812_1513-M4 EnCana VOC/methane 8/12/2008 17:02 8/12/2008 18:16 

ARC-812_1513-M1 EnCana VOC/methane 8/12/2008 17:04 8/12/2008 18:27 

ARC-813_0922-M4 EnCana VOC/methane 8/13/2008 11:08 8/13/2008 12:05 

ARC-813_0922-M4 EnCana Methane 8/13/2008 13:20 8/13/2008 14:30 

ARC-813_0922-M4 EnCana VOC 8/13/2008 15:00 8/13/2008 15:26 

EPA-813_1021-M1 EnCana VOC 8/13/2008 15:25 8/13/2008 16:13 

ARC-813_1536-M4 EnCana VOC/methane 8/13/2008 15:52 8/13/2008 16:51 

ARC-814-0908-M4 EnCana VOC/methane 8/14/2008 10:22 8/14/2008 11:19 

ARC-814-0908-M4 EnCana Methane 8/14/2008 15:00 8/14/2008 16:10 

ARC-814-0908-M4 EnCana VOC/methane 8/14/2008 15:59 8/14/2008 16:56 

ARC-815-0918-M4 EnCana Methane 8/15/2008 13:00 8/15/2008 14:00 

14 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

The VOC analysis was done using the time-averaging method (TAM), which is a postmeasurement analysis technique for determining multi-hour concentration averages and 

detection limits. This method may facilitate comparison with time-integrated point-sample 

collection techniques (such as one-hour canister samples). The method can produce 

significantly lower instrument detection limits and can be applied to any ORS measurement 

technology that produces a set of response-signal (single-beam) spectra. As discussed, 

analysis of the OP-FTIR data for select VOC using a standard averaging period (30 

seconds) resulted in minimum detection limits too high to robustly quantify the target VOC 

compounds. 

The TAM consists of two steps. The first step is performed once for all target compounds 

that are analyzed in a single measurement set. This procedure involves determining, for 

each target compound, the individual measurements in the measurement set in which the 

spectra indicate background or zero levels of the target species. These measurements are 

averaged to produce a specific time-averaged background spectrum for each compound. 

The second step involves performing a Classical Least Squares analysis on the single-beam 

spectrum that is the average of the entire measurement set covering the time-averaging 

period, and the background single beam spectrum selected in the first step of the procedure 

for the target compound. The analysis is repeated for each target compound using the 

respective co-added background determined in step one. The resulting concentration 

determination is the time-averaged result, and the detection limit is determined from the 

standard error of the regression fit. 

Table 2-5 provides a comparison of estimated minimum detection limits (MDL) of OP-FTIR 

for select VOC compounds measured in this study. The first column presents typical MDL 

using a 1-minute averaging time, while the second column shows typical MDL using the 

TAM with 30-minute time resolution. 

Table 2-5.	 Detection Limits for Optimal OP-FTIR Setup with Clean, Fully Populated 

Retroreflector Arrays 

Species MDLs, 200 meters 

1 minute (ppb) 

MDLs, 200 meters 

30 minute Avg. (ppb) 

Benzene 60 12 

Toluene 80 16 

m-Xylene 44 12 

o-Xylene 40 12 

p-Xylene 64 16 

Methanol 12 3 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

The results of the VOC concentration analysis, which can be found in Section 3.4 of this 

document, were used with the measured average alkane mixture emissions fluxes from the 

Williams and EnCana sites to calculate an estimated emissions flux for each VOC. More 

information on this calculation, as well as the estimated VOC flux values, can be found in 

Section 3.4. 

Additional concentration analysis of the OP-FTIR data for benzene, toluene, m-xylene, oxylene, and p-xylene was performed for six time periods that SUMMA canisters were 

deployed near the OP-FTIR measurement path. This analysis was done to compare the 

concentration determinations from the two measurement methods. Table 2-6 presents a 

summary of the six SUMMA canister deployment periods used for this comparison. The 

results of this comparison are presented in Section 3.4 of this document. Section 3.5 

contains a detailed comparison of the OP-FTIR AM and SUMMA canister AM data along 

with sampling location information and wind summaries. 

Table 2-6. Periods of SUMMA Canister/ OP-FTIR VOC Analysis 

SUMMA ID Site Date Start Time 

(MDT) 

End Time 

(MDT) 

TNAPC11 Williams 8/7/2008 16:13 17:13 

926,648 Williams 8/8/2008 13:25 14:25 

ER047 Williams 8/9/2008 14:00 15:00 

TNAPC20 EnCana 8/13/2008 15:52 16:52 

ER069, ER064 EnCana 8/14/2008 10:32 11:32 

988,3248 EnCana 8/14/2008 16:09 17:09 

2.4 Description of SUMMA Canister Measurements 

In addition to EPA OTM 10 flux and related open-path measurements, evacuated SUMMA 

canister samples were collected at both sites to provide supporting information on the AM 

and select VOC concentration levels in areas near the observing OTM 10 planes. Timeintegrated (1 hour) SUMMA canister samples with EPA TO-15 and SNMOC analysis were 

utilized since this approach yields lower method detection limits (MDL) for most compounds 

compared to the in situ path-integrated measurements acquired with OP-FTIR using 

standard 30 second time integration, thus providing useful information on concentrations of 

trace VOCs. A manual sample collection system was used with canister placement at an 

approximate 1 m height in many cases near the location of the lowest beam paths of the 

respective VRPM planes (paths 1 or 4 shown in Figure 2-4). Three samples were collected 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

at a time: two canisters were co-located near the midpoint of the downwind VRPM plane, 

and one canister was deployed near the midpoint of the upwind VRPM plane. On some 

days, two sets of samples were collected, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. A 

total of 28 canister samples were collected between the two sites. 

The exact locations along the optical path were decided at the time of deployment by field 

personnel, and an attempt was made to initiate sampling when the meteorological conditions 

were most conducive to representative plume capture (i.e., when the wind was blowing 

across the open path beam at or near 90°). The vertical placement of the sample inlet and 

inlet funnel was one meter above ground level, approximately equal to the height of the 

ground level OP-FTIR optical beams. In some cases the position of the canisters were 

separated by from the location of OP-FTIR planes. The exact placement of the canisters 

along with wind information for the sampling time period is contained in Section 3.5. 

Air was drawn into the evacuated canister using a calibrated critical orifice that is between 

the inlet and canister. The critical orifices were chosen to allow only a specified amount of air 

to enter the can over a given time. To avoid losses of VOCs to condensed water in the 

canisters, the pressure of the air sample in the canister did not exceed atmospheric 

pressure. The samples were analyzed by TO-15 and SNMOC with data presented in 

Appendix B. Table 2-7 shows the date, sampling time, and identification (ID) for the canister 

measurements. 

2.5 Description of Water Sampling 

Water sampling was conducted at the Williams Rullison site during August 7 and 8, 2008. 

These samples were collected at four different sites around the water treatment facility: Skim 

Pond Inlet (SP IN), Skim Pond outlet to the North Pond (SP OUT), North Pond outlet o the 

South Pond (N OUT) and South Pond outlet to the North Pond (S OUT). Figure 2-5 shows 

the location of each sampling point. For each sample, a Williams employee took a large grab 

sample directly from each header pipe exit. From each grab sample, two VOA (Volatile 

Organics Analysis) sample containers were filled with a minimum amount of head space. 

The sample containers were 40 ml amber glass with a teflon/silcon septa. The samples were 

then immediately put on ice. The samples were shipped over-night to the EPA R8 lab in 

Denver for analysis of volatile organics by EPA SW-846 Method 8260 “Volatile Organic 

Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (capillary column technique). The 

dates and times of the sampling along with a results summary are contained in Section 3.6. 

17 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

Table 2-7. SUMMA Canisters Deployed at the Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel Facilities 

Site Date 

Deployed Start Time End Time Summa ID 

8/7/2008 16:13 17:13 TNAPC-171 

2431

, 9731 

8/7/2008 16:13 17:13 TNAPC-11 

Williams Rulison 8/8/2008 13:25 14:25 3639A 

8/8/2008 13:25 14:25 926, 648 

8/9/2008 ~14:00 15:00 ER001,ER038 

8/9/2008 ~14:00 15:00 ER047 

8/12/2008 ~11:00 ~12:00 ER029 

8/12/2008 ~11:00 ~12:00 659, 167604 

8/13/2008 11:07 12:07 3255 

8/13/2008 11:07 12:07 ER043, 444 

8/13/2008 15:52 16:52 TNAPC20 

EnCana Benzel 

8/13/2008 15:52 16:52 167601, 3254 

8/14/2008 10:33 11:33 ER061 

8/14/2008 10:33 11:33 ER069, ER064 

8/14/2008 16:09 17:09 15280 

8/14/2008 16:09 17:09 988, 3248 

8/15/2008 11:09 12:09 ER021 

8/15/2008 11:09 12:09 ER085, ER114 

1

Invalid due to zero final pressure in the canister 

18 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Figure 2-5. Location of Water Sampling Points at the Williams Facility 

Water sampling was conducted at the Williams Rullison site during August 12 through 

August 14, 2008. These samples were collected at four different sites around the 

evaporation pond: grass mesa inlet to the pond (Grass), west side of pond (W), south side of 

pond (S), and east side of pond (E). Figure 2-6 shows the location of each sampling point. 

For W, S, and E locations, a peristaltic pump was used to pull sample from approximately 2 

to 6 inches below the surface of the water. Two VOAs sample containers were filled directly 

from the peristaltic tubing exit for each point. For the Grass sample point, an EnCana 

employee took a large grab sample directly from each header pipe exit. From the grab 

sample, two VOA sample containers were filled with a minimum amount of head space. The 

samples were then immediately put on ice. The samples were shipped over-night to the EPA 

R8 lab in Denver for analysis of volatile organics by EPA SW-846 Method 8260 “Volatile 

Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (capillary column 

technique). The dates and times of the sampling along with a results summary are contained 

in Section 3.6. 

19 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Figure 2-6. Location of Water Sampling Points at the EnCana Facility 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

 

3. Results and Discussion 

3.1 Results Summary Approach 

For this study, the OTM 10 VRPM calculation produces a moving average AM flux value for 

each of the four vertical planes (Figure 2-4). Each flux value represents an average from a 

time interval of approximately 4 minutes. These primary flux values are summarized in 

Appendix A along with data quality indicators. To calculate the net flux for the source within 

the four vertical plane configurations, the measured fluxes for the two downwind vertical 

planes are added together and the fluxes of the two upwind vertical planes are subtracted as 

backgrounds. Since the individual flux planes for each OP-FTIR are measured sequentially 

and the upwind and downwind plane pairs are not time synchronized, it is necessary to 

average several successive primary flux values to ensure that the net flux calculation will be 

composed of temporally comparable results. This is accomplished by creating a 20-minute 

average time period for each flux plane which is used in the net flux calculation and 

summary tables contained in this section. For each average reported in the tables, the 

following information is provided: time the measurement was made (hour:minute), wind 

speed (m/s), wind direction with respect to north (degrees), and the AM flux value for each of 

the four VRPM planes (A123, A456, E123, or E456) in g/s. Additional low and high range net 

flux calculations and uncertainty estimates contained in the tables are described below. Note 

that missing values in the tables and graphs are a result of data which did not pass 

acceptance criteria, see Appendix A for details. 

Minimum Net Flux 

As a way to express a low-range net flux estimate, a minimum net flux calculation is given. 

This value is the result of adding all four of the VRPM flux values (2 upwind and 2 

downwind). The upwind planes represent background conditions (ideally zero flux) and are 

therefore given a negative value in these calculations. The Sum of All 4 Planes result is 

entered here and represents the minimum net flux of the target area within the 4-corner 

configuration. In the time series graphs, the vertical bars represent the range of possible 

mass emission fluxes with the minimum net flux represented by the lower end of the vertical 

bar. 

Since the upwind planes are assigned a negative value, the Sum of All 4 Planes may in 

some cases be negative if there is a strong interfering upwind source (external source). This 

is caused by incomplete capture of the upwind plume by the downwind planes due to plume 

trajectory and dilution as it moves across the cross the configuration. When this situation 

occurs, these are not good conditions for estimating the flux from the target source contained 

within the four corners configuration. When this situation occurs, the Minimum Net Flux for 

21 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

 

target source is defined to be zero since a negative value (a sink) is not physically 

meaningful. 

Maximum Net Flux 

As a way to express a high-range net flux estimate, a maximum net flux calculation is given. 

This value is the sum of the two downwind VRPM flux values, and therefore represents the 

maximum net flux possible (assuming that none of the upwind mass is captured by the 

downwind vertical planes). In the time series graphs, the maximum net flux values are 

represented by the upper end of the vertical bars. 

Estimated Net Flux 

This is the mean of the Maximum Net Flux and the Minimum Net Flux. When the difference 

between the maximum and minimum net flux is large there is a large uncertainty associated 

with the estimated net flux. 

Combined Uncertainty 

A combined uncertainty estimate was produced for each 20-minute flux measurement. This 

uncertainty estimate was produced by propagating individual estimates of uncertainty for 

each measurement plane to a combination of all four planes using an assumption of ± 20% 

uncertainty for each individual plane measurement. This assumption is based on tracer 

release OTM 10 performance data and is further described in Section 5.3. When a sum or 

difference of two or more independent random variables is calculated, the propagated 

combined absolute uncertainty is the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual 

absolute uncertainties. 

External Flux 

This represents the absolute values of the sum of the upwind plane fluxes. In cases when 

the minimum net flux is positive, the range of the vertical bars represents the external flux. 

Since the top of the vertical bar represents the flux of everything captured by the downwind 

VRPM configuration, and the bottom of the vertical bar represents this same flux less the 

background (external contributors), then the vertical bar itself represents the range of flux 

from external sources. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

3.2 AM Flux Summary for the Williams Rulison Facility 

The following tables and figures are time series graphs of the calculated mass emission 

fluxes for the AM during each day of sampling and at various contributing sources 

(evaporation versus skim pond). Tables 3-1 through 3-4 are summary tables of mass 

emission flux results (20-minute period averages) for the configurations used during each 

day of sampling at the Williams Rulison facility. These values were calculated as described 

in Sections 2.2 and 3.1. Figures 3-1 through 3-4 are time series graphs of calculated mass 

emission fluxes for the AM during each day of sampling. For each reported average in the 

tables, the following information is provided: time the measurement was made, wind speed, 

wind direction, and the flux value for each of the four VRPM planes (A123, A456, E123, or 

E456). Also shown are the calculated values for: minimum net flux, maximum net flux, 

estimated net flux, combined uncertainty and external flux. 

Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 show the first day of sampling at the Williams Rulison facility 

(August 6) when winds were generally steady from the SSW. All of the estimated net flux 

values had very small vertical bars (relatively low external flux, typically smaller than the 

combined uncertainty) associated with them and the combined uncertainty is slightly higher 

than the individual 20% assigned uncertainty. Therefore, this time period is valid for 

calculating the net flux from the main evaporation pond (North Pond). They ranged from 

about 0 g/s to 0.2 g/s, for an average of about 0.07 g/s over the 1.5 hours of valid data 

collection on all four VRPM planes. 

Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2 show the second day of sampling (August 7). At 14:30, there is a 

large vertical bar when the wind shifted to a more easterly direction thus impacting the E456 

VRPM plane to the west of the skim pond. These external emissions appear to be coming 

from the skim pond, and had an average flux of 1.1 g/s. The time period prior to 14:30 was 

an ideal (low combined uncertainty and external flux) time for monitoring net emissions from 

the North Pond, which had an average flux of 0.56 g/s. 

Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3 show the third day of sampling at William Rulison (August 8). 

Before 11:00 am, the winds were from the SE and the flux from the skim pond was 0.24 g/s. 

The winds then shifted to the SW, presenting good conditions for monitoring the North Pond. 

The average net flux from the North Pond throughout the day was 0.10 g/s. At the end of the 

day, the wind shifted to the SE again for the final 20-minute averaging period, resulting in a 

flux of 1.8 g/s for the skim pond. Averaging the morning and afternoon fluxes for the skim 

pond resulted in a daily average flux of 1.1 g/s 

Table 3-4 and Figure 3-4 show results from the final day of sampling at William Rulison 

(August 9). The prevailing winds had an easterly component during the beginning of the 

measurement period (up until 13:30). The winds were then from the south for the remainder 

of the period. The average flux for the skim pond, determined up to 13:30, was 0.56 g/s. The 

rest of the day showed very little influence from the skim pond and provided good conditions 

for monitoring the North Pond. The average flux value for the evaporation pond was 0.13 g/s. 

23 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-1.	 Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the Configuration used 

at the Williams Rulison Facility on August 6, 2008 

Time Wind 

speed 

Wind 

Direction A123 A456 E123 E456 Minimum 

Net Flux 

Maximum 

Net Flux 

Estimated 

Net Flux 

Combined 

Uncertainty 

External 

Flux 

15:10 1.7 174.8 -0.010 0.030 -0.015 0.022 0.027 0.052 0.040 0.0195 0.025 

15:30 1.9 179.3 -0.020 0.028 0.000 0.178 0.186 0.206 0.196 0.0598 0.020 

15:50 2.4 179.1 -0.017 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.003 0.0061 0.017 

16:10 2.0 202.6 0.000 0.000 -0.005 0.052 0.047 0.052 0.050 0.0131 0.005 

16:30 2.0 231.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.0166 0.000 

Figure 3-1. Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 6, 2008 at the Williams Rulison Facility 

24 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-2.	 Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the Configuration used 

at the Williams Rulison Facility on August 7, 2008 

Time Wind 

speed 

Wind 

Direction A123 A456 E123 E456 Minimum 

Net Flux 

Maximum 

Net Flux 

Estimated 

Net Flux 

Combined 

Uncertainty 

External 

Flux 

11:30 1.1 113.2 0.000 0.155 -0.003 -0.123 0.029 0.155 0.092 0.0483 0.126 

12:10 1.0 95.6 0.010 0.000 -0.010 -0.440 0.000 0.010 0.005 0.0880 0.450 

12:30 1.3 191.3 0.000 0.015 -0.005 0.227 0.237 0.242 0.240 0.0458 0.005 

12:50 1.1 196.5 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.503 0.538 0.538 0.538 0.101 0.000 

13:10 1.1 187.9 0.000 0.080 0.000 1.480 1.560 1.560 1.56 0.296 0.000 

14:10 1.4 157.1 0.003 1.035 0.000 -0.200 0.838 1.038 0.938 0.279 0.200 

14:30 2.4 115.9 0.080 2.637 -0.010 -1.536 1.171 2.717 1.94 0.611 1.546 

15:10 1.3 34.0 0.235 -0.015 0.350 -1.088 0.000 0.585 0.293 0.233 1.103 

15:30 1.3 21.0 0.242 -0.005 0.226 -0.895 0.000 0.468 0.234 0.190 0.900 

15:50 1.7 60.5 0.188 0.295 0.038 -1.104 0.000 0.521 0.261 0.231 1.104 

16:30 2.6 66.0 0.568 0.375 0.010 -0.265 0.688 0.953 0.821 0.146 0.265 

16:50 2.8 74.3 0.306 0.470 -0.013 -0.350 0.413 0.776 0.595 0.132 0.363 

17:10 1.7 60.4 0.210 0.017 0.010 -1.898 0.000 0.237 0.119 0.382 1.898 

17:30 1.3 87.6 0.140 0.650 -0.030 -1.410 0.000 0.790 0.395 0.312 1.440 

0 

60 

120 

180 

240 

300 

360 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

3 

Degrees 

Mass Emission Flux (g/s) 

Time 

Flux Avg 

Wind Direction 

Figure 3-2. Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 7, 2008 at the Williams Rulison Facility 

25 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-3.	 Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the Configuration used 

at the Williams Rulison Facility on August 8, 2008 

Time Wind 

speed 

Wind 

Direction A123 A456 E123 E456 Minimum 

Net Flux 

Maximum 

Net Flux 

Estimated 

Net Flux 

Combined 

Uncertainty 

External 

Flux 

10:30 1.2 154.1 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.020 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.0104 0.000 

10:50 1.1 103.2 0.020 0.092 0.000 -0.238 0.000 0.112 0.056 0.0512 0.238 

11:10 1.4 170.0 0.000 0.000 -0.010 0.020 0.010 0.020 0.015 0.0045 0.010 

11:30 1.7 204.9 -0.003 0.000 -0.010 0.047 0.034 0.047 0.041 0.0098 0.013 

12:10 3.5 256.8 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.040 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.0099 0.000 

12:30 4.3 251.5 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.078 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.0161 0.000 

12:50 4.2 250.2 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.025 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.0051 0.000 

13:10 4.5 245.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.136 0.136 0.136 0.136 0.0272 0.000 

13:30 4.6 246.0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.053 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.0108 0.000 

13:50 3.8 245.9 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.108 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.0217 0.000 

14:10 3.0 244.7 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.178 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.0356 0.000 

14:30 2.7 226.8 0.000 0.000 -0.007 0.090 0.083 0.090 0.087 0.0181 0.007 

15:10 1.9 211.1 0.000 0.000 -0.010 0.092 0.082 0.092 0.087 0.0185 0.010 

15:30 2.8 228.6 0.000 0.000 -0.010 0.280 0.270 0.280 0.275 0.0560 0.010 

16:30 3.5 136.5 0.237 1.757 0.000 -1.853 0.141 1.994 1.068 0.5129 1.853 

Figure 3-3. Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 8, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

26 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-4.	 Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the Configuration used 

at the Williams Rulison Facility on August 9, 2008 

Time Wind 

speed 

Wind 

Direction A123 A456 E123 E456 Minimum 

Net Flux 

Maximum 

Net Flux 

Estimated 

Net Flux 

Combined 

Uncertainty 

External 

Flux 

11:50 2.7 85.4 0.220 0.307 -0.012 -0.325 0.190 0.527 0.359 0.0997 0.337 

12:10 2.6 92.8 0.088 0.383 0.000 -0.380 0.091 0.471 0.281 0.1093 0.380 

12:30 2.5 91.2 0.045 0.158 -0.030 -0.797 0.000 0.203 0.102 0.1631 0.827 

12:50 1.7 106.1 0.015 0.115 -0.025 -0.688 0.000 0.130 0.065 0.1397 0.713 

13:10 1.2 93.9 0.010 0.093 -0.013 -0.525 0.000 0.103 0.052 0.1070 0.538 

13:50 1.0 163.8 0.000 0.025 -0.100 0.040 0.000 0.065 0.033 0.0221 0.100 

14:10 1.9 167.9 0.000 0.018 -0.038 0.094 0.074 0.112 0.093 0.0208 0.038 

14:30 2.9 154.7 0.000 0.108 0.000 0.044 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.0233 0.000 

14:50 3.0 144.9 0.000 0.273 0.000 -0.070 0.203 0.273 0.238 0.0564 0.070 

Figure 3-4. Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 9, 2008 at the Williams Rulison Facility 

27 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

One observation made during this field campaign was that lower emissions were measured 

for the skim pond in the morning, than in the afternoon. Also, there was a very good 

correlation (Pearson correlation of 0.87) between the external flux (primarily skim pond) and 

the combined uncertainty. This reaffirms that in time periods with large external flux 

interfering with the estimation of the net flux from the north pond, the uncertainty is large. 

The 4-day average flux from the evaporation pond (North Pond) was 0.20 g/s (SD of ± 0.33). 

The flux value for the evaporation pond was found by averaging (27) 20-minute averaged 

flux values over 4 days. See Section 5.3 for additional discussion on OTM 10 measurement 

uncertainty. The average flux value from the evaporation pond is found using the “Estimated 

Net Flux” values from Table 3-1 through 3-4 during the following time periods, which were 

ideal for characterizing emissions from the evaporation pond based on prevailing wind 

direction during the time of the measurements: 

• August 6: 15:10 to 16:30 

• August 7: 11:30 to 14:10 

• August 8: 11:10 to 15:30 

• August 9: 13:50 to 14:50 

The 3-day average flux from the skim pond (no external sources were detected by the 

VRPM configuration on Day 1 of sampling) was 0.90 g/s (SD of ± 0.572). The value for the 

skim pond was found by averaging (15) 20-minute averaged flux values over a 3 day period. 

The average flux value from the Skim Pond is found using the “External Flux” value shown in 

Tables 3-1 through 3-4 during periods described as being ideal for characterizing emissions 

from the pond. 

• August 6: No Measurements 

• August 7: 14:30 to 17:30 

• August 8: 10:30, 10:50, 16:30 

• August 9: 11:50 to 13:10 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Note that no valid measurements were obtained from the South Evaporation pond. 

Emissions from this pond are expected to be very low and this is supported by the Water 

sampling measurements described in Section 3.6 and Appendix C which indicate non 

detects for volatile organic concentrations in the ponds. For subsequent summary tables, the 

North Pond is referred to as Evaporation Pond. 

3.3 AM Flux Summary for the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Tables 3-5 through 3-8 are summary tables of mass emission flux results (20-minute period 

averages) for the configurations used during each day of sampling at the EnCana Benzel 

facility. These values were calculated as described in Sections 2.2 and 3.1. Figures 3-5 

through 3-8 are time series graphs of calculated mass emission fluxes for AMs (total 

alkanes) during each day of sampling. For each reported average in the tables, the following 

information is provided: time the measurement was made, wind speed, wind direction, and 

the flux value for each of the four VRPM planes (A123, A456, E123, or E456). Also shown 

are the calculated values for: minimum net flux, maximum net flux, estimated net flux, 

combined uncertainty and external flux. 

Table 3-5 and Figure 3-5 show the first day of sampling at the EnCana Benzel facility 

(August 12). Winds were northerly and there were lower emissions in the early afternoon 

than were seen later in the day. The conditions were good for measuring the emissions from 

the evaporation pond, as the background (external) emissions were small. The average flux 

from the evaporation pond was 0.12 g/s. 

Table 3-6 and Figure 3-6 show the second day of sampling (August 13). Winds were from 

the NW for the majority of the day, providing good conditions for monitoring the evaporation 

pond. The average flux for the day from the pond was 0.06 g/s. The largest external 

emissions (largest vertical bars) were seen between 14:30 and 15:50, when the winds were 

coming from the N, indicating a possible source contribution from that direction. 

29 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-5.	 Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results(g/s) for the Configuration used at 

the EnCana Benzel Facility on August 12, 2008 

Time Wind 

speed 

Wind 

Direction A123 A456 E123 E456 Minimum 

Net Flux 

Maximum 

Net Flux 

Estimated 

Net Flux 

Combined 

Uncertainty 

External 

Flux 

12:10 2.3 13.6 0.065 0.015 -0.020 -0.010 0.050 0.080 0.065 0.0141 0.030 

12:30 2.4 5.4 0.034 0.060 -0.020 -0.015 0.059 0.094 0.077 0.0147 0.035 

12:50 2.6 345.4 0.003 0.074 -0.025 -0.008 0.044 0.077 0.061 0.0158 0.033 

13:10 1.8 290.3 0.000 0.033 -0.006 0.013 0.040 0.046 0.043 0.0133 0.006 

13:30 2.1 302.2 0.000 0.000 -0.020 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.0040 0.020 

13:50 4.3 318.5 0.000 0.000 -0.024 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.005 0.0055 0.024 

14:10 3.8 297.1 0.000 0.000 -0.015 0.024 0.009 0.024 0.017 0.0057 0.015 

15:30 1.9 335.8 0.017 0.070 -0.007 -0.003 0.077 0.087 0.082 0.0146 0.010 

15:50 2.0 318.4 0.030 0.065 -0.015 -0.007 0.073 0.095 0.084 0.0147 0.022 

16:10 1.7 11.8 0.007 0.042 -0.037 0.007 0.019 0.056 0.038 0.0114 0.037 

16:30 3.4 352.9 0.096 0.085 -0.038 -0.005 0.138 0.181 0.160 0.0286 0.043 

16:50 2.2 2.1 0.130 0.130 0.000 -0.010 0.250 0.260 0.255 0.0368 0.010 

17:10 1.7 336.9 0.056 0.255 0.000 -0.012 0.299 0.311 0.305 0.0523 0.012 

17:30 2.5 248.5 0.073 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.283 0.283 0.283 0.0445 0.000 

17:50 3.0 233.9 0.158 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.226 0.226 0.226 0.0344 0.000 

18:10 1.6 301.0 0.063 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.0212 0.000 

Figure 3-5. Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 12, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

30 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-6.	 Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the Configuration used 

at the EnCana Benzel Facility on August 13, 2008 

Time Wind 

speed 

Wind 

Direction A123 A456 E123 E456 Minimum 

Net Flux 

Maximum 

Net Flux 

Estimated 

Net Flux 

Combined 

Uncertainty 

External 

Flux 

10:30 1.6 346.1 0.006 0.004 -0.017 -0.005 0.000 0.010 0.005 0.0081 0.022 

10:50 1.6 328.3 0.005 0.038 -0.017 0.000 0.026 0.043 0.035 0.0079 0.017 

11:10 1.6 314.1 0.000 0.043 -0.018 0.000 0.025 0.043 0.034 0.0063 0.018 

11:30 1.7 325.1 0.000 0.040 -0.010 0.000 0.030 0.040 0.035 0.0055 0.010 

11:50 1.4 335.3 0.000 0.055 -0.017 0.000 0.038 0.055 0.047 0.0115 0.017 

12:30 1.3 288.5 0.020 0.020 -0.010 0.000 0.030 0.040 0.035 0.0060 0.010 

12:50 1.7 303.1 0.015 0.036 -0.007 0.000 0.044 0.051 0.048 0.0081 0.007 

13:10 1.3 304.9 -0.020 0.056 -0.010 0.000 0.026 0.056 0.041 0.0121 0.030 

13:30 2.2 3.0 0.098 0.053 -0.014 -0.004 0.133 0.151 0.142 0.0225 0.018 

13:50 2.7 8.0 0.117 0.024 -0.010 0.000 0.131 0.141 0.136 0.0241 0.010 

14:10 1.4 349.6 0.080 0.020 -0.018 0.000 0.082 0.100 0.091 0.0169 0.018 

14:30 2.5 19.5 0.033 0.066 -0.028 -0.008 0.063 0.099 0.081 0.0159 0.036 

14:50 2.9 15.9 0.004 0.053 -0.068 -0.005 0.000 0.057 0.029 0.0173 0.073 

15:10 4.0 8.1 0.007 0.035 -0.025 -0.008 0.009 0.042 0.026 0.0100 0.033 

15:50 3.9 326.0 -0.010 0.014 -0.040 0.012 0.000 0.026 0.013 0.0108 0.050 

16:10 4.0 304.3 0.001 0.117 -0.006 0.018 0.130 0.136 0.133 0.0239 0.006 

16:30 2.5 289.5 -0.013 0.048 0.000 0.010 0.045 0.058 0.052 0.0101 0.013 

17:30 1.7 250.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.0020 0.000 

Figure 3-6. Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 13, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

31 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-7.	 Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the Configuration used 

at the EnCana Benzel Facility on August 14, 2008 

Time Wind 

speed 

Wind 

Direction A123 A456 E123 E456 Minimum 

Net Flux 

Maximum 

Net Flux 

Estimated 

Net Flux 

Combined 

Uncertainty 

External 

Flux 

9:30 1.1 15.3 0.010 0.020 0.000 -0.003 0.027 0.030 0.029 0.0054 0.003 

9:50 1.5 56.4 0.032 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.0075 0.000 

10:10 1.8 36.3 0.013 0.040 0.000 -0.008 0.045 0.053 0.049 0.0096 0.008 

10:30 1.5 349.1 0.014 0.063 -0.002 -0.007 0.068 0.077 0.073 0.0131 0.009 

10:50 1.2 329.6 0.005 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.0132 0.000 

11:10 1.3 328.8 0.012 0.058 0.000 -0.003 0.067 0.070 0.069 0.0119 0.003 

11:30 1.7 325.4 0.014 0.075 -0.005 0.000 0.084 0.089 0.087 0.0155 0.005 

11:50 1.8 332.9 0.010 0.028 -0.004 0.000 0.034 0.038 0.036 0.0061 0.004 

12:10 1.5 352.9 0.018 -0.010 -0.005 -0.002 0.001 0.018 0.010 0.0043 0.017 

12:30 2.2 1.7 0.065 0.000 -0.018 -0.005 0.042 0.065 0.054 0.0136 0.023 

13:10 1.5 181.0 0.083 -0.023 0.003 -0.003 0.060 0.086 0.073 0.0172 0.026 

13:50 1.8 99.0 0.028 0.025 -0.010 -0.016 0.027 0.053 0.040 0.0084 0.026 

14:10 2.5 43.6 0.030 -0.006 -0.020 -0.025 0.000 0.030 0.015 0.0089 0.051 

14:50 3.2 234.2 0.003 0.030 0.000 0.007 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.0062 0.000 

15:10 2.6 274.0 -0.008 0.050 0.000 0.006 0.048 0.056 0.052 0.0102 0.008 

15:30 2.5 309.1 -0.006 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.076 0.073 0.0152 0.006 

15:50 1.9 318.4 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.0170 0.000 

16:10 3.9 305.9 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.003 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.0114 0.000 

0 

60 

120 

180 

240 

300 

360 

0 

0.01 

0.02 

0.03 

0.04 

0.05 

0.06 

0.07 

0.08 

0.09 

0.1 

Degrees 

Mass Emission Flux (g/s) 

Flux Avg 

Wind Direction 

Time 

Figure 3-7. Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 14, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

32 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-8.	 Summary Table of the Mass Emission Flux Results (g/s) for the Configuration used 

at the EnCana Benzel Facility on August 15, 2008 

Time Wind 

speed 

Wind 

Direction A123 A456 E123 E456 Minimum 

Net Flux 

Maximum 

Net Flux 

Estimated 

Net Flux 

Combined 

Uncertainty 

External 

Flux 

9:50 1.9 19.0 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.0114 0.000 

10:10 1.2 13.0 0.053 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.0108 0.000 

10:30 1.9 27.5 0.055 0.016 0.000 -0.004 0.067 0.071 0.069 0.0121 0.004 

10:50 1.5 32.5 0.056 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.0112 0.000 

11:10 1.7 50.2 0.052 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.0106 0.000 

11:30 2.1 30.1 0.073 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.0150 0.000 

11:50 2.3 332.0 0.018 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.0121 0.000 

12:10 2.2 350.0 0.007 0.056 -0.002 0.000 0.061 0.063 0.062 0.0115 0.002 

12:30 2.2 351.3 0.004 0.028 -0.010 0.004 0.026 0.036 0.031 0.0069 0.010 

12:50 3.1 327.6 0.000 0.036 -0.015 -0.002 0.019 0.036 0.028 0.0082 0.017 

13:10 2.4 301.6 0.000 0.030 0.000 -0.002 0.028 0.030 0.029 0.0060 0.002 

13:30 3.3 321.3 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.0070 0.000 

13:50 3.8 301.7 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.0080 0.000 

0 

60 

120 

180 

240 

300 

360 

0 

0.01 

0.02 

0.03 

0.04 

0.05 

0.06 

0.07 

0.08 

0.09 

0.1 

Degrees 

Mass Emission Flux (g/s) 

Flux Avg 

Wind Direction 

9:50 10:10 10:30 10:50 11:10 11:30 11:50 12:10 12:30 12:50 13:10 13:30 13:50 

Time 

Figure 3-8. Time Series of Mass Emission Flux for August 15, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

33 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-7 and Figure 3-7 show the third day of sampling at EnCana Benzel (August 14). 

Winds shifted to the east, then the south, where larger external interferences were seen. 

Most of the day provided good data for the evaporation pond, because even when the 

vertical bars were larger, they were small compared to the net flux. The average flux for the 

day from the pond was 0.05 g/s. 

Table 3-8 and Figure 3-8 show the final day of sampling at EnCana Benzel (August 15). 

Although there was a wind shift from NE to NW, all winds had a northerly component and 

were good for estimating flux from the evaporation pond. The average flux for the day from 

the pond was 0.05 g/s 

The 4-day average flux from the evaporation pond was 0.07 g/s (SD of ± 0.06). The flux 

value for the evaporation pond was found by averaging (65) 20-minute averaged flux values 

over the four days of measurements. The average flux value from the evaporation pond is 

found by averaging the “Estimated Net Flux” values in the above tales. See Section 5.3 for 

additional discussion on OTM 10 measurement uncertainty. 

3.4 Results of OP-FTIR VOC Concentration Analysis and Estimated VOC Fluxes Using Ratio 

Method 

As discussed in Section 2.3, analysis of the OP-FTIR data was performed using the timeaveraging method (TAM) to determine the concentration of benzene, toluene, m-p-xylene, oxylene, methanol for time periods when relatively high alkane mixture (AM) emissions were 

detected. This purpose of the analysis was to help estimate the select VOC emissions from 

the source areas. Methane was also quantified without using the TAM. Table 3-9 presents 

the average VOC concentration in ppb, for each analysis period. The table includes the 

corresponding AM concentration for each period, and the determined molecular weight of the 

AM, which is shown in parenthesis. 

34 
Table 3-9. Summary of OP-FTIR VOC Concentration Determinations (concentrations in ppb) 

Site Start Time End Time Benzene Toluene m-Xylene o-Xylene p-Xylene Methanol Methane 

Williams 8/6/2008 16:00 16:40 NA NA NA NA NA NA 299 

Williams 8/7/2008 14:01 15:59 42 250 220 ND 78 6.1 NA 

Williams 8/7/2008 14:02 14:58 200 230 ND ND ND 19 630 

Williams 8/7/2008 16:01 17:40 NA NA NA NA NA NA 829 

Williams 8/8/2008 13:27 14:24 22 44 ND 35 21 4.5 10 

Williams 8/8/2008 16:00 16:46 ND 160 ND 98 ND 16 NA 

Williams 8/8/2008 16:01 16:50 70 170 130 69 49 18 21 

Williams 8/8/2008 16:02 16:49 ND 38 ND 36 ND 6.7 NA 

EnCana 8/12/2008 17:02 18:16 ND 61 42 25 29 15 19 

EnCana 8/12/2008 17:04 18:27 64 60 42 44 17 18 24 

EnCana 8/13/2008 11:08 12:05 70 101 53 ND ND 12 52 

EnCana 8/13/2008 13:20 14:30 NA NA NA NA NA NA 67 

EnCana 8/13/2008 15:00 15:26 47 ND ND ND ND 13 NA 

EnCana 8/13/2008 15:25 16:13 82 ND ND 31 ND ND NA 

EnCana 8/13/2008 15:52 16:51 68 49 43 44 34 6.4 26 

EnCana 8/14/2008 10:22 11:19 ND 41 ND 24 ND 8.7 110 

EnCana 8/14/2008 15:00 16:10 NA NA NA NA NA NA 105 

EnCana 8/14/2008 15:59 16:56 70 ND ND ND 27 22 2.0 

EnCana 8/15/2008 13:00 14:00 NA NA NA NA NA NA 175 

*NA denotes periods when VOC or methane concentrations were not analyzed *ND denotes time periods that concentrations were not detected above minimum detection limits of OP-FTIR 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

⎡Conc,VOC ⎤⎡

⎢

⎣

⎥

⎦

MWVOC ⎤ FTIR
 

FTIR
 

MCR
 (3-1) ⎢

⎣

= ⎥ Conc ⎦ , AM MWAM

 

The VOC concentrations presented above were then used with the corresponding AM 

concentration data from the same time period to produce a mass concentration ratio (MCR) 

for each VOC to AM, using the following formula: 

Where: 

MCR = mass concentration ratio between the VOC and the alkane mixture 

for a particular time period

 Conc, VOCFTIR = the average VOC concentration for the date and time period 

selected, as measured by the OP-FTIR; 

Conc,AMFTIR = the average AM concentration for the date and time period 

selected, as measured by the OP-FTIR; 

MWVOC = the molecular weight of the VOC/SNMOC;

 MWAM = the molecular weight of the AMs, as determined from the 

OP-FTIR measurements 

The results of these calculations are shown in Table 3-10. 

The MCR results for the individual time periods in Table 3-10 were used to produce an 

average MCR for each compound for each of the two sites. Table 3-11 presents the average 

MCR with ± one standard deviation shown. The average excludes ND readings and the 

standard deviation should not be considered a robust indicator of uncertainty due to the low 

number of entries. It is evident that a considerable amount of variation exists in the 

calculated mass concentration ratios so there is a significant amount of uncertainty in the 

average value. The EnCana facility seems to possess a somewhat higher mass 

concentration ration compared to the Williams facility. 

36 
Table 3-10. Summary of OP-FTIR VOC to AM Mass Concentration Ratio Calculations 

Site Start Time End Time Benzene Toluene m-Xylene o-Xylene p-Xylene Methanol Me

Williams 8/6/2008 16:00 8/6/2008 16:40 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

Williams 8/7/2008 14:01 8/7/2008 15:59 0.011 0.076 0.078 ND 0.028 0.001 

Williams 8/7/2008 14:02 8/7/2008 14:58 0.126 0.171 ND ND ND 0.005 0

Williams 8/7/2008 16:01 8/7/2008 17:40 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

Williams 8/8/2008 13:27 8/8/2008 14:24 0.179 0.422 ND 0.390 0.234 0.015 0Williams 8/8/2008 16:00 8/8/2008 16:46 ND 0.299 ND 0.213 ND 0.010 

Williams 8/8/2008 16:01 8/8/2008 16:50 0.032 0.091 0.081 0.043 0.031 0.003 0Williams 8/8/2008 16:02 8/8/2008 16:49 ND 0.146 ND 0.161 ND 0.009 

EnCana 8/12/2008 17:02 8/12/2008 18:16 ND 0.184 0.147 0.088 0.102 0.016 0

EnCana 8/12/2008 17:04 8/12/2008 18:27 0.092 0.102 0.083 0.087 0.034 0.011 0

EnCana 8/13/2008 11:08 8/13/2008 12:05 0.390 0.664 0.405 ND ND 0.027 0EnCana 8/13/2008 13:20 8/13/2008 14:30 NA NA NA NA NA NA .0

EnCana 8/13/2008 15:00 8/13/2008 15:26 0.364 ND ND ND ND 0.0413 

EnCana 8/13/2008 15:25 8/13/2008 16:13 0.461 ND ND 0.239 ND ND 

EnCana 8/13/2008 15:52 8/13/2008 16:51 0.398 0.339 0.346 0.354 0.273 0.015 0

EnCana 8/14/2008 10:22 8/14/2008 11:19 ND 0.328 ND 0.223 ND 0.024 0

EnCana 8/14/2008 15:00 8/14/2008 16:10 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

EnCana 8/14/2008 15:59 8/14/2008 16:56 0.749 ND ND ND 0.397 0.097 0

EnCana 8/15/2008 13:00 8/15/2008 14:00 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

*NA denotes periods when concentrations were not analyzed for a particular compound *ND denotes time periods that concentrations were not detected above minimum detection limits of OP-FTIR 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

Table 3-11.	 Summary of the Average Mass Concentration Ratios of VOC to Alkane Mixture, for the 

Williams and EnCana sites 

Site Benzene Toluene m-Xylene o-Xylene p-Xylene Methanol Methane 

Williams 0.087±0.079 0.201±0.134 0.080±0.002 0.202±0.144 0.098±0.118 0.007±0.005 0.082±0.080 

EnCana 0.409±0.211 0.323±0.215 0.245±0.154 0.198±0.113 0.201±0.165 0.033±0.030 0.102±0.148 

The average mass concentration ratio for each VOC from the Williams site was then multiplied by 

the average AM flux value from the Williams Evaporation Pond (0.20 g/s) and Skim Pond (0.90 g/s) 

to produce an estimated flux for each VOC for these sources. The average mass concentration 

ratio for each VOC from the EnCana site was multiplied by the average AM flux value from the 

EnCana Evaporation Pond (0.07 g/s) to produce an estimated VOC flux from this source. A 

summary of the estimated VOC emissions flux values from each source area are presented below 

in Table 3-12. It is noted that the values of Table E-2 include underlying uncertainty in AM flux 

measurement average and additionally VOC to AM concentration ratio uncertainty so the values 

should be considered estimates. 

Table 3-12. Estimated Emission Flux Values (g/s) of select VOCs from the Williams and EnCana Sites 

Site Source Area Benzene 

(g/s) 

Toluene 

(g/s) 

m-Xylene 

(g/s) 

o-Xylene 

(g/s) 

p-Xylene 

(g/s) 

Methanol 

(g/s) 

Methane 

(g/s) 

Williams Evaporation 

Pond 0.018 0.040 0.016 0.040 0.020 0.001 0.017 

Williams Skim Pond 0.078 0.181 0.072 0.182 0.088 0.006 0.074 

EnCana Evaporation 

Pond 0.029 0.023 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.002 0.007 

Table 3-12 shows that the largest emission flux values for these compounds were from the Williams 

Skim Pond, with lower emissions found from the evaporation ponds at both sites. As discussed in 

the next section, the presence of these VOCs are also recorded in the SUMMA canister sampling 

with values near the Williams skin pond showing elevated results. 

The results of Table 3-12 reflect an analysis that was conducted during times conducive to AM flux 

estimation. During other time periods, the concentrations of the select VOCs could be much lower, 

and in many cases below the detection limit of the OP-FTIR TAM method. An attempt was made to 

compare the concentrations determined by the OP-FTIR TAM with SUMMA canister values for the 

exact time periods that the canisters were acquired. Table 3-13 presents six canister results from 

the Williams and EnCana facilities with OP-FTIR TAM analyses conducted during the canister 

sampling periods. The SUMMA canister results are labeled (S) with the TO-15 analysis listed first 

38 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

and the SNMOC result in parenthesis. The OP-FTIR TAM result is labeled (F). The derivation of the 

SUMMA canister AM results is discussed in Section 3.5 and Appendix A. 

Table 3-13. Comparison of Canister and OP-FTIR Results 

Canister 

TNAPC11 

(Williams) 

Canisters 

926,648 

(Williams) 

Canister ER047 

(Williams) 

Canister 

TNAPC20 

(Encana) 

Canisters ER069, 

ER064 (Encana) 

Canisters 

988, 3248 

(Encana) 

Benzene (S) 203 (175) 88.8 (57.8) 8.1 (4.7) 1.3 (1.0) 2.3 (1.5) 2.5 (2.0) 

Benzene (F) 17 23 36 (ND) (ND) 66 

Toluene (S) 1210 (993) 221 (200) 16.7 (11.4) 4.1 (3.5) 3.2 (2.9) 4.6 (4.3) 

Toluene (F) 42 63 62 (ND) 42 ND 

m-,o-,p-Xylene (S) 27111

 (1916)1 177 (105) 15.7 (11.6) 5.1 (5.0) 1.9 (2.0) 2.6 (2.8) 

m-,o-,p-Xylene (F) 91 53 79 312 302 402 

AM (S) 6654 546 164 58.2 19.4 33.5 

AM (F) 536 82 509 27 86 54 

1 estimated value 

2

 m-,p-Xlene below minimum detection limit of OP-FTIR TAM 

(ND) below the minimum detection limits of OP-FTIR TAM 

In general, it is difficult to compare the concentrations determined by the OP-FTIR TAM and 

SUMMA canister methods since the former integrates over an extended area, and the latter is a 

point sampling approach. In some cases, the canister may be located very close to the source 

(such as the Skim Pond at the Williams site), while the corresponding path-averaged concentration 

measurement from the OP-FTIR measures this area but additionally integrate clean air from both 

sites of the source. Conversely, at times when the concentrations measured with the OP-FTIR are 

larger than canister values, the canister location may not have been located within the plume but 

plume was captured by the spatially extended OP-FTIR measurement beam. In some cases, the 

canisters were not located in close enough proximity to the OP-FTIR beam to allow robust 

comparisons. In some cases similar concentrations are measured by the two methods but at slightly 

offset time periods due to changes in wind direction. For example, elevated values similar to 

TNAPC11 were measured by the OP-FTIR beam just before the canister was acquired (Table 

3-10). These factors are further explored in Section 3.5 which compares OP-FTIR AM and SUMMA 

canister AM results in the context of sampling location and wind direction. 

3.5 Results of Canister Measurements 

As described in Section 2.4, SUMMA canister samples were collected during the field campaign to 

help inform the OTM 10 results. The one-hour canister samples were analyzed using U.S. EPA 

39 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Compendium Method TO-15, and speciated non-methane organic compounds (SNMOC) method. 

The results of the laboratory analyses are contained in Appendix B of this document. 

Table 3-14 summarizes the SUMMA canisters data for several important compounds. The 

concentrations were determined by TO-15 except for the AM estimation which was derived from a 

42 compound summation of the SNOMC results as described in Appendix A. The approximate 

position of the canister with respect to local source is indicated by the upwind/downwind column 

entry and the OP-FTIR optical path used for comparison is also shown. These comparisons are 

described and later in this section. Collocated canister entries represent average values of the 

analyses. The collocated canisters produced the same concentrations to within 10% with the 

exception of the ER085, ER114 pair which differed by approximately 40%. 

It can be seen that the upwind canisters reflect generally lower values than the downwind canisters. 

The Williams canisters recorded higher concentrations than the EnCana canisters but this was 

primarily due to the location of the Williams canisters in very close proximity to the skim pond 

source and inlet to the North pond. These factors are further discussed later in this section. 

Figures 3-9 and 3-10 summarize 42 of the most prevalent species measured by SNMOC analysis 

of the downwind canisters. Figure 3-9 (Williams facility) presents the average of four downwind 

canisters (TNAPC-11, 648, 926, ER047) with the average of three upwind canisters (3639A, 

ER038, ER001)subtracted. Figure 3-10 (EnCana facility) presents the average of six downwind 

canisters (3248, 988, 3254, 167601, 444, ER043) with the average of three upwind canisters 

(ER061, 3255, ER029) subtracted. Figure 3-10 is included for completeness but should not be 

emphasized since the upwind versus downwind canister signal levels at the EnCana facility were 

extremely low (single digit ppb) so the results are less certain especially with regard to the low mass 

compounds which can be affected disproportionately by background variation. An optimized subset 

of canisters was employed for the EnCana analysis in an attempt to increase signal levels. Overall, 

the Williams distribution (Figure 3-9) has a much higher degree of certainty due to the higher 

concentration levels and is likely similar to the actual distribution at the EnCana facility 

In addition to providing speciation information, the SUMMA canister samples can be compared to 

the OP-FTIR measurements along selected paths to help inform the study. In the following figures, 

OP-FITR time series graphs of AM concentrations for ground-level beam paths are presented along 

with SUMMA canister AM estimates based on SNMOC analysis (described in Appendix A). The 

comparisons of OP-FITR and SUMMA canister are summarized in Table 3-14. The approximate 

location of the SUMMA canisters and OP-FTIR beam paths are noted in the associated images and 

the wind rose for the 1 hour SUMMA canister sampling period is also presented. 

40 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 3-14. Summary Canister Summary from the Williams and EnCana Sites 

Site Date 

Sampling 

Mid-point 

(hr:min) 

Summa ID Upwind / 

Downwind 

Benzene 

(ppbv) 

Toluene 

(ppbv) 

m-,o-,pXylene 

(ppbv) 

Octane 

(ppbv) 

AM 

Estimate 

(ppbv) 

OP-FTIR 

Plane 

Williams

8/7 16:43 TNAPC-11 d 203 1210 27113 1160 6654 E4 

 8/8 13:55 3639A u 1.4 4.8 3.1 0.5 47.5 A1 

Rulison 8/8 13:55 926, 648 d 88.8 221 177 72.6 546 E4 

8/9 14:301 ER001, ER038 u 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 27.5 A1 

8/9 14:301 ER047 d 8.1 16.7 15.7 11.6 164 E4 

8/12 11:301 ER029 u 0.5 1.1 1.2 0.6 15.6 E1 

8/12 11:301 659, 167604 d 2.3 3.7 2.3 0.9 28.5 --

8/13 11:37 3255 u 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 21.4 E1 

8/13 11:37 ER043, 444 d 2.2 5.7 6.5 2.0 50.6 A4 

EnCana 8/13 16:22 TNAPC20 u2 1.3 4.1 5.1 2.0 58.2 E1

 Benzel 8/13 16:22 167601, 3254 d 1.5 5.2 8.5 2.8 60.0 A4 

8/14 11:03 ER061 u 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 10.7 E1 

8/14 11:03 ER069, ER064 d 2.3 3.2 1.9 0.4 19.4 A4 

8/14 16:39 15280 u2 1.1 2.0 1.2 0.4 26.0 E1 

8/14 16:39 988, 3248 d 2.5 4.6 2.6 0.8 33.5 A4 

8/15 11:39 ER021 u2 4.3 7.3 2.7 0.6 85.1 

8/15 11:39 ER085, ER114 d 1.9 3.4 2.1 0.4 28.6 

A1 

A4 

1 approximate time 

2

 upwind affected by source, see detailed description
 

3

 estimated value
 

A1- ARCADIS OP-FTIR beam 1 (of A123) 

A4 - ARCADIS OP-FTIR beam 4 (of A456) 

E1 - EPA OP-FTIR beam 1 (of E123) 

E4 - EPA OP-FTIR beam 4 (of E456) 

All results above 50 ppb required dilution of SUMMA canister. 

41 
Ethane Propa n-Buta ne ne n-Pentane n-Hexane n-Heptane n-Octane n-Nonane n-Decane n-Undecane Cyclopentane Cyclohexane 2-, 3-Methylpentane 2-, 3-Methylhexane 2-, 3-Methylheptane Methylcyclopentane Methylcyclohexane Isobutane Isopentane 2,2-, 2,3-Dimethylbutane 2,3-, 2,4-Dimethylpentane 2,2,3-, 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 1-Heptene 1-Nonene Benzene Toluene m-, o-, p-Xylene Ethylbenzene m-, o-, p-Ethyltoluene 

1,2,3-, 1,2,4-, 1,3,5,- Trimethylbenz

600 500 400 300 200

Average Concentration (ppbv) 

0 

10 0 

Figure 3-9. Summary of Downwind Canisters SNMOC Analysis for the Williams Facility 

42 
Ethane Propane n-Butane n-Pentane n-Hexane n-Heptane n-Octane n-Nonane n-Decane n-Undecane Cyclopentane Cyclohexane 

2-, 3-Methylpentane 2-, 3-Methylhexane 2-, 3-Methylheptane Methylcyclopentane Methylcyclohexane Isobutane Isopentane 

2,2-, 2,3-Dimethylbutane 2,3-, 2,4-Dimethylpentane 

2,2,3-, 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 1-Heptene 1-Nonene Benzene Toluene m-, o-, p-Xylene Ethylbenzene m-, o-, p-Ethyltoluene 

1,2,3-, 1,2,4-, 1,3,5,- Trimethylbenz

8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0

Average Concentration (ppbv) 

0. 0 1. 0 

Figure 3-10. Summary of Downwind Canisters SNMOC Analysis for the EnCana Facility 

43 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Figure 3-11 shows canister TNAPC11 in close proximity to the skim pond and inlet of the skim pond 

into the North evaporation pond. The close proximity of the canister sample to large sources can 

yield highly variable results small changes in wind direction can greatly affect measured 

concentrations. Although E4 is significantly lower than TNAPC11 during the canister sampling 

period, E4 registered similar concentrations at neighboring time periods. Concentrations during this 

time period were amongst the highest recorded during the study. 

In a similar fashion to Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12 shows elevated concentrations for 648, 926 

compared to OP-FTIR path E4 for the sampling time period, believed to be due to the proximity of 

the canister to the pond inlet (local source). Under slightly different wind conditions after 15:00, the 

E4 path is elevated. In comparisons, the upwind canister 3639A is in good agreement with 

neighboring OP-FTIR plane (A1). It is noted some number of the A1 points are below MDL. 

In Figure 3-13, wind is from the SE resulting in reduced sampling of the previously discussed strong 

sources for the canister which is slightly NW of this position. The wind direction in this case provided 

enhanced average concentrations measured by OP-FTIR path E4 with high temporal variability 

noted as the wind direction changes over short timer periods. The upwind canisters ER038 and 

ER001 are in good agreement with OP-FTIR path A4. 

In Figure 3-14 presents the only available comparison from the EnCana facility on 8/12/08. This 

represents primarily and upwind comparison and shows good agreement between the canister and 

OP-FITR result. 

Figure 3-15 presents the first of two comparisons from 8/13/08 and shows relatively good 

agreement in both upwind and downwind concentrations. As opposed to the previous Williams 

results, the temporal profile of the downwind OP-FTIR results is more stable indicating more 

developed plumes which aids in the comparison of canister to OP-FTIR. 

Figure 3-16 presents the second comparison from 8/13/08. In this case the upwind and downwind 

canister show very similar results. This is explained by the fact that the TNAPC20 upwind canister is 

located too close to the pond edge and under these wind conditions, is being significantly impacted 

by emissions from the pond. The variability in wind conditions is also evident in the OP-FTIR data. 

Figure 3-17 presents the first of two comparisons from 8/14/08. This is an informative case which 

shows good agreement for the upwind case however the downwind canisters ER064 and ER069 

significantly lower than OP-FTIR A4 result. The inlet to the pond at the EnCana is located toward 

the North West portion of the Pond (Section 2.5) and is expected to be a high contributor to the 

overall source signature. Under the indicated wind directions and canister placements, this portion 

of the source is not effectively sampled by the canisters but is robustly captured by the OP-FTIR. 

44 
E4

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

E4 

10000 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

9000 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

E4 FTIR 8/7/08 

TNAPC11 (E4) 

14:00	 15:00 16:00 17:00 

Time (hr:min) 

Figure 3-11. Williams 8/7/08, Canister TNAPC11 and OP-FTIR Path E4. 

45 
E4

A1

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

E4 

A1 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

E4 FTIR 8/8/08 

648,926 (E4) 

A1 FTIR 8/8/08 

3639A (A1) 

13:00	 14:00 15:00 16:00
 

Time (hr:min)
 

Figure 3-12. Williams 8/8/08, Canisters 648 and 926 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E4 and Canister 3639A 

Compared to OP-FTIR Path A1 

46 
E4

A1

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

E4 

A1 

12:00	 13:00 14:00 15:00
 

Time (hr:min)
 

Figure 3-13. Williams 8/9/08, Canister ER047 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E4 and Canisters ER038 and ER001 

Compared to OP-FTIR Path A1 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

900 

1000 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

E4 FTIR 8/9/08 

ER047 (E4) 

A1 FTIR 8/9/08 

ER038, ER001 (A1) 

47 
E1

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

100 

E1 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

E1 FTIR 8/12/08 

ER029 (E1) 

0 

10:30	 11:30 12:30 13:30 

Time (hr:min) 

Figure 3-14. EnCana 8/12/08, Canister ER029 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 

48 
E1

A4

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

E1 

A4 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

E1 FTIR 8/13/08 

3255 (E1) 

A4 FTIR 8/13/08 

ER043, 444 (A4) 

10:00	 11:00 12:00 13:00
 

Time (hr:Min)
 

Figure 3-15. EnCana 8/13/08, Canister 3255 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 and Canisters ER043 and 444 

Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 

49 
 

E1

A4

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

E1 

A4 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

E1 FTIR 8/13/08 

TNAPC20 (E1) 

A4 FTIR 8/13/08 

3254, 167601 (A4) 

14:00	 15:00 16:00 17:00
 

Time (hr:Min)
 

Figure 3-16. EnCana 8/13/08, Canister TNAPC20 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 and Canisters 3254 and 

167601 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 

50 
E1

A4

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

E1 

A4 

9:00	 10:00 11:00 12:00
 

Time (hr:Min)
 

Figure 3-17. EnCana 8/14/08, Canister ER061 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 and Canisters ER064 and ER069 

Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

E1 FTIR 8/14/08 

ER061 (E1) 

A4 FTIR 8/14/08 

ER064, ER069 (A4) 

51 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Figure 3-18 presents the second comparison from 8/14/08. Note the change in canister placements 

and wind conditions compared to Figure 3-17. Here the OP-FTIR A4 path registers similar 

concentrations to Figure 3-17 prior to canister sampling and reduced values comparable to the 

canister as winds obtain SW components. At this time signal begins to appear of the E1 path. 

Figure 3-19 presents a comparison from 8/15/08. In this case the canister ER021 is in close 

proximity to the pond inlet and is clearly impacted by a local source so is not a true upwind canister. 

It is noted that E1 OP-FTIR beam path (not shown) was characteristically low for this time period. 

The ER021 canister is most easily compared to the A1 OP-FTIR path under this wind direction and 

relatively good agreement is evident. Agreement is relatively good for the A4 path and it is 

interesting the note the how the concentration changes between the A4 and A1 paths as a 

consequence of wind direction variations over time. 

3.6 Summary of Water Analysis Results 

As discussed in Section 2.5, water samples were taken and analyzed to provide supporting 

information for the study. The results are presented in Tables 3-15 and 3-16 for the Williams and 

EnCana Facilities respectively. All samples were analyzed for volatile organics by EPA SW-846 

Method 8260 “Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (capillary 

column technique)”. Due to the high levels of VOCs in the Skim Pond Inlet and Outlet samples, 

some of the compounds exceeded the calibration range. Further information on the analysis can be 

found in Appendix C. 

Table 3-15 shows a summary of the results for the three highest concentration compounds for the 

skim pond inlet and exit. All results presented in Table 3-15 exceeded the calibration range and are 

considered estimates. For samples taken from the north and south pond outlet headers, all 

compounds analyzed were under the detection limit (<2.5 μg/L). 

Table 3-16 shows a summary of the results from the EnCana facility for the three highest 

concentration compounds for the evaporation pond inlet and subsurface samples. All results 

presented in Table 3-16 exceeded the calibration range and are considered estimates. 

At both sites, a strong gradient in concentration from the inlet to outlet (or pond edges) is evident. 

The three highest compounds (benzene, toluene, and m-, p-xylenes were also found in relatively 

high concentrations compared in the other analyses. 

52 
E1

A4

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

E1 

A4 

14:00	 15:00 16:00 17:00
 

Time (hr:Min)
 

Figure 3-18. EnCana 8/14/08, Canister 15280 Compared to OP-FTIR Path E1 and Canisters 988 and 3248 

Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

E1 FTIR 8/14/08 

15280 (E1) 

A4 FTIR 8/14/08 

988, 3248 (A4) 

53 
 

A1

A4

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

A1 

A4 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

AM Concentration (ppb) 

A1 FTIR 8/15/08 

ER021 (A1) 

A4 FTIR 8/15/08 

ER085, ER114 (A4) 

10:00	 11:00 12:00 13:00
 

Time (hr:min)
 

Figure 3-19. EnCana 8/15/08, Canister ER021 Compared to OP-FTIR Path A1 and Canisters ER085 and ER114 

Compared to OP-FTIR Path A4 

54 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

Table 3-15. Summary Water Analysis from the Williams Site 

Sample No Date Time (hr:min) Benzene 

(μg/L) 

Toluene 

(μg/L) 

m,p-Xylene 

(μg/L) 

Skim Pond Inlet 

SP IN-1 8/7/2008 13:34 19,000 50,000 40,400 

SP IN-2 8/8/2008 11:02 16,200 29,400 16,300 

Skim Pound Outlet 

SP OUT-1 8/7/2008 13:45 15,000 33,400 24,100 

SP OUT-2 8/8/2008 11:04 7,470 16,200 8,850 

SP OUT-2 Dup 8/8/2008 11:04 10,700 21,900 11,000 

SP OUT-3 8/8/2008 11:35 11,300 23,600 11,900 

SP OUT-4 8/8/2008 11:51 12,000 27,400 16,100 

Table 3-16. Summary Water Analysis from the EnCana Site 

Sample No Date Time 

(hr:min) 

Benzene 

(μg/L) 

Toluene 

(μg/L) 

m,p-Xylene 

(μg/L) 

Grass Mesa Inlet 

Grass-1 8/12/2008 16:30 13,700 36,400 22,500 

Grass-2 8/13/2008 16:50 7,930 18,500 8,180 

Grass-3 8/14/2008 10:45 12,500 30,900 18,300 

West Side 

W-1 8/12/2008 14:45 642 1,370 756 

W-2 8/13/2008 15:30 564 1,430 933 

W-3 8/14/2008 11:15 694 1,710 1,000 

W-3 Dup 8/14/2008 11:15 729 1,800 1,070 

South Side 

S-1 8/12/2008 15:20 382 716 314 

S-2 8/13/2008 15:15 804 1,920 1,100 

East Side 

E-1 8/12/2008 15:40 605 1,320 689 

E-2 8/13/2008 14:50 550 1,340 804 

55 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

56 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

4. Summary 

A measurement campaign was conducted at the Williams Rulison and EnCana Benzel facilities in 

Western Colorado from August 6-9 and 12-15, 2008, respectively. The purpose of the study was to 

increase knowledge of VOC emissions form the produced water ponds at the facilities. The 

measurement approach used EPA method OTM 10 with two OP-FTIRs deployed in a four corners 

configuration to provide mass emission flux estimate of measurements for an alkane mixture. Table 

4-1 presents a summary of the AM emission flux results from the two sites. The values in the table 

represent the average of all valid 20-minute AM flux estimates calculated over a four-day period at 

each site with standard deviation in parenthesis and number of values indicated. The uncertainty 

estimate for the individual flux measurements comprising this average is estimated at ± 40% 

(section 5.3). The uncertainty in the overall average is likely driven by the temporal variability in the 

source emissions. 

Table 4-1. AM Emission Flux Results from William Rulison and EnCana Benzel Sites 

Site Source Average AM Flux 

[g/s] 

Number of 

Values 

Williams Evaporation Pond 0.20 (0.33) 27 

Williams Skim Pond 0.90 (0.58) 15 

EnCana Evaporation Pond 0.07 (0.06) 65 

The results show that the major AMs emissions source from the Williams facility was from the Skim 

Pond. The emissions from the Skim Pond were on average about 5 times the emissions from the 

Evaporation Pond. The results also show that the emissions from the Evaporation Ponds at the two 

sites were comparable (0.20 g/s and 0.07 g/s for the Williams and EnCana sites, respectively). 

The OP-FTIR TAM data were used to estimate concentrations of select VOC at the sites. The VOC 

concentrations were ratioed to AM concentrations and measured fluxes from the same time period 

to produce an estimate of the VOC emissions from the sites. Table 4-2 presents the results of these 

calculations. The values of Table 4-2 include underlying uncertainty in AM flux measurement 

average in addition to significant VOC to AM concentration ratio uncertainty so the values should be 

considered estimates 

In addition to the OP-FTIR measurements, VOC concentrations were determined using SUMMA 

canister samples and EPA Method TO-15 and SNMOC analysis. These values were compared to 

the OP-FTIR data to provide supporting information for the study. Water samples were also 

acquired and analyzed to help support the study. These data showed a strong concentration 

gradient between the inlet on outlet (or pond edges) for both facilities. 

57 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table 4-2.	 Summary of Estimated VOC Emission Rates (in grams per second) from William Rulison 

and EnCana Benzel Sites 

Site Source Area Benzene 

(g/s) 

Toluene 

(g/s) 

m-Xylene 

(g/s) 

o-Xylene 

(g/s) 

p-Xylene 

(g/s) 

Methanol 

(g/s) 

Methane 

(g/s) 

Williams Evaporation 

Pond 0.016 0.036 0.014 0.036 0.018 0.001 0.015 

Williams Skim Pond 0.078 0.181 0.072 0.182 0.088 0.006 0.074 

EnCana Evaporation 

Pond 0.029 0.023 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.002 0.007 

The overall AM emission rate estimates for the produced water pond sources at the Williams facility 

was ∼16 times higher than for the EnCana facility. The incoming flow estimates were ∼5300 barrels 

per day for the Willams facility and ∼ 300 barrels per day for the EnCana facility, a factor of ∼18. 

Combining the emission estimates of benzene, toluene and m-,o-,p-xylene, the Williams facility was 

∼ 7.5 times higher than the EnCana, although these estimates contain additional uncertainty. 

Differences in emissions between the facilities could be due to many variables including: differences 

produced water input to the ponds, pond size and aeration differences, transportation and water 

treatment differences etc. 

 Note that the emission estimates presented in this report represent a snapshot in time consisting of 

day-time observations over consecutive four-day periods at each facility during the month of 

August. Diurnal and seasonal effects in addition to changing process variables such as 

(concentration of hydrocarbons in the waste water, use of spray operations, changes in separation 

and biotreatment, etc.) were not evaluated as part of this study. Since these variables may have a 

significant effect on emissions, extrapolation of the results contained in this report would include 

significant uncertainty. As a specific example, methanol water concentrations are known to vary 

seasonally so the emission data contained in this report is may not be typical. 

58 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

5. Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

This document reports the results from Phase I of a multi-phase research effort to identify and 

quantify select VOC and methane emissions from oil and gas field operations. These data are not 

intended for direct use in enforcement activities, litigation, or human studies. These data were 

collected in conformance with the quality requirements of NRMRL QA Category III. 

The basic objective of this phase of the project was to improve knowledge of emission rates 

produced water evaporation ponds. The approach used EPA Method OTM -10 in conjunction with 

canister sampling. The following sections describe the procedures used to ensure that the data met 

the project data quality indicators (DQI) and was acceptable for use in meeting these study 

objectives. 

5.1 Instrument Calibration 

As stated in the ECPB Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (USEPA, 2004), all equipment is 

calibrated annually and or cal-checked as part of standard operating procedures. Certificates of 

calibration are kept on file. Maintenance records are kept for any equipment adjustments or repairs 

in bound project notebooks that include the data and description of maintenance performed. 

Instrument calibration procedures and frequency are listed in Table 5-1 and further described in the 

text. 

5.2 Assessment of DQI Goals 

The critical measurements associated with this project and the established data quality indicator 

(DQI) goals in terms of accuracy, precision, and completeness are listed in Table 5-2. More 

information on the procedures used to assess DQI goals can be found in Section 10 of the ECPB 

Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (USEPA, 2004). 

59 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description 

Instrument Measurement Calibration Date Calibration Detail 

IMACC, Inc. OP-FTIR Analyte PIC Pre-deployment and 

in-field checks 

MOP-6802 and 6823 of the ECPB Optical 

Remote Sensing Facility Manual 

AIL, Inc. OP-FTIR Analyte PIC Pre-deployment and 

in-field checks 

MOP-6802 and 6823 of the ECPB Optical 

Remote Sensing Facility Manual 

R.M. Young 

Meteorological Head 

Wind Speed in 

miles/hour July 21, 2008 APPCD Metrology Lab Cal. Records on file 

R.M. Young 

Meteorological Head 

Wind direction in 

degrees from North July 21, 2008 APPCD Metrology Lab Cal. Records on file 

Topcon Model GTS211D Theodolite Distance 

Measurement June 17, 2008 

Calibration of distance measurement. 

Actual distance=43.105 ft 

Measured distance= 42.5 ft 

Topcon Model GTS211D Theodolite Angle Measurement June 17, 2008 

Calibration of angle measurement. 

Actual angle= 360o 

Measured angle= 358o58’48” 

Measured angle= 359o00’20” 

Measured angle= 359o01’08” 

Table 5-2. Measurement Quality Objectives for the Project 

Measurement 

Parameter Analysis Method Accuracy Precision Detection 

Limit Completeness 

Analyte PIC OP-FTIR: Nitrous Oxide 

Concentrations 

± 25%,15%, 

10%a ± 10% 

See Table 4-2 of 

QAPP (EPA, 

2008) 

90% 

Cannister 

Measurements TO-15/ SNMOC ± 30 of audit ± 25 

See Tables 4-3 

and 4-4 of QAPP 

(EPA, 2008) 

90% 

Ambient Wind 

Speed 

R.M. Young Met heads 

post-deployment 

calibration in EPA 

Metrology Lab 

± 1 m/s ± 1 m/s 0.2 m/s 90% 

Ambient Wind 

Direction 

R.M. Young Met heads 

post-deployment 

calibration in EPA 

Metrology Lab 

±10o ± 10o 5 deg 90% 

Distance 

Measurement Theodolite- Topcon ± 1m ±1 m 0.1 m 100% 

Prevailing Wind 

Direction R.M. Young Met heads N/A N/A N/A NA 

a. The accuracy acceptance criterion of ±2 5% is for pathlengths of less than 50m, ± 15% is for pathlengths 

between 50 and 100m, and ± 10% is for pathlengths greater than 100m. 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

5.2.1 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement 

The precision and accuracy of the concentration data may be checked by looking at the analyzed 

nitrous oxide concentrations. The known atmospheric background nitrous oxide concentration is 

around 315 ppbv (this is an average value, as the value exhibits a slight seasonal variation). The 

acceptable range of nitrous oxide concentrations is 315 ppb ± 25% for pathlengths of less than 

50m, 315 ppb ± 15% for pathlengths between 50 and 100m, and 315 ppb ± 10% is for pathlengths 

greater than 100m. Verifying this background concentration provides a good QC check of the data 

collected. Obviously, this method is not valid for data collected at a site that is a source of nitrous 

oxide. 

The precision of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by calculating the relative standard 

deviation (RSD) from one data subset collected near the surface of the suspected source. A subset 

is defined as the data collected along one particular path length during one particular survey in one 

survey sub-area. 

The accuracy of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by comparing the calculated nitrous 

oxide concentrations from one data subsets to the background value of 315 ppb. The number of 

calculated nitrous oxide concentrations that failed to meet the DQI accuracy criterion was recorded. 

Overall, a total of two datasets were analyzed for each OP-FTIR instrument. Based on the DQI 

criterion set forth for precision of ± 10%, all of the data subsets from the ARCADIS OP-FTIR were 

found to be acceptable, for a completeness of 100%. The range of calculated relative standard 

deviations for the data subsets was 1.8 to 3.2 ppb, which represents 0.57 to 1.02% RSD. Based on 

the DQI criterion set forth for precision of ± 10%, all of the data subsets from the EPA OP-FTIR 

were found to be acceptable, for a completeness of 100%. The range of calculated relative 

standard deviations for the data subsets was 3.6 to 3.7 ppb, which represents 1.14 to 1.17% RSD. 

Each data point (calculated nitrous oxide concentration) in the data subsets was analyzed to assess 

whether or not it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ± 10% (315 ± 32 ppb), as the path lengths 

used for measurements were greater than 100 meters. A total of 138 data points were analyzed 

from the ARCADIS OP-FTIR, and 138 of the points met the DQI criteria for accuracy for a 

completeness of 100%. A total of 136 data points were analyzed from the EPA OP-FTIR, and 89 of 

the points met the DQI criteria for accuracy for a completeness of 65%. It should be noted that all of 

the analyzed data points from the EPA OP-FTIR were within ± 14% of the DQI criterion for accuracy 

of 315 ppb (range of analyzed nitrous oxide concentrations was 335 to 357 ppb). 

61 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

5.2.2 DQI Checks for TO-15 Can Measurements 

A field audit (Technical Systems Audit) was conducted by EPA quality staff from OAQPS at the start 

of the Williams Rulison sampling campaign. An audit report was not generated. 

The QC data associated with the ERG TO-15 and SNMOC analyses of these samples were 

evaluated according measurement audit goals: accuracy ± 30 percent; precision ± 25 percent; and 

90 percent completeness. The accuracy could not be assessed since laboratory control sample 

results were not included in the ERG laboratory reports. A number of field duplicate analyses were 

conducted by the laboratory, with a resulting precision of more than 98 percent. All samples were 

analyzed and reported, resulting in 100 percent completeness. 

5.2.3 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction Measurements 

The meteorological head DQIs are checked annually as part of the routine calibration procedure. 

The R.M. Young Meteorological heads used in the current study were calibrated by the EPA 

Metrology Lab on July 21, 2008. Due to field studies requiring the equipment, a post calibration 

assessment of the R.M. Yong Meteorological heads by the EPA Meteorology lab could not be 

performed. Both heads did successfully pass a post deployment certified calibration test performed 

by the manufactures (R.M. Young) conducted on May 13, 2009. 

Additionally, a couple of reasonableness checks were performed in the field on the measured wind 

direction data. While data collection was occurring, the field team leader compares wind direction 

measured with the heads to the forecasted wind direction for that particular day. Another 

reasonableness check involved confirming a magnetic north reading by manually setting the vane 

to magnetic north using a hand held compass. The output wind direction during this manual test 

should be very close to 360o. 

The Wind Sonic anemometer was used in place of the 10-meter R.M. Young Meteorological head 

when the wireless transmitter failed on the last day at the Williams Rulison facility. This instrument 

was intended only as an emergency back-up and was therefore not calibrated prior to the field 

campaign. There are no moving parts in this anemometer, nor is there an auto northing feature. 

There is a yellow dot on the Wind Sonic that must be pointed north. Prior to use, the theodolite 

compass was used to verify that the instrument was pointing to magnetic north. 

5.2.4 DQI Checks for the Topcon Theodolite 

A calibration check was performed before the field campaign on June 17, 2008. The calibration of 

distance measurement was done at the EPA facility using a tape measure. The actual distance was 

43.105 feet, and the measured distance was 42.5 feet. The results indicate accuracy and precision 

62 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

fall well within the DQI goals. The calibration of angle measurement was also performed. The actual 

angle was 360°, and the measured angles were 358°58’48”, 359°00’20” and 359°01’08”. The 

results indicate accuracy and precision fall well within the DQI goals. 

Additionally, there are several internal checks in the theodolite software that prevent data collection 

from occurring if the instrument is not properly aligned on the object being measured, or if the 

instrument has not been balanced correctly. When this occurs, it is necessary to re-initialize the 

instrument to collect data. 

5.2.5 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance 

Several diagnostic checks were performed on the OP-FTIR instrumentation prior to deployment to 

the field, and during the duration of each field campaign. These checks involve assessing the 

electronic noise of the instrument, the strength of the instrument signal, and features in the collected 

data spectrum. The results of these tests are used to determine whether or not the instrument is 

functioning properly. More information on the diagnostic checks that are performed as part of a 

typical ORS field campaign can be found in MOP 6802 and 6823 of the ECPB Optical Remote 

Sensing Facility Manual (USEPA, 2004). 

In addition to the QC checks performed on the OP-FTIR, the quality of the instrument signal 

(interferogram) was checked constantly during the field campaigns. This was done by ensuring that 

the intensity of the signal is at least 5 times the intensity of the stray light signal (the stray light signal 

is collected as background data prior to actual data collection, and measures internal stray light 

from the instrument itself). In addition to checking the strength of the signal, checks were done 

constantly in the field to ensure that the data were being collected and stored to the data collection 

computer. During the campaign, a member of the field team monitored the data collection computer 

to make sure these checks were completed. 

Prior to instrument deployment, a series of QC checks were performed on the IMACC OP-FTIRs to 

assess the instrument performance. The single beam ratio, baseline stability, noise equivalent 

absorbance, ZPD stability, saturation, random baseline noise, and stray light diagnostic tests were 

performed at the EPA facility. The results of the tests indicated that the ARCADIS and EPA OPFTIR instruments were operating within the acceptable criteria range. 

5.2.6 Difficulties Encountered 

During the two-week measurement campaign, the project encountered some problems with 

instrumentation and data telemetry. As mentioned in Section 3.2, the R.M. Young meteorological 

station was employed to collect wind data until mid-morning (10:30 a.m.) on August 9, 2008. At that 

time, the wireless transmitter failed in the 10-meter head and the emergency backup Wind Sonic 

63 
 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

 

anemenometer was put in place. A compass was used to establish magnetic north (there is no auto 

north feature on the Wind Sonic) and the software was modified for use in the field. 

During this time, an R.M. Young meteorological station was employed to collect wind data until midmorning (10:30 a.m) on August 9, 2008. At that time, the 10-meter head transmitter failed and a 

Wind Sonic anemometer was put in place and was used for the remainder of the sampling. 

There were some seal integrity issues with both the EPA and ARCADIS OP-FTIR instruments. For 

the EPA OP-FTIR, the liquid nitrogen would run out much sooner than expected. The field protocol 

was modified to ensure that the liquid nitrogen was checked more frequently. 

During the evening of August 10, 2008, unexpected and severe wind gusts (estimated at 70-80 

mph) knocked over the OP-FTIR and orbital scanner. On the morning of August 11, 20 minutes of 

data was collected and analyzed to ensure that the instrument was working properly before being 

deployed to the EnCana Benzel site. 

5.3 Estimate of Uncertainty for OTM 10 Emission Measurements 

There are four primary sources of uncertainty for OTM 10 emissions estimates from the produced 

water pond sources for this project: (1) baseline flux measurement uncertainty for the combination 

of multiple measurement planes discussed in Section 3.1 (Combined Uncertainty); (2) uncertainty 

due to assignment of interfering sources; (3) additional uncertainty associated with 3-beam OTM 10 

configuration; and (4) uncertainty due to the variability of source. These sources of uncertainty will 

be discussed in this section. 

Combined Flux Uncertainty 

As discussed in Section 3.1, a combined uncertainty estimate was produced for each 20-minute flux 

measurement. This uncertainty estimate was calculated by propagating individual estimates of 

uncertainty for each OTM 10 measurement plane to a combination of all four planes using a base 

assumption of ± 20% uncertainty for each plane. The ± 20% total uncertainty number is an estimate 

on previous tracer release studies of OTM 10 performance in a close-coupled area source 

measurement scenario. For this project, the average calculated combined uncertainty expressed as 

a percentage of the net flux value were typically in the 20% to 30% range however several values 

exhibited very high values of uncertainty. For example, Williams 8/7/09 12:10 shows a very low net 

flux (0.005 g/s) with a large combined uncertainty (0.0880 g/s) due to a high external flux from the 

interfering source (0.450 g/s). There is a similar value for EnCana 8/12/09 13:30 which shows a 

very low net flux (0.001 g/s) with a large combined uncertainty (0.004 g/s) due to a high external flux 

(0.02 g/s). Excluding these two outlier values, a meaningful metric of uncertainty can be produced 

by taking the average value of the combined uncertainty expressed as a percentage of the 

individual flux measurements value for each facility. For the Williams Evaporation Pond this value is 

64 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

32.7% and for the EnCana facility this value is 26.8%. Note that the skim pond facility is expressed 

as the external source so this calculation cannot be done for this source however due its strength, it 

is less affected by interfering sources so a 25% to 30% combined uncertainty assumption would 

seem reasonable. 

Uncertainty Due to Assignment of Interfering Sources 

As discussed in the combined uncertainty section above and also in the text and graphs of Section 

3, interfering sources can cause significant uncertainty with regard to emission flux estimates. This 

is especially true when the interfering source is strong in comparison to the source being evaluated. 

An example of this would be evaluation of the Williams North pond with potential interference from 

the skim pond. To first order, interfering sources are accounted for in the combined uncertainty 

estimation however there are cases were assignment of the interfering source can come into 

question due to uncertainties in wind direction. An example of this would be the 13:10 value from 

8/7/09 which shows a high value for emissions from the North Pond (1.56 g/s) compared to the 

overall average (0.20 g/s) and was produced during a period when the direction was changing. In 

this particular case, this effect may have been exaggerated due to the close proximity of the skim 

pond source and the relatively strong source associated with the inlet to the North pond from the 

skim pond. It is difficult to estimate the overall uncertainty associated with this effect however it is 

partially reflected in the standard deviation of the results of the combined average. 

Uncertainty Due to 3-beam OTM 10 Approach 

As discussed in Section 2, the OTM 10 measurement configurations for this project consisted of 

three measurement paths which extended from the OP-FTIR instrument to the scissor lift. The 3-

beam OTM 10 approach was chosen for this project since it was decided that it was more important 

to obtain a larger number of measurement cycles as opposed to fewer number of cycles with a five 

beam approach since the horizontal spatial location of the plume was not of primary importance. 

Due to the convergence of the optical beams at the instrument location, the use of a 3-beam 

measurement approach can introduce additional uncertainty in the flux if the emission zone is 

relatively small and located near the ends of the configuration. For this project the key suspected 

emission areas are thought to provide relatively well-developed plumes from spatially and were 

generally well-centered on the optical configuration (i.e. location of Williams skim pond), however a 

discussion of general uncertainty associated with the three beam approach is warranted. 

To produce this uncertainty discussion, we used the VRPM Fit Explorer program (described by 

Abichou et al., 2009) to run a series of simulations to assess the variability in flux results from the 

OTM 10 method as a result of assuming different σy and peak plume concentration locations. In this 

simulation program, a downwind concentration field is generated from an area source using EPA 

ISC Gaussian dispersion model and then analyzed using OTM 10 algorithms and optical beam 

geometries. 

65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

In analyzing the PIC data using the 3-beam approach, the peak plume concentration was assumed 

to be centered along the crosswind axis of the OTM 10 configuration, and the σy parameter 

(horizontal dispersion coefficient) of the measured plume was assumed to be equal to 1⁄2 the length 

of the OTM 10 configurations. It was necessary to make these assumptions because the 3-beam 

OTM 10 approach does not include two intermediate surface beam paths which are used to obtain 

information on the horizontal location and dispersion of the plume. 

To investigate the effect of assuming fixed σy and lateral plume size parameters in the OTM 10 

VRPM calculation, as simulation was performed which presented three different plume size 

scenarios using VRPM Fit Explorer program. For this simulation, the OTM 10 plane configuration 

parameters were set near the average values used in this study (plane length = 140 m, 

retroreflector heights 1m, 4m, 9m). The plume size parameter in the OTM 10 calculation was fixed 

at 70 m and the σy parameter was varied (7m, 70 m, and 700 m). The simulated plumes were 

centered on the configuration with the upwind location of the source set to 50 m and stability class 

set to three with winds normal to the plane. The results are shown in Table 5-3 for three different 

staring plume sizes with values compared to 1.0 for a perfect reconstruction of the simulated flux. 

Table 5-3.	 Results of Flux Values Calculated by the VRPM Fit Explorer Program With a Fixed Peak 

Plume Concentration Location and Varying Values of the σy Parameter 

σy Value 40 m × 40 m 70 m × 70 m 100 m × 100 m 

σy = 7 m 0.97 0.92 0.86 

σy = 70 m 1.03 0.99 0.93 

σy = 700 m 1.04 1.00 0.94 

The results of the simulation show that the OTM 10 calculation is relatively insensitive to the choice 

of the σy parameter and that the choice of setting this parameter to 1⁄2 the value of the OTM 10 

plane length is a reasonable assumption and likely will not lead to a large source of error. 

As discussed previously, a potentially larger source of error when using the three-beam OTM 10 

approach occurs in situations where the plume is relatively small in comparison to the OTM 10 

plane and passes through the plane near its edges. At the position of the OP-FTIR, the three optical 

beam paths are close together forming the vertex of the OTM 10 triangle. At the position of the 

retroreflectors, the beams are the separated by the largest amount. The flux estimate for plumes 

intersecting the OTM 10 plane near the OP-FTIR instrument will be overestimated. The flux 

estimate for plumes intersecting the OTM 10 plane near the scissor lift and retroreflectors will be 

underestimated. 

66 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5-4 presents the results of a second simulation which investigates variation of the plume 

center location as it intersects the OTM 10 plane with the σy parameter assumed to be 70 m and 

other parameters the same as the previous simulation. 

Table 5-4.	 Results of Flux Values Calculated by the VRPM Fit Explorer Program with a Fixed σy 

Parameter and Varying Peak Plume Concentration Locations 

Peak Plume 

Concentration Location (m) 40 m × 40 m 70 m × 70 m 100 m × 100 m 

30 2.01 N/A N/A 

50 1.44 1.318 N/A 

70 1.03 0.99 0.93 

90 0.77 0.76 N/A 

110 0.60 N/A N/A 

N/A- Simulation results not included because plume would not be located within the confines of the OTM 10 

configuration plane 

The results of the simulation show that the 3-beam OTM 10 calculation is dependent upon the peak 

plume concentration location along the OTM 10 configuration plane. For the smallest plume size at 

a location close to the OP-FTIR instrument and convergence of the measurement paths (peak 

concentration location at 40 m), the OTM 10-derived flux values from the simulation was 200% 

higher than simulated values. The simulation shows underestimation of results as the 40 m x 40 m 

plume intersects the OTM plane closer to the scissor lift (up to 40 % underestimation). The OTM 10-

derived flux values from the simulation agrees better with control values as the plume becomes 

larger and is more centered on the optical configuration. 

When assessing the contribution to overall measurement uncertainty caused by using the 3-beam 

measurement approach, several factors must be considered. The general pond emission sources 

for this project are relatively large spatially with well-developed plumes (more like the 100 m by 100 

m case). The Williams skim pond source would represent a smaller source however it was wellcentered on the OTM 10 plane which decreases the likely hood of the near edge intersections 

(highly overestimated or underestimated 40 m by 40 m cases). Some of the inherent uncertainty 

discussed in this section is likely also evident (and accounted for) in the assumption of ± 20% single 

plane OTM 10 accuracy based on tracer release performance results. It is also noted that over the 

course of a 20 minute average measurement cycle, the plume intersection point meanders 

somewhat due to wind direction variation leading to an averaging effect. With these factors taken 

into account, the added uncertainty for a single plane measurement for this project due to use of the 

3-beam approach is estimated to be within ± 20 %. 

67 
 

 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

Based on this analysis and the preceding combined uncertainty analysis a reasonable estimate of 

the overall uncertainty in a single 20 minute OTM flux calculation for this project is estimated to be 

within ± 40%. 

Uncertainty Due to the Variability of Source 

As discussed in several sections of this report, significant variability in emissions from the assessed 

sources is evident and expressed as the relatively large standard deviation in emission flux results 

compared to the average value for the source. Some of this variability is due to uncertainty in the 

measurement approach but a significant amount of the variability is believed to be due to changes 

in emissions from the source due to changes in a number of emissions controlling variables such as 

make-up of the source, variable input load, meteorological conditions driving the emissions, and 

changes in process variables to name a few. This level of variability is evident in the standard 

deviation of the average results. A limitation of this data set is related to potential lack of sufficient 

measurement time to provide a robust estimate of average emissions. 

5.4 EPA and ARCADIS Audits and Corrective Actions 

Although a Technical Systems Audit (TSA) was not required for this QA Category III project, there 

was an attempt to perform one to help support the overall quality of the effort. Unfortunately, the trip 

planning and time constraints of the QA auditor was fixed near the planned project start-up at the 

Williams facility (August 4th – 6th 2008). Due to a transportation truck break-down enroot to the field 

location from the North Carolina EPA facility, the set up of the project was delayed precluding 

execution of a thorough audit however significant QA checks were made on August 6, 2008. The 

auditor did not find any issues that required corrective actions. An audit report was not generated. 

68 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

6. References 

Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost. (1999), Innovative approach for estimating fugitive gaseous 

fluxes using computed tomography and remote optical sensing techniques, J. Air Waste Manage. 

Assoc., 49, 966-972. 

Thoma, E. D., Shores, R. C., Thompson, E. L., Harris, D. B., Thorneloe, S. A., Varma, R., 

Hashmonay, R. A.; Modrak, M. T., Natschke, D. F., Gamble, H.A.. (2005) “Open path tunable diode 

laser absorption spectroscopy for acquisition of fugitive emission flux data.” J. Air and Waste 

Manage. Assoc. 55, 658-668. 

U.S. EPA (2004). “ECPB Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual”, U.S. EPA National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Emissions 

Characterization and Prevention Branch, Contract No. EP-C-04-023, Work Assignment 0-33, April 

2004. 

U.S. EPA (2006), EPA Test Method (OTM 10), “Optical Remote Sensing for Emission 

Characterization from Non-Point Sources.” U.S. EPA Technology Transfer Network Emission 

Measurement Center, Web Site; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm10.pdf. 

U.S. EPA (2007) “Measurement of Total Site Mercury Emissions from a Chlor-alkali Plant Using 

Open-Path UV-DOAS” , EPA/R-07/077; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research 

and Development, Work Assignment No. 2-052, July, 2007a, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/pubs/600r07077/600r07077.pdf. 

U.S. EPA (2008). “Measurement of Emissions from Produced Water Ponds: Upstream Oil and Gas 

Study #1”, Category III Quality Assurance Project Plan, Work Assignment No. 4-49, July 2008, 

Version 2.0. 

69 
 

 

Measurement of Emissions 

from Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

70 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Appendix A: OTM 10 Alkane Mixture Flux Values 

A-1 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

A-2 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

APPENDIX A: . OTM 10 Alkane Mixture Flux Values 

This appendix contains single plane OTM 10 VRPM measurement data of alkane mixture (AM) 

emissions acquired in this project. These single plane values are combined to provide the total flux 

estimate discussed in Section 3. The acquisition description and data quality indicators leading to 

selection of valid Individual plane data points are described in the following text and tables. The 

appendix contains the following sections: 

A-1: Alkane Mixture (AM) Measurement by OP-FTIR
 

A-2: OTM 10 Flux Measurement Sequence Description 

A-3: Acceptable Data Criteria and Emission Flux Correction Factors 

A-4: Individual Flux Plane Results 

A-1 Alkane Mixture (AM) Measurement by OP-FTIR 

To utilize the EPA Method OTM 10 measurement method, the airborne pollutants of interest must 

be present at sufficient concentrations to be robustly quantified by the open-path instruments. In 

many cases involving petroleum-base fuel mixtures, it is not possible to individually quantify 

specific compounds due to the convolved nature of their spectral absorption features or by the lack 

of sufficient concentrations to exceed minimum detection levels at standard OTM 10 time 

resolutions. For these cases, a special OP-FTIR analysis technique can be employed which 

focuses on the combined absorption of a mixture of hydrocarbons by quantifying the infrared 

absorbance of the in the C-H stretch infrared vibrational region around 2900 cm-1. This procedure 

is called the alkane mixture (AM) calculation since these compounds predominantly contribute the 

infrared absorption profile for these sources. 

The use of OTM 10 for estimation of emission fluxes requires the conversion of the volume pathintegrated concentrations (VPIC) to mass path-integrated concentrations (MPICs). This conversion 

requires an estimate of the mean molecular weight measured gas mixture. The AM procedure 

described below provides a means for estimation of the average molecular weight by assuming 

that the mixture can be approximated by a combination of C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, and C-8 alkanes. 

This assumption is further discussed later in this section. 

It is first noted that the infrared absorption features many hydrocarbon species in the C-H stretch 

region are relatively similar. For example, Figure A-1 shows C-4 to C-8 (n-butane to n-octane) 

along with several other species present in fuel-base mixtures. For the n-butane to n-octane series, 

the similarity is greatest between the components with consecutive carbon numbers (e.g. butane 

and pentane) and the similarities decrease for components with greater difference in carbon 

numbers (e.g. C-4 and C-8, butane and octane). The similarity in band shapes of these and other 

hydrocarbons with significant C-H stretch signal makes it impossible to include all of the 

A-3 
 

n-butanen-butane 

n-pentanen-pentane 

n-hexane 

n-heptanen-heptane 

n-octanen-octane 

2-methylpentane 

2,2,4-trimthylpentane 

2-methylheptane 

n-decanen-decane 

3-methylhexane 

1-nonene1-nonene 

Wavenumber (cm-1 Wavenumber (cm ) 

 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

components of the mixture in the classic least squares (CLS) regression fit of measured 

absorbance to calibrated reference absorbance spectra to determine the concentration of the 

individual compounds. 

Figure A-1. Comparison of the Absorption Bands of Several Species in the C-H Stretch Region 

A-4 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

For the AM analysis, the primary region of spectral analysis is 2804.2 to 3001.2 cm-1. This region 

fully encumbers the main bands of the alkane mixture. To approximate the mixture, two 

representative analytes n-butane and n-octane (highlighted in Figure A-1) are chosen for analysis 

and the system is then approximated in terms of these bounding surrogates. 

The mean molecular mass of the alkane mixture, M mix , is estimated as 

V ˆ Arbitrated V ˆ Arbitrated Mbu tan e ⋅ Cbu tan e + M oc tan e M ⋅ Coc tan e mix = (A-1) V ˆ Arbitrated Cmix
 

where Mbu tan e =58.12 g/mole (molecular mass of butane), 

M = 114.23 g/mole (molecular mass of octane), oc tan e

v

Cˆ Arbitrated v

bu and Cˆ Arbitratedtan e oc tan e are the butane and octane determinations from the analysis of 

the arbitration-chosen region. As explained in the in Appendix E of the QAPP, arbitration 

refers to the process of determining concentrations when multiple spectral regions were 

utilized to perform the analysis. Due to the low AM signal levels encountered for this project, 

only the 2804.2 to 3001.2 cm-1 spectral region was required for analysis. 

The mass path-integrated concentration of the alkane mixture, mCˆ 

mix , is given as 

m L(T, P) ⋅ M mix v Arbitrated Cˆ ˆ mix = • Cmix A

Where L(T) is Loschmidt’s Number at temperature, T and pressure P, 

25 296K P L(T) = 2.4793x10 • • molecules/m3

, T 1⋅ atm

and A is Avogadro’s number, 6.0220X1023 molecules/mole. The numerical solution is 

m ˆ 3 −5 ⎛ 296K ⎞⎛ P ⎞ v ˆ Arbitrated C [g / m ] = 4.1171X10 • M mix ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ C [ ppm] (A-2) mix mix ⎝ T ⎠⎝1⋅ atm ⎠

A-5 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

The procedure for converting the volume PICs of alkane vapor mixtures from petroleum-base fuels 

to mass PIC is summarized by Equations A-1 and A-2. Additional information on this analysis and 

associated QA procedures can be found in Appendix E of the Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP) (EPA, 2008), Procedure to Convert OP-FTIR Volume Concentration Determinations of 

Alkane Mixture that Originate from Petroleum-Based Fuels to Mass Concentrations. 

The central assumption of the AM procedure is that the complex mix of hydrocarbons emitted from 

the source can be approximated by the previously described two-component estimation which 

utilizes n-butane and n-octane as bounding surrogates. The assumption excludes alkanes with 

carbon numbers less than 4 (methane, ethane and propane) as these are not expected to be 

significant components of the airborne mixture (for this project) because these species are gases 

at standard atmospheric conditions would likely have separated from the liquid prior to the waste 

water treatment step. Alkanes with higher carbon numbers than C-8 (nonane, decane, etc.) have 

low vapor pressures and therefore are likely to be less prevalent in the airborne mixture. Other 

branched chain alkanes, and alkenes can have significant spectral contribution to the analysis 

band but are generally present at lower concentrations in the airborne mixture. Aromatic 

compounds are present at significant levels in the airborne mixture for this project but have leas 

spectral contribution to the 2804.2 to 3001.2 cm-1analysis region. 

These assumptions may be more or less valid depending on the exact nature of the source under 

evaluation but information can be informed by supplemental sampling such as SUMMA canister 

analysis (presented below) and through FTIR spectral analysis. Information regarding this 

assumption is present in the first level of OP-FTIR spectral analysis which, through the CLS fitting, 

provides an estimate of the quality of spectral match of the hydrocarbon mix to the utilized 

bounding reference spectra in addition to information in the fingerprint region. For petroleum-base 

fuel mixes there are typically a large number of hydrocarbons which posses similar broad infrared 

absorption features in the 2804.2 to 3001.2 cm-1 analysis region but in most cases, these species 

are present at lower levels and serve to provide an enhanced baseline to the main constituents 

such as octane. Aromatic compounds such as BTEX in particular have little infrared adsorption 

features in the primary analysis region and be individually quantified in other spectral regions if 

present at high enough concentrations. 

A table summarizing the relative spectral contributions of a number of species prevalent in the 

SNMOC SUMMA canister analysis for this project is contained in Table A-1. This relative 

absorption factor was determined by integrating the area under the absorption curve from 2804.2 

cm-1 to 3001.2 cm-1 using quality assured reference spectra or through estimation if spectra were 

unavailable. The table was normalized to n-octane. 

A-6 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

Table A-1. Relative Absorption Factor (AF) of Select Hydrocarbon Species in the 2804.2 cm-1 to 

3001.2 cm-1 Spectral Range (values are normalized to n-Octane) 

Species AF Species AF 

Methane 0.032 2,4-Dimethylpentane2 0.715 

Ethane 0.244 2,3-Dimethylpentane2

 0.715 

Propane 0.425 Methylcyclohexane3

 0.766 

n-Butane 0.553 2-Methylheptane2

 0.971 

n-Pentane 0.680 3-Methylheptane2

 0.971 

n-Hexane 0.779 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 0.924 

n-Heptane 0.888 2,2,3-Trimethylpentane1 0.924 

n-Octane 1.000 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane1

 0.924 

n-Nonane2

 1.093 1-Heptene 0.596 

n-Decane2

 1.195 1-Nonene2 0.613 

Isobutane 0.536 Benzene 0.004 

Isopentane 0.637 Toluene 0.093 

Cyclopentane2

 0.715 m-Xylene 0.192 

2-Methylpentane 0.753 o-Xylene 0.204 

3-Methylpentane 0.737 p-Xylene 0.212 

2,2-Dimethylbutane 0.729 Ethylbenzene 0.230 

2,3-Dimethylbutane1

 0.729 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.296 

Cyclohexane 0.853 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene1

 0.296 

Methylcyclopentane3

 0.766 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1 0.296 

2-Methylhexane2

 0.868 o-Ethyltoluene 0.323 

3-Methylhexane2

 0.868 m-Ethyltoluene1 0.323 

1 estimate based on AF value of close isomer
 

2 estimate based on uncalibrated spectra (NIST Database) 

3 estimate not based on spectra (significant uncertainty) 

Calculated values from DOE/PNNL Infrared Spectral Library R9, 2005 

A-7 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

As described in Section 3.5, the summa canister SNMOC analysis provides an approximate 

distribution of hydrocarbons with the Williams analysis being the most robust due to good signal 

levels. Figure A-2 and A-3 estimate the contribution of the various species to the AM analysis 

region by presenting the SNMOC analysis (Figure A-2) and the same distribution multiplied by the 

AF value for each compound from Table A-1. It can be seen in Figure A-3 that the contribution to 

the AM band from benzene, toluene, and m-, o-, p-xylenes are limited even though they are preset 

at high levels in the airborne mixture. Note that there is significant uncertainty in estimate regarding 

methylcyclohexane due to lack of reference spectra. 

Ethane 

Propane

n-Butane 

n-Pentane 

n-Hexane 

n-Heptane 

n-Octane 

n-Nonane 

n-Decane 

n-Undecane 

Cyclopentane 

Cyclohexane 

2-, 3-Methylpentane 

2-, 3-Methylhexane 

2-, 3-Methylheptane 

Methylcyclopentane 

Methylcyclohexane 

Isobutane 

Isopentane 

2,2-, 2,3-Dimethylbutane 

2,3-, 2,4-Dimethylpentane 

2,2,3-, 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 

1-Heptene 

1-Nonene 

Benzene 

Toluene 

m-, o-, p-Xylene 

Ethylbenzene 

m-, o-, p-Ethyltoluene 

1,2,3-, 1,2,4-, 1,3,5,- Trimethylbenzene 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200

Average Concentration (ppbv) 

0 

100 

Figure A-2. Summa Canister SNMOC Analysis Showing Compound Distribution (Section 3.5) 

A-8 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Ethane 

Propane 

n-Butane 

n-Pentane 

n-Hexane 

n-Heptane 

n-Octane 

n-Nonane 

n-Decane 

n-Undecane 

Cyclopentane 

Cyclohexane 

2-, 3-Methylpentane 

2-, 3-Methylhexane 

2-, 3-Methylheptane 

Methylcyclopentane 

Methylcyclohexane 

Isobutane 

Isopentane 

2,2-, 2,3-Dimethylbutane 

2,3-, 2,4-Dimethylpentane 

2,2,3-, 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 

1-Heptene 

1-Nonene 

Benzene

Toluene 

m-, o-, p-Xylene 

Ethylbenzene 

m-, o-, p-Ethyltoluene 

1,2,3-, 1,2,4-, 1,3,5,- Trimethylbenzene 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

AM Band Contribution Estimation (ppbv) 

 

 

Figure A-3. Estimation of Contribution to AM Band, SNMOC Result Multiplied by AF 

For purpose of comparison with OP-FTIR AM data, a summation of the 42 compounds modified by 

the AF factor was produced for each canister and this constitutes the SNMOC AM estimation 

utilized in Section 3.5 of the report. The molecular weight estimates from the OP-FTIR processing 

were very close to the octane values. For the time periods of downwind canister sampling, the 

average MWs by OP-FTIR AM method was 111 amu and 113 amu for the Williams and EnCana 

facilities respectively. The average MW using the distribution of A-2 was 103 amu and taking into 

account the AF as in Figure A-3, the average MW was 108 amu. Figure A-4 illustrates the latter by 

plotting the normalized concentration vs. molecular weight. 

A-9 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Normalized Concentration (ppbv) 

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 

Molecular Weight (amu) 

Figure A-4. Normalized Concentration vs. Molecular Weight for the Distribution of Figure A-3 

A-2 OTM 10 Measurement Sequence Description 

The 3-beam OTM 10 setup used for this project is described in Section 2 of this report. The OPFTIR system acquires data on a single measurement path using a 30 second integration time 

starting with the lowest path (path 1) and then sequentially moving to the middle path (path 2) and 

highest path (path 3) completing the flux plan. The OP-FITR then rotates 90 ̊ to produce the 

measurement on the adjacent plan (paths 4,5,6) before returning to the 1,2,3 plane and repeating. 

There are two OP-FTIRs utilized each producing two of the four measured planes. The OP-FITRs 

are labeled (E) for EPA unit and (A) for the ARCADIS unit leading two a unique identifier for each 

of the four paths (E123, E456, A123, A456) 

As a standard OTM procedure to reduce analytical noise, each flux calculation presented consists 

of an average of five consecutive flux plane measurements for an individual measurement plane. 

A-10 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

To create this five-cycle value, individual beam PIC data for each path is averaged and processed 

as a single VRPM calculation using the average wind data for the measurement time period. A 

default value of five cycles is used however some data points contain a lower number of averages 

due to consecutive point data availability. 

The OP-FTIR data and meteorological data had a measurement averaging time of 30 seconds. A 

single plane measurement requires approximately two minutes to complete. This includes a 30 

second integration time for OP-FTIR (and meteorological data) each of the three measurement 

paths and time for the scanner to reposition the OP-FTIR to a new path. Since each OP-FTIR 

measured two separate three-beam flux planes in an interwoven fashion (e.g., A123 then A456, 

then A123 etc.), an approximate 20 minute time period is required to complete a five-cycle 

individual plane measurement. The data is displayed as a moving average. In this procedure, a 

subsequent five-cycle average contains four of the five values form the preceding average, 

excluding the earliest cycle and replacing it with the most recent cycle. 

The fundamental units of emission flux produced by the EPA OTM 10, VRPM method are grams 

per second. In order to calculate the total alkane mixture (AM) flux values for a given plane, the 

FluxCalc VRPM software calculated the average AM molecular weight of the three beams as an 

input variable. 

A-3 Acceptable Data Criteria and Emission Flux Correction Factors 

The total AM mass emission flux was calculated when (1) the criteria for valid target compound 

detection and OP-FTIR Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) were met; and (2) the vertical capture 

criteria were met. When these criteria were met, all total flux calculations are reported. In some 

instances, failure to meet these criteria does not necessarily indicate an inaccurate flux calculation. 

When such exceptions are made, the flux calculations are reported and are flagged accordingly. 

Only data which met all of the following criteria were deemed acceptable and included in the data 

presented: 

1. Prevailing wind speed ≥ 1 m/s but ≤ 8 m/s. Sections 3.2. and 3.3 present the summary tables 

of calculated flux values for each VRPM plane during each day of sampling at the Williams 

Rulison and EnCana Benzel facilities, respectively. Flux values for data collected during 

periods where the prevailing wind speed was ≤ 1 m/s or ≥ 8 m/s were not calculated and are 

shaded as follows in those tables: 

Medium orange. 

A-11 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

2. Assessment of valid target compound detection 

Prior to inputting the concentration data into the flux calculation software, the average 

concentration along each beam path was compared to the instrument minimum detection limit 

(MDL). For this project, the general definition of the term “minimum detection limit (MDL)” for 

OP-FTIR data is based around the uncertainty in the quantification of the measured species as 

determined by standard classical least squares (CLS) spectral analysis procedures. The 

standard error (σ) in the regression fit of the measured spectrum to the calibrated reference 

spectrum forms a basis for the defined MDL. Some multiple of σ is used a as threshold for 

quantification depending on the type of analysis used in this project. For example, for singlepath time averaging method (TAM) estimation of trace VOC concentrations, we define an MDL 

threshold of 6σ. This means that the determined concentration must exceed six times the 

standard error in the CLS to be counted. For AM concentrations associated with the five cycle 

rolling average AM flux determination, the average measured concentration for all three optical 

paths must exceed eight times the average standard error for the paths in order for the flux 

plane ensemble concentration to be judged valid allowing an AM flux calculation to be 

executed. 

If this measured concentration was not above the MDL (meaning that the ratio of the average 

concentration to the MDL of the OP-FTIR instrument was < 1), the flux was not calculated and 

are shaded as follows in those tables: 

Dark orange. 

In the vast majority of cases, the reason for “below MDL” determinations is due to lack of sufficient 

AM concentration, usually occurring on the upwind background measurement planes (no source 

signal present). In these instances there is negligible AM flux through the planes and values of 

zero flux have been assigned to these entries to aid in calculation of the four plane estimate. The 

moving average flux values presented in Tables 3-1 through 3-8 of the report include periods of 

zero flux values in the averaging. The values in these tables were used to calculate the average 

AM flux value from each source presented in Table 4-1. Additional calculations were performed to 

evaluate the average AM flux value from each source after removing the zero flux values from the 

calculations. The results showed that the average AM flux value from each source did not change 

significantly when zero flux values were not included in the calculations. 

A-12 
 

 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

3. Vertical capture criteria 

There are two instances in which vertical integration of the concentration was limited to the 

height of the scissor jack (i.e., no extrapolation occurred above the scissor jack). If the average 

concentration on the top beam (beams # 3 or # 6, depending on the VRPM plane) was higher 

than the average concentration of the middle beam (beams # 2 or # 5) – indicating that the 

plume was not being captured by the plane − the concentrations along those two top beams 

were switched to allow the software to calculate the flux. These flux values are in green font in 

the summary tables of calculated flux values in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. 

The second case where integration of the concentration was limited to the height of the scissor 

jack occurred when all three beam concentrations were very similar. This indicated that the 

plume was homogeneous and very diluted vertically. These flux values in the tables in 

Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are in red font. 

For the remaining data, the vertical gradient was extrapolated to a height where the extrapolated 

concentration was zero (as described in EPA OTM 10). 

4. The CCF ≥ 0.80. 

The Concordance Correlation Factor (CCF) is used in the VRPM method to represent the level of 

fit for the reconstruction in the path-integrated domain (predicted versus measured PAC). However, 

a poor CCF value (CCF< 0.80) at the end of the fitting procedure does not necessarily indicate an 

inaccurate flux calculation. Therefore, hydrocarbon flux values were reported when then 

corresponding CCF value of the reconstruction was greater than 0.80 and are shaded as follows in 

the summary tables of calculated flux values in Sections 3.2. and 3.3: 

Light orange. 

A-4: Individual Flux Plane Results 

This section presents individual plane AM flux estimates for the test campaigns conducted at the 

Williams Rulison facility (Tables A-2 through A-17) and the EnCana Benzel facility (Tables from 

August 12-15. Each table presents the time (hr:min:sec), AM flux value (g/sec), wind direction 

(w.r.t. N), rotated wind direction (w.r.t VRPM plane), wind speed (m/s), and Concordance 

Correlation Factor (CCF). As described in Section A-3, AM flux values were calculated for data 

which met a series of quality control criteria pertaining to valid target compound detection and 

vertical plume capture, and instrument DQIs. That section also described the flags that were added 

to flux values that did not meet the optimal data criteria, but that could still prove useful in 

understanding the source and magnitude of hydrocarbon emissions being generated from these 

sites. 

A-13 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-2. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 6, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

15:15:02 -0.01 156.2 97.2 2.0 0.97 

15:20:48 -0.01 150.6 91.6 2.0 0.84 

15:25:35 -0.01 150.0 91.0 1.9 0.91 

15:30:23 -0.01 155.1 96.1 1.9 0.59 

15:35:06 -0.03 170.6 111.6 1.8 0.86 

15:39:47 -0.04 173.6 114.6 2.3 0.41 

15:44:31 -0.04 176.3 117.3 2.4 0.40 

15:49:18 -0.02 170.1 111.1 2.4 0.00 

15:54:02 -0.01 167.5 108.5 2.4 0.44 

15:58:50 162.9 103.9 2.3 0.00 

16:03:32 169.4 110.4 2.1 0.00 

16:08:11 177.1 118.1 2.0 0.00 

16:12:52 203.5 144.5 1.7 0.00 

16:17:30 224.7 165.7 1.6 0.00 

16:22:11 224.8 165.8 1.8 0.00 

16:26:52 214.9 155.9 1.6 0.00 

16:31:30 223.2 164.2 1.4 0.00 

A-14 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-3. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 6, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

15:18:25 0.03 152.5 29.5 2.0 1.00 

15:23:09 0.03 147.9 24.9 1.9 0.85 

15:27:57 0.04 152.4 29.4 1.9 0.81 

15:32:42 0.02 164.4 41.4 1.6 0.99 

15:37:26 0.02 173.9 50.9 2.1 0.63 

15:42:09 176.8 53.8 2.4 0.00 

15:46:54 0.02 172.3 49.3 2.3 0.05 

15:51:40 170.2 47.2 2.5 0.00 

15:56:26 164.1 41.1 2.4 0.00 

16:01:10 166.0 43.0 2.2 0.00 

16:05:51 172.2 49.2 1.9 0.00 

16:10:32 187.6 64.6 1.8 0.00 

16:15:11 215.8 92.8 1.6 0.00 

16:19:54 224.3 101.3 1.7 0.00 

16:24:33 221.5 98.5 1.6 0.00 

16:29:13 216.4 93.4 1.4 0.00 

16:33:47 201.6 78.6 1.2 0.00 

A-15 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-4. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 6, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

14:37:26 198.2 236.2 2.5 0.00 

14:41:54 183.4 221.4 2.7 0.00 

14:46:23 183.4 221.4 2.7 0.00 

14:50:53 -0.01 185.4 223.4 2.4 1.00 

14:55:21 -0.01 199.0 237.0 2.0 1.00 

14:59:49 -0.02 173.5 211.5 1.6 1.00 

15:04:18 -0.02 170.3 208.3 1.8 1.00 

15:08:51 -0.02 166.9 204.9 1.6 1.00 

15:13:23 -0.02 158.9 196.9 2.0 0.97 

15:17:51 152.7 190.7 2.1 0.00 

15:22:22 148.6 186.6 1.9 0.00 

15:26:54 150.0 188.0 1.9 0.00 

15:31:24 163.9 201.9 1.7 0.00 

15:35:56 172.7 210.7 1.9 0.00 

15:40:26 173.6 211.6 2.3 0.00 

15:44:53 176.3 214.3 2.5 0.00 

15:49:21 169.7 207.7 2.4 0.00 

15:53:48 165.6 203.6 2.5 0.00 

15:58:15 162.8 200.8 2.3 0.00 

16:02:43 166.2 204.2 2.1 0.00 

16:07:09 -0.01 176.9 214.9 2.0 0.97 

16:11:36 -0.01 188.9 226.9 1.7 0.87 

16:16:02 0.00 221.1 259.1 1.5 0.93 

16:20:31 0.00 225.7 263.7 1.7 0.94 

16:24:59 0.00 221.5 259.5 1.6 0.62 

16:29:28 0.00 216.4 254.4 1.4 0.02 

A-16 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-5. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 6, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

14:39:41 0.18 189.0 311.0 2.5 0.99 

14:44:10 0.13 183.4 305.4 2.7 0.98 

14:48:38 0.09 177.5 299.5 2.7 0.99 

14:53:08 0.07 192.0 314.0 2.2 0.97 

14:57:35 0.10 178.9 300.9 1.6 0.73 

15:02:04 0.09 172.0 294.0 1.7 0.83 

15:06:36 168.2 290.2 1.7 0.00 

15:11:06 160.1 282.1 2.0 0.00 

15:15:38 153.9 275.9 2.1 0.00 

15:20:08 151.8 273.8 2.0 0.00 

15:24:37 0.21 148.3 270.3 1.8 0.13 

15:29:09 0.32 153.9 275.9 1.9 0.08 

15:33:42 0.36 164.5 286.5 1.7 0.02 

15:38:12 176.7 298.7 2.2 0.00 

15:42:39 177.0 299.0 2.4 0.00 

15:47:08 171.3 293.3 2.3 0.00 

15:51:34 168.9 290.9 2.5 0.00 

15:56:02 165.0 287.0 2.4 0.00 

16:00:30 164.7 286.7 2.3 0.00 

16:04:58 0.06 170.2 292.2 2.0 0.92 

16:09:24 0.05 181.8 303.8 1.8 0.97 

16:13:51 0.07 209.7 331.7 1.9 0.95 

16:18:18 0.08 225.8 347.8 1.7 0.61 

16:22:46 0.13 223.8 345.8 1.7 0.81 

16:27:15 0.07 215.1 337.1 1.5 0.84 

16:31:44 0.05 223.6 345.6 1.4 0.95 

A-17 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-6. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 7, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:13:19 0.00 91.9 32.9 0.4 0.00 

11:18:12 0.00 100.1 41.1 0.7 0.00 

11:23:01 0.00 100.6 41.6 0.6 0.00 

11:27:54 0.00 98.5 39.5 0.9 0.00 

11:32:45 107.3 48.3 1.1 0.00 

11:37:37 101.0 42.0 1.2 0.00 

11:42:29 99.5 40.5 1.2 0.00 

11:47:26 0.01 90.9 31.9 1.1 0.75 

11:52:26 92.9 33.9 1.2 0.00 

11:57:23 0.01 91.7 32.7 1.3 -0.01 

12:02:15 0.01 82.4 23.4 0.8 -0.01 

12:07:14 0.00 83.0 24.0 0.6 0.00 

12:12:13 0.00 111.9 52.9 0.6 0.00 

12:17:03 0.00 150.4 91.4 0.5 0.00 

12:21:55 0.00 163.7 104.7 0.7 0.88 

12:26:47 0.00 159.6 100.6 1.1 0.90 

12:31:44 0.00 167.9 108.9 1.2 0.98 

12:36:37 184.3 125.3 1.0 0.00 

12:41:22 181.6 122.6 1.0 0.00 

12:46:18 180.5 121.5 1.0 0.00 

12:51:14 192.4 133.4 1.0 0.00 

12:56:07 168.8 109.8 1.0 0.00 

13:01:01 159.6 100.6 1.1 0.00 

13:05:58 163.9 104.9 0.9 0.00 

13:10:55 0.00 152.0 93.0 0.8 0.00 

13:15:53 0.00 154.1 95.1 0.8 0.00 

13:20:50 161.4 102.4 0.9 0.00 

13:25:48 166.0 107.0 1.0 0.00 

13:30:46 179.1 120.1 1.1 0.00 

A-18 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:35:44 170.2 111.2 1.4 0.00 

13:40:45 184.0 125.0 1.4 0.00 

13:45:47 196.5 137.5 1.5 0.00 

13:50:48 192.6 133.6 1.3 0.00 

13:55:49 197.7 138.7 1.0 0.00 

14:00:53 194.5 135.5 1.1 0.00 

14:05:56 177.0 118.0 1.1 0.00 

14:11:01 135.8 76.8 1.2 0.00 

14:16:10 0.01 126.7 67.7 2.0 0.43 

14:21:20 0.02 114.1 55.1 2.5 0.76 

14:26:26 0.03 105.1 46.1 2.7 0.72 

14:31:27 0.08 102.4 43.4 2.7 0.51 

14:36:29 0.19 83.3 24.3 1.6 0.99 

14:41:35 0.17 64.0 5.0 1.3 1.00 

14:46:33 0.13 0.8 301.8 1.7 1.00 

14:51:31 0.13 0.8 301.8 1.7 1.00 

14:56:29 0.10 353.6 294.6 2.0 0.99 

15:01:29 0.06 345.0 286.0 1.6 0.06 

15:06:22 0.13 18.9 319.9 0.9 0.00 

15:11:19 0.33 18.3 319.3 1.1 0.00 

15:16:21 0.42 19.5 320.5 1.1 -0.01 

15:21:19 0.45 21.3 322.3 1.2 0.01 

15:26:17 0.31 7.6 308.6 1.2 0.00 

15:31:14 0.14 351.3 292.3 1.2 0.95 

15:36:12 0.07 348.5 289.5 1.2 0.93 

15:41:12 0.05 347.7 288.7 1.2 0.51 

15:46:06 0.11 25.1 326.1 1.1 0.19 

15:51:02 0.28 54.3 355.3 1.5 0.11 

15:55:57 0.31 67.8 8.8 2.0 -0.01 

16:00:52 0.47 68.4 9.4 2.2 -0.01 

A-19 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

16:05:47 0.57 65.9 6.9 2.2 0.98 

16:10:42 0.65 46.8 347.8 1.9 0.74 

16:15:36 0.61 29.7 330.7 1.8 0.92 

16:20:31 0.66 27.5 328.5 1.9 0.93 

16:25:26 0.56 39.7 340.7 2.1 0.94 

16:30:20 0.60 52.4 353.4 2.2 0.99 

16:35:16 0.45 65.2 6.2 2.5 0.97 

16:40:13 0.35 63.9 4.9 2.5 1.00 

16:45:06 0.22 64.2 5.2 2.5 1.00 

16:50:02 0.21 61.7 2.7 2.3 0.93 

16:54:57 0.37 61.5 2.5 2.3 0.92 

16:59:55 0.38 55.3 356.3 2.1 0.78 

17:04:50 0.26 54.0 355.0 1.7 1.00 

17:09:43 0.19 42.4 343.4 1.4 0.53 

17:14:38 0.18 30.1 331.1 1.0 0.00 

17:19:34 0.00 25.5 326.5 0.8 0.00 

17:24:33 0.00 39.9 340.9 0.8 0.00 

17:29:28 0.14 68.1 9.1 1.1 0.00 

A-20 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-7. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 7, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:15:44 0.00 105.2 342.2 0.5 0.00 

11:20:35 0.00 99.6 336.6 0.8 0.00 

11:25:26 0.00 99.9 336.9 0.7 0.00 

11:30:19 0.12 105.3 342.3 1.1 0.54 

11:35:09 0.19 102.8 339.8 1.1 0.03 

11:40:03 0.18 100.9 337.9 1.2 0.04 

11:44:57 0.21 92.8 329.8 1.3 0.05 

11:49:58 0.11 89.1 326.1 1.0 0.40 

11:54:56 0.22 92.8 329.8 1.4 0.04 

11:59:48 0.08 88.6 325.6 1.1 0.99 

12:04:41 0.00 75.0 312.0 0.7 0.00 

12:09:39 0.00 87.4 324.4 0.6 0.00 

12:14:41 0.00 134.8 11.8 0.4 0.00 

12:19:28 0.00 157.9 34.9 0.6 0.00 

12:24:21 162.5 39.5 0.9 0.00 

12:29:16 0.03 157.6 34.6 1.2 0.28 

12:34:08 0.02 179.6 56.6 1.0 0.26 

12:38:56 0.01 195.0 72.0 0.8 0.26 

12:43:51 0.02 178.2 55.2 0.9 0.69 

12:48:43 0.02 186.0 63.0 1.0 0.67 

12:53:39 0.01 182.4 59.4 0.9 0.99 

12:58:32 0.09 161.9 38.9 1.1 0.42 

13:03:27 0.08 161.1 38.1 1.0 0.42 

13:08:27 0.07 157.4 34.4 0.9 0.18 

13:13:26 0.00 149.3 26.3 0.7 0.00 

13:18:24 0.00 154.6 31.6 0.8 0.00 

13:23:21 165.8 42.8 1.0 0.00 

13:28:15 171.8 48.8 1.1 0.00 

13:33:12 173.7 50.7 1.2 0.00 

A-21 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:38:14 176.8 53.8 1.4 0.00 

13:43:14 191.9 68.9 1.4 0.00 

13:48:20 197.0 74.0 1.5 0.00 

13:53:21 193.5 70.5 1.1 0.00 

13:58:22 194.4 71.4 1.1 0.00 

14:03:25 190.2 67.2 1.1 0.00 

14:08:26 0.29 148.6 25.6 1.1 0.61 

14:13:35 1.06 127.5 4.5 1.6 0.50 

14:18:44 2.79 120.7 357.7 2.5 0.67 

14:23:51 3.08 107.0 344.0 2.6 0.63 

14:28:54 4.00 103.4 340.4 2.7 0.82 

14:33:54 2.44 97.0 334.0 2.2 0.94 

14:39:00 1.03 76.1 313.1 1.5 0.99 

14:44:01 0.19 45.9 282.9 1.2 0.92 

14:49:00 -0.21 0.8 237.8 1.7 0.96 

14:54:00 -0.02 0.8 237.8 1.7 0.86 

14:58:56 345.3 222.3 2.1 0.00 

15:03:56 -0.05 356.7 233.7 1.3 0.03 

15:08:50 -0.01 16.8 253.8 1.1 0.04 

15:13:50 0.00 20.1 257.1 1.1 0.04 

15:18:51 0.00 19.4 256.4 1.2 0.04 

15:23:47 -0.02 13.1 250.1 1.2 0.03 

15:28:43 357.2 234.2 1.2 0.00 

15:33:41 345.0 222.0 1.2 0.00 

15:38:39 349.9 226.9 1.2 0.00 

15:43:38 -0.05 1.5 238.5 1.1 0.02 

15:48:33 0.08 37.9 274.9 1.2 0.04 

15:53:30 0.53 65.2 302.2 1.8 0.93 

15:58:23 0.62 69.1 306.1 2.1 1.00 

16:03:19 0.73 71.5 308.5 2.4 1.00 

A-22 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

16:08:13 0.19 57.8 294.8 2.0 0.96 

16:13:08 0.01 36.8 273.8 1.8 1.00 

16:18:03 0.00 26.7 263.7 1.9 0.60 

16:22:58 0.03 31.9 268.9 1.9 0.10 

16:27:52 0.15 45.5 282.5 2.1 0.02 

16:32:48 0.43 59.4 296.4 2.4 0.03 

16:37:45 0.89 65.2 302.2 2.5 0.30 

16:42:38 0.68 64.9 301.9 2.5 0.07 

16:47:34 0.57 63.6 300.6 2.2 0.11 

16:52:27 0.42 58.4 295.4 2.3 0.73 

16:57:24 0.21 55.9 292.9 2.2 0.93 

17:02:21 0.07 55.9 292.9 2.0 0.89 

17:07:14 0.01 50.6 287.6 1.5 0.86 

17:12:10 0.01 36.8 273.8 1.2 0.69 

17:17:04 -0.02 16.7 253.7 1.0 0.20 

17:22:03 0.00 33.6 270.6 0.8 0.00 

17:27:01 0.20 46.6 283.6 0.9 0.96 

17:31:56 1.10 83.4 320.4 1.5 0.98 

A-23 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-8. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 7, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:32:12 -0.03 79.9 117.9 1.7 0.94 

10:36:37 -0.02 70.4 108.4 1.4 0.74 

10:41:02 -0.01 68.1 106.1 0.9 0.85 

10:45:26 0.00 94.4 132.4 0.6 0.00 

10:49:51 0.00 46.1 84.1 0.3 0.00 

10:54:19 0.00 24.3 62.3 0.6 0.00 

10:58:45 0.00 34.1 72.1 0.5 0.00 

11:03:12 0.00 56.1 94.1 0.5 0.00 

11:07:37 0.00 45.4 83.4 0.6 0.00 

11:12:04 0.00 74.7 112.7 0.3 0.00 

11:16:31 0.00 101.7 139.7 0.5 0.00 

11:20:58 0.00 96.9 134.9 0.8 0.00 

11:25:27 0.00 103.8 141.8 0.7 0.00 

11:29:54 -0.01 106.3 144.3 1.2 1.00 

11:34:20 103.2 141.2 1.0 0.00 

11:38:48 101.7 139.7 1.1 0.00 

11:43:19 98.4 136.4 1.3 0.00 

11:47:47 89.6 127.6 1.0 0.00 

11:52:15 90.1 128.1 1.2 0.00 

11:56:42 92.6 130.6 1.3 0.00 

12:01:14 -0.01 88.2 126.2 1.0 0.99 

12:05:40 0.00 82.4 120.4 0.7 0.00 

12:10:09 0.00 84.9 122.9 0.6 0.00 

12:14:35 0.00 127.9 165.9 0.4 0.00 

12:19:02 0.00 156.9 194.9 0.6 0.00 

12:23:30 -0.02 164.0 202.0 0.9 0.74 

12:27:56 160.5 198.5 1.2 0.00 

12:32:22 163.6 201.6 1.1 0.00 

12:36:51 187.1 225.1 0.9 0.00 

A-24 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:41:17 188.7 226.7 0.7 0.00 

12:45:46 180.1 218.1 1.0 0.00 

12:50:12 191.5 229.5 1.1 0.00 

12:54:43 172.7 210.7 1.0 0.00 

12:59:10 159.8 197.8 1.1 0.00 

13:03:38 161.6 199.6 1.0 0.00 

13:08:08 154.0 192.0 0.9 0.00 

13:12:37 0.00 147.1 185.1 0.8 0.00 

13:17:08 0.00 156.2 194.2 0.7 0.00 

14:07:51 153.3 191.3 1.0 0.00 

14:13:18 135.0 173.0 1.6 0.00 

14:17:48 123.7 161.7 2.5 0.00 

14:22:17 110.9 148.9 3.0 0.00 

14:26:48 103.3 141.3 2.8 0.00 

14:31:17 103.3 141.3 2.6 0.00 

14:35:47 -0.04 92.4 130.4 1.9 0.02 

14:40:16 -0.20 72.5 110.5 1.4 0.02 

14:44:48 0.47 4.8 42.8 1.6 0.05 

14:49:20 0.88 0.8 38.8 1.7 0.13 

14:53:53 1.13 357.9 35.9 1.8 0.10 

14:58:24 2.16 345.4 23.4 2.4 0.07 

15:02:56 0.88 347.8 25.8 1.4 0.41 

15:07:27 0.22 18.9 56.9 0.9 0.06 

15:12:12 0.18 17.9 55.9 1.2 0.04 

15:16:32 0.12 19.6 57.6 1.1 0.03 

15:21:05 0.06 22.1 60.1 1.2 0.66 

15:25:36 0.16 10.8 48.8 1.2 1.00 

15:30:06 0.26 354.6 32.6 1.1 0.92 

15:34:36 0.30 341.4 19.4 1.2 0.86 

15:39:11 0.35 346.8 24.8 1.2 0.97 

A-25 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

15:43:42 0.28 355.3 33.3 1.1 1.00 

15:48:11 0.05 36.7 74.7 1.3 0.99 

15:52:41 -0.07 63.2 101.2 1.7 0.99 

15:57:10 -0.11 70.5 108.5 2.1 0.19 

16:01:42 -0.12 72.7 110.7 2.5 0.97 

16:06:13 -0.06 64.8 102.8 2.1 0.24 

16:10:42 0.00 44.6 82.6 1.9 0.94 

16:15:12 0.09 28.0 66.0 1.9 0.99 

16:19:45 0.09 25.3 63.3 1.9 0.99 

16:24:15 0.06 31.7 69.7 2.0 1.00 

16:28:48 0.01 47.9 85.9 2.2 1.00 

16:33:12 -0.02 61.0 99.0 2.4 1.00 

16:37:43 -0.01 67.0 105.0 2.6 0.58 

16:42:13 -0.01 64.7 102.7 2.5 0.87 

16:46:44 -0.02 62.9 100.9 2.3 0.06 

16:51:09 -0.01 58.9 96.9 2.3 0.02 

16:55:38 -0.01 59.9 97.9 2.2 0.02 

17:00:09 -0.01 56.4 94.4 2.1 0.75 

17:04:41 -0.03 55.2 93.2 1.8 0.25 

17:09:11 0.02 42.4 80.4 1.4 1.00 

17:13:42 0.06 31.6 69.6 1.1 0.99 

17:18:13 0.00 14.6 52.6 0.8 0.00 

17:22:47 0.00 36.6 74.6 0.8 0.00 

17:27:16 -0.01 51.7 89.7 1.0 0.89 

17:31:45 -0.05 83.5 121.5 1.4 0.98 

A-26 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-9. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 7, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:34:25 -0.11 78.3 200.3 1.6 0.84 

10:38:50 -0.50 69.1 191.1 1.2 0.56 

10:43:15 -0.32 69.5 191.5 0.9 0.02 

10:47:38 0.00 129.7 251.7 0.4 0.00 

10:52:06 0.00 25.2 147.2 0.6 0.00 

10:56:31 0.00 33.2 155.2 0.5 0.00 

11:00:59 0.00 49.1 171.1 0.4 0.00 

11:05:25 0.00 49.2 171.2 0.5 0.00 

11:09:52 0.00 45.3 167.3 0.5 0.00 

11:14:17 0.00 100.1 222.1 0.4 0.00 

11:18:46 0.00 98.7 220.7 0.8 0.00 

11:23:14 0.00 101.0 223.0 0.6 0.00 

11:27:41 0.00 99.8 221.8 0.9 0.00 

11:32:08 -0.18 107.1 229.1 1.2 0.89 

11:36:36 -0.19 100.0 222.0 1.1 0.89 

11:41:04 -0.19 99.1 221.1 1.2 0.96 

11:45:33 -0.27 90.7 212.7 1.3 0.96 

11:50:03 -0.20 89.7 211.7 1.0 0.88 

11:54:29 -0.28 92.9 214.9 1.3 0.97 

11:59:00 -0.47 88.2 210.2 1.1 1.00 

12:03:28 -0.44 78.9 200.9 0.8 0.97 

12:07:55 0.00 78.6 200.6 0.6 0.00 

12:12:23 0.00 108.0 230.0 0.5 0.00 

12:16:49 0.00 153.3 275.3 0.5 0.00 

12:21:18 0.00 163.6 285.6 0.7 0.00 

12:25:42 0.04 160.8 282.8 1.0 0.99 

12:30:11 0.29 161.2 283.2 1.3 0.08 

12:34:40 0.27 178.6 300.6 1.0 0.14 

12:39:05 0.31 196.3 318.3 0.8 0.10 

A-27 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:43:33 0.34 180.7 302.7 0.9 0.88 

12:48:48 0.40 186.2 308.2 1.0 1.00 

12:52:27 0.16 188.8 310.8 1.0 0.97 

12:56:56 1.11 167.6 289.6 1.0 0.24 

13:01:23 1.51 161.6 283.6 1.2 0.41 

13:05:55 1.45 163.1 285.1 0.9 0.32 

13:10:24 0.00 145.1 267.1 0.9 0.00 

13:14:53 0.00 158.9 280.9 0.7 0.00 

14:11:05 -0.07 136.9 258.9 1.1 0.99 

14:15:33 -0.33 126.7 248.7 2.1 1.00 

14:20:02 -0.66 116.3 238.3 2.6 1.00 

14:24:34 -1.62 104.4 226.4 2.9 0.99 

14:29:04 -2.02 102.4 224.4 2.7 1.00 

14:33:34 -1.77 100.0 222.0 2.4 1.00 

14:38:03 -1.61 80.2 202.2 1.5 1.00 

14:42:34 -1.92 62.8 184.8 1.3 1.00 

14:47:05 -1.48 0.8 122.8 1.7 0.99 

14:51:38 -1.43 0.8 122.8 1.7 0.98 

14:56:09 -1.65 351.3 113.3 2.1 0.98 

15:00:41 -1.00 337.8 99.8 2.2 1.00 

15:05:12 -1.25 18.0 140.0 0.9 1.00 

15:09:45 -1.14 16.8 138.8 1.1 1.00 

15:14:14 -1.11 20.1 142.1 1.1 1.00 

15:18:50 -0.94 19.2 141.2 1.2 0.99 

15:23:22 -0.80 16.8 138.8 1.3 1.00 

15:27:52 -0.62 4.3 126.3 1.2 1.00 

15:32:22 -1.02 347.6 109.6 1.2 0.99 

15:36:56 -1.14 345.9 107.9 1.2 0.87 

15:41:27 -1.32 343.7 105.7 1.2 0.55 

15:46:01 -1.38 20.8 142.8 1.2 0.69 

A-28 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

15:50:27 -1.72 53.9 175.9 1.5 0.95 

15:54:57 -0.58 68.5 190.5 2.0 1.00 

15:59:27 -0.52 71.8 193.8 2.3 1.00 

16:04:01 -0.23 71.4 193.4 2.3 1.00 

16:08:29 -0.23 55.5 177.5 2.0 1.00 

16:13:01 -0.24 37.8 159.8 1.8 1.00 

16:17:30 -0.24 23.2 145.2 1.9 1.00 

16:22:01 -0.20 29.8 151.8 1.9 1.00 

16:26:33 -0.20 41.1 163.1 2.1 1.00 

16:31:01 -0.34 55.0 177.0 2.2 0.90 

16:35:28 -0.32 66.4 188.4 2.6 0.85 

16:40:01 -0.30 66.2 188.2 2.6 0.94 

16:44:30 -0.30 65.4 187.4 2.5 0.93 

16:48:55 -0.35 61.8 183.8 2.2 0.97 

16:53:24 -0.32 57.0 179.0 2.3 1.00 

16:57:54 -0.48 57.9 179.9 2.2 0.99 

17:02:26 -0.95 57.1 179.1 2.1 0.95 

17:06:57 -2.18 52.5 174.5 1.6 0.03 

17:11:29 -2.54 37.1 159.1 1.2 0.01 

17:16:01 -1.92 14.6 136.6 1.0 0.01 

17:20:30 0.00 26.4 148.4 0.7 0.00 

17:25:03 0.00 39.8 161.8 0.8 0.00 

17:29:31 -1.65 74.3 196.3 1.1 0.96 

17:34:02 -1.17 89.5 211.5 1.8 1.00 

A-29 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-10. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 8, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:17:11 0.01 123.8 64.8 1.2 0.96 

10:23:21 0.00 137.3 78.3 1.4 -0.01 

10:28:32 146.4 87.4 1.4 0.00 

10:33:39 150.1 91.1 1.2 0.00 

10:38:48 0.00 131.0 72.0 1.1 0.32 

10:43:56 0.01 104.7 45.7 1.1 0.04 

10:49:05 0.02 91.4 32.4 1.1 0.00 

10:54:12 0.02 81.4 22.4 1.1 0.00 

10:59:20 0.03 78.2 19.2 1.0 0.41 

11:04:28 0.00 93.0 34.0 0.7 0.00 

11:09:37 0.00 118.8 59.8 0.8 0.00 

11:14:46 0.00 139.6 80.6 1.4 0.89 

11:19:54 0.00 150.3 91.3 1.5 0.97 

11:25:03 -0.01 163.9 104.9 1.6 0.44 

11:30:12 190.3 131.3 1.5 0.00 

11:35:24 203.6 144.6 1.9 0.00 

11:40:32 226.2 167.2 2.1 0.00 

11:45:38 240.6 181.6 2.6 0.00 

11:50:48 241.6 182.6 2.5 0.00 

11:55:59 242.8 183.8 2.6 0.00 

12:01:08 249.0 190.0 2.4 0.00 

12:06:16 246.7 187.7 2.6 0.00 

12:11:24 247.0 188.0 2.9 0.00 

12:16:30 248.3 189.3 3.1 0.00 

12:21:39 247.3 188.3 3.4 0.00 

12:26:48 244.3 185.3 3.6 0.00 

12:31:55 245.4 186.4 3.6 0.00 

12:37:04 243.5 184.5 3.4 0.00 

12:42:11 233.4 174.4 3.2 0.00 

12:47:09 236.5 177.5 3.1 0.00 

12:52:18 233.3 174.3 3.4 0.00 

12:57:28 235.2 176.2 3.3 0.00 

13:02:38 232.4 173.4 3.2 0.00 

A-30 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:07:37 229.2 170.2 3.4 0.00 

13:12:46 227.3 168.3 3.3 0.00 

13:17:54 225.1 166.1 3.1 0.00 

13:23:03 232.1 173.1 3.5 0.00 

13:28:14 232.1 173.1 3.5 0.00 

13:33:24 232.7 173.7 3.3 0.00 

13:38:35 231.6 172.6 3.3 0.00 

13:43:44 234.1 175.1 3.3 0.00 

13:48:54 234.1 175.1 3.2 0.00 

13:54:03 236.2 177.2 3.2 0.00 

13:59:16 236.2 177.2 3.0 0.00 

14:04:26 237.4 178.4 3.1 0.00 

14:09:36 226.4 167.4 2.2 0.00 

14:14:45 223.0 164.0 1.7 0.00 

14:19:56 232.5 173.5 1.9 0.00 

14:25:05 206.8 147.8 1.8 0.00 

14:30:16 201.2 142.2 1.8 0.00 

14:35:27 188.0 129.0 1.9 0.00 

14:40:37 154.0 95.0 2.4 0.00 

14:45:46 143.6 84.6 2.7 0.00 

14:50:57 149.1 90.1 2.0 0.00 

14:56:06 153.8 94.8 1.9 0.00 

15:01:14 161.9 102.9 1.9 0.00 

15:06:25 174.2 115.2 1.6 0.00 

15:11:36 180.4 121.4 1.4 0.00 

15:16:48 196.8 137.8 1.5 0.00 

15:21:56 214.9 155.9 1.3 0.00 

15:27:06 208.7 149.7 1.5 0.00 

15:32:17 150.1 91.1 2.2 0.00 

16:18:48 0.00 126.4 67.4 3.2 0.88 

16:23:54 0.04 107.8 48.8 3.7 0.63 

16:29:03 0.13 107.8 48.8 3.7 0.99 

16:34:14 0.54 107.8 48.8 3.7 -0.01 

A-31 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-11. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 8, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:20:44 0.05 134.6 11.6 1.3 0.82 

10:25:54 0.05 143.7 20.7 1.3 0.77 

10:31:04 0.05 149.2 26.2 1.4 0.48 

10:36:12 0.04 147.2 24.2 1.1 0.79 

10:41:20 0.06 111.3 348.3 1.1 0.13 

10:46:29 0.09 98.1 335.1 1.2 0.08 

10:51:38 0.10 81.4 318.4 1.1 0.05 

10:56:44 0.12 87.1 324.1 1.2 0.05 

11:01:52 0.00 75.3 312.3 0.9 0.00 

11:07:01 0.00 108.3 345.3 0.8 0.00 

11:12:11 0.00 120.1 357.1 0.9 0.00 

11:17:19 146.7 23.7 1.5 0.00 

11:22:27 150.2 27.2 1.7 0.00 

11:27:36 176.4 53.4 1.6 0.00 

11:32:45 194.1 71.1 1.7 0.00 

11:37:55 217.1 94.1 2.0 0.00 

11:43:05 232.3 109.3 2.4 0.00 

11:48:12 242.2 119.2 2.6 0.00 

11:53:21 239.9 116.9 2.4 0.00 

11:58:32 243.9 120.9 2.6 0.00 

12:03:42 247.8 124.8 2.5 0.00 

12:08:48 248.0 125.0 2.5 0.00 

12:13:55 250.2 127.2 3.0 0.00 

12:19:04 249.9 126.9 3.2 0.00 

12:24:12 245.2 122.2 3.6 0.00 

12:29:21 245.5 122.5 3.5 0.00 

12:34:28 245.3 122.3 3.5 0.00 

12:39:36 237.3 114.3 3.2 0.00 

12:44:35 234.2 111.2 3.1 0.00 

12:49:42 236.7 113.7 3.1 0.00 

12:54:51 233.5 110.5 3.3 0.00 

13:00:01 230.4 107.4 3.3 0.00 

13:05:09 231.7 108.7 3.3 0.00 

A-32 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:10:11 227.4 104.4 3.3 0.00 

13:15:19 228.2 105.2 3.2 0.00 

13:20:27 220.0 97.0 3.2 0.00 

13:25:37 232.4 109.4 3.7 0.00 

13:30:47 233.5 110.5 3.4 0.00 

13:35:58 232.6 109.6 3.4 0.00 

13:41:08 232.5 109.5 3.4 0.00 

13:46:17 231.7 108.7 3.2 0.00 

13:51:27 236.9 113.9 3.3 0.00 

13:56:38 235.4 112.4 3.1 0.00 

14:01:49 237.7 114.7 3.0 0.00 

14:06:59 236.1 113.1 2.9 0.00 

14:12:10 225.7 102.7 2.0 0.00 

14:17:18 225.5 102.5 1.8 0.00 

14:22:30 226.3 103.3 1.8 0.00 

14:27:39 206.4 83.4 1.7 0.00 

14:32:50 198.9 75.9 2.0 0.00 

14:38:00 169.4 46.4 2.0 0.00 

14:43:10 146.0 23.0 2.6 0.00 

14:48:19 150.9 27.9 2.1 0.00 

14:53:30 148.9 25.9 2.0 0.00 

14:58:39 157.3 34.3 2.0 0.00 

15:03:50 170.0 47.0 1.6 0.00 

15:08:58 191.4 68.4 1.4 0.00 

15:14:10 187.1 64.1 1.5 0.00 

15:19:20 198.3 75.3 1.5 0.00 

15:24:29 215.2 92.2 1.3 0.00 

15:29:40 196.1 73.1 1.4 0.00 

16:21:20 0.36 126.4 3.4 3.2 1.00 

16:26:27 1.32 107.8 344.8 3.7 0.91 

16:31:37 3.59 107.8 344.8 3.7 0.13 

A-33 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A-12. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 8, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:35:02 154.6 192.6 1.0 0.00 

10:39:29 128.4 166.4 1.1 0.00 

10:43:55 106.1 144.1 1.2 0.00 

10:48:21 91.3 129.3 1.1 0.00 

10:52:45 81.5 119.5 1.2 0.00 

10:57:10 73.0 111.0 1.3 0.00 

11:01:37 0.00 73.9 111.9 0.8 0.00 

11:06:02 0.00 99.9 137.9 0.7 0.00 

11:10:28 0.00 126.1 164.1 0.9 0.00 

11:14:55 -0.01 137.0 175.0 1.4 1.00 

11:19:22 -0.01 143.9 181.9 1.6 1.00 

11:23:48 -0.01 153.3 191.3 1.7 0.99 

11:28:14 -0.01 179.7 217.7 1.5 0.98 

12:04:50 0.03 248.8 286.8 2.6 0.84 

12:10:11 0.03 248.2 286.2 2.6 0.83 

12:14:39 0.03 247.2 285.2 3.0 0.92 

12:19:04 0.02 247.0 285.0 3.2 0.74 

12:23:24 0.02 247.9 285.9 3.5 0.04 

12:27:50 245.5 283.5 3.7 0.00 

12:32:13 245.1 283.1 3.6 0.00 

12:36:36 243.5 281.5 3.4 0.00 

12:41:03 233.3 271.3 3.1 0.00 

12:45:28 231.6 269.6 2.8 0.00 

12:49:53 0.01 234.9 272.9 3.2 0.99 

12:54:14 0.00 230.5 268.5 3.5 0.94 

12:58:36 0.00 234.2 272.2 3.5 1.00 

13:03:02 0.00 233.0 271.0 3.2 1.00 

13:07:27 0.00 228.7 266.7 3.2 1.00 

13:11:49 0.00 225.5 263.5 3.3 1.00 

13:16:14 0.00 227.4 265.4 3.3 1.00 

13:20:38 219.9 257.9 3.3 0.00 

13:25:05 0.01 235.4 273.4 3.6 0.04 

13:29:30 0.01 233.7 271.7 3.3 0.10 

A-34 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:33:59 0.01 231.3 269.3 3.3 0.12 

13:38:23 0.01 233.0 271.0 3.5 0.91 

13:42:48 0.01 234.3 272.3 3.3 0.98 

13:47:13 0.01 232.7 270.7 3.1 1.00 

13:51:36 0.01 238.1 276.1 3.2 1.00 

13:56:02 0.01 233.8 271.8 3.1 1.00 

14:00:28 0.01 237.5 275.5 3.0 0.99 

14:04:51 0.02 240.2 278.2 3.3 0.99 

14:09:11 0.00 229.1 267.1 2.6 1.00 

14:13:37 0.00 213.6 251.6 1.4 1.00 

14:18:04 0.00 228.0 266.0 1.5 0.95 

14:22:28 0.00 227.5 265.5 1.9 0.96 

14:26:48 -0.01 206.9 244.9 1.8 0.02 

14:31:14 -0.01 209.9 247.9 2.1 0.02 

14:40:00 165.5 203.5 2.1 0.00 

14:44:30 150.5 188.5 2.4 0.00 

14:48:51 149.3 187.3 2.2 0.00 

14:53:15 151.8 189.8 2.0 0.00 

14:57:42 152.9 190.9 2.0 0.00 

15:06:33 -0.01 180.8 218.8 1.6 1.00 

15:10:58 -0.01 187.6 225.6 1.4 0.48 

15:15:24 -0.01 196.8 234.8 1.5 0.46 

15:19:49 -0.01 216.0 254.0 1.4 0.41 

15:24:15 -0.01 210.6 248.6 1.4 0.41 

15:28:39 -0.01 191.0 229.0 1.4 0.18 

16:21:30 126.4 164.4 3.2 0.00 

16:25:54 107.8 145.8 3.7 0.00 

16:30:20 107.8 145.8 3.7 0.00 

A-35 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-13. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 8, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:37:16 0.02 145.1 267.1 1.0 0.96 

10:41:42 -0.10 111.1 233.1 1.2 0.96 

10:46:09 -0.16 100.5 222.5 1.2 0.98 

10:50:34 -0.21 86.5 208.5 1.1 0.98 

10:54:59 -0.38 79.8 201.8 1.3 0.98 

10:59:25 -0.34 73.6 195.6 1.1 0.97 

11:03:50 0.00 81.1 203.1 0.7 0.00 

11:08:17 0.00 120.4 242.4 0.8 0.00 

11:12:44 -0.02 134.1 256.1 1.0 0.70 

11:17:08 0.02 144.9 266.9 1.5 0.92 

11:21:40 0.03 149.4 271.4 1.6 1.00 

11:26:02 0.05 163.7 285.7 1.6 0.97 

11:30:28 0.06 186.5 308.5 1.6 1.00 

12:08:02 0.03 250.7 12.7 2.5 0.87 

12:12:27 0.04 250.0 12.0 2.8 0.84 

12:16:52 0.05 249.4 11.4 3.1 0.60 

12:21:15 0.07 248.2 10.2 3.4 0.83 

12:25:37 0.10 244.9 6.9 3.7 0.94 

12:30:03 0.09 244.5 6.5 3.7 0.85 

12:34:26 0.08 246.3 8.3 3.6 0.91 

12:38:52 0.05 243.6 5.6 3.3 1.00 

12:43:15 0.02 232.3 354.3 2.9 0.99 

12:47:43 0.02 235.0 357.0 3.0 0.98 

12:52:04 0.03 234.4 356.4 3.2 0.96 

12:56:26 0.03 233.5 355.5 3.4 0.86 

13:00:51 0.13 239.0 1.0 3.5 0.35 

13:05:16 0.14 233.0 355.0 3.3 1.00 

13:09:39 0.14 225.1 347.1 3.3 1.00 

13:14:04 0.12 227.1 349.1 3.1 0.97 

A-36 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:18:26 0.15 222.5 344.5 3.4 0.99 

13:22:54 0.06 228.7 350.7 3.6 0.93 

13:27:19 0.04 233.1 355.1 3.4 0.83 

13:31:45 0.05 233.1 355.1 3.4 0.95 

13:36:14 0.06 233.4 355.4 3.4 0.97 

13:40:36 0.06 237.3 359.3 3.6 0.99 

13:45:03 0.06 224.3 346.3 3.0 0.97 

13:49:27 0.10 236.1 358.1 3.1 0.89 

13:53:53 0.12 237.5 359.5 3.4 0.93 

13:58:15 0.20 234.9 356.9 2.9 0.97 

14:02:41 0.21 237.6 359.6 3.1 0.98 

14:07:03 0.22 234.4 356.4 2.9 0.82 

14:11:27 0.14 220.6 342.6 1.8 0.67 

14:15:52 0.14 221.7 343.7 1.5 0.79 

14:20:18 0.11 230.0 352.0 1.8 0.87 

14:24:38 0.09 219.5 341.5 1.8 0.95 

14:29:01 0.07 209.5 331.5 1.9 0.98 

15:04:21 0.10 167.2 289.2 1.8 0.81 

15:08:47 0.09 179.0 301.0 1.5 0.66 

15:13:09 0.09 187.1 309.1 1.6 0.94 

15:17:38 0.09 198.3 320.3 1.5 0.90 

15:22:03 0.22 215.2 337.2 1.3 0.90 

15:26:27 0.20 211.7 333.7 1.2 0.98 

15:30:52 0.42 182.4 304.4 1.5 0.98 

16:19:18 -0.43 124.8 246.8 2.9 0.80 

16:23:44 -0.74 126.4 248.4 3.2 0.97 

16:28:09 -2.41 107.8 229.8 3.7 1.00 

16:32:34 -2.41 107.8 229.8 3.7 0.98 

A-37 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-14. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 9, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:45:33 0.27 65.9 6.9 2.3 1.00 

11:50:33 0.23 69.8 10.8 2.0 0.98 

11:55:23 0.16 79.4 20.4 2.0 0.89 

12:00:21 0.14 84.4 25.4 2.1 1.00 

12:05:21 0.09 93.2 34.2 2.1 0.79 

12:10:20 0.06 97.1 38.1 2.2 1.00 

12:15:19 0.06 89.4 30.4 2.0 0.93 

12:20:17 0.07 81.3 22.3 1.8 0.91 

12:25:15 0.04 85.8 26.8 1.5 0.93 

12:30:15 0.03 71.8 12.8 1.0 0.96 

12:35:15 0.04 79.9 20.9 1.1 0.99 

12:40:15 0.02 94.2 35.2 1.0 0.98 

12:45:14 0.01 108.8 49.8 0.9 0.99 

12:50:12 0.01 119.0 60.0 1.3 0.97 

12:55:11 0.02 106.9 47.9 1.3 0.97 

13:00:11 0.01 103.0 44.0 1.4 0.99 

13:05:13 0.01 95.5 36.5 1.3 0.99 

13:10:14 0.01 79.0 20.0 1.0 0.99 

13:15:08 0.00 108.3 49.3 0.8 0.00 

13:20:08 0.01 135.1 76.1 1.0 0.96 

13:25:12 0.00 153.1 94.1 0.5 0.00 

13:30:11 0.00 188.7 129.7 0.6 0.00 

13:35:12 0.00 174.2 115.2 0.4 0.00 

13:40:07 0.00 229.5 170.5 0.4 0.00 

13:45:06 0.00 197.4 138.4 0.4 0.00 

13:50:09 160.3 101.3 1.1 0.00 

13:55:10 0.00 171.9 112.9 0.9 0.00 

14:00:10 0.00 180.8 121.8 1.4 1.00 

14:05:12 156.1 97.1 1.7 0.00 

A-38 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

14:10:13 0.00 172.9 113.9 1.9 0.99 

14:15:14 169.6 110.6 2.2 0.00 

14:20:15 158.9 99.9 2.8 0.00 

14:25:16 159.9 100.9 2.9 0.00 

14:30:18 155.4 96.4 2.9 0.00 

14:35:17 149.0 90.0 3.0 0.00 

14:40:19 0.00 146.7 87.7 3.1 0.98 

14:45:14 0.00 144.3 85.3 3.0 1.00 

14:50:13 0.00 143.5 84.5 2.8 1.00 

A-39 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-15. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 9, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:48:03 0.25 65.8 302.8 2.1 0.69 

11:52:54 0.23 73.7 310.7 2.0 0.60 

11:57:52 0.44 81.0 318.0 2.0 0.25 

12:02:52 0.38 89.5 326.5 2.2 0.10 

12:07:49 0.42 95.9 332.9 2.3 0.03 

12:12:50 0.42 95.3 332.3 2.1 0.06 

12:17:48 0.31 82.7 319.7 1.9 0.06 

12:22:46 0.34 85.3 322.3 1.7 0.39 

12:27:46 0.19 79.3 316.3 1.4 0.36 

12:32:44 0.06 73.5 310.5 0.9 0.71 

12:37:43 0.04 89.4 326.4 1.0 0.95 

12:42:43 0.04 93.5 330.5 0.8 0.96 

12:47:43 0.08 116.8 353.8 1.2 0.73 

12:52:42 0.16 114.6 351.6 1.4 0.58 

12:57:41 0.18 104.2 341.2 1.3 0.67 

13:02:42 0.13 99.3 336.3 1.3 0.97 

13:07:44 0.11 86.7 323.7 1.2 0.82 

13:12:43 0.00 81.7 318.7 0.9 0.00 

13:17:36 0.04 122.8 359.8 1.0 0.70 

13:22:38 0.00 144.8 21.8 0.8 0.00 

13:27:41 0.00 168.0 45.0 0.5 0.00 

13:32:42 0.00 180.4 57.4 0.6 0.00 

13:37:37 0.00 110.2 347.2 0.2 0.00 

13:42:38 0.00 254.3 131.3 0.3 0.00 

13:47:37 0.00 167.4 44.4 0.8 0.00 

13:52:40 0.03 155.6 32.6 1.0 0.02 

13:57:41 0.02 175.6 52.6 1.0 0.02 

14:02:42 0.02 162.2 39.2 1.5 0.39 

14:07:42 0.03 167.0 44.0 1.7 0.56 

A-40 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

14:12:43 175.9 52.9 2.0 0.00 

14:17:44 0.02 161.2 38.2 2.5 0.96 

14:22:44 0.03 158.5 35.5 2.8 0.99 

14:27:46 0.07 161.9 38.9 3.0 0.65 

14:32:48 0.05 151.1 28.1 2.8 0.94 

14:37:48 0.28 147.0 24.0 3.1 0.97 

14:42:50 0.25 146.5 23.5 3.0 0.75 

14:47:44 0.30 143.1 20.1 2.9 0.07 

14:52:42 0.27 148.5 25.5 3.2 0.35 

A-41 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-16. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 9, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:14:24 -0.03 85.1 123.1 2.9 0.82 

10:19:53 -0.04 85.2 123.2 2.9 0.67 

10:24:20 -0.03 84.2 122.2 2.7 0.19 

10:28:49 -0.03 84.3 122.3 2.5 0.05 

10:33:16 -0.03 86.4 124.4 2.4 0.05 

10:37:44 -0.03 86.7 124.7 2.3 0.03 

10:42:11 93.1 131.1 2.3 0.00 

10:46:41 96.2 134.2 2.2 0.00 

10:51:10 99.9 137.9 2.1 0.00 

10:55:36 96.2 134.2 2.0 0.00 

11:00:05 95.3 133.3 1.9 0.00 

11:04:32 -0.02 90.3 128.3 1.7 0.90 

11:09:02 -0.01 82.6 120.6 1.8 0.72 

11:13:32 86.3 124.3 1.6 0.00 

11:18:01 89.6 127.6 1.7 0.00 

11:22:29 94.4 132.4 1.7 0.00 

11:26:58 90.4 128.4 1.8 0.00 

11:31:27 85.7 123.7 2.1 0.00 

11:35:56 -0.01 79.9 117.9 2.1 0.36 

11:40:24 -0.02 68.7 106.7 2.2 0.32 

11:44:52 -0.02 67.9 105.9 2.3 0.19 

11:49:19 -0.02 66.6 104.6 2.1 0.46 

11:53:47 76.5 114.5 2.1 0.00 

11:58:14 83.4 121.4 2.0 0.00 

12:02:43 87.2 125.2 2.2 0.00 

12:07:10 100.1 138.1 2.3 0.00 

12:11:39 96.8 134.8 2.3 0.00 

12:16:07 88.8 126.8 2.0 0.00 

12:20:38 80.4 118.4 1.7 0.00 

A-42 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:25:09 79.6 117.6 1.6 0.00 

12:29:38 -0.05 79.4 117.4 1.1 0.78 

12:34:06 -0.04 77.6 115.6 1.0 0.87 

12:38:33 -0.06 96.7 134.7 1.1 0.87 

12:43:01 -0.04 88.2 126.2 0.7 0.88 

12:47:31 -0.05 112.6 150.6 1.0 0.89 

12:52:01 -0.01 121.6 159.6 1.5 0.99 

12:56:25 108.5 146.5 1.3 0.00 

13:00:54 104.0 142.0 1.4 0.00 

13:05:21 -0.04 93.6 131.6 1.3 0.98 

13:09:46 67.8 105.8 1.2 0.00 

13:40:36 0.00 269.7 307.7 0.3 0.00 

13:44:58 0.00 209.4 247.4 0.4 0.00 

13:49:23 -0.12 153.7 191.7 1.1 1.00 

13:53:44 -0.11 157.9 195.9 1.0 0.42 

13:58:06 -0.07 186.0 224.0 1.2 0.77 

14:02:32 -0.10 166.9 204.9 1.4 0.79 

14:06:57 -0.02 158.9 196.9 1.7 0.95 

14:11:20 -0.02 173.7 211.7 2.0 0.96 

14:15:42 -0.01 169.6 207.6 2.2 1.00 

14:20:08 158.4 196.4 2.6 0.00 

14:24:33 161.2 199.2 2.8 0.00 

14:28:55 157.0 195.0 3.2 0.00 

14:33:18 149.5 187.5 3.0 0.00 

14:37:41 147.3 185.3 3.0 0.00 

14:42:07 145.2 183.2 2.9 0.00 

14:46:27 141.6 179.6 2.9 0.00 

14:50:51 144.4 182.4 2.9 0.00 

A-43 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-17. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 9, 2008 at the Williams Rulison 

Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:17:39 -0.24 87.0 209.0 2.9 1.00 

10:22:07 -0.26 82.7 204.7 2.8 1.00 

10:26:35 -0.21 83.6 205.6 2.6 1.00 

10:31:04 -0.16 84.9 206.9 2.4 1.00 

10:35:30 -0.22 88.6 210.6 2.4 0.99 

10:40:01 -0.21 88.2 210.2 2.2 0.99 

10:44:27 -0.22 93.2 215.2 2.3 0.99 

10:48:56 -0.24 97.3 219.3 2.1 1.00 

10:53:24 -0.26 99.0 221.0 2.1 0.99 

10:57:52 -0.18 97.4 219.4 1.9 0.97 

11:02:18 -0.19 94.8 216.8 1.7 0.97 

11:06:50 -0.18 88.3 210.3 1.8 0.97 

11:11:19 -0.24 82.9 204.9 1.6 0.99 

11:15:47 -0.24 89.5 211.5 1.7 0.93 

11:20:16 -0.35 97.1 219.1 1.7 0.97 

11:24:45 -0.40 95.8 217.8 1.8 0.98 

11:29:13 -0.45 88.7 210.7 1.9 0.98 

11:33:43 -0.46 78.2 200.2 2.0 1.00 

11:38:11 -0.46 76.1 198.1 2.1 1.00 

11:42:39 -0.38 69.8 191.8 2.3 0.99 

11:47:07 -0.33 66.8 188.8 2.1 0.99 

11:51:34 -0.30 67.2 189.2 2.0 1.00 

11:56:02 -0.29 75.9 197.9 2.0 1.00 

12:00:30 -0.22 86.6 208.6 2.2 0.98 

12:04:59 -0.29 95.1 217.1 2.1 0.98 

12:09:27 -0.51 98.2 220.2 2.4 1.00 

12:13:55 -0.37 93.7 215.7 2.0 0.96 

12:18:24 -0.51 79.3 201.3 1.8 0.96 

12:22:54 -0.80 81.6 203.6 1.7 1.00 

A-44 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:27:25 -0.71 81.8 203.8 1.4 1.00 

12:31:53 -0.79 70.9 192.9 1.0 0.99 

12:36:19 -0.89 85.5 207.5 1.0 0.94 

12:40:49 -0.79 95.5 217.5 1.0 0.98 

12:45:19 -0.74 95.2 217.2 0.7 0.94 

12:49:45 -0.71 119.8 241.8 1.3 0.90 

12:54:12 -0.56 114.5 236.5 1.4 0.69 

12:58:41 -0.64 104.6 226.6 1.3 0.64 

13:03:09 -0.59 101.1 223.1 1.5 0.96 

13:07:32 -0.46 77.2 199.2 1.2 0.95 

13:42:50 0.00 234.8 356.8 0.4 0.00 

13:47:12 0.00 170.6 292.6 0.9 0.00 

13:51:34 0.02 152.2 274.2 1.0 0.91 

13:55:57 0.06 166.7 288.7 1.0 1.00 

14:00:21 0.10 175.8 297.8 1.2 0.99 

14:04:47 0.07 160.6 282.6 1.8 1.00 

14:09:11 0.11 171.7 293.7 1.9 1.00 

14:13:33 0.10 174.4 296.4 2.0 0.98 

14:17:55 0.09 162.4 284.4 2.6 0.99 

14:22:21 0.06 158.9 280.9 2.8 1.00 

14:26:42 0.10 162.4 284.4 3.1 1.00 

14:31:09 0.05 152.8 274.8 3.1 1.00 

14:35:30 0.01 148.8 270.8 3.0 0.99 

14:39:56 0.00 147.9 269.9 3.0 0.98 

14:44:17 -0.06 144.8 266.8 2.9 0.98 

14:48:41 -0.13 141.9 263.9 3.0 0.94 

14:53:04 -0.02 147.2 269.2 3.3 0.94 

A-45 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

Calculated Flux Values for the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Tables A-18 through A-33 present the summary tables of calculated flux values for each VRPM 

plane during each day of sampling at the EnCana Benzel facility. These values were calculated as 

described in Sections 2.3 and 3.1. Each table presents the time, flux value, wind direction, rotated 

wind direction, wind speed, and CCF (used to represent the level of fit for the reconstruction in the 

path-integrated domain, i.e., predicted versus measured path-averaged concentration). As 

described in Section 3.1.1, flux values were calculated for data which met a series of quality control 

criteria pertaining to horizontal and vertical plume capture and instrument DQIs. That section also 

described the flags that were added to flux values that did not meet the optimal data criteria, but 

that could still prove useful in understanding the source and magnitude of hydrocarbon emissions 

being generated from these sites. The input files used to calculate the AM (total alkanes) 

concentration values can be found in Appendix A. 

A-46 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-18. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 12, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:11:21 0.07 49.8 345.8 1.8 0.93 

12:16:44 0.06 51.8 347.8 2.0 0.94 

12:21:10 0.06 49.1 345.1 1.9 0.78 

12:25:31 0.05 39.5 335.5 2.0 0.14 

12:29:52 0.04 36.8 332.8 2.0 1.00 

12:34:15 0.01 19.7 315.7 2.1 0.99 

12:38:38 0.01 14.0 310.0 2.3 1.00 

12:42:57 0.01 11.2 307.2 2.4 0.98 

12:47:21 5.8 301.8 2.2 0.00 

12:51:43 337.0 273.0 2.3 0.00 

12:56:06 336.8 272.8 2.1 0.00 

13:00:28 339.6 275.6 2.1 0.00 

13:04:52 333.0 269.0 2.1 0.00 

13:09:15 303.1 239.1 2.0 0.00 

13:13:41 289.0 225.0 2.1 0.00 

13:18:05 316.9 252.9 2.1 0.00 

13:22:29 328.1 264.1 2.7 0.00 

13:26:54 327.6 263.6 2.9 0.00 

13:31:36 346.2 282.2 3.8 0.00 

13:36:11 354.1 290.1 3.8 0.00 

13:40:54 356.7 292.7 3.1 0.00 

13:45:23 344.2 280.2 2.6 0.00 

13:50:04 337.0 273.0 2.4 0.00 

13:54:43 322.6 258.6 2.0 0.00 

14:00:00 311.6 247.6 1.7 0.00 

15:23:59 0.01 1.4 297.4 1.5 0.95 

15:29:21 0.01 349.7 285.7 1.8 0.96 

15:33:42 0.03 5.1 301.1 2.5 0.59 

15:46:48 0.03 78.6 14.6 0.5 1.00 

15:51:10 0.04 26.4 322.4 2.1 0.13 

15:55:32 0.02 26.0 322.0 1.4 0.77 

15:59:52 0.07 17.4 313.4 1.8 0.72 

16:04:17 0.06 333.7 269.7 1.1 0.95 

A-47 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

16:08:38 -0.01 283.6 219.6 1.3 0.57 

16:12:59 -0.01 282.8 218.8 1.6 0.64 

16:17:19 -0.01 288.8 224.8 1.5 0.58 

16:21:41 0.00 309.2 245.2 1.4 0.64 

16:26:00 0.07 352.2 288.2 2.0 0.99 

16:30:20 0.14 13.4 309.4 2.4 0.99 

16:34:40 0.12 17.6 313.6 2.4 1.00 

16:39:01 0.15 20.0 316.0 2.6 0.98 

16:43:22 0.13 24.8 320.8 2.1 0.99 

16:47:41 0.11 28.2 324.2 1.9 0.92 

16:52:01 0.11 22.6 318.6 1.8 0.03 

16:56:21 0.17 15.3 311.3 1.5 0.02 

17:00:43 0.11 11.3 307.3 1.3 0.02 

17:05:06 0.06 350.4 286.4 1.5 0.02 

17:09:29 0.03 342.4 278.4 1.7 0.01 

17:13:50 0.05 346.5 282.5 2.0 0.03 

17:18:11 0.03 350.9 286.9 2.1 0.47 

17:22:35 0.02 5.7 301.7 2.1 0.56 

17:26:59 0.06 10.9 306.9 2.6 0.84 

17:31:23 0.13 14.1 310.1 2.7 0.96 

17:35:43 0.08 16.2 312.2 2.7 0.94 

17:40:06 0.20 17.1 313.1 2.8 0.99 

17:44:29 0.21 18.0 314.0 2.8 0.99 

17:48:52 0.17 21.6 317.6 2.6 0.99 

17:53:13 0.11 22.9 318.9 2.4 0.95 

17:57:35 0.10 11.5 307.5 2.5 0.97 

18:01:56 0.08 6.5 302.5 2.1 0.99 

18:06:19 0.04 358.8 294.8 1.4 0.98 

18:10:40 0.07 9.8 305.8 1.4 0.98 

A-48 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-19. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 12, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:14:31 0.01 50.9 85.9 2.1 1.00 

12:18:57 0.02 50.0 85.0 1.9 1.00 

12:23:20 0.03 47.4 82.4 1.9 0.94 

12:27:41 0.06 39.2 74.2 2.1 0.79 

12:32:03 0.07 25.5 60.5 2.0 0.88 

12:36:25 0.08 15.3 50.3 2.3 0.96 

12:40:49 0.07 13.2 48.2 2.3 1.00 

12:45:10 0.06 5.8 40.8 2.3 1.00 

12:49:31 0.08 348.6 23.6 2.5 1.00 

12:53:55 0.08 335.5 10.5 2.1 1.00 

12:58:17 0.08 339.8 14.8 2.1 1.00 

13:02:41 0.07 339.1 14.1 2.1 1.00 

13:07:04 0.06 300.0 335.0 2.1 1.00 

13:11:29 285.1 320.1 2.1 0.00 

13:15:52 302.1 337.1 2.0 0.00 

13:20:17 320.4 355.4 2.6 0.00 

13:24:41 328.8 3.8 3.0 0.00 

13:29:23 332.0 7.0 3.0 0.00 

13:33:54 351.0 26.0 3.9 0.00 

13:38:42 354.1 29.1 3.7 0.00 

13:43:12 351.7 26.7 2.9 0.00 

13:47:36 338.8 13.8 2.5 0.00 

13:52:27 327.3 2.3 2.2 0.00 

13:57:44 316.1 351.1 1.9 0.00 

14:02:17 308.1 343.1 1.6 0.00 

15:27:10 0.06 349.9 24.9 1.8 0.94 

15:31:31 0.07 10.5 45.5 2.4 0.99 

15:35:52 0.08 5.1 40.1 2.5 0.94 

15:49:01 0.07 30.6 65.6 1.4 0.94 

15:53:21 0.06 26.0 61.0 1.7 0.94 

15:57:42 0.04 15.9 50.9 1.7 1.00 

16:02:03 0.04 359.2 34.2 1.4 1.00 

16:06:28 0.03 302.8 337.8 1.1 1.00 

A-49 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

16:10:49 0.04 277.4 312.4 1.6 0.99 

16:15:09 0.04 292.5 327.5 1.6 0.99 

16:19:30 0.06 291.2 326.2 1.5 1.00 

16:23:49 0.08 333.2 8.2 1.6 1.00 

16:28:10 0.11 2.5 37.5 2.3 0.99 

16:32:29 0.08 15.7 50.7 2.4 0.99 

16:36:49 0.07 18.3 53.3 2.6 1.00 

16:41:12 0.06 20.5 55.5 2.4 1.00 

16:45:30 0.07 27.6 62.6 2.0 0.85 

16:49:50 0.10 21.2 56.2 1.9 1.00 

16:54:11 0.17 21.5 56.5 1.8 0.40 

16:58:32 0.25 13.0 48.0 1.4 0.92 

17:02:53 0.16 359.3 34.3 1.4 0.88 

17:07:16 0.22 347.6 22.6 1.6 0.99 

17:11:39 0.33 344.0 19.0 1.9 1.00 

17:16:00 0.31 350.1 25.1 2.1 1.00 

17:20:22 0.31 354.3 29.3 2.1 0.94 

17:24:46 0.32 10.1 45.1 2.3 0.99 

17:29:11 0.23 15.7 50.7 2.8 0.98 

17:33:32 0.13 11.8 46.8 2.6 0.98 

17:37:54 0.06 18.6 53.6 2.7 1.00 

17:42:16 0.08 15.9 50.9 2.9 1.00 

17:46:40 0.06 21.7 56.7 2.7 1.00 

17:51:02 0.04 21.9 56.9 2.4 0.89 

17:55:24 0.07 16.7 51.7 2.4 0.97 

17:59:45 0.09 8.5 43.5 2.3 1.00 

18:04:07 0.10 4.5 39.5 1.7 1.00 

18:08:29 0.07 2.1 37.1 1.2 1.00 

A-50 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-20. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 12, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:16:41 -0.02 50.4 232.4 1.6 0.14 

11:22:10 -0.02 47.9 229.9 1.8 0.04 

11:26:39 -0.02 44.7 226.7 1.9 0.80 

11:31:12 -0.02 43.4 225.4 2.1 0.12 

11:35:51 -0.02 24.0 206.0 2.0 0.85 

11:40:19 -0.02 12.7 194.7 2.2 0.36 

11:44:46 -0.03 13.4 195.4 2.9 0.24 

11:49:23 -0.02 14.4 196.4 2.8 0.03 

11:54:02 -0.02 25.5 207.5 2.1 0.00 

11:58:28 -0.02 25.2 207.2 2.1 0.00 

12:02:53 -0.02 29.7 211.7 2.1 0.00 

12:07:22 -0.02 35.9 217.9 2.0 0.00 

12:11:48 -0.02 47.0 229.0 1.8 0.05 

12:16:14 -0.02 51.0 233.0 2.0 0.08 

12:20:39 -0.02 49.1 231.1 1.9 0.45 

12:25:05 -0.02 41.3 223.3 2.0 0.60 

12:29:29 -0.02 36.6 218.6 2.0 0.98 

12:33:54 -0.02 19.7 201.7 2.1 1.00 

12:38:20 -0.02 14.0 196.0 2.3 1.00 

12:42:47 -0.03 11.4 193.4 2.4 0.94 

12:47:12 -0.02 5.8 187.8 2.2 0.92 

12:51:36 -0.02 339.9 161.9 2.3 0.99 

12:55:59 -0.03 336.8 158.8 2.1 0.82 

13:00:29 -0.02 339.6 161.6 2.1 0.91 

13:04:57 -0.02 333.0 155.0 2.1 1.00 

13:09:17 0.00 304.1 126.1 2.1 0.95 

13:13:45 0.01 292.6 114.6 2.1 0.77 

13:18:09 0.00 316.9 138.9 2.1 0.90 

13:22:36 -0.01 328.5 150.5 2.8 1.00 

13:27:01 -0.01 327.6 149.6 2.9 0.94 

13:31:24 -0.03 344.7 166.7 3.7 0.95 

13:35:48 -0.03 353.8 175.8 3.8 1.00 

13:40:12 -0.03 356.2 178.2 3.4 0.98 

A-51 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:44:37 -0.03 348.0 170.0 2.9 0.99 

13:49:03 -0.03 338.1 160.1 2.5 0.58 

13:53:26 -0.02 322.8 144.8 2.1 0.00 

13:57:52 -0.01 309.6 131.6 1.9 0.06 

14:02:18 -0.01 304.7 126.7 1.6 0.98 

14:06:46 -0.02 315.0 137.0 1.5 0.77 

14:11:09 -0.02 325.6 147.6 1.9 0.68 

14:15:37 -0.01 335.1 157.1 2.2 0.82 

14:20:03 -0.04 336.8 158.8 2.7 0.25 

14:24:28 -0.06 342.4 164.4 2.9 0.17 

14:28:56 -0.11 350.5 172.5 2.1 0.44 

14:33:22 -0.09 68.2 250.2 0.9 0.43 

14:37:50 -0.07 117.2 299.2 0.8 0.31 

14:42:16 -0.05 23.0 205.0 1.4 0.84 

14:46:41 -0.07 25.8 207.8 2.3 0.97 

14:51:10 -0.02 25.1 207.1 2.0 0.99 

14:55:37 -0.02 22.2 204.2 2.4 0.98 

15:00:03 -0.02 18.8 200.8 2.5 0.99 

15:04:28 -0.02 22.8 204.8 2.2 1.00 

15:08:54 -0.01 10.6 192.6 2.6 0.83 

15:13:20 -0.02 357.4 179.4 2.1 0.44 

15:17:45 -0.01 0.2 182.2 2.0 0.55 

15:22:15 -0.01 1.4 183.4 1.5 0.65 

15:26:42 -0.01 350.7 172.7 1.7 0.69 

15:31:12 359.2 181.2 1.9 0.00 

15:35:39 -0.01 5.1 187.1 2.5 0.97 

15:49:05 -0.02 26.0 208.0 1.6 0.99 

15:53:32 -0.01 27.0 209.0 1.7 0.96 

15:57:54 -0.01 16.1 198.1 1.8 0.99 

16:02:20 -0.02 353.8 175.8 1.4 0.10 

16:06:47 -0.04 299.6 121.6 1.1 0.16 

16:11:13 -0.03 277.6 99.6 1.6 0.06 

16:15:39 -0.06 293.7 115.7 1.6 0.11 

16:20:02 -0.07 293.2 115.2 1.5 0.08 

16:24:28 -0.09 340.1 162.1 1.7 0.21 

A-52 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

16:28:55 -0.03 5.5 187.5 2.3 0.00 

16:33:21 16.7 198.7 2.4 0.00 

16:37:48 19.7 201.7 2.6 0.00 

16:42:14 21.5 203.5 2.3 0.00 

16:46:41 26.4 208.4 1.9 0.00 

16:51:09 21.8 203.8 1.9 0.00 

16:55:35 17.6 199.6 1.7 0.00 

17:00:01 14.8 196.8 1.3 0.00 

17:04:27 352.9 174.9 1.5 0.00 

17:08:54 344.5 166.5 1.6 0.00 

17:13:20 346.4 168.4 2.0 0.00 

17:17:46 351.3 173.3 2.1 0.00 

17:22:13 1.8 183.8 2.1 0.00 

17:26:39 10.4 192.4 2.5 0.00 

17:31:05 14.5 196.5 2.8 0.00 

17:35:31 16.1 198.1 2.6 0.00 

17:39:59 17.4 199.4 2.8 0.00 

17:44:25 17.7 199.7 2.8 0.00 

17:48:51 21.3 203.3 2.6 0.00 

17:53:20 22.8 204.8 2.4 0.00 

17:57:47 11.4 193.4 2.5 0.00 

18:02:13 6.4 188.4 2.0 0.00 

18:06:39 358.9 180.9 1.4 0.00 

A-53 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-21. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 12, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:19:57 48.6 163.6 1.7 0.00 

11:24:24 44.0 159.0 1.9 0.00 

11:28:59 45.9 160.9 2.1 0.00 

11:33:37 39.6 154.6 2.2 0.00 

11:38:06 -0.01 17.3 132.3 2.0 0.85 

11:42:30 -0.02 13.4 128.4 2.9 0.91 

11:47:08 -0.02 10.8 125.8 2.8 0.37 

11:51:48 -0.02 19.7 134.7 2.6 0.29 

11:56:13 -0.02 25.6 140.6 2.1 0.57 

12:00:39 -0.01 27.8 142.8 2.1 0.88 

12:05:07 -0.01 33.3 148.3 2.0 1.00 

12:09:35 -0.01 42.3 157.3 1.9 0.93 

12:14:00 -0.01 50.9 165.9 2.1 0.75 

12:18:25 -0.01 47.9 162.9 1.9 0.94 

12:22:51 -0.01 46.1 161.1 1.9 0.72 

12:27:16 -0.02 35.5 150.5 2.1 0.72 

12:31:40 -0.02 31.0 146.0 2.0 0.70 

12:36:07 -0.01 18.0 133.0 2.2 0.89 

12:40:32 -0.01 13.9 128.9 2.3 0.95 

12:45:45 -0.01 4.1 119.1 2.3 0.92 

12:49:23 -0.01 350.7 105.7 2.4 0.96 

12:53:49 0.00 335.5 90.5 2.1 0.96 

12:58:12 -0.01 339.8 94.8 2.1 1.00 

13:02:44 -0.01 339.1 94.1 2.1 1.00 

13:07:08 0.01 290.6 45.6 2.1 0.46 

13:11:30 0.03 285.1 40.1 2.1 1.00 

13:15:52 0.02 302.1 57.1 2.0 0.98 

13:20:20 0.02 320.4 75.4 2.6 1.00 

13:24:47 0.01 328.8 83.8 3.0 0.92 

13:29:08 0.00 331.9 86.9 3.0 0.89 

13:33:34 -0.01 350.9 105.9 3.9 0.94 

13:37:59 -0.01 353.8 108.8 4.0 0.96 

13:42:24 -0.01 355.9 110.9 3.1 0.99 

A-54 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:46:50 0.00 344.1 99.1 2.5 0.86 

13:51:15 0.02 334.1 89.1 2.3 0.79 

13:55:40 0.03 319.2 74.2 2.0 0.74 

14:00:05 0.04 312.9 67.9 1.7 0.93 

14:04:30 0.04 307.9 62.9 1.4 0.98 

14:08:56 0.02 319.9 74.9 1.6 0.98 

14:13:23 0.01 335.4 90.4 2.0 0.97 

14:17:49 0.01 342.5 97.5 2.2 0.65 

14:22:15 0.00 343.1 98.1 3.1 0.95 

14:26:42 0.00 342.3 97.3 2.5 0.97 

14:31:09 -0.01 13.0 128.0 1.3 0.97 

14:35:35 -0.01 100.8 215.8 0.7 0.94 

14:40:03 -0.01 105.1 220.1 0.8 0.91 

14:44:28 -0.02 19.8 134.8 2.0 0.95 

14:48:56 -0.01 25.6 140.6 2.0 0.91 

14:53:22 0.00 23.2 138.2 2.1 0.77 

14:57:50 -0.01 21.9 136.9 2.5 0.95 

15:02:15 -0.01 22.2 137.2 2.5 0.93 

15:06:41 0.00 12.7 127.7 2.0 0.82 

15:11:07 0.00 0.9 115.9 2.4 0.77 

15:15:33 0.00 0.1 115.1 2.1 0.82 

15:20:02 0.00 3.8 118.8 1.8 0.69 

15:24:28 0.00 1.4 116.4 1.5 0.61 

15:28:59 0.00 349.7 104.7 1.8 0.46 

15:33:24 -0.01 23.2 138.2 2.3 0.72 

15:46:46 0.00 78.6 193.6 0.5 0.85 

15:51:18 -0.01 26.0 141.0 2.1 0.91 

15:55:45 -0.01 22.9 137.9 1.3 0.87 

16:00:06 -0.01 15.0 130.0 1.8 0.85 

16:04:32 0.00 326.3 81.3 1.1 0.85 

16:08:59 0.01 282.0 37.0 1.3 0.91 

16:13:25 0.01 284.5 39.5 1.7 0.85 

16:17:48 0.01 291.2 46.2 1.5 0.72 

16:22:14 0.00 314.5 69.5 1.4 0.74 

16:26:40 -0.01 356.0 111.0 2.0 0.68 

A-55 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

16:31:07 -0.01 14.5 129.5 2.5 0.92 

16:35:34 17.8 132.8 2.5 0.00 

16:40:01 -0.01 19.2 134.2 2.6 0.89 

16:44:26 -0.01 26.5 141.5 2.0 0.85 

16:48:55 -0.01 24.4 139.4 1.9 0.86 

16:53:21 -0.01 23.1 138.1 1.8 0.86 

16:57:47 -0.01 12.4 127.4 1.5 0.89 

17:02:13 -0.01 3.0 118.0 1.4 0.17 

17:06:41 -0.02 347.9 102.9 1.5 0.51 

17:11:07 -0.02 343.6 98.6 1.8 0.57 

17:15:33 -0.02 349.1 104.1 2.1 0.58 

17:19:59 0.01 352.5 107.5 2.1 0.45 

17:24:25 0.00 9.8 124.8 2.3 0.93 

17:28:51 14.5 129.5 2.7 0.00 

17:33:18 12.2 127.2 2.6 0.00 

17:37:45 18.5 133.5 2.7 0.00 

17:42:12 16.0 131.0 2.9 0.00 

17:46:37 21.6 136.6 2.7 0.00 

17:51:03 21.6 136.6 2.4 0.00 

17:55:32 17.1 132.1 2.4 0.00 

17:59:58 8.5 123.5 2.2 0.00 

18:04:25 4.0 119.0 1.6 0.00 

A-56 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-22. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 13, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:33:15 0.01 14.0 310.0 1.3 0.16 

09:38:38 0.00 17.7 313.7 1.2 0.32 

09:42:59 0.02 23.8 319.8 1.2 0.29 

09:47:22 0.03 18.4 314.4 1.3 0.28 

09:51:46 0.03 19.2 315.2 1.3 0.25 

09:56:08 0.04 19.3 315.3 1.4 0.51 

10:00:32 0.03 19.6 315.6 1.5 0.48 

10:04:54 0.01 13.5 309.5 1.4 0.70 

10:09:16 0.01 14.2 310.2 1.4 0.97 

10:13:37 0.01 10.2 306.2 1.2 0.91 

10:18:18 0.01 2.1 298.1 0.9 0.99 

10:22:22 0.01 356.5 292.5 0.9 1.00 

10:26:46 341.3 277.3 0.9 0.00 

10:31:09 0.00 336.6 272.6 0.8 0.03 

10:35:30 0.01 354.6 290.6 1.0 0.01 

10:39:53 0.01 350.1 286.1 1.1 0.01 

10:44:17 0.01 356.9 292.9 1.0 0.02 

10:48:41 0.01 357.7 293.7 1.2 0.01 

10:53:06 0.00 346.4 282.4 1.2 0.03 

10:57:29 343.8 279.8 1.2 0.00 

11:01:53 0.00 347.6 283.6 1.3 0.11 

11:06:15 0.00 346.2 282.2 1.3 0.02 

11:10:41 0.00 345.3 281.3 1.1 0.03 

11:15:06 0.00 356.7 292.7 1.3 0.64 

11:19:31 0.00 358.9 294.9 1.2 0.59 

11:23:52 0.00 344.3 280.3 0.9 0.73 

11:28:15 0.00 340.4 276.4 0.9 0.75 

11:32:41 0.00 338.9 274.9 0.9 0.00 

11:37:05 0.00 332.1 268.1 1.0 0.91 

11:41:29 334.6 270.6 1.2 0.00 

11:45:50 343.4 279.4 1.4 0.00 

11:50:13 345.8 281.8 1.5 0.00 

11:54:38 331.7 267.7 1.0 0.00 

A-57 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:58:58 334.8 270.8 0.9 0.00 

12:03:20 0.00 330.2 266.2 0.4 0.00 

12:07:42 0.00 132.0 68.0 0.2 0.00 

12:12:05 0.00 73.8 9.8 0.4 0.00 

12:16:24 0.00 93.5 29.5 0.5 0.00 

12:20:48 0.00 68.7 4.7 0.5 0.00 

12:25:09 0.00 23.4 319.4 0.7 0.00 

12:29:33 0.00 32.8 328.8 0.8 1.00 

12:33:56 0.03 33.2 329.2 1.3 0.97 

12:38:21 0.03 29.0 325.0 1.5 0.97 

12:42:42 0.02 19.9 315.9 1.4 0.86 

12:47:07 0.02 14.5 310.5 1.5 0.90 

12:51:31 0.01 26.8 322.8 0.9 0.93 

12:55:55 0.01 31.6 327.6 1.0 0.93 

13:00:17 0.00 14.2 310.2 0.9 0.88 

13:04:39 -0.01 345.6 281.6 0.9 0.99 

13:09:02 -0.01 334.7 270.7 0.9 0.74 

13:13:23 -0.04 320.9 256.9 1.1 0.96 

13:17:47 -0.04 345.1 281.1 1.1 0.84 

13:22:09 0.04 29.3 325.3 1.6 0.97 

13:26:30 0.11 45.8 341.8 1.9 0.99 

13:30:53 0.12 47.3 343.3 2.4 0.95 

13:35:15 0.11 46.0 342.0 2.4 0.98 

13:39:37 0.11 45.8 341.8 2.0 0.99 

13:43:59 0.14 37.3 333.3 1.8 0.98 

13:48:20 0.13 35.4 331.4 2.0 1.00 

13:52:42 0.11 40.2 336.2 1.7 0.99 

13:57:03 0.09 54.7 350.7 1.8 1.00 

14:01:27 0.10 56.4 352.4 2.3 1.00 

14:05:50 0.07 49.2 345.2 2.5 0.98 

14:10:14 0.07 41.3 337.3 2.9 0.98 

14:14:38 0.07 31.4 327.4 3.1 0.95 

14:19:01 0.08 21.4 317.4 3.2 0.97 

14:23:23 0.08 12.2 308.2 3.3 0.96 

14:27:46 0.03 359.4 295.4 3.1 0.70 

A-58 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

14:32:09 0.01 358.1 294.1 3.0 0.01 

14:36:31 0.01 355.1 291.1 2.5 0.10 

14:40:52 0.01 326.6 262.6 1.9 0.13 

14:45:15 0.00 310.9 246.9 2.1 0.12 

14:49:38 0.00 296.4 232.4 2.1 0.09 

14:54:01 0.01 279.1 215.1 2.2 0.30 

14:58:22 293.3 229.3 2.5 0.00 

15:02:46 306.1 242.1 1.5 0.00 

15:07:09 0.01 320.0 256.0 1.1 0.79 

15:11:31 0.01 354.4 290.4 1.3 0.93 

15:15:52 0.01 351.8 287.8 1.5 0.88 

15:42:56 -0.02 182.0 118.0 1.0 0.89 

15:46:19 -0.02 173.3 109.3 2.6 0.89 

15:48:41 -0.02 176.7 112.7 2.4 0.90 

15:51:04 -0.01 167.9 103.9 2.5 0.93 

15:53:26 -0.01 156.1 92.1 2.0 0.97 

15:55:48 0.00 122.9 58.9 1.1 0.98 

15:58:11 0.01 77.5 13.5 0.9 0.98 

16:00:33 0.01 61.6 357.6 1.0 0.98 

16:02:53 0.00 10.9 306.9 1.2 0.98 

16:05:15 0.00 342.0 278.0 1.9 0.93 

16:07:37 341.5 277.5 3.2 0.00 

16:09:59 335.4 271.4 4.1 0.00 

16:12:20 324.1 260.1 3.7 0.00 

16:14:42 326.8 262.8 3.5 0.00 

16:17:03 323.4 259.4 3.4 0.00 

16:19:24 318.2 254.2 2.7 0.00 

16:21:46 -0.02 336.3 272.3 1.8 0.01 

16:24:06 -0.02 353.8 289.8 1.4 0.17 

16:26:26 -0.02 18.7 314.7 1.1 0.91 

16:28:49 -0.04 49.1 345.1 1.1 0.93 

16:31:09 -0.02 26.7 322.7 1.1 0.99 

16:33:29 0.00 13.4 309.4 0.7 1.00 

16:35:51 0.01 8.8 304.8 0.7 0.95 

16:38:12 0.01 333.0 269.0 0.7 0.47 

A-59 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

16:40:32 308.2 244.2 0.5 0.00 

16:42:53 292.6 228.6 0.6 0.00 

16:45:15 290.1 226.1 1.1 0.00 

16:47:35 286.9 222.9 1.5 0.00 

16:49:58 295.7 231.7 1.7 0.00 

16:52:18 307.6 243.6 2.2 0.00 

16:54:39 314.8 250.8 2.3 0.00 

16:57:01 334.4 270.4 2.5 0.00 

16:59:24 0.00 348.5 284.5 2.8 0.32 

17:01:44 0.01 358.6 294.6 2.6 0.32 

17:04:05 0.01 5.1 301.1 2.4 0.24 

17:06:30 0.00 359.4 295.4 1.9 0.36 

17:08:52 0.00 320.0 256.0 1.6 0.41 

17:11:13 294.8 230.8 2.0 0.00 

17:13:36 280.6 216.6 2.3 0.00 

17:16:00 264.6 200.6 2.4 0.00 

17:18:23 264.4 200.4 2.4 0.00 

17:20:45 267.9 203.9 1.8 0.00 

17:23:07 282.3 218.3 1.2 0.00 

17:25:27 300.8 236.8 1.5 0.00 

17:27:52 306.2 242.2 2.2 0.00 

17:30:15 313.0 249.0 2.1 0.00 

17:32:37 308.8 244.8 2.5 0.00 

17:34:59 307.6 243.6 2.7 0.00 

17:37:22 312.9 248.9 3.0 0.00 

17:39:42 316.3 252.3 2.9 0.00 

17:42:03 313.6 249.6 3.1 0.00 

17:44:25 317.6 253.6 3.7 0.00 

17:46:47 317.4 253.4 4.5 0.00 

A-60 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-23. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 13, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:36:27 0.04 13.7 48.7 1.3 1.00 

09:40:49 0.03 18.4 53.4 1.1 1.00 

09:45:10 0.02 22.0 57.0 1.2 0.99 

09:49:33 0.03 18.6 53.6 1.2 0.95 

09:53:57 0.02 18.7 53.7 1.3 0.95 

09:58:21 0.03 19.4 54.4 1.4 0.87 

10:02:42 0.03 15.7 50.7 1.4 0.81 

10:07:05 0.03 14.0 49.0 1.4 0.91 

10:11:26 0.03 11.7 46.7 1.3 0.85 

10:15:49 0.02 1.6 36.6 0.9 0.90 

10:20:12 0.02 358.5 33.5 0.8 0.98 

10:24:34 349.8 24.8 0.9 0.00 

10:28:58 338.6 13.6 0.8 0.00 

10:33:20 341.1 16.1 0.8 0.00 

10:37:42 345.9 20.9 1.0 0.00 

10:42:06 354.5 29.5 1.1 0.00 

10:46:29 0.05 357.3 32.3 1.1 0.99 

10:50:54 0.05 353.2 28.2 1.2 0.96 

10:55:18 0.05 345.7 20.7 1.1 0.92 

10:59:42 0.04 344.6 19.6 1.2 0.97 

11:04:03 0.04 349.7 24.7 1.4 0.94 

11:08:29 0.04 342.4 17.4 1.1 0.99 

11:12:55 0.05 354.0 29.0 1.3 1.00 

11:17:17 0.04 1.5 36.5 1.3 1.00 

11:21:41 0.04 352.7 27.7 1.1 1.00 

11:26:04 0.04 343.1 18.1 0.8 0.99 

11:30:29 0.04 337.6 12.6 0.8 1.00 

11:34:54 0.04 335.2 10.2 1.0 1.00 

11:39:16 0.04 329.5 4.5 1.1 1.00 

A-61 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:43:40 0.06 340.7 15.7 1.4 1.00 

11:48:02 0.07 346.2 21.2 1.5 0.98 

11:52:26 0.05 337.9 12.9 1.2 1.00 

11:56:48 0.04 332.0 7.0 1.0 0.96 

12:01:09 0.03 325.8 0.8 0.7 0.95 

12:05:31 0.00 4.3 39.3 0.1 0.00 

12:09:55 0.00 110.1 145.1 0.3 0.00 

12:14:15 0.00 74.4 109.4 0.4 0.00 

12:18:36 0.00 94.8 129.8 0.4 0.00 

12:22:58 0.00 39.4 74.4 0.6 0.00 

12:27:21 0.02 32.4 67.4 0.8 0.80 

12:31:45 0.02 31.6 66.6 1.0 0.81 

12:36:09 0.02 26.7 61.7 1.4 0.90 

12:40:31 0.04 19.4 54.4 1.5 0.98 

12:44:55 0.05 18.2 53.2 1.5 0.95 

12:49:19 0.03 17.2 52.2 1.3 0.98 

12:53:43 0.02 25.4 60.4 0.9 0.96 

12:58:06 0.04 11.4 46.4 1.0 0.98 

13:02:29 0.03 353.3 28.3 0.9 0.87 

13:06:51 0.02 341.6 16.6 0.8 1.00 

13:11:13 0.06 326.3 1.3 1.0 1.00 

13:15:36 0.08 330.1 5.1 1.2 0.91 

13:19:58 0.09 0.9 35.9 1.2 0.79 

13:24:20 0.07 44.6 79.6 1.6 0.98 

13:28:41 0.07 48.5 83.5 2.0 0.51 

13:33:04 0.04 44.4 79.4 2.4 0.99 

13:37:25 0.03 43.1 78.1 2.2 1.00 

13:41:47 0.01 48.8 83.8 1.7 1.00 

13:46:09 0.03 37.2 72.2 1.9 1.00 

13:50:32 0.03 36.0 71.0 1.7 1.00 

A-62 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:54:53 0.03 46.9 81.9 1.7 1.00 

13:59:16 0.02 59.3 94.3 2.1 0.99 

14:03:38 0.01 55.5 90.5 2.5 0.99 

14:08:03 0.02 42.9 77.9 2.6 1.00 

14:12:27 0.02 36.4 71.4 2.9 0.99 

14:16:49 0.03 29.4 64.4 3.2 0.99 

14:21:11 0.04 17.1 52.1 3.3 0.98 

14:25:34 0.06 3.0 38.0 3.0 0.99 

14:29:57 0.09 358.3 33.3 3.1 0.97 

14:34:19 0.08 358.7 33.7 2.8 0.99 

14:38:42 0.06 348.8 23.8 2.0 1.00 

14:43:04 0.07 313.8 348.8 2.2 0.99 

14:47:26 0.07 310.7 345.7 2.1 0.98 

14:51:50 0.04 290.7 325.7 2.0 0.97 

14:56:12 0.03 284.9 319.9 2.3 0.95 

15:00:33 0.03 297.4 332.4 2.1 0.97 

15:04:58 0.02 319.3 354.3 1.4 0.97 

15:09:21 0.04 347.0 22.0 1.0 0.96 

15:13:42 0.05 346.7 21.7 1.5 0.95 

15:45:08 170.1 205.1 2.1 0.00 

15:47:30 176.1 211.1 2.7 0.00 

15:49:53 172.1 207.1 2.4 0.00 

15:52:15 161.6 196.6 2.3 0.00 

15:54:36 0.03 149.2 184.2 1.6 0.91 

15:56:59 0.04 91.2 126.2 0.9 0.74 

15:59:22 0.03 90.2 125.2 1.1 0.76 

16:01:43 0.08 29.8 64.8 1.1 0.89 

16:04:04 0.10 351.0 26.0 1.5 0.83 

16:06:25 0.12 342.6 17.6 2.4 0.87 

16:08:48 0.15 340.7 15.7 3.8 0.94 

A-63 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

16:11:10 0.15 325.3 0.3 3.9 0.95 

16:13:30 0.14 327.2 2.2 3.6 0.98 

16:15:50 0.12 325.0 360.0 3.5 0.99 

16:18:14 0.08 320.1 355.1 3.2 1.00 

16:20:35 0.07 319.9 354.9 2.2 0.97 

16:22:56 0.06 351.9 26.9 1.6 0.99 

16:25:17 0.06 359.9 34.9 1.2 0.97 

16:27:38 0.05 33.0 68.0 1.1 0.97 

16:29:58 0.05 37.0 72.0 1.0 0.97 

16:32:19 0.03 22.4 57.4 0.8 0.98 

16:34:40 0.05 10.9 45.9 0.7 0.84 

16:37:00 0.03 354.0 29.0 0.6 0.97 

16:39:21 0.03 317.6 352.6 0.6 1.00 

16:41:43 0.02 279.7 314.7 0.4 0.86 

16:44:05 0.03 292.8 327.8 0.8 0.77 

16:46:25 0.05 287.5 322.5 1.3 0.82 

16:48:48 0.06 287.0 322.0 1.6 0.77 

16:51:08 0.06 300.9 335.9 2.0 0.87 

16:53:28 0.07 310.7 345.7 2.3 0.90 

16:55:50 0.06 326.1 1.1 2.3 0.92 

16:58:13 0.06 342.9 17.9 2.6 0.96 

17:00:34 0.05 351.2 26.2 2.7 0.96 

17:02:54 0.05 0.1 35.1 2.4 0.96 

17:05:17 0.04 5.2 40.2 2.3 0.98 

17:07:41 0.03 338.6 13.6 1.6 0.99 

17:10:04 0.03 303.3 338.3 1.8 0.99 

17:12:24 0.03 287.5 322.5 2.2 0.99 

17:14:47 270.2 305.2 2.3 0.00 

17:17:11 262.8 297.8 2.4 0.00 

17:19:35 264.5 299.5 2.2 0.00 

A-64 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

17:21:56 274.7 309.7 1.4 0.00 

17:24:18 294.2 329.2 1.2 0.00 

17:26:42 301.8 336.8 1.8 0.00 

17:29:04 311.2 346.2 2.2 0.00 

17:31:27 309.7 344.7 2.3 0.00 

17:33:47 307.2 342.2 2.6 0.00 

17:36:10 308.6 343.6 2.8 0.00 

17:38:31 315.3 350.3 2.9 0.00 

17:40:53 314.5 349.5 3.1 0.00 

17:43:14 313.9 348.9 3.2 0.00 

17:45:37 318.5 353.5 4.2 0.00 

A-65 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-24. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 13, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:30:58 -0.01 336.6 158.6 0.8 0.74 

10:35:22 -0.02 354.4 176.4 1.0 0.89 

10:39:50 -0.02 349.9 171.9 1.1 0.04 

10:44:14 -0.02 356.1 178.1 1.0 0.03 

10:48:38 -0.02 357.4 179.4 1.2 0.98 

10:53:01 -0.02 346.4 168.4 1.2 0.76 

10:57:24 -0.01 343.7 165.7 1.2 0.92 

11:01:49 -0.02 347.5 169.5 1.3 0.93 

11:06:11 -0.01 346.3 168.3 1.3 0.86 

11:10:35 -0.02 344.9 166.9 1.1 1.00 

11:14:58 -0.02 356.6 178.6 1.3 0.99 

11:19:21 -0.02 359.0 181.0 1.2 0.99 

11:23:44 -0.01 344.7 166.7 0.9 0.93 

11:28:09 -0.01 340.6 162.6 0.9 0.78 

11:32:31 0.00 339.6 161.6 0.9 0.00 

11:36:54 -0.01 331.9 153.9 1.0 1.00 

11:41:17 -0.01 333.9 155.9 1.2 0.98 

11:45:41 -0.02 343.5 165.5 1.4 0.88 

11:50:03 -0.02 345.7 167.7 1.5 0.71 

11:54:27 -0.02 331.3 153.3 1.0 0.93 

11:58:50 -0.01 334.7 156.7 0.9 0.81 

12:03:14 0.00 329.9 151.9 0.4 0.00 

12:07:37 0.00 130.8 312.8 0.2 0.00 

12:12:01 0.00 73.8 255.8 0.4 0.00 

12:16:25 0.00 94.1 276.1 0.5 0.00 

12:20:48 0.00 67.9 249.9 0.5 0.00 

12:25:12 0.00 25.8 207.8 0.7 0.00 

12:29:36 -0.01 32.8 214.8 0.8 0.94 

12:34:00 -0.01 33.4 215.4 1.3 0.96 

12:38:25 -0.01 28.7 210.7 1.5 0.99 

12:42:47 20.0 202.0 1.4 0.00 

12:47:12 -0.01 14.4 196.4 1.5 0.53 

12:51:35 -0.01 27.1 209.1 0.9 0.64 

A-66 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:55:59 -0.01 31.6 213.6 1.0 0.56 

13:00:21 -0.01 13.6 195.6 0.9 0.38 

13:04:45 -0.01 345.3 167.3 0.9 0.00 

13:09:10 -0.01 334.2 156.2 0.9 0.99 

13:13:32 -0.01 321.5 143.5 1.1 0.67 

13:17:56 -0.01 345.6 167.6 1.1 0.69 

13:22:18 -0.01 30.1 212.1 1.6 0.79 

13:26:43 -0.01 46.9 228.9 1.9 0.98 

13:31:06 -0.02 46.9 228.9 2.4 0.94 

13:35:29 -0.01 46.3 228.3 2.4 0.99 

13:39:51 -0.02 46.2 228.2 2.0 0.76 

13:44:16 -0.02 37.2 219.2 1.8 0.52 

13:48:39 -0.02 35.4 217.4 1.9 0.44 

13:53:03 -0.01 39.6 221.6 1.7 0.01 

13:57:26 -0.01 54.7 236.7 1.9 0.03 

14:01:50 -0.01 56.4 238.4 2.4 0.01 

14:06:13 -0.01 48.5 230.5 2.5 0.58 

14:10:36 -0.02 41.2 223.2 2.9 0.96 

14:15:15 -0.02 31.2 213.2 3.2 0.83 

14:19:23 -0.03 20.2 202.2 3.3 0.97 

14:23:47 -0.02 11.0 193.0 3.2 0.96 

14:28:10 -0.02 359.1 181.1 3.1 1.00 

14:32:33 -0.02 358.2 180.2 3.0 0.97 

14:36:57 -0.05 356.9 178.9 2.3 0.10 

14:41:21 -0.04 321.3 143.3 1.9 0.01 

14:45:45 -0.05 310.9 132.9 2.1 0.00 

14:50:08 -0.06 294.0 116.0 2.1 0.00 

14:54:31 -0.12 278.8 100.8 2.2 0.62 

14:58:55 -0.07 295.1 117.1 2.4 0.97 

15:03:20 -0.04 309.5 131.5 1.5 1.00 

15:07:44 -0.05 328.5 150.5 1.0 0.94 

15:12:07 -0.01 352.4 174.4 1.4 0.94 

15:16:33 352.4 174.4 1.6 0.00 

15:21:21 352.6 174.6 1.5 0.00 

15:25:23 -0.04 330.2 152.2 1.0 0.96 

A-67 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

15:29:48 -0.03 300.9 122.9 1.9 1.00 

15:34:14 -0.07 295.6 117.6 1.1 0.50 

15:38:40 -0.16 225.1 47.1 0.8 0.65 

15:43:05 -0.08 190.7 12.7 1.6 0.98 

15:47:30 -0.04 166.3 348.3 1.4 1.00 

15:51:56 -0.02 157.9 339.9 1.7 1.00 

15:56:21 -0.02 148.3 330.3 1.1 0.99 

16:00:47 -0.01 5.2 187.2 0.8 1.00 

16:05:11 -0.02 350.8 172.8 2.2 1.00 

16:09:36 331.0 153.0 2.9 0.00 

16:13:59 328.3 150.3 3.2 0.00 

16:18:25 332.6 154.6 2.6 0.00 

16:22:49 334.1 156.1 1.9 0.00 

16:27:12 357.2 179.2 1.3 0.00 

16:35:14 0.00 352.2 174.2 0.6 0.82 

16:39:38 0.00 320.5 142.5 0.7 0.68 

16:44:03 -0.01 312.9 134.9 1.2 0.59 

16:48:28 0.00 321.7 143.7 1.5 0.96 

16:52:51 329.2 151.2 1.6 0.00 

17:00:53 343.1 165.1 2.1 0.00 

17:05:18 331.4 153.4 2.1 0.00 

17:09:43 -0.01 315.7 137.7 1.7 1.00 

17:14:07 0.00 283.3 105.3 1.7 0.99 

17:18:30 0.00 281.4 103.4 1.9 0.97 

17:22:55 0.00 283.4 105.4 2.1 0.85 

17:27:20 0.00 296.1 118.1 1.9 0.68 

A-68 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-25. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 13, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

10:33:10 0.00 340.7 95.7 0.8 0.82 

10:37:33 -0.01 347.0 102.0 1.0 0.82 

10:42:01 0.00 354.4 109.4 1.1 0.57 

10:46:24 0.00 357.4 112.4 1.1 0.97 

10:50:48 0.00 353.6 108.6 1.2 0.82 

10:55:12 0.00 345.7 100.7 1.1 0.92 

10:59:36 0.00 344.5 99.5 1.2 -0.04 

11:04:01 0.00 349.8 104.8 1.4 0.97 

11:08:23 0.00 342.5 97.5 1.1 0.78 

11:12:46 0.00 353.5 108.5 1.3 0.99 

11:17:08 0.00 1.7 116.7 1.3 0.97 

11:21:32 0.00 353.0 108.0 1.1 0.95 

11:25:55 0.00 343.1 98.1 0.8 0.90 

11:30:19 0.00 338.9 93.9 0.8 0.52 

11:34:42 0.01 336.0 91.0 1.0 0.72 

11:39:04 0.00 329.5 84.5 1.1 0.75 

11:43:29 0.00 340.5 95.5 1.3 0.88 

11:47:51 0.00 346.1 101.1 1.5 0.95 

11:52:15 0.00 339.1 94.1 1.3 1.00 

11:56:38 0.00 332.2 87.2 1.0 0.85 

12:01:00 0.00 327.9 82.9 0.7 0.88 

12:05:25 0.00 355.9 110.9 0.1 0.00 

12:09:48 0.00 110.0 225.0 0.3 0.00 

12:14:12 0.00 74.2 189.2 0.4 0.00 

12:18:37 0.00 94.8 209.8 0.4 0.00 

12:22:59 0.00 39.6 154.6 0.6 0.00 

12:27:24 0.00 32.4 147.4 0.8 0.52 

12:31:47 0.00 31.8 146.8 1.0 0.41 

12:36:11 0.00 26.6 141.6 1.4 0.99 

A-69 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:40:35 19.5 134.5 1.5 0.00 

12:44:58 18.2 133.2 1.5 0.00 

12:49:23 17.6 132.6 1.3 0.00 

12:53:46 25.4 140.4 0.9 0.00 

12:58:09 0.00 11.2 126.2 1.0 0.75 

13:02:32 0.00 352.9 107.9 0.9 0.74 

13:06:57 0.00 341.6 96.6 0.8 0.80 

13:11:20 0.00 325.8 80.8 1.0 0.96 

13:15:43 0.00 332.0 87.0 1.2 -0.06 

13:20:06 0.00 2.6 117.6 1.2 0.77 

13:24:29 -0.01 45.0 160.0 1.6 0.82 

13:28:54 -0.01 48.5 163.5 2.0 0.88 

13:33:16 44.3 159.3 2.4 0.00 

13:37:39 43.1 158.1 2.2 0.00 

13:42:03 48.9 163.9 1.7 0.00 

13:46:27 36.7 151.7 2.0 0.00 

13:50:50 36.6 151.6 1.7 0.00 

13:55:14 46.7 161.7 1.6 0.00 

13:59:38 59.8 174.8 2.2 0.00 

14:04:01 54.9 169.9 2.5 0.00 

14:08:24 43.0 158.0 2.6 0.00 

14:12:46 36.1 151.1 2.9 0.00 

14:17:10 28.0 143.0 3.2 0.00 

14:21:34 16.3 131.3 3.3 0.00 

14:25:58 -0.01 2.2 117.2 3.1 0.20 

14:30:21 -0.01 358.2 113.2 3.1 0.33 

14:34:45 -0.01 357.8 112.8 2.7 0.43 

14:39:08 -0.01 343.3 98.3 1.9 0.44 

14:43:32 0.00 312.4 67.4 2.1 0.87 

14:47:55 -0.01 309.8 64.8 2.1 0.70 

A-70 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

14:52:18 -0.01 287.6 42.6 2.0 0.83 

14:56:42 0.00 287.3 42.3 2.5 0.99 

15:01:08 -0.01 299.9 54.9 2.0 0.88 

15:05:31 -0.01 318.7 73.7 1.3 0.89 

15:09:56 -0.01 351.5 106.5 1.1 0.93 

15:14:20 0.00 346.5 101.5 1.6 1.00 

15:18:46 -0.01 348.6 103.6 1.4 1.00 

15:23:11 -0.01 349.1 104.1 1.3 0.98 

15:27:34 0.01 308.9 63.9 1.5 0.97 

15:32:00 0.01 308.3 63.3 1.6 0.98 

15:36:26 0.02 271.9 26.9 0.9 0.59 

15:40:52 0.02 191.3 306.3 1.5 0.46 

15:45:17 0.02 184.3 299.3 1.3 0.68 

15:49:42 0.01 158.1 273.1 1.5 0.43 

15:54:09 0.01 154.7 269.7 1.5 0.30 

15:58:33 0.00 127.7 242.7 0.5 0.83 

16:02:57 0.00 2.1 117.1 1.6 0.41 

16:07:23 0.02 330.7 85.7 2.6 0.45 

16:11:47 0.03 327.0 82.0 3.2 0.67 

16:16:12 0.02 330.1 85.1 2.9 0.96 

16:20:36 0.01 334.7 89.7 2.3 0.88 

16:25:00 0.01 336.0 91.0 1.4 0.94 

16:58:40 0.00 338.6 93.6 2.1 0.99 

17:03:06 0.00 340.5 95.5 2.0 0.64 

17:07:30 0.00 322.3 77.3 1.9 0.94 

17:11:54 0.01 297.7 52.7 1.5 0.89 

17:16:18 0.01 282.2 37.2 1.8 0.90 

17:20:43 0.01 279.4 34.4 2.0 0.86 

17:25:07 0.01 289.7 44.7 1.9 0.95 

17:29:31 0.01 303.3 58.3 2.0 0.91 

A-71 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-26. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 14, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:18:50 0.03 48.8 344.8 1.0 0.97 

09:24:10 0.03 32.3 328.3 1.2 0.98 

09:28:31 0.02 14.3 310.3 1.4 0.84 

09:32:54 0.01 15.3 311.3 1.2 0.91 

09:37:16 11.9 307.9 1.3 0.00 

09:41:38 0.03 11.4 307.4 1.4 0.45 

09:45:58 0.02 6.9 302.9 1.3 0.94 

09:50:21 0.03 12.6 308.6 1.4 0.90 

09:54:42 0.04 13.0 309.0 1.5 0.91 

09:59:04 0.04 3.8 299.8 1.4 0.94 

10:03:28 0.03 5.5 301.5 1.5 0.44 

10:07:51 0.02 357.8 293.8 1.7 0.77 

10:12:14 349.9 285.9 1.9 0.00 

10:16:35 345.7 281.7 1.8 0.00 

10:20:58 0.01 351.6 287.6 1.9 0.89 

10:25:22 0.01 353.6 289.6 1.7 0.64 

10:29:44 0.02 0.5 296.5 1.6 0.94 

10:34:05 0.02 1.7 297.7 1.5 0.97 

10:38:27 0.01 358.4 294.4 1.4 0.91 

10:42:48 0.01 0.3 296.3 1.2 0.92 

10:47:09 0.00 350.0 286.0 1.2 0.82 

10:51:30 0.00 347.3 283.3 1.1 0.94 

10:55:51 0.01 349.8 285.8 1.3 0.92 

11:00:15 0.01 355.4 291.4 1.5 0.92 

11:04:36 0.01 356.8 292.8 1.5 0.79 

11:08:59 0.01 2.6 298.6 1.4 0.15 

11:13:20 0.01 10.6 306.6 1.7 0.13 

11:17:43 0.02 11.1 307.1 1.6 0.03 

11:22:04 0.02 7.0 303.0 1.6 0.05 

A-72 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:26:26 0.02 6.8 302.8 1.7 0.03 

11:30:47 0.02 3.9 299.9 1.6 0.15 

11:35:08 0.01 354.8 290.8 1.3 0.06 

11:39:32 0.00 345.7 281.7 1.1 0.98 

11:43:54 0.01 13.9 309.9 0.8 0.97 

11:48:15 0.01 34.3 330.3 0.5 0.98 

11:52:36 0.01 110.5 46.5 0.3 0.94 

11:57:00 0.01 142.3 78.3 0.8 0.96 

12:01:21 0.01 146.5 82.5 1.3 1.00 

12:05:44 -0.01 165.1 101.1 1.4 0.99 

12:10:05 0.02 155.1 91.1 1.1 0.98 

12:14:30 0.03 134.5 70.5 0.9 0.98 

12:18:54 0.04 112.3 48.3 0.9 1.00 

12:23:17 0.07 76.0 12.0 1.0 1.00 

12:27:39 0.08 53.9 349.9 1.2 0.99 

12:32:03 0.07 65.8 1.8 0.9 1.00 

12:36:26 0.04 61.3 357.3 0.5 1.00 

12:40:49 -0.01 200.8 136.8 0.4 1.00 

12:45:11 0.00 205.4 141.4 0.6 0.00 

12:49:33 0.00 205.7 141.7 0.6 0.00 

12:53:56 0.00 182.3 118.3 0.5 0.00 

12:58:17 0.00 142.0 78.0 0.6 1.00 

13:02:39 0.05 96.5 32.5 1.0 0.99 

13:07:00 0.08 81.8 17.8 1.2 0.99 

13:11:24 0.12 67.7 3.7 1.3 0.98 

13:15:47 0.11 50.4 346.4 1.3 0.97 

13:20:09 0.00 6.0 302.0 0.3 0.00 

13:24:30 0.00 229.2 165.2 0.4 0.00 

13:28:53 -0.01 225.9 161.9 0.4 1.00 

13:33:15 0.00 254.6 190.6 0.3 0.00 

A-73 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:37:38 0.03 24.2 320.2 1.0 0.81 

13:42:01 0.06 18.7 314.7 2.6 0.91 

13:46:23 0.06 10.8 306.8 2.7 0.97 

13:50:46 0.01 346.7 282.7 2.1 0.85 

13:55:08 0.01 336.3 272.3 1.6 0.74 

13:59:30 0.00 277.3 213.3 1.0 1.00 

14:03:51 0.00 228.1 164.1 1.2 0.95 

14:08:14 0.02 200.9 136.9 0.8 0.97 

14:12:36 0.05 138.1 74.1 0.9 0.50 

14:16:58 0.05 128.9 64.9 0.7 0.62 

14:21:20 0.03 178.8 114.8 0.8 0.63 

14:25:41 0.02 220.8 156.8 1.4 0.62 

14:30:02 -0.01 250.7 186.7 1.6 0.98 

14:34:26 263.1 199.1 2.3 0.00 

14:38:47 280.7 216.7 2.2 0.00 

14:43:09 0.00 313.7 249.7 1.9 1.00 

14:47:30 0.00 318.1 254.1 1.8 0.97 

14:51:53 0.00 338.7 274.7 1.4 1.00 

14:56:15 0.01 347.5 283.5 1.8 1.00 

15:00:37 0.00 344.5 280.5 1.6 1.00 

15:04:59 0.00 339.0 275.0 1.5 0.98 

15:09:21 0.00 336.7 272.7 1.7 0.99 

15:13:42 -0.02 330.0 266.0 1.4 0.02 

15:18:03 -0.02 336.7 272.7 1.8 0.01 

15:22:26 -0.01 341.9 277.9 1.8 0.02 

15:26:49 -0.01 350.5 286.5 2.0 0.02 

15:31:10 -0.01 354.5 290.5 2.2 0.01 

15:35:31 0.00 3.2 299.2 2.5 0.01 

15:39:55 0.00 352.7 288.7 2.1 0.01 

15:44:19 0.00 345.9 281.9 2.4 0.01 

A-74 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

15:48:41 0.01 343.1 279.1 2.5 0.20 

15:53:02 333.4 269.4 2.7 0.00 

15:57:25 340.2 276.2 2.8 0.00 

16:01:49 340.4 276.4 2.7 0.00 

16:06:12 344.3 280.3 2.8 0.00 

16:10:35 346.3 282.3 2.7 0.00 

16:14:57 337.2 273.2 2.5 0.00 

16:19:22 323.2 259.2 2.3 0.00 

16:23:44 297.6 233.6 2.1 0.00 

16:28:08 285.9 221.9 2.4 0.00 

16:32:30 269.0 205.0 2.8 0.00 

16:36:54 273.4 209.4 2.8 0.00 

16:41:15 264.4 200.4 2.0 0.00 

16:45:37 0.00 313.5 249.5 1.9 1.00 

16:50:00 315.8 251.8 2.2 0.00 

A-75 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-27. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 14, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:22:01 0.01 37.8 72.8 1.1 1.00 

09:26:21 0.02 23.0 58.0 1.3 0.76 

09:30:42 0.02 14.1 49.1 1.4 0.88 

09:35:04 0.02 9.3 44.3 1.2 0.85 

09:39:27 0.02 11.7 46.7 1.5 0.87 

09:43:48 0.02 9.7 44.7 1.4 0.92 

09:48:09 0.02 13.6 48.6 1.3 0.93 

09:52:32 0.02 10.2 45.2 1.4 0.85 

09:56:53 0.02 8.2 43.2 1.5 0.78 

10:01:15 0.02 3.7 38.7 1.4 0.95 

10:05:39 0.03 4.8 39.8 1.6 1.00 

10:10:03 0.04 352.7 27.7 1.8 0.88 

10:14:25 0.05 345.9 20.9 1.8 1.00 

10:18:47 0.06 350.5 25.5 1.8 0.96 

10:23:10 0.06 349.4 24.4 1.7 0.91 

10:27:33 0.06 357.6 32.6 1.6 0.90 

10:31:54 0.06 2.8 37.8 1.6 0.86 

10:36:15 0.07 1.6 36.6 1.4 0.96 

10:40:38 0.07 359.6 34.6 1.3 0.60 

10:45:45 0.07 356.6 31.6 1.3 0.58 

10:49:21 0.07 347.5 22.5 1.2 0.75 

10:53:42 0.06 348.2 23.2 1.2 0.93 

10:58:04 0.06 353.6 28.6 1.4 0.98 

11:02:25 0.06 352.8 27.8 1.5 0.92 

11:06:48 0.05 1.8 36.8 1.5 0.74 

11:11:10 0.05 7.2 42.2 1.5 0.98 

11:15:31 0.06 13.9 48.9 1.7 0.96 

11:19:54 0.07 7.8 42.8 1.5 0.93 

11:24:15 0.08 3.0 38.0 1.6 0.91 

A-76 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:28:37 0.07 9.6 44.6 1.7 1.00 

11:32:58 0.07 2.1 37.1 1.4 0.46 

11:37:20 0.08 351.4 26.4 1.3 0.29 

11:41:42 0.07 356.5 31.5 1.0 0.88 

11:46:04 0.04 25.2 60.2 0.7 0.86 

11:50:26 0.03 72.1 107.1 0.4 0.87 

11:54:47 0.01 140.1 175.1 0.5 0.91 

11:59:10 -0.01 135.5 170.5 1.1 0.98 

12:03:32 -0.01 155.5 190.5 1.4 0.95 

12:07:55 -0.01 164.2 199.2 1.3 0.93 

12:12:18 -0.01 139.9 174.9 0.9 0.95 

12:16:41 -0.01 128.3 163.3 0.9 0.99 

12:21:05 0.00 85.0 120.0 0.9 0.96 

12:25:27 0.00 63.5 98.5 1.1 0.96 

12:29:51 0.00 50.9 85.9 1.1 0.98 

12:34:14 0.00 63.5 98.5 0.8 1.00 

12:38:36 0.00 85.6 120.6 0.2 1.00 

12:42:59 0.00 209.7 244.7 0.6 0.00 

12:47:21 0.00 203.9 238.9 0.7 0.00 

12:51:45 0.00 198.5 233.5 0.5 0.00 

12:56:05 0.00 163.5 198.5 0.6 0.00 

13:00:28 -0.02 109.9 144.9 0.8 0.69 

13:04:50 -0.01 88.1 123.1 1.0 0.09 

13:09:12 -0.04 77.4 112.4 1.3 0.89 

13:13:35 -0.01 61.7 96.7 1.3 0.98 

13:17:58 0.00 41.7 76.7 0.8 0.00 

13:22:20 0.00 310.3 345.3 0.3 0.00 

13:26:42 0.00 227.3 262.3 0.5 0.99 

13:31:05 0.00 231.8 266.8 0.3 0.00 

13:35:27 0.00 318.5 353.5 0.2 0.99 

A-77 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

13:39:50 0.01 23.5 58.5 2.0 0.84 

13:44:12 0.03 11.1 46.1 2.9 0.85 

13:48:34 0.03 358.3 33.3 2.3 0.85 

13:52:57 0.03 338.7 13.7 1.8 0.92 

13:57:19 0.01 320.0 355.0 1.2 0.99 

14:01:41 0.00 240.0 275.0 1.3 0.99 

14:06:02 0.00 223.4 258.4 1.0 0.99 

14:10:24 -0.01 163.1 198.1 0.8 0.98 

14:14:47 -0.01 133.1 168.1 0.9 0.96 

14:19:09 -0.01 156.4 191.4 0.8 0.97 

14:23:30 -0.01 206.6 241.6 1.2 0.98 

14:27:51 0.00 233.9 268.9 1.4 1.00 

14:32:13 0.01 259.4 294.4 2.0 1.00 

14:36:36 0.01 263.9 298.9 2.3 1.00 

14:40:58 0.01 295.6 330.6 2.0 0.87 

14:45:20 0.02 318.9 353.9 2.0 0.89 

14:49:41 0.03 327.4 2.4 1.5 0.99 

14:54:04 0.04 342.7 17.7 1.6 1.00 

14:58:25 0.05 345.6 20.6 1.7 0.99 

15:02:48 0.05 339.0 14.0 1.6 0.99 

15:07:09 0.05 343.0 18.0 1.5 1.00 

15:11:31 0.05 330.0 5.0 1.7 0.99 

15:15:52 0.05 332.6 7.6 1.5 0.96 

15:20:15 0.05 337.6 12.6 1.9 0.97 

15:24:37 0.06 353.6 28.6 1.8 0.97 

15:29:00 0.09 349.2 24.2 2.1 0.99 

15:33:21 0.10 359.1 34.1 2.5 0.99 

15:37:43 0.08 358.3 33.3 2.2 1.00 

15:42:06 0.09 350.8 25.8 2.3 1.00 

15:46:30 0.09 345.5 20.5 2.6 1.00 

A-78 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

15:50:51 0.09 339.7 14.7 2.7 0.99 

15:55:13 0.08 333.1 8.1 2.7 0.97 

15:59:37 0.08 341.3 16.3 2.8 0.90 

16:04:00 0.07 341.6 16.6 2.9 0.91 

16:08:24 0.06 346.1 21.1 2.7 0.96 

16:12:47 0.05 346.7 21.7 2.8 0.97 

16:17:09 0.05 327.3 2.3 2.2 0.94 

16:21:32 0.04 313.6 348.6 2.2 0.97 

16:25:54 0.03 292.1 327.1 2.2 0.99 

16:30:18 0.02 277.5 312.5 2.6 0.99 

16:34:42 0.01 272.5 307.5 2.7 0.99 

16:39:03 0.01 263.0 298.0 2.3 1.00 

16:43:26 0.02 292.8 327.8 1.7 0.89 

16:47:48 0.03 317.8 352.8 2.2 0.99 

16:52:12 0.02 309.8 344.8 2.2 0.99 

A-79 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-28. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 14, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:22:29 34.7 216.7 1.2 0.00 

09:27:55 17.4 199.4 1.4 0.00 

09:32:18 15.2 197.2 1.2 0.00 

09:36:43 12.2 194.2 1.3 0.00 

09:41:07 11.1 193.1 1.4 0.00 

09:45:32 6.6 188.6 1.3 0.00 

09:49:55 12.8 194.8 1.3 0.00 

09:54:20 13.8 195.8 1.5 0.00 

09:58:44 3.1 185.1 1.4 0.00 

10:03:09 5.4 187.4 1.5 0.00 

10:07:32 358.5 180.5 1.7 0.00 

10:11:57 350.4 172.4 1.9 0.00 

10:16:24 345.7 167.7 1.8 0.00 

10:20:48 351.5 173.5 1.9 0.00 

10:25:12 353.6 175.6 1.7 0.00 

10:29:38 0.5 182.5 1.6 0.00 

10:34:05 -0.01 1.8 183.8 1.5 0.24 

10:38:30 358.6 180.6 1.4 0.00 

10:42:56 0.4 182.4 1.2 0.00 

10:47:22 349.8 171.8 1.2 0.00 

10:51:48 347.7 169.7 1.1 0.00 

10:56:14 351.2 173.2 1.3 0.00 

11:00:40 354.9 176.9 1.5 0.00 

11:05:07 357.1 179.1 1.5 0.00 

11:09:33 4.7 186.7 1.5 0.00 

11:13:59 11.3 193.3 1.8 0.00 

11:18:23 9.0 191.0 1.6 0.00 

11:22:50 -0.01 6.1 188.1 1.6 0.57 

11:27:15 -0.01 8.6 190.6 1.7 0.95 

11:31:40 2.2 184.2 1.5 0.00 

11:36:05 353.1 175.1 1.3 0.00 

11:40:31 349.6 171.6 1.1 0.00 

11:44:56 26.5 208.5 0.8 0.00 

A-80 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:49:22 -0.01 52.2 234.2 0.4 0.04 

11:53:47 -0.01 136.0 318.0 0.3 0.01 

11:58:13 0.00 137.7 319.7 1.0 0.01 

12:02:39 0.00 151.6 333.6 1.4 0.02 

12:07:01 0.00 165.8 347.8 1.4 0.02 

12:11:27 -0.01 146.4 328.4 0.9 0.96 

12:15:54 -0.01 133.1 315.1 0.9 0.95 

12:20:19 -0.01 90.1 272.1 0.8 1.00 

12:24:45 -0.01 68.7 250.7 1.1 0.93 

12:29:08 -0.01 52.3 234.3 1.2 0.01 

12:33:34 -0.03 63.7 245.7 0.8 0.75 

12:37:59 -0.03 66.3 248.3 0.3 0.19 

12:42:25 0.00 209.4 31.4 0.6 0.00 

12:46:51 0.00 203.1 25.1 0.7 0.00 

12:51:13 0.00 197.9 19.9 0.6 0.00 

12:55:39 0.00 167.5 349.5 0.6 0.00 

13:00:05 0.01 116.2 298.2 0.8 0.97 

13:04:32 0.00 88.2 270.2 1.0 0.87 

13:08:57 0.00 78.0 260.0 1.2 0.79 

13:13:18 -0.01 63.0 245.0 1.3 0.94 

13:17:44 0.00 42.2 224.2 0.9 0.00 

13:22:10 0.00 317.2 139.2 0.3 0.00 

13:26:36 -0.02 228.6 50.6 0.5 0.03 

13:31:01 0.00 229.9 51.9 0.3 0.00 

13:35:26 -0.01 318.7 140.7 0.2 0.01 

13:39:50 -0.01 23.3 205.3 1.9 0.01 

13:44:15 -0.01 11.1 193.1 2.9 1.00 

13:48:40 -0.01 357.7 179.7 2.3 0.90 

13:53:04 -0.01 338.5 160.5 1.8 1.00 

13:57:29 -0.01 318.3 140.3 1.1 0.75 

14:01:53 -0.01 238.5 60.5 1.3 0.66 

14:06:19 -0.02 222.1 44.1 0.9 0.81 

14:10:44 -0.05 159.0 341.0 0.9 0.86 

14:15:11 -0.01 133.6 315.6 0.9 0.22 

14:19:36 -0.01 159.6 341.6 0.8 0.61 

A-81 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

14:24:02 0.01 211.9 33.9 1.3 0.95 

14:28:27 0.03 237.1 59.1 1.4 0.84 

14:32:52 0.02 261.6 83.6 2.1 0.70 

14:37:17 0.02 269.0 91.0 2.3 0.71 

14:41:40 0.00 299.6 121.6 1.9 0.99 

14:46:05 0.00 319.0 141.0 1.9 0.88 

14:50:30 331.7 153.7 1.4 0.00 

14:54:54 346.4 168.4 1.7 0.00 

14:59:17 345.3 167.3 1.6 0.00 

15:03:42 336.4 158.4 1.6 0.00 

15:08:07 340.9 162.9 1.6 0.00 

15:12:33 327.8 149.8 1.6 0.00 

15:16:55 334.8 156.8 1.6 0.00 

15:21:20 337.7 159.7 2.0 0.00 

15:25:44 350.1 172.1 1.8 0.00 

15:30:08 350.7 172.7 2.1 0.00 

15:34:32 3.0 185.0 2.5 0.00 

15:38:54 352.6 174.6 2.0 0.00 

15:43:18 348.3 170.3 2.4 0.00 

15:47:40 344.1 166.1 2.6 0.00 

15:52:04 337.1 159.1 2.7 0.00 

15:56:27 337.0 159.0 2.8 0.00 

16:00:50 341.3 163.3 2.8 0.00 

16:05:13 344.0 166.0 2.9 0.00 

16:09:38 347.6 169.6 2.7 0.00 

16:14:02 343.2 165.2 2.7 0.00 

A-82 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A-29. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 14, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:25:41 25.3 140.3 1.3 0.00 

09:30:05 14.5 129.5 1.4 0.00 

09:34:31 9.1 124.1 1.2 0.00 

09:38:54 -0.01 12.8 127.8 1.5 0.73 

09:43:18 10.1 125.1 1.4 0.00 

09:47:42 13.0 128.0 1.3 0.00 

09:52:07 10.1 125.1 1.4 0.00 

09:56:32 8.4 123.4 1.5 0.00 

10:00:55 4.1 119.1 1.4 0.00 

10:05:20 -0.01 5.1 120.1 1.6 0.91 

10:09:45 -0.01 352.7 107.7 1.8 0.85 

10:14:11 -0.01 345.8 100.8 1.8 0.77 

10:18:35 -0.01 350.4 105.4 1.8 0.78 

10:22:59 -0.01 349.3 104.3 1.7 0.80 

10:27:24 -0.01 357.2 112.2 1.6 0.77 

10:31:51 -0.01 2.3 117.3 1.6 0.87 

10:36:17 0.00 1.3 116.3 1.4 0.88 

10:40:44 0.00 359.8 114.8 1.3 0.87 

10:45:09 0.00 356.3 111.3 1.3 0.83 

10:49:35 0.00 347.3 102.3 1.2 0.67 

10:54:01 0.00 347.9 102.9 1.2 1.00 

10:58:27 0.00 354.9 109.9 1.4 0.81 

11:02:53 0.00 353.0 108.0 1.5 0.57 

11:07:19 0.00 1.7 116.7 1.4 0.30 

11:11:44 0.00 8.5 123.5 1.6 0.80 

11:16:09 -0.01 12.9 127.9 1.7 0.76 

11:20:35 0.00 6.9 121.9 1.5 0.47 

11:25:01 0.00 4.2 119.2 1.6 0.81 

11:29:27 0.00 7.5 122.5 1.6 0.80 

11:33:51 0.00 0.8 115.8 1.4 0.87 

11:38:17 0.00 348.2 103.2 1.2 1.00 

11:42:42 0.00 6.1 121.1 0.9 0.75 

11:47:08 0.00 30.4 145.4 0.6 0.81 

A-83 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:51:33 0.00 93.4 208.4 0.3 0.82 

11:55:59 0.00 143.5 258.5 0.7 0.95 

12:00:25 0.00 140.0 255.0 1.2 0.96 

12:04:51 0.00 163.9 278.9 1.4 0.96 

12:09:14 0.00 158.7 273.7 1.2 0.97 

12:13:40 -0.01 134.2 249.2 0.9 0.89 

12:18:05 0.00 117.6 232.6 0.9 0.91 

12:22:32 -0.01 80.2 195.2 0.9 0.93 

12:26:54 -0.01 54.4 169.4 1.2 0.96 

12:31:20 -0.01 59.7 174.7 0.9 0.90 

12:35:46 0.00 64.6 179.6 0.6 0.93 

12:40:12 0.00 189.1 304.1 0.3 0.90 

12:44:38 0.00 208.9 323.9 0.6 0.00 

12:49:04 0.00 206.6 321.6 0.6 0.00 

12:53:26 0.00 184.5 299.5 0.6 0.00 

12:57:51 0.00 150.2 265.2 0.7 0.98 

13:02:17 0.00 97.2 212.2 1.0 0.89 

13:06:42 0.00 81.2 196.2 1.1 0.85 

13:11:04 -0.01 68.6 183.6 1.3 0.99 

13:15:31 -0.01 51.4 166.4 1.3 0.41 

13:19:57 0.00 14.0 129.0 0.4 0.00 

13:24:23 0.00 232.0 347.0 0.3 0.00 

13:28:48 0.00 227.6 342.6 0.4 0.92 

13:33:12 0.00 257.0 12.0 0.3 0.00 

13:37:36 0.00 23.6 138.6 0.9 0.99 

13:42:01 -0.01 18.7 133.7 2.6 0.98 

13:46:27 -0.01 10.5 125.5 2.7 0.96 

13:50:52 -0.02 346.3 101.3 2.1 0.40 

13:55:17 -0.02 336.3 91.3 1.6 0.50 

13:59:41 -0.02 275.6 30.6 1.0 0.63 

14:04:05 -0.03 228.7 343.7 1.1 0.79 

14:08:30 -0.02 200.8 315.8 0.7 0.88 

14:12:57 -0.02 136.3 251.3 0.9 0.67 

14:17:23 -0.03 137.0 252.0 0.7 0.93 

14:21:47 -0.01 188.9 303.9 0.8 1.00 

A-84 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

14:26:13 0.00 225.4 340.4 1.5 0.97 

14:30:38 0.04 256.8 11.8 1.7 0.79 

14:35:03 0.08 261.8 16.8 2.3 0.94 

14:39:28 0.05 284.9 39.9 2.1 0.85 

14:43:51 0.02 319.5 74.5 2.0 0.94 

14:48:18 0.01 320.4 75.4 1.7 1.00 

14:52:41 0.00 340.6 95.6 1.5 1.00 

14:57:05 0.00 345.4 100.4 1.8 0.99 

15:01:30 0.00 344.5 99.5 1.5 1.00 

15:05:53 0.00 342.7 97.7 1.6 1.00 

15:10:19 0.01 333.4 88.4 1.8 0.83 

15:14:44 0.01 330.2 85.2 1.5 1.00 

15:19:06 0.01 340.2 95.2 1.8 0.96 

15:23:30 0.00 348.1 103.1 1.7 1.00 

15:27:54 0.00 350.5 105.5 2.0 0.94 

15:32:20 0.00 357.7 112.7 2.4 0.99 

15:36:42 0.00 3.4 118.4 2.3 0.92 

15:41:05 0.00 351.4 106.4 2.2 0.98 

15:45:29 0.00 346.7 101.7 2.6 0.85 

15:49:51 0.00 341.1 96.1 2.6 0.93 

15:54:15 0.00 331.7 86.7 2.7 1.00 

15:58:37 0.00 341.0 96.0 2.9 1.00 

16:03:00 0.00 340.6 95.6 2.8 0.50 

16:07:26 0.00 343.6 98.6 2.6 1.00 

16:11:49 0.00 347.1 102.1 2.8 0.89 

16:16:14 0.01 328.6 83.6 2.3 0.94 

A-85 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-30. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A123 for August 15, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:29:09 0.04 60.9 356.9 0.8 0.99 

09:34:31 0.05 41.7 337.7 1.0 0.98 

09:38:53 0.06 48.3 344.3 0.9 0.91 

09:43:15 0.05 67.1 3.1 0.8 1.00 

09:47:39 0.07 74.3 10.3 1.2 1.00 

09:52:01 0.06 64.6 0.6 1.2 0.69 

09:56:23 0.05 73.2 9.2 1.2 0.80 

10:00:45 0.05 72.0 8.0 1.2 0.98 

10:05:08 0.04 53.1 349.1 1.5 0.76 

10:09:30 0.04 45.5 341.5 1.3 0.79 

10:13:50 0.04 28.7 324.7 1.5 0.60 

10:18:12 0.07 16.5 312.5 1.7 0.59 

10:22:33 0.06 4.8 300.8 1.5 0.88 

10:26:54 0.05 1.6 297.6 1.5 0.94 

10:31:15 0.06 8.4 304.4 1.4 0.81 

10:35:36 0.05 31.8 327.8 1.1 0.70 

10:40:01 0.04 32.6 328.6 1.2 0.74 

10:44:21 0.04 34.1 330.1 1.3 0.86 

10:48:41 0.07 45.3 341.3 1.4 0.98 

10:53:01 0.07 37.9 333.9 1.3 0.71 

10:57:24 0.06 42.0 338.0 1.2 0.14 

11:01:46 0.06 55.0 351.0 1.3 0.95 

11:06:07 0.07 55.6 351.6 1.4 0.99 

11:10:30 0.06 57.5 353.5 1.5 0.85 

11:14:51 0.03 52.2 348.2 1.6 0.95 

11:19:13 0.04 35.8 331.8 1.5 0.94 

11:23:36 0.06 29.8 325.8 1.5 0.98 

11:27:57 0.07 21.9 317.9 1.6 0.95 

11:32:19 0.07 17.2 313.2 1.6 0.92 

11:36:42 0.09 14.9 310.9 2.0 0.90 

11:41:05 0.05 19.2 315.2 2.0 1.00 

11:45:27 0.02 2.1 298.1 2.3 0.95 

11:49:50 0.01 352.0 288.0 2.2 0.95 

A-86 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:54:11 0.01 351.9 287.9 2.5 1.00 

11:58:33 0.00 345.4 281.4 2.4 1.00 

12:02:56 0.00 339.4 275.4 2.4 0.93 

12:07:17 0.01 348.2 284.2 2.3 0.65 

12:11:40 0.01 335.5 271.5 2.0 0.45 

12:16:02 0.01 316.0 252.0 1.9 0.01 

12:20:23 0.01 310.4 246.4 1.7 0.01 

12:24:46 0.01 302.7 238.7 1.8 0.08 

12:29:08 302.6 238.6 2.4 0.00 

12:33:30 316.4 252.4 1.8 0.00 

12:37:51 320.0 256.0 1.3 0.00 

12:42:13 333.3 269.3 1.4 0.00 

12:46:35 348.4 284.4 2.1 0.00 

12:50:56 351.5 287.5 2.4 0.00 

12:55:18 346.3 282.3 3.0 0.00 

12:59:36 346.7 282.7 3.6 0.00 

13:03:58 351.6 287.6 4.1 0.00 

13:08:18 347.0 283.0 3.8 0.00 

13:12:41 347.4 283.4 3.7 0.00 

13:17:00 342.5 278.5 3.8 0.00 

13:21:22 340.5 276.5 3.7 0.00 

13:25:43 341.4 277.4 3.6 0.00 

13:30:06 344.8 280.8 3.9 0.00 

13:34:28 348.2 284.2 4.1 0.00 

13:38:49 347.5 283.5 4.3 0.00 

13:43:13 346.6 282.6 4.8 0.00 

13:47:34 344.1 280.1 4.7 0.00 

13:51:55 343.1 279.1 4.7 0.00 

13:56:17 341.0 277.0 4.8 0.00 

14:00:41 344.7 280.7 5.0 0.00 

A-87 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-31. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane A456 for August 15, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:32:20 -0.01 41.1 76.1 1.0 0.82 

09:36:42 -0.01 38.1 73.1 0.9 1.00 

09:41:04 -0.01 50.0 85.0 0.8 1.00 

09:45:28 0.00 72.4 107.4 1.1 0.98 

09:49:50 0.00 69.2 104.2 1.2 0.93 

09:54:11 0.01 65.1 100.1 1.2 0.78 

09:58:34 0.00 77.8 112.8 1.2 0.98 

10:02:56 0.01 61.5 96.5 1.4 0.95 

10:07:18 0.01 45.9 80.9 1.4 0.86 

10:11:40 0.01 38.2 73.2 1.3 0.99 

10:16:01 0.01 21.5 56.5 1.7 0.89 

10:20:23 0.02 9.6 44.6 1.6 0.88 

10:24:44 0.01 4.6 39.6 1.5 0.97 

10:29:05 0.02 355.4 30.4 1.4 1.00 

10:33:25 0.01 17.8 52.8 1.1 0.88 

10:37:48 0.02 34.9 69.9 1.0 0.98 

10:42:10 0.01 33.5 68.5 1.3 1.00 

10:46:30 0.01 37.9 72.9 1.3 0.86 

10:50:51 0.00 41.3 76.3 1.2 0.84 

10:55:13 0.00 33.3 68.3 1.2 0.00 

10:59:35 0.00 53.2 88.2 1.1 0.97 

11:03:57 0.00 50.8 85.8 1.3 0.99 

11:08:19 0.00 53.9 88.9 1.5 0.99 

11:12:40 0.00 58.0 93.0 1.5 0.99 

11:17:03 0.01 41.7 76.7 1.5 0.99 

11:21:25 0.01 26.5 61.5 1.6 0.96 

11:25:47 0.01 25.9 60.9 1.5 0.97 

11:30:09 0.02 18.0 53.0 1.7 1.00 

11:34:31 0.02 16.2 51.2 1.7 0.99 

11:38:53 0.03 15.5 50.5 2.1 0.89 

11:43:16 0.04 13.5 48.5 2.2 0.98 

11:47:37 0.06 356.8 31.8 2.1 0.82 

11:52:01 0.07 350.6 25.6 2.5 1.00 

A-88 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

11:56:23 0.06 350.0 25.0 2.3 0.98 

12:00:45 0.07 340.6 15.6 2.5 0.89 

12:05:06 0.07 342.2 17.2 2.2 0.66 

12:09:29 0.05 347.0 22.0 2.1 0.81 

12:13:51 0.05 320.4 355.4 1.8 0.80 

12:18:13 0.04 314.3 349.3 1.7 0.98 

12:22:35 0.03 304.1 339.1 1.8 1.00 

12:26:57 0.03 296.0 331.0 2.2 0.99 

12:31:19 0.03 309.6 344.6 2.1 0.98 

12:35:41 0.02 319.8 354.8 1.5 0.98 

12:40:02 0.03 329.9 4.9 1.3 0.94 

12:44:25 0.03 342.2 17.2 1.7 0.96 

12:48:45 0.04 353.7 28.7 2.2 0.96 

12:53:07 0.04 347.4 22.4 2.8 0.95 

12:57:27 0.04 347.9 22.9 3.4 0.99 

13:01:48 0.03 352.1 27.1 3.8 0.97 

13:06:08 0.03 349.3 24.3 3.9 0.99 

13:10:28 0.03 346.2 21.2 3.7 0.99 

13:14:51 0.03 343.4 18.4 3.7 0.99 

13:19:11 0.03 342.9 17.9 3.8 1.00 

13:23:33 0.03 339.9 14.9 3.5 0.99 

13:27:55 0.03 342.5 17.5 3.8 0.97 

13:32:17 0.04 344.0 19.0 4.1 1.00 

13:36:39 0.04 349.7 24.7 4.3 0.99 

13:41:02 0.04 347.2 22.2 4.6 0.98 

13:45:24 0.04 345.8 20.8 4.8 1.00 

13:49:44 342.7 17.7 4.6 0.00 

13:54:07 343.6 18.6 5.0 0.00 

13:58:29 344.7 19.7 5.0 0.00 

14:02:52 339.0 14.0 5.0 0.00 

A-89 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-32. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E123 for August 15, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:46:14 72.6 254.6 1.2 0.00 

09:51:26 66.1 248.1 1.2 0.00 

09:55:38 71.3 253.3 1.2 0.00 

09:59:51 77.1 259.1 1.2 0.00 

10:04:03 56.4 238.4 1.5 0.00 

10:08:16 45.8 227.8 1.4 0.00 

10:12:28 35.8 217.8 1.3 0.00 

10:16:41 20.0 202.0 1.7 0.00 

10:20:53 7.6 189.6 1.6 0.00 

10:25:06 3.5 185.5 1.4 0.00 

10:29:18 354.6 176.6 1.4 0.00 

10:33:31 18.9 200.9 1.1 0.00 

10:37:44 36.4 218.4 1.0 0.00 

10:41:56 33.3 215.3 1.3 0.00 

10:46:09 38.2 220.2 1.3 0.00 

10:50:21 42.7 224.7 1.2 0.00 

10:54:34 35.2 217.2 1.3 0.00 

10:58:47 49.0 231.0 1.2 0.00 

11:03:03 51.7 233.7 1.3 0.00 

11:07:12 53.7 235.7 1.5 0.00 

11:11:26 56.6 238.6 1.5 0.00 

11:15:38 49.5 231.5 1.5 0.00 

11:19:51 31.3 213.3 1.5 0.00 

11:24:03 27.8 209.8 1.5 0.00 

11:28:16 20.8 202.8 1.6 0.00 

11:32:29 16.8 198.8 1.7 0.00 

11:36:41 15.4 197.4 2.0 0.00 

11:40:54 19.3 201.3 1.9 0.00 

11:45:06 2.7 184.7 2.3 0.00 

11:49:19 352.9 174.9 2.1 0.00 

11:53:31 351.4 173.4 2.3 0.00 

11:57:44 347.4 169.4 2.4 0.00 

12:01:57 340.5 162.5 2.4 0.00 

A-90 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:06:09 344.6 166.6 2.3 0.00 

12:10:22 343.3 165.3 2.1 0.00 

12:14:35 316.1 138.1 1.8 0.00 

12:18:47 -0.01 313.9 135.9 1.7 1.00 

12:23:01 -0.01 304.1 126.1 1.9 1.00 

12:27:13 293.8 115.8 2.3 0.00 

12:31:26 311.3 133.3 2.1 0.00 

12:35:38 -0.02 319.1 141.1 1.5 0.00 

12:39:52 -0.02 330.6 152.6 1.2 0.10 

12:44:04 -0.02 338.6 160.6 1.7 0.01 

12:48:17 -0.02 353.7 175.7 2.2 0.00 

12:52:30 -0.02 346.6 168.6 2.7 0.00 

12:56:42 347.6 169.6 3.3 0.00 

13:00:56 350.4 172.4 3.7 0.00 

13:05:08 349.9 171.9 3.9 0.00 

13:09:21 346.1 168.1 3.8 0.00 

13:13:33 346.1 168.1 3.8 0.00 

13:17:47 342.8 164.8 3.8 0.00 

13:22:00 338.8 160.8 3.6 0.00 

13:26:14 341.7 163.7 3.7 0.00 

13:30:27 343.9 165.9 4.0 0.00 

13:34:39 349.7 171.7 4.1 0.00 

13:38:53 347.9 169.9 4.4 0.00 

13:43:07 346.2 168.2 4.7 0.00 

13:47:19 344.3 166.3 4.8 0.00 

13:51:32 343.9 165.9 4.7 0.00 

13:55:45 341.7 163.7 4.9 0.00 

14:00:03 345.6 167.6 5.0 0.00 

14:04:15 339.2 161.2 5.0 0.00 

A-91 
 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Table A-33. Summary Data Table of VRPM Plane E456 for August 15, 2008 at the EnCana Benzel Facility 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

09:49:18 70.3 185.3 1.2 0.00 

09:53:31 63.0 178.0 1.2 0.00 

09:57:43 77.1 192.1 1.1 0.00 

10:01:57 64.6 179.6 1.4 0.00 

10:06:09 49.0 164.0 1.5 0.00 

10:10:22 44.3 159.3 1.3 0.00 

10:14:34 26.3 141.3 1.6 0.00 

10:18:47 13.7 128.7 1.7 0.00 

10:22:59 -0.02 4.2 119.2 1.4 0.37 

10:27:11 359.9 114.9 1.5 0.00 

10:31:24 8.4 123.4 1.4 0.00 

10:35:36 32.9 147.9 1.1 0.00 

10:39:49 33.9 148.9 1.2 0.00 

10:44:02 34.7 149.7 1.2 0.00 

10:48:14 44.2 159.2 1.3 0.00 

10:52:27 41.7 156.7 1.2 0.00 

10:56:40 37.1 152.1 1.3 0.00 

11:00:52 59.0 174.0 1.2 0.00 

11:05:05 55.2 170.2 1.3 0.00 

11:09:18 54.1 169.1 1.5 0.00 

11:13:31 56.5 171.5 1.5 0.00 

11:17:44 40.8 155.8 1.5 0.00 

11:21:56 27.3 142.3 1.6 0.00 

11:26:09 24.0 139.0 1.5 0.00 

11:30:21 17.2 132.2 1.7 0.00 

11:34:34 17.3 132.3 1.7 0.00 

11:38:47 15.4 130.4 2.1 0.00 

11:42:59 14.2 129.2 2.3 0.00 

11:47:12 357.1 112.1 2.1 0.00 

11:51:24 0.00 350.2 105.2 2.5 0.99 

11:55:37 0.00 352.6 107.6 2.3 0.97 

11:59:49 0.00 343.0 98.0 2.6 0.96 

12:04:02 0.00 343.2 98.2 2.3 0.97 

A-92 
Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6) 

Time Flux 

[g/sec] 

Wind Direction 

[degrees] 

Rotated Wind 

Direction 

[degrees] 

Wind 

Speed CCF 

12:08:15 0.00 349.0 104.0 2.3 0.87 

12:12:27 0.00 330.1 85.1 2.0 0.88 

12:16:40 0.00 314.5 69.5 1.8 0.99 

12:20:53 0.00 308.5 63.5 1.8 0.89 

12:25:06 0.00 299.5 54.5 1.9 1.00 

12:29:18 0.01 300.7 55.7 2.3 1.00 

12:33:31 0.00 316.7 71.7 1.7 1.00 

12:37:45 0.01 319.9 74.9 1.3 0.99 

12:41:57 0.00 335.4 90.4 1.4 0.93 

12:46:10 0.00 346.2 101.2 1.9 1.00 

12:50:23 -0.01 353.4 108.4 2.4 0.96 

12:54:35 0.00 346.9 101.9 2.9 0.99 

12:58:49 0.00 346.9 101.9 3.6 0.98 

13:03:01 -0.01 353.2 108.2 4.0 0.99 

13:07:14 0.00 346.6 101.6 3.8 1.00 

13:11:26 0.00 349.5 104.5 3.8 1.00 

13:15:40 0.00 340.6 95.6 3.7 0.87 

13:19:53 0.00 340.6 95.6 3.8 0.97 

13:24:06 0.00 340.4 95.4 3.5 1.00 

13:28:19 0.00 343.1 98.1 3.8 0.99 

13:32:31 0.00 345.4 100.4 4.1 0.84 

13:36:46 349.3 104.3 4.2 0.00 

13:40:59 347.3 102.3 4.6 0.00 

13:45:12 345.1 100.1 4.7 0.00 

13:49:24 342.5 97.5 4.6 0.00 

13:53:38 343.0 98.0 4.9 0.00 

13:57:56 344.8 99.8 4.9 0.00 

14:02:08 342.4 97.4 5.1 0.00 

14:06:21 340.8 95.8 4.9 0.00 

A-93 
This page intentionally left blank. 

A-94 

Appendix A 

Measurement of Emissions from 

Produced Water Ponds 

October 2009 (Rev. 0.6)