# Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test

Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in

Texas City, Texas

# EPA 453/R-10-002

November 2010

Critical Review of DIAL Emi ssion Test Data for BP Petrol eum Refinery in Texas City,

Texas

By:

David Randall and Jeff Coburn

RTI International

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Prepared for:

Brenda Shine, Work Assignment Manager

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Contract No. EP-D-06-118

Work Assignment No. 4-13

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

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



# Table of Contents

Executive Summary

.............................................................................................................................. .. ES-1

1. Introduction

.............................................................................................................................. .............. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2 API Separator ............................................................................................................................ 1 6

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

4. Flare Emissions

.............................................................................................................................. ...... 17

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

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

5. Coker Emissions

.............................................................................................................................. ..... 23

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

7. References

.............................................................................................................................. .............. 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i

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

ii 

# List of Figures

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

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

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

flares.

.............................................................................................................................. ...................... 20

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

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

50 or 90 percent.

.............................................................................................................................. ..... 21



# List of Tables

1. Comparison of DIAL Resu lts and Estimated Emissions ........................................................................ 2

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

Crude Oil

.............................................................................................................................. .................. 4

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

Light Distillates

.............................................................................................................................. ........ 9

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

5. Estimated VOC Emissions from Activated Sludge Unit during DIAL Testing ................................... 15

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



# Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPL’s test report. 1



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

emissions described above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conducted using actual conditions at the time of the test.

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

the efficiency of one flare was c onsiderably worse than expected.

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

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

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

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

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

ES-1Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Datafor BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, TexasTable 1. Comparison of DIAL Results and Estimated EmissionsSourceSource DescriptionCompoundAverageDIAL flux,lb/hraEstimated emissions usingstandard estimating procedureswith actual conditions at the timeof the DIAL test, lb/hr2007 EIQ averageozone seasonemission rates, lb/hrbTanks 1020, 1021,1024, and 1025EFRctanks storing crude oilVOC6.4d1.3 – 1.9e2.6 – 3.5eTanks 1052, 1053,and 1055EFR tanks storing crude oilVOC16.3d1.8 – 2.3e2.4 – 2.9eTanks 501, 502, 503,and 504EFR tanks storing lightdistillatesVOC8.6d3.0 – 3.9e6.7 – 8.0eTank 43VFRftank storing fueloil #6VOC21.30.29.31.30.2Tanks 60, 63, 11, 12,18, 42, 61, and 65VFR and EFR tanks storingvarious productsVOC90.6 – 9.1e4.6 – NAe,gTanks 54, 55, 56,and 98VFR and EFR tanks storingvarious productsVOC3.1d0.3 – 9.7e1.0 - NAe,gTanks 53 and 55VFR tanks storing diesel fuelVOC23.8d4.8 – 5.2e1.0 – 2.0eF-8 EBUActivated sludge unitVOC3022 – 55h6.7API separatorAPIseparatorVOC7NDiNAgWastewater ventsVents fromcollection systemVOC9NDNRjFlare #6Ground flareVOC1317k40Temporary flareTemporary flareVOC6100 – 300k196ULC flareUltracracker flareVOC1923 - 25k28.3Coker Unit CCokerVOC18NDNRCoker Unit CCoker while cutting cokeBenzene1.8NDNRaThe tabulated values typically represent the average of calculated fluxes for several scans.bIn their 2007 emissions inventory, BP reported average ozone season emissions in lb/d; these values were divided by 24 to estimate the tabulated averagehourly emission rates.cEFR means external fixed roof tank.dThe results for storage tanks typically are summarized for a groupof tanks because the DIAL scanstypically could not isolateindividual tanks. All scans alongthe same path and covering the same range were grouped, and the calculated fluxes for the scans ina group were averaged. The averages for all groups ofscans that apply to a group of tanks were then averaged to obtain the tabulated flux. Note that some groups of scans captured emissions from all of the listedtanks, while other groups of scans were downwind of only some of the listed tanks.ES-2Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Datafor BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, TexasES-3eEmissions were estimated for all tanks that appeared to be upwind of a group of scans, and the estimates for the individual tanks were summed. For each groupof scans, the total emissions were estimated by summing the applicable individual tank emissions estimates. The upper end of the tabulated range representsthe average of these sums. The lower end of the range represents the average emissions assuming only the tank(s) to which NPL attributed emissions wereupwind of the scans.fVFR means vertical fixed roof tank.gThe upper end of the range could not be determined because some ofthe tanks could not be found in the 2007 emissions inventory. The specific API separatorof interest also could not beidentified in the inventory.hThe low end of the range is based on pollutant properties usedin modeling by BP, the measured benzene concentration, and annual average concentrations forother pollutants. The high end of the range is based on using the default pollutantproperties in WATER9, the measured benzeneconcentration, and anassumption that all other pollutant concentrations at the time of DIAL testing werehigher than average by the same percentageas benzene.IND means not determined.jNR means not reported in the annual inventory.kEstimated emission rates are based on assumed 98 percent destructionof C3+ hydrocarbons in flare gas at the time of DIAL testing. A range is presented for thetemporary flare and ultracracker flare because the flow and composition of the flare gas varied significantly during the DIAL test period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

been revised since 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

in DIAL results for some scans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in WATER9 or different values reported by BP.

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

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

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

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

the applicable separator in the inve ntory report has not been identified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ES-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reasons for the low efficiency include:

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

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

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

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

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

to the ultracracker flare.

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

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

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

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

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

ES-5

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

ES-6 [This page intentionally left blank.]

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



# 1. Introduction

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

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

differential absorption LIDAR (DIAL) system. 1 

# The testing was sponsored by and conducted for the

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

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

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

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

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

# and assess why DIAL results differ from

estimates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

emissions assuming different control efficiencies.

1

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

2 [This page intentionally left blank.]

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



# 2. Storage Tank Emissions

2.1 External Floating Roof Tanks for Crude Oil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A). 3 

# These data were used with AP-42 procedur es to estimate the hourly VOC emissions rate

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

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

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

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

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

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

calculations are presented in Appendix B.

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

# The emission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Datafor BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, TexasTable 2. Comparison of DIAL and Modeled VOC Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks Storing Crude OilaScan ID Nos.Tanksupwind ofscansaccordingto DIALreportOthertankspossiblyupwindof scansWind characteristicsduring DIAL testsEstimated emissionsfrom DIAL testing,lb/hrEstimatedmodeledemissions,lb/hrb2007 EIQozoneseasonemissions.lb/d (lb/hr)cCommentsDirectionAveragespeed,mphRangeAverage235, 23610201021,1024ESE8.0<1 to 21.31.2 to 4.744 to 133 (1.8to 5.5)Withdrawals from tanks 1020 and1024.Testing conducted about 1:30 pm.241, 242, 24310201021,1025S and SSW7.7<1 to 31.31.2 to 3.244 to 134 (1.8to 5.6)Withdrawals from tank 1020.Testing at about 2 pm.182, 183, 184,185, 187, 1881020, 1021NoneSSE8.710 to 2015.52.789 (3.7)Not clear which scan path wasused or if any othertanks or othersources may have been upwind.Testing conducted from about 5to 6 pm.17910241025SSE7.4550.9 to 1.644 to 89(1.8 to 3.7)Testing conducted at about 4 pm.178, 180, 1811024, 1025NoneSE andSSE8.214 to 1514.71.789 (3.7)Testing conducted from 4 to 4:30pm.323, 324, 3251024, 1025NoneSSE8.74 to 116.31.889 (3.7)Testing conducted from 1 to 2am.338, 3401024, 1025NoneS and SSW5.711.01.389 (3.7)Testing conducted from 6 to 6:30am.138, 139, 140,141, 1481025NoneW, SW, andS5.33 to 85.40.545 (1.9)Testing conducted from 12:30 to2 pm.Tank 1053 may have beenupwind for one scan.173, 174, 175,1761025NoneSSE8.68 to 1310.50.745 (1.9)Testing conducted from 2:30 to3:30 pm.319, 320, 321,3221025NoneSSE6.6<1 to 52.90.645 (1.9)Testing conducted from 12 to 1am.4Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Datafor BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas5Scan ID Nos.Tanksupwind ofscansaccordingto DIALreportOthertankspossiblyupwindof scansWind characteristicsduring DIAL testsEstimated emissionsfrom DIAL testing,lb/hrEstimatedmodeledemissions,lb/hrb2007 EIQozoneseasonemissions.lb/d (lb/hr)cCommentsDirectionAveragespeed,mphRangeAverage157, 158, 1591052, 1053NoneSSE9.113 to 3122.32.370 (2.9)Activated sludge unit appears tobe almost directly upwind of tank1052.Withdrawal from tank 1053 atabout 105,000 gal/hr1641052, 1053NoneSE6.7662.170 (2.9)Withdrawal from tank 1052 atabout 84,000 gal/hr.279, 280, 281,282, 2831052, 1053,1055NoneSW7.218 to 3924.63.1110 (4.6)Activated sludge unit likelyupwind between the two tanks.284, 285, 286,287, 2881052NoneSW to WSW8.329 to 5439.61.137 (1.5)Activated sludge unit likelyupwind source for these scans.Plume in Figure 2.5 of the DIALreport for scan 285 appears to bedirectly downwind of the activatedsludge unit.328, 329, 330,3311052, 1053NoneSSE7.812 to 4424.32.170 (2.9)Activated sludge unit almostdirectly upwind of tank 1052.15610531052S10.3771.6 to 2.933 to 70(1.4 to 2.9)Withdrawal from tank 1053 atabout 105,000 gal/hr.163, 165, 166,167, 16810531052ESE to SSE8.63 to 75.21.1 to 2.333 to 70(1.4 to 2.9)Withdrawal from tank 1052 duringfirst scan, and filling during lastfour scans; average about 35,000gal/hr withdrawal.231, 232, 23310531052E to ESE7.1<1 to 31.51.0 to 2.233 to 70(1.4 to 2.9)aTanks 1052, 1053, and1055 have a diameter of 345 ft, and theother four tanks have a diameterof 219 ft. The height of all seven tanks is between 47 and 48 ft.bSee Appendix B for calculations. Typically followed the AP-42 procedures, except that actual windspeeds at the time of each set of scans were used instead ofhistorical monthly averages, and the liquidbulk temperature was calculated using theestimated daily average ambient temperatures during July and August.Withdrawal emissions were estimated for scans of tanks 1020 and1024 during which material was removed from these two tanks. When a range is presented,the low end is for the tank to which emissions are assigned inthe DIAL report, and the upper end includes emissions for both this tank and others that appear tohave been upwind of the scans.cThe lb/hr estimates were obtained by dividing the reported lb/destimates in the inventory by 24. A range is presented for thesame situations described infootnote “b”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on August 2 nd 

# were about 30 lb/hr. These emission levels ar e similar to the collective fluxes calculated

downwind of tanks 1052, 1 053, and 1055 later the same day while wind was still from approximately the

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

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

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

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

between the tanks and the activated sludge unit.

Scans on July 28 th 

# and August 6 th 

# were directed almost due west on th e north side of tanks 1052 and 1053.

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

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

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

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

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

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

located on the vehicle that housed the DIAL instrument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the stored crude at the time of the DIAL testing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# However, the

6

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

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

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

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

identified any evidence of leaks from deck fittings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(typically within 2 lb/hr).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

different types of liquids on evaporative loss. 5 

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

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

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

pressure and molecular weight. 6 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of scans listed in the table.

Unstabilized crude contains disso lved gasses that will volatilize under the atmospheric pressure

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

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

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

example, calculated fluxes from tank 1025 (scans 138 to 148) and tank 1024 (scan 17 9) were at about the

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

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

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

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

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

7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

higher than the ambient average (hi ghly unlikely that the actual temperat ures were this much higher than

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

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

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

and the estimated emissions.



# 2.2 External Floating Roof Tanks fo r Gasoline and Other Light Distillates

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

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

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

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

and estimated VOC emission levels is presented below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

have been calculated for each tank.Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Datafor BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, TexasTable 3. Comparison of DIALand Modeled VOC Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks Storing Light DistillatesaScanIDNos.Tanksupwind ofscansaccordingto DIALreportOthertankspossiblyupwindof scansWind characteristicsduring DIAL testsEstimated emissionsfrom DIAL testing, lb/hrEstimatedmodeledemissions,lb/hrb2007 EIQozoneseasonemissions.lb/d (lb/hr)cCommentsDirectionAveragespeed,mphRangeAverage196,198501, 502,503, 504NoneSW andWSW5.32 to 53.52.9206 (8.6)Scans unlikely to be affected by flare #6due to wind direction.205,207,208501, 504502SSE, S,and SSW10.42 to 138.73.5 to 4.3169 to 188(7.0 to 7.8)Flare #6 was directly upwind for the twoscans with the highest DIAL emissions.The range of modeled and EIQemissions reflects the estimates withand without emissions from tank 502.218,221504501, 502S andSSW9.6551.5 to 4.284 to 188(3.5 to 7.8)Flare #6 emissions was nearly directlyupwind for at least one of the twoscans.The range of modeled and EIQemissions reflects the estimates withand without emissions from tanks 501and 502.220,224501, 502,504NoneSW9.516 to 18174.1188 (7.8)Flare #6 was nearly directly upwind fortank 504 during these scans347,353,354,355501, 502,504NoneSE6.3<1 to 82.53.0188 (7.8)NPL cautioned that the wind directionwas not good for flux determination, andscans may not have captured allemissions from tank 502.356503NoneSE6.0110.318 (0.8)NPL cautioned that the wind directionwas not good for flux determination.aAccording to BP, tank 501 stored gasoline,tank 502 stored heavy virgin naphtha, tank 503 stored heavy raffinate, and tank 504stored alkylate. The diameter ofeach tank is 144 ft, and the height is slightly over 40 ft.bSee Appendix C for calculations. Typically followed the AP-42 procedures, except that the actual wind speeds at the time of each set of scans were used insteadof historical monthly averages, and the liquid bulk temperature was calculated using the estimated daily average ambient temperatures during July and August.Withdrawal emissions were estimated for scans 220 and 224 (andthe upper end of the range forscans 218 and 221) based on the actual withdrawal rate ofabout 58,800 gal/hr from tank 502 during these scans..cThe lb/hr estimates were obtained by dividing thereported lb/d estimates in the inventory by 24.9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the flare should not have influenced the results

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

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

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

(see Appendix A). 3 

# However, the characteristics can vary w ith fluctuations in the composition of a

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

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

analyzed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# , when flare #6

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

actual emissions from the flare. On July 30 th 

# DIAL emissions downwind of all of the tanks except the

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

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

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

10

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

However, on August 7 th 

# DIAL results downwind of the flare were 18 lb/hr, which is similar to the DIAL

results downwind of the tanks on July 30 th 

# . As discussed in section 4.1 of this report, the flow and

composition of gas burned in flare #6 were similar on July 30 th 

# and August 7 th 

# . If the flare operation was

similar on both July 30 th 

# and August 7 th 

# , then the DIAL results downwind of the flare should have been

similar as well. If the DIAL results on August 7 th 

# more closely represent the actual emissions from the

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

flare than is suggested by the July 30 th 

# data alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

# However,

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

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

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

was any evidence of leaks from deck fittings.



# 2.3 Product Storage Tanks

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

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

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

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

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

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



# Table 4 summarizes the results of DIAL testing a nd two sets of modeling results for the scans downwind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 upwind tanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

# TCEQ indicated the tank was

storing light cycle oil. 8



# Characteristics for diesel fuel, furnace oil, kerosene, and light naphtha were provided by BP 3 

# and TCEQ, 8



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roof surface with an optical gas imaging camera.Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Datafor BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, TexasTable 4. Summary of DIAL Results and Estimated Emissions from Fuel Oil and Other Product TanksScan ID Nos.Tanksupwind ofscansaccordingto DIALreportOther tankspossiblyupwind ofscansWinddirectionduring DIALtestsEstimated emissionsfrom DIAL testing,lb/hrEstimatedmodeledemissions, lb/hra2007 EIQozoneseasonemissions.lb/d (lb/hr)bCommentsRangeAverage382, 383, 38443NoneSSW and SW1 to 321.33.7 (0.2)Tank 43 stored fuel oil #6. Assumedcharacteristics for furnace oil aresimilar to those for fuel oil #6. Possiblyunderestimates vapor pressure.Tank 43 filled at about 40,000 gal/hrduring the DIAL tests.388, 389, 39043NoneSSW and SW7 to 139.31.33.7 (0.2)Same as above.399, 400, 401,402, 403, 40460, 6311, 12, 18,42, 61, 65cS and SSW4 to 1590.6 to 9.1110 to ??(4.6 to ??)Could not find tanks 11, 12, 61, and 65in the inventory.79, 80, 82, 845554, 56, 98dSE and SSE<1 to 31.90.3 to 8.40.2 to ??(0.01eto ??)Could not find tank 98 in the inventory.96, 97, 98, 99,100, 101, 102,106, 107, 1085554, 56, 98dESE and SSE<1 to 144.30.2 to 11.10.2 to ??(0.01eto ??)Could not find tank 98 in the inventory.377, 378, 379,3805355S and SSW13 to 3223.84.8 to 5.223.4 (1.0)Tank 53 being filled at about 58,800gal/hr during the DIAL tests.369, 373, 37455, 66S4 to 86Not clear where the scans weredirected because there is no tank 66near tank 55. Did not evaluate datafurther.aSee Appendix D for calculations. Followed the AP-42 procedures, except modified the standing loss and working loss equations tocalculate emissions in lb/hrinstead of lb/yr. When a range is presented, the low end is for the tank(s) to whichemissions were attributed in the DIAL report, and the high end includesemissions for all tanks that appearto have been upwind of the scan.bThe lb/hr estimates were obtained by dividing the reported lb/destimates in the inventory by 24. A range is presented for thesame situations described infootnote “a”.cOther tanks upwind of the scans were out of service (tanks 17, 44, 59, and 64).dThe DIAL report does not indicate the range of the scans. It is possible that additional tanks could have been upwind if the range extended farther than assumed.eLikely too low because emissions were estimated using a vapor pressure based on a temperature of 0oF. Average emissions are about 1.0 lb/hr, or 24 lb/d, whena temperature of 100oF is used.13

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

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

(and possibly tank 53) that cannot be explained wit hout additional information from the test crew. As

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

# . Three scans were

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# As

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

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

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

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

14

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



# 3. Wastewater System Emissions

3.1 Activated Sludge Unit

Three scans were conducted downwind of an activated sludge unit on August 2 nd 

# . The measured fluxes

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

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

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

# The

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the wastewater on August 2 nd 

# were also 30 percent higher than th eir annual average values results in

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

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

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

are at their annual average concentrations.

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

Condition Emissions, lb/hr a



# Using default

compound properties

in WATER9 Using compound

properties reported

by BP

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

concentration BP used to develop the estimated emissions

for the 2007 emissions inventory report 43 21

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

analysis b 

# 46 22

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

BP’s 2007 analysis 55 29

a 

# Average flow to the activated sludge unit was about 16,800 gal/min on August 2 nd 

# . Reported characteristics of the

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

wastewater is claimed confidential. 9

b 

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

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

Data for the other compounds are unavailable.



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

sites other than petroleum refineries. 11 

# The benzene content in the wastewater in these units may have

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

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

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

15

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

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

appropriate biodegradation ra te constant for benzene in refinery w astewater treatment units is likely much

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

conditions at the time of the DIAL testing, the ben zene biodegradation rate repor ted by BP, and defaults

in WATER9 for other parameters, woul d narrow the range of estimates rela tive to that shown in Table 5.

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

testing are in good agreement.



# 3.2 API Separator

Two scans were conducted downwind of the API separator th at is located in the no rtheast corner of surge

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

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

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

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

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

has not been provided.



# 3.3 Wastewater Coll ection System Vents

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

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

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

available. Therefore, estimates of the emissions for comparison to the DIAL results cannot be performed.

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



# 4. Flare Emissions

4.1 Flare No. 6 (Ground flare)

DIAL testing of Flare No. 6 (a ground flare) was conducted on July 30 th 

# and August 7 th



# , 2007. On

July 30 th 

# , hydrocarbon emissions (C3 hydrocarbons and h eavier) calculated from the test data were

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

August 7 th 

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

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

hourly by BP. 12 

# These data were used to determine the mass rate of C3+ hydrocarbons sent to the flare.

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

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

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

30 th 

# and August 7 th 

# , respectively. As seen by these figures, the DIAL results and estimated emissions

agree reasonably well. The flare control effici ency appears to exceed 99 percent on July 30 th 

# , but

marginally achieved the assumed 98 percent control efficiency on August 7 th 

# . See Appendix F for the

measured flare gas flow and composition da ta and estimated controlled emissions.

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

for Flare No. 6 on July 30, 2007.



# 17

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

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

for Flare No. 6 on August 7, 2007.



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

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

emissions were high at midnight of August 7 th 

# but quickly dropped and stabilized near 18 lb/hr. The

DIAL report suggests the emissions on August 7 th 

# averaged approximately 22 lb/hr, but this is due to the

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

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

the day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



# 4.2 Temporary and Ultracracker Flares

On August 9 th 

# , 10 th 

# , and 11 th 

# , flare emissions were measured from a temporary flare and from the

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

18

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

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

and recycled back to the unit. 13 

# However, the hydrogen stream compressor was off-line (being

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

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

measured hourly by BP. 7 

# The temporary flare received approxima tely 13,700 standard cubic feet per

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

was approximately 10 percent on August 9 th 

# and 10 th 

# , and it was approximately 4 percent on August 11 th



# . Based on the large flame of the temporary flare, th e DIAL testing initially targeted only the temporary

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

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

August 9 th 

# and most of August 10 th 

# . Starting at around 7 PM on August 10 th 

# and for all of August 11 th 

# , the

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

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

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

was 70-85 vol%). All DIAL testing on August 10 th 

# was conducted before the flow rate jumped up.

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

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

limited number of scans were conducted on August 11 th 

# of just the temporary flare. These scans support

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

released from the ULC flare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 11 th 

# , there was no corresponding drop in the DIAL emissions rates. On the contrary, the average

of the DIAL emissions on August 11 th 

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

# or

10 th 

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

# and 10 th



# , whereas most of the DIAL results on August 11 th 

# are well above the predicted emissions from both flares.

The higher DIAL emissions on August 11 th 

# tend to correspond to the higher flow rate to the ULC flare,

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

predominately arising from the ULC flare.

19

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

20 0.000 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000 400.000

8/9/07 0:00 8/10/07 0:00 8/11/07 0:00 8/12/07 0:00VOC Emissions (lb/hr) 

## ULC Flare Projected Emissions

Combined ULC and Temporary

Flare Projected Emissions

DIAL Measured Emissions



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

from the temporary and ULC flares.



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

August 11 th 

# , the control efficiency of the temporary flare was estimated to be approximately 99.8 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



# However, the ULC flare is an emergenc y-sized flare with a large diameter.

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

21 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00

8/9/07 0:00 8/10/07 0:00 8/11/07 0:00 8/12/07 0:00C3+ Hydrocarbon Emissions (lb/hr) 

## Combined ULC and Temp Flare

Projected Emissions if ULC

efficiency is 50%

Combined ULC and Temp Flare

Projected Emissions if ULC

efficiency is 90%

DIAL Emission Measurement



# Figure 4. Comparison of DIAL results and est imated C3+ emissions from the temporary

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

and the ULC flare efficiency is 50 or 90 percent.



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

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

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

gas near the center of the flare. The increased flow on August 11 th 

# , however, would suggest that the

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

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

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

declines with increases in the st eam-to-flare gas ratio above 4. 14 

# Using flare gas composition data and

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

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

August 9 th 

# and 10 th



# . 7,15 

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

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

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

# because the

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

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

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

why the flame was nearly invisible during the day.

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

# This

is very close to the estimated averag e emissions of 205 lb/hr on August 9 th 

# through August 11 th 

# obtained

when assuming the inlet C3+ compounds are controlled to 98 percent. Thus if the average inlet C3+ load

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

22 to the flare on August 9 th 

# through August 11 th 

# was close to the annual averag e inlet load used to develop

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

actual emissions from the temporary flare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIAL test were not representative of normal operation. 16 

# Based on the DIAL results and the projected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

normal conditions.

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



# 5. Coker Emissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cooling and decoking. Volatile orga nic compounds may be emitted throu ghout the coking/decoking cycle,

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

atmospheric venting and opening of the coke drum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

emissions obtained from a DIAL test of a coker in Alberta. 17 

# At least a small difference is to be expected

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

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

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

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

60 lb/cycle. 18-22 

# If the average measured emissions at BP we re extrapolated over the entire 20-hour coker

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

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

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

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

calculated from the test data were at or below det ection, but during coke cutti ng operations the calculated

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

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

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

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

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

# Benzene emissions

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

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

test runs when only toluene was measured above the detection limit. 22 

# Averaged over the 3 hours the vent

23

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

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

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

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

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

not available. 17

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



# 6. Recommendations for Future Testing

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

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

combined fluxes from two or more sources can be determined.

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

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

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

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

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

tip diameter.

Shortly before DIAL tests of storage tanks with exte rnal floating roofs, conduc t inspections and seal gap

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

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

testing to scan floating and fixed roofs for leaks.

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

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

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

test.

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

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

current product factor was developed.

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

fluxes are calculated.

25

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

26 [This page intentionally left blank.]

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



# 7. References

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

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

2007. Draft. February.

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

America, Inc. RN102535077. April 30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 19: Evaporative Loss Measurement, Sec tion 2, Evaporative Loss From Floating Roof

Tanks, Preliminary Draft. December.

7. Duke, J. 2008. Email from J. Duke, BP, to B. Shine, EPA/OAQPS. Tank data and gas flow and

composition data for the temporary flare and ULC flare. December 17.

8. TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). 2010. Differential Absorption LIDAR

Study . Final Report. March 29.

9. Duke, J. 2009a. Letter and Attachments from J. D uke, BP Products North America, to B. Shine,

U.S. EPA/OAQPS. Confidential information in response to email sent 6-3-09. June 17.

10. LaRocca, P. 2009b. Email from P. LaRocca, BP Products North America, Inc., to B. Shine,

EPA/OAQPS. WATER9 modeling inputs for Texas City refinery. August 5.

11. Coburn, J., C. Allen, D. Green, and K.Leese. 1988. Site visits of aerated and nonaerated

impoundments. Summary report . Research Triangle Park, NC. Prepared for the Hazardous Waste

Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

12. LaRocca, P. 2010. Email from P. LaRocca, BP Products North America, to B. Shine,

EPA/OAQPS. Gas flow and composition data for flare #6. January 19.

13. Hermanson, R. 2009. Letter from R. Hermanson, BP America Inc., to EPA Docket Center

(2822T). BP America Comments on Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for

Which Construction, Reconstruction, or M odification Commenced After May 14, 2007.

February 5. Docket item no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0304.

14. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Flare Efficiency Study . EPA-600/2-83-052.

Prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc. July.

27

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

28 15. Duke, J. 2009b. Email from J. Duke, BP Texas City Refinery, to B. Shine, USEPA/OAQPS.

Responses to DIAL data questions. June 3.

16. LaRocca, P. 2010. Letter from P. LaRocca, BP Texas City Refinery, to B. Shine, U.S.

EPA/OAQPS. BP comments on EPA’s report of the 2007 DIAL study. July 20.

17. Alberta Research Council. 2006. Refinery Demonstration of Optical Technologies for

Measurement of Fugitive Emi ssions and for Leak Detection . March.

18. URS Corporation. 2008. Source Test Report of the Coker Steam Vent for Non-Methane and NonEthane Volatile Organic Compounds. Prepared for CITGO Refining and Chemicals Company

LP, Corpus Christi, TX. April 25.

19. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2004a. Source Test Report 03-194

Conducted at Chevron/Texaco Refinery, El Se gundo, California—Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions from a Coke Drum

Stream Vent . May 14.

20. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2004c. Source Test Report 03-198

Conducted at ExxonMobil Refinery, Torrance, California—Volatile Organic Compound (VOC),

Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Particulate Matter (P M) Emissions from a Coke Drum Stream Vent

. March 4.

21. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2004d. Source Test Report 03-200

Conducted at Shell Oil Refinery, Wilmington, California—Volatile Organic Compound (VOC),

Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Particulate Matter (P M) Emissions from a Coke Drum Stream Vent

. July 1.

22. URS Corporation. 2008. Source Test Report of the Coker Steam Vent . Prepared for Hovensa,

LLC, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. September 8.

# A-1 

# Appendix A

Storage Tank Characteristics and Properties of Stored

Materials Reported by BP and TCEQ

# A-2 [This page intentionally left blank.]

# A-3 Table A-1. Dimensions of Storage Tanks at BP Refinery in Texas City, Texas

Tank Product Stored Roof Type Tank

Diameter

(feet) Tank Height

(feet)

43 High Sulfur Fuel Oil #6 FRT 117 41.67

60 High Sulfur Fuel Oil #6 FRT 117 41.67

63 High Sulfur Decant Oil FRT 117 41.8

53 Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel FRT 120 39.96

55 Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel FRT 150 39.44

66 Mid Virgin Distillate FRT 70 46.4

54 Diesel FRT 120 39.79

56 Diesel FRT 150 39.35

98 Light naphtha EFRT 150 48

11 Light naphtha EFRT 117 41.8

12 Light naphtha EFRT 117 41.8

501 Regular Gasoline EFRT 144 40.44

502 Heavy Virgin Naphtha EFRT 144 40.17

503 Heavy Raffinate EFRT 144 40.04

504 Alkylate EFRT 144 40.29

1020 Crude Oil EFRT 219 47.54

1021 Low Sulfur Crude Oil EFRT 219 47.6

1024 Low Sulfur Crude Oil EFRT 219 47.63

1025 Low Sulfur Crude Oil EFRT 219 47.65

1052 Heavy Crude Oil EFRT 345 47.54

1053 Crude Oil EFRT 345 47.27

1055 Low Sulfur Crude Oil EFRT 345 47.96A-4Table A-2. Streams in BP Texas City TANKS DatabaseNameMol WtVaporMol WtLiquiddensityREID VPASTMSlopeTotal HAPwt%Benzenewt%Vapor pressureconstantsTrue vapor pressure at giventempsAB607595bp gasoline92 64 6 13 3 24.024 11.644 5043.6 6.95 9.12 12.82bp alkylate97 67 6 11.6 1.89 30.663 12.054 5342.9 5.89 7.85 11.26bp crude oil217 50 7 9 0 4.73 0.25 10.695 4589.2 6.45 8.26 11.26bp heavy virginnaphtha112 90 6 3.4 1.39 17.03 2 12.858 6488.6 1.45 2.06 3.19bp heavy raffinate 183 139 7 2.3 0.696.37 2 13.599 7126.80.89 1.31 2.12bp diesel202 151 8 0.025 2 0.34 0.03 14.532 10202.1 0.006 0.011 0.021bp decanted oil 217 163 8 0.02 0.81 00.015 16.236 11276.30.004 0.008 0.017bp furnace oil 217 163 8 0.0019 0.850.01 17.514 13317.90.000 0.001 0.002bp resid410 195 9 0.0000003 3 0 0.001 17.026 18025.6 0.000 0.000 0.000kerosene 162 1300.05 1.5light naphtha123 9212.3 0.77A-5Table A-3. Type of Floating Roof, Rim Seal, and Guidepole for External Floating Roof Tanks at BP’s Texas City RefineryRim Seal TypeWelded Tanks, Avg-Fitting Rim SealsMechanical-Shoe Primary SealAwith NO Secondary SealBw/ Shoe-Mtd Secondary SealGuidepoleCodeTypeDeck CoverGasketFloatPoleWiperPoleSleeveC w/ Rim-Mtd Secondary SealLiquid-Mounted Primary SealAUnslottedNoNaNoNoDwith NO Secondary SealB UnslottedYesNaNoNoFloating Roof TypeE with a Weather ShieldC UnslottedNoNaNoYesA steel pontoon-type EFR (API 650 App. C-type)(default for EFRTs and Domed EFRTs)Fw/ Rim-Mtd Secondary SealD UnslottedYesNaNoYesVapor-Mounted Primary SealE Unslotted Yes Na Yes NoB steel double-deck EFR (API 650 App. C-type)Gwith NO Secondary SealF SlottedY or NNoNoNoC alum. bolted deck IFR (API 650 App. H-type)(default for IFRTs)Hwith a Weather ShieldG SlottedY or NYesNoNoIw/ Rim-Mtd Secondary SealH SlottedYesNoYesNoClick here to enter bolted deck constr.Add’l Mech-Shoe Seals, Special ConditionsI SlottedYesNoNoYesD steel welded deck IFR (API 650 App. H-type)(includes steel-pan type)Jw/ NO Secondary Seal–tight fittingJ SlottedYesYesYesNoKw/ Rim-Mtd Secondary Seal–tight fittingK SlottedYesNoYesYesORLw/ NO Sec.–Riveted Tank (loose fitting)L SlottedYesYesYesYesE no floating roof (Fixed-Roof Tank)Mw/Rim-Mtd Sec.-Riveted Tank (loose fitting)Tank ID No.Enter the code letterEnter the code letterCode letterQuantityTank 501ACE 1Tank 502ACH 1Tank 503ACK 1Tank 504ACD 1Tank 1020ACD 2Tank 1021ACH 2Tank 1024ACI 1Tank 1025ACE 2Tank 1052BCE 1Tank 1053BCE 1Tank 1055BCE 1Tank 98ABK 1Tank 11ACE 1Tank 12ACE 1A-6Table A-4. Other Fittings for External Floating Roof Tanks at BP’s Texas City RefineryaTankID No.Access HatchGauge FloatGauge HatchVacuum BreakerDeck DrainLeg Pontoon Area(or IFR)Leg Center Area (orDouble Deck)Rim VentCodeQuantityCodeQuantityCodeQuantityCodeQuantityCodeQuantityCodeQuantityCodeQuantityCodeQuantityTank 501 C 1 0 B 1 B 2 0 A 10 A 25 B 2Tank 502 C 2 0 B 1 B 3 0 A 10 A 28 B 2Tank 503 C 2 0 B 1 B 3 0 A 10 A 28 B 2Tank 504 C 2 0 B 1 0 0 A 10 A 28 A 1Tank 1020 C 4 0 B 1 B 3 0 A 22 A 73 B 3Tank 1021 C 3 C 1 A 1 B 3 0 A 22 A 73 B 2Tank 1024 C 3 0 B 1 B 3 0 A 22 A 80 B 3Tank 1025 C 3 B 1 B 1 B 3 0 A 22 A 74 B 2Tank 1052 C 3 0 B 3 B 3 A 8 0 A 212 B 3Tank 1053 C 3 0 B 2 B 3 A 12 0 A 212 B 3Tank 1055 C 5 B 1 B 5 B 5 A 14 0 A 295 B 2Tank 98 C 2 0 B 1 B 2 0 A 24 A 36 A 2Tank 11 C 1 0 B 1 B 2 0 A 8 A 17 B 2Tank 12 C 2 0 B 1 B 2 0 A 8 A 17 B 2aCode “A” means ungasketed, code “B” means gasketed, and code “C” means bolted and gasketed.

# B-1 

# Appendix B

Estimation of Emissions from External Floating Roof

Tanks Storing Crude Oil

# B-2 [This page intentionally left blank]

# B-3 Table B-1. Inputs for Estimating Emi ssions from External Floating Roof

Tanks 1020, 1021, 1024, and 1025

Parameter Characteristic Variable Value

Contents Crude

Diameter, ft 219

Color White

Condition Good

Shell Lt rust

Construction Welded

Primary seal Mech shoe

Secondary seal Rim mounted

Deck Steel pontoon

C 0.006

KRA 0.6

KRB 0.4

n 1

alpha 0.17

Vapor pressure coefficients A 10.695

B 4589.2

C

Vapor molecular weight MV 50

Product factor KC 0.4

Reid vapor pressure RVP 0

Liquid molecular weight ML 217

Liquid density, lb/gal density 7

Atmospheric pressure, psia P 14.703

City Galveston, TX

# B-4 Table B-2. Wind Speeds Measured During DIAL Scans of External

Floating Roof Tanks 1020, 1021, 1024, and 1025

Wind speeds in Table 2.4 of the DIAL final report:

Scan # Wind Speed,

m/s

138 2.3

139 2.5

140 1.9

141 2.2

148 3

Average 2.38

(5.32 mph)

173 4.1

174 4

175 4.1

176 3.2

Average 3.85

(8.61 mph)

319 2.8

320 2.9

321 2.9

322 3.3

Average 2.98

(6.65 mph)

178 3.4

180 3.6

181 4

Average 3.67 m/s

(8.20 mph)

323 3.8

324 4.2

325 3.7

Average 3.90 m/s

(8.72 mph) Scan # Wind Speed, m/s

338 2.9

340 2.2

Average 2.55

(5.70 mph)

179 3.30

(7.38 mph)

182 3.7

183 4.3

184 3.7

186 3.9

187 3.8

188 4

Average 3.90

(8.72 mph)

235 3.5

236 3.7

Average 3.60

(8.05 mph)

241 3.5

242 3.6

243 3.2

Average 3.43

(7.68 mph)B-5Table B-3. Calculation of Fittings Emissions forScans of External Floating Roof Tank 1020Scans182+Scans235+Scans241+Fitting nfKFAKFbmFfi FfiFfiVac Brk, gask3 6.2 1.2 0.9438.322 36.893 36.095USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 2 8.6 12 0.81121.12 114.60 110.93Deck leg, adj, pt, ung22 2 0.37 0.9186.238 83.271 81.613Deck leg, adj, ct, ung73 0.82 0.53 0.14109.70 109.14 108.82Roof drain,open0 1.5 0.21 1.70 0 0Rim vent, wmag3 0.71 0.1 13.9620 3.8211 3.7428GH/SW, wma gask1 0.47 0.02 0.970.5856 0.5770 0.5722Auto gfw, u/g0 4.3 17 0.380 0 0Access Hatch, b/g4 1.6 0 16.4 6.4 6.4366.33 354.71 348.17Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask204.73 197.09 192.83USl gp well, gsc w/wiper647.08 612.23 592.63Deck leg, adj, pt, ung460.71 444.86 436.00Deck leg, adj, ct, ung586.07 583.10 581.36Roof drain,open0 0 0Rim vent, wmag21.166 20.413 19.995GH/SW, wma gask3.1288 3.0827 3.0570Auto gfw, u/g0 0 0Access Hatch, b/g34.190 34.190 34.190Total1957.11895.01860.1B-6Table B-4. Calculation of Fittings Emissions forScans of External Floating Roof Tank 1021Scans182+Scans235+Scans241+Fitting nfKFAKFbmFfi FfiFfiVac Brk, gask36.21.20.9438.322 36.89336.095Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper 241481.41290.9 1162.71093.3Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 2220.370.9186.238 83.27181.613Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 730.820.530.14109.70 109.14108.82Roof drain,open01.50.211.70 00Rim vent, wmag20.710.112.6413 2.54742.4952GH/SW, wma ugask12.3012.3 2.32.3Auto gfw, b/g12.8012.8 2.82.8Access Hatch, b/g31.6014.8 4.84.81537.7 1404.51332.3Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask204.73 197.09192.83Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper6896.6 6211.95841.2Deck leg, adj, pt, ung460.71 444.86436.00Deck leg, adj, ct, ung586.07 583.10581.36Roof drain,open000Rim vent, wmag14.110 13.60913.330GH/SW, wma ugask12.28712.28712.287Auto gfw, b/g14.958 14.95814.958Access Hatch, b/g25.643 25.64325.643Total8215.1 7503.57117.6B-7Table B-5. Calculation of Fitting Emissions forScans of External Floating Roof Tank 1024Scans178+Scan179Scans323+Scans338+Scans235+Fitting nfKFAKFbmFfiFfiFfiFfiFfiVac Brk, gask36.21.20.9437.21135.456 38.32231.82836.893Sl gp well, gsc w/sleeve 111461.4542.35469.48 590.28330.56528.87Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 2220.370.9183.93280.282 86.23872.69483.271Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 800.820.530.14119.75118.96 120.22117.06119.61Roof drain,open01.50.211.700 000Rim vent, wmag30.710.113.85243.6801 3.96203.32783.8211GH/SW, wma gask10.470.020.970.57890.5683 0.58560.54660.5770Auto gfw, b/g02.80100 000Access Hatch, b/g31.6014.84.8 4.84.84.8792.48713.22 844.41560.83777.85Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask198.79189.41 205.01170.27197.09Sl gp well, gsc w/sleeve2897.42508.1 3157.81768.42825.4Deck leg, adj, pt, ung448.40428.89 461.35388.89444.86Deck leg, adj, ct, ung639.76635.52 643.16626.29639.01Roof drain,open00 000Rim vent, wmag20.58119.660 21.19517.80320.413GH/SW, wma gask3.09303.0364 3.13322.92423.0827Auto gfw, b/g00 000Access Hatch, b/g25.64325.643 25.67825.67825.643Total4233.73810.3 4517.43000.34155.5B-8Table B-6. Calculation of Fittings Emissions forScans of External Floating Roof Tank 1025Scans138+Scans173+Scans319+Scans178+Scans323+Scans338+Scan179Scans241+Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi FfiVac Brk, gask3 6.2 1.20.9430.99738.08433.891 37.21138.32231.82835.45636.095USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 2 14 3.70.7848.64758.04652.572 56.92458.35049.78854.64255.478Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 22 2 0.370.9170.94885.74577.015 83.93286.23872.69480.28281.613Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 74 0.82 0.530.14107.83111.11109.32 110.77111.20108.28110.03110.31Roof drain,open0 1.5 0.211.700000000Rim vent, wmag2 0.71 0.112.16532.62562.3516 2.56822.64132.218572.45342.4952GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.020.970.541640.584240.55896 0.578960.585680.546600.568370.57223Auto gfw, b/ug1 4.3 170.3832.32537.94534.805 37.32738.11033.06936.03136.512Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 014.84.84.8 4.84.84.84.84.8298.25338.94315.32 334.11340.25303.23324.27327.881Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask165.60203.46181.30 198.79205.01170.27189.41192.83USl gp well, gsc w/wiper259.88310.10281.25 304.10312.16266.35291.91296.38Deck leg, adj, pt, ung379.02458.080412.01 448.39461.35388.89428.89436.00Deck leg, adj, ct, ung576.06593.61584.87 591.77594.92579.31587.86589.32Roof drain,open00000000Rim vent, wmag11.56714.02712.580 13.72014.13011.86813.10713.330GH/SW, wma gask2.89363.12122.9903 3.09293.13322.92423.03643.0570Auto gfw, b/ug172.69202.71186.20 199.41203.88176.91192.49195.06Access Hatch, b/g25.64325.64325.678 25.64325.67825.67825.64325.643Total1593.41810.81686.9 1784.91820.31622.21732.41751.6B-9Table B-7. Calculation of RIM Seal Emissions and Total Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks 1020, 1021, 1024, and 1025TankScan #ScanDateTAA, RTAA, FTB,deg RIv, mphTLA, RTLA, F Stock liq. temp, R (1) Withdrawal rate during test, gal/hrPvaP*RIM seal lossFitting loss Withdrawal loss, lb/hr Total loss, lb/hrlb/yrlb/hrlb/yrlb/hr1025 138+7/28 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18465.32 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.26713,1930.365 1,593 0.182 0 0.551025 173+7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18468.61 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.26714,7320.540 1,811 0.207 0 0.751025 319+8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17366.65 545.5 85.8 549 0 9.792 0.26753,8220.436 1,687 0.193 0 0.631025 178+7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18468.20 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.26714,5400.518 1,785 0.204 0 0.721025 323+8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17368.72 545.5 85.8 549 0 9.792 0.26754,7910.547 1,820 0.208 0 0.751025 338+8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17365.70 545.5 85.8 549 0 9.792 0.26753,3760.385 1,622 0.185 0 0.571025 1797/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18467.38 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.26714,1570.474 1,732 0.198 0 0.671025 241+7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18467.68 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.26714,2960.490 1,752 0.200 0 0.691024 178+7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18468.20 545.4 85.7 549 0 9.784 0.26714,5400.518 4,234 0.483 0 1.001024 1797/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18467.38 545.4 85.7 545 0 9.784 0.26714,1570.474 3,810 0.435 0 0.911024 323+8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17368.72 545.5 85.8 NA 0 9.792 0.26754,7910.547 4,517 0.516 0 1.061024 338+8/6 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17365.70 545.5 85.8 NA 0 9.792 0.26753,3760.385 3,000 0.343 0 0.731024 235+7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18468.05 545.4 85.7 545 273000 9.784 0.26714,4710.510 4,156 0.474 1.176 2.161021 182+7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18468.72 545.4 85.7 546 0 9.784 0.26714,7850.546 8,215 0.938 0 1.481021 235+7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18468.05 545.4 85.7 546 0 9.784 0.26714,4710.510 7,504 0.857 0 1.371021 241+7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18467.68 545.4 85.7 546 0 9.784 0.26714,2960.490 7,118 0.813 0 1.301020 182+7/29 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18468.72 545.4 85.7 543 105000 9.784 0.26714,7850.546 1,957 0.223 0.452 1.221020 235+7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18468.05 545.4 85.7 544 105000 9.784 0.26714,4710.510 1,895 0.216 0.452 1.181020 241+7/31 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18467.68 545.4 85.7 544 105000 9.784 0.26714,2960.490 1,860 0.212 0.452 1.15(1) Using these temperatures reported by BP instead of the calculated liquid surface temperatures would increase Pva slightly.

# B-10 Table B-8. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for External

Floating Roof Tanks 1020, 1021, 1024, and 1025

DIAL scans DIAL

emissions,

lb/hr Modeled range

EIQ low EIQ high Tanks

clearly

upwind of

scans Other

tanks that

may be

upwind low,

lb/hr high,

lb/hr

Scans 138, 139, 140, 141, 148 5.4 0.55 0.55 1.9 1.9 1025

Scans 173, 174, 175, 176 10.50 0.75 0.75 1.9 1.9 1025

Scans 319, 320, 321, 322 2.9 0.63 0.63 1.9 1.9 1025

Scans 179 5 0.91 1.58 1.8 3.7 1024 1025

Scans 178, 180, 181 14.7 1.72 1.72 3.7 3.7 1024, 1025

Scans 323, 324, 325 6.3 1.82 1.82 3.7 3.7 1024, 1025

Scans 338, 340 1.00 1.30 1.30 3.7 3.7 1024, 1025

Scans 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188* 15.50 2.71 2.71 3.7 3.7 1020, 1021

Scans 235, 236 1.3 1.18 4.71 1.8 5.5 1020 1021, 1024

Scans 241, 242, 243 1.3 1.15 3.15 1.8 5.6 1020 1021, 1025

6.4 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.5

*Not clear which scan path is used (or if any upwind tanks)

# B-11 Table B-9. Inputs for Estimating Emi ssions from External Floating Roof

Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055

Parameter Characteristic Variable Value

Contents Crude

Diameter, ft 345

Color White

Condition Good

Shell Lt rust

Construction Welded

Primary seal Mech shoe

Secondary seal Rim mounted

Deck Double deck

C 0.006

KRA 0.6

KRB 0.4

n 1

alpha 0.17

Vapor pressure coefficients A 10.695

B 4589.2

C

Vapor molecular weight MV 50

Product factor KC 0.4

Reid vapor pressure RVP 9

Liquid molecular weight ML 217

Liquid density, lb/gal Density 7

Atmospheric pressure, psia P 14.703

City Galveston, TX

# B-12 Table B-10. Wind Speeds Measured During DIAL Scans of External

Floating Roof Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055

Wind speeds from Table 2.4 of the DIAL report:

Scan # Wind Speed, m/s

157 4.3

158 4.1

159 3.8

Average 4.07

(9.10 

# mph)

164 3

(6.71 

# mph)

279 3.2

280 2.5

281 3.4

282 3.9

283 3.0

Average 3.20

(7.16 

# mph)

284 3.1

285 3.9

286 4.6

287 4.2

288 2.8

Average 3.72

(8.32 

# mph) Scan # Wind Speed, m/s

328 3.9

329 3.6

330 3.1

331 3.4

Average 3.50

(7.83 

# mph)

156 4.60

(10.29 

# mph)

163 1.8

165 4.3

166 4.8

167 4.5

168 3.8

Average 3.84

(8.59 

# mph)

231 3.2

232 3.0

233 3.3

Average 3.17

(7.08 

# mph)B-13Table B-11. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1052Scans 157+Scan 164Scans 279+Scans 284+Scans 328+Scan 156Scans 163+Scans 231+Fitting nf KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi FfiVac Brk, gask3 6.2 1.20.9439.11334.01134.975837.46536.41541.63338.03734.815USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.70.7829.67826.36627.00528.62627.94631.26028.99226.899Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0 2 0.370.910000 0000Deck leg, dbl deck 212 0.82 0.530.14319.44313.37314.63317.63316.41321.97318.27314.43Roof drain,open 8 1.5 0.211.751.09135.30638.00945.59742.28960.20247.46037.550Rim vent, wmag 3 0.71 0.114.04033.53923.63323.87743.77414.29083.93383.6175GH/SW, wma gask 3 0.47 0.020.971.77141.67901.69641.74141.72241.8171.75181.6935Auto gfw, u/g0 4.3 170.380000 0000Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 0 14.84.84.84.84.84.84.84.8449.93419.07424.75439.74433.36465.98443.25423.80Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask208.95181.70187.11200.43194.81222.41203.20185.99USl gp well, gsc w/wiper158.55140.85144.47153.14149.50167.00154.88143.70Deck leg, adj, pt, ung0000 0000Deck leg, dbl deck1706.51674.11683.21699.21692.71720.01700.31679.7Roof drain,open272.94188.62203.34243.93226.239321.61253.54200.60Rim vent, wmag21.58418.90719.43620.74320.19022.92321.01519.326GH/SW, wma gask9.46348.97009.07569.31669.21479.70869.35909.0474Auto gfw, u/g0000 0000Access Hatch, b/g25.64325.64325.67825.67825.67825.64325.64325.643Total2403.72238.82272.42352.52318.42489.42368.02264.1B-14Table B-12. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1053Scans 157+Scan 156Scans 163+Scan 164Scans 231+Scans 279+Scans 328+Fitting nfKFA KFbmFfiFfiFfiFfiFfiFfiFfiVac Brk, gask3 6.2 1.20.9439.11341.63338.037 34.01134.81534.97536.415USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.70.7829.67831.26028.992 26.36626.89927.00527.946Deck leg, adj, pt, ung0 2 0.370.91000 0000Deck leg, dbl deck212 0.82 0.530.14319.44321.97318.27 313.37314.43314.63316.41Roof drain,open12 1.5 0.211.776.63790.30371.190 52.96056.32557.01463.434Rim vent, wmag3 0.71 0.114.04034.29083.9338 3.53923.61753.63323.7741GH/SW, wma gask2 0.47 0.020.971.18091.21151.1679 1.11931.12901.13091.1483Auto gfw, u/g0 4.3 170.38000 0000Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 014.84.84.8 4.84.84.84.8474.89495.47466.40 436.16442.01443.19453.93Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask208.96222.41203.20 181.70185.99187.11194.81USl gp well, gsc w/wiper158.55167.00154.88 140.85143.70144.47149.50Deck leg, adj, pt, ung000 0000Deck leg, dbl deck1706.61720.01700.3 1674.11679.71683.21692.7Roof drain,open409.42482.42380.32 282.93300.91305.01339.35Rim vent, wmag21.58522.92321.015 18.90719.32619.43620.190GH/SW, wma gask6.30906.47246.2393 5.98006.03166.05046.1431Auto gfw, u/g000 0000Access Hatch, b/g25.64325.64325.643 25.64325.64325.67825.678Total2537.02647.02491.7 2330.22361.42371.02428.4

# B-15 Table B-13. Calculation of Fittings Emissions fo r Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 1055

Scans 279+

Fitting n f KFA KFb m Ffi

Vac Brk, gask 5 6.2 1.2 0.94 58.293

USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 27.005

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0 2 0.37 0.91 0

Deck leg, dbl deck 295 0.82 0.53 0.14 437.82

Roof drain,open 14 1.5 0.21 1.7 66.516

Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.4221

GH/SW, wma gask 5 0.47 0.02 0.97 2.8274

A uto gfw, u/g 1 4.3 17 0.38 35.662

A ccess Hatch, b/g 5 1.6 0 1 8

638.54

Emissions, lb/yr

Vac Brk, gask 311.41

USl gp well, gsc w/wiper 144.27

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 0

Deck leg, dbl deck 2338.9

Roof drain,open 355.35

Rim vent, wmag 12.939

GH/SW, wma gask 15.104

A uto gfw, u/g 190.51

A ccess Hatch, b/g 42.738

Total 3411.3B-16Table B-14. Calculation of RIM Seal Emissionsand Total Emissions for External Floating RoofTanks 1052, 1053, and 1055TankScan #Scan DateTAA, RTAA, FTB,deg RIv, mphTLA, RTLA, F Stock liq. temp, R (1) Withdrawal rate during test, gal/hrPva(psi)P*RIM seal lossFitting loss Withdrawal loss, lb/hr Total loss, lb/hrlb/yrlb/hrlb/yrlb/hr1052 157+7/28/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 9.10 545.4 85.7 538 0 9.784 0.26717,8120.8922,404 0.2740.0 1.21052 1647/29/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 6.71 545.4 85.7 538 84000 (2) 9.784 0.26716,0530.6912,239 0.2560.231.21052 279+8/2/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.16 545.5 85.8 NA 0 (3) 9.792 0.26756,3920.7302,272 0.2590.0 1.01052 284+8/2/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 8.32 545.5 85.8 NA 0 (4) 9.792 0.26757,2510.8282,353 0.2690.0 1.11052 328+8/6/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.83 545.5 85.8 539 0 9.792 0.26756,8870.7862,318 0.2650.0 1.11052 1567/28/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 10.29 545.4 85.7 538 0 9.784 0.26718,6920.9922,489 0.2840.0 1.31052 163+7/29/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 8.59 545.4 85.7 538 35000 9.784 0.26717,4390.8492,368 0.2700.1 1.21052 231+7/31/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 7.08 545.4 85.7 538 77000 9.784 0.26716,3280.7222,264 0.2580.2 1.21053 157+7/28/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 9.10 545.4 85.7 546 105000 9.784 0.26717,8120.8922,537 0.2900.3 1.51053 1567/28/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 10.29 545.4 85.7 546 105000 9.784 0.26718,6920.9922,647 0.3020.291.61053 163+7/29/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 8.59 545.4 85.7 NA 0 9.784 0.26717,4390.8492,492 0.2840.0 1.11053 1647/29/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 6.71 545.4 85.7 NA 0 9.784 0.26716,0530.6912,330 0.2660.0 1.01053 231+7/31/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.9 1846 7.08 545.4 85.7 NA 0 9.784 0.26716,3280.7222,361 0.2700.0 1.01053 279+8/2/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.16 545.5 85.8 NA 0 9.792 0.26756,3920.7302,371 0.2710.0 1.01053 328+8/6/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.83 545.5 85.8 549 0 9.792 0.26756,8870.7862,428 0.2770.0 1.11055 279+8/2/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.1 1736 7.16 545.5 85.8 NA 0 9.792 0.26756,3920.7303,411 0.3890.0 1.1(1) Using these temperatures reported by BP instead of the calculated liquid surface temperatures would increase Pva slightly.(2) Several hours of alternately filling and withdrawing. Withdrew 84000 gal in hour during which this scan was conducted.(3) No data from BP; TCEQ noted withdrawal rate of 58,780 gal/hr for tank 1052 on 8/2.(4) No data from BP; TCEQ noted withdrawal rate of 73,903 gal/hr for tank 1052 on Aug 2.(5) Using these temperatures reported by BP instead of the calculated liquid surface temperatures would have little effect on Pva.

# B-17 Table B-15. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for External Floating Roof

Tanks 1052, 1053, and 1055

DIAL scans DIAL

emissions,

lb/hr Modeled range

EIQ low EIQ high Tanks clearly

upwind of scans Other

tanks that

may be

upwind low,

lb/hr high,

lb/hr

Scans 157, 158, 159 22.3 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 1052, 1053

Scan 164 6 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.9 1052, 1053

Scans 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 24.6 3.1 3.1 4.6 4.6 1052, 1053, 1055

Scans 284, 285, 286, 287, 288 39.6 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.5 1052

Scans 328, 329, 330, 331 24.3 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.9 1052, 1053

Scan 156 7 1.6 2.9 1.4 2.9 1053 1052

Scans 163, 165, 166, 167, 168 5.2 1.1 2.3 1.4 2.9 1053 1052

Scans 231, 232, 233 1.5 1.0 2.2 1.4 2.9 1053 1052

Average 16.3 1.8 2.3 2.4 2.9

# B-18 [This page intentionally left blank.]

# C-1 

# Appendix C

Estimation of Emissions from External Floating Roof

Tanks Storing Gasoline and Other Light Distillates

# C-2 [This page intentionally left blank]

# C-3 Table C-1. Inputs for Estimating Emi ssions from External Floating Roof

Tanks 501, 502, 503, and 504

Parameter Variable Tank 501 Tank 502 Tank 503 Tank 504

Contents gasoline naphtha raffinate alkylate

Diamete r 144 ft 144 ft 144 ft 144 ft

Colo r white white white white

Condition Good Good Good Good

Shell Lt rust Lt rust Lt rust Lt rust

Construction Welded Welded Welded Welded

Primary seal Mech shoe Mech shoe Mech sh oe Mech shoe

Secondary seal RIM mounted RIM mounted RIM mounted RIM mounted

Deck pontoon pontoon pontoon pontoon

Shell clingage factor (Cs) 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015

Rim seal loss factor (KR A ) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Rim seal loss factor (KRB) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Wind speed exponent (n) 1 1 1 1

Solar absorptance (alpha) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

V apor pressure coefficients A 11.644 12.858 13.599 12.054

B 5043.6 6488.6 7126.8 5342.9

C

V apor molecular weight MV 62 90 139 67

Product facto r KC 1 1 1 1

Reid vapor pressure, psia RVP 13 3.4 2.3 11.6

Liquid molecular weight ML 92 112 183 97

Slope of ASTM distillation curve S 3 1.39 0.69 1.89

Liquid density, lb/gal Density 5.6 6 7 6

Atmospheric pressure, psia P 14.703 14.703 14.703 14.703

City Galveston, TX

# C-4 Table C-2. Wind Speeds Measured During DIAL Scans of External

Floating Roof Tanks 501, 502, 503, and 504

Wind speeds from Table 2.4 of the DIAL report:

Scan # Wind Speed, m/s

196 2.5

198 2.2

Average 2.35

(5.26 mph)

205 5.5

207 4.9

208 3.5

Average 4.63

(10.36 mph)

218 4.1

221 4.5

Average 4.3

(9.62 mph) Scan # Wind Speed, m/s

220 4

224 4.5

Average 4.25

(9.51 mph)

347 3.1

353 2.7

354 2.6

355 2.9

Average 2.825

(6.32 mph)

356 2.7

(6.04 mph)C-5Table C-3. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 501Scans 196+Scans 205+Scans 220+Scans 347+Scans 218+Fitting nf KFAKFb m Ffi Ffi Ffi Ffi FfiVac Brk, gask 2 6.2 1.2 0.94 20.567 27.860 26.654 22.110 26.812Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 24.222 31.358 30.227 25.800 30.376Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 10 2 0.37 0.91 32.108 42.458 40.761 34.316 40.983Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 25 0.820.53 0.14 36.401 37.986 37.776 36.816 37.804Rim vent, wmag2 0.710.1 1 2.1559 2.8710 2.7509 2.3046 2.7666GH/SW, wma gask1 0.470.02 0.97 0.5407 0.6067 0.5957 0.5546 0.5971Autogfw,u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0 0 0 0Access Hatch, b/g 3 1.6 0 1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8120.79 147.94 143.56 126.70 144.14Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask421.91 571.52 546.79 454.36 550.02Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 496.88 643.27 620.08 530.20 623.13Deck leg, adj, pt, ung658.67 870.99 836.17 705.21 840.73Deck leg, adj, ct, ung746.73 779.25 774.94 756.58 775.52Rim vent, wmag44.226 58.895 56.433 47.361 56.754GH/SW, wma gask11.093 12.446 12.220 11.397 12.250Autogfw,u/u0 0 0 0 0Access Hatch, b/g98.467 98.467 98.467 98.640 98.467Total 2478.0 3034.9 2945.1 2603.8 2956.9C-6Table C-4. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 502Scans 196+Scans 220+Scans 347+Scans 205+Scans 218+Fitting NfKFAKFbm Ffi FfiFfiFfiFfiVac Brk, gask 3 6.2 1.2 0.94 30.850 39.982 33.165 41.790 40.218Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 41 48 1.4 338.42 722.75 425.86 810.37 734.01Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 10 2 0.37 0.91 32.108 40.761 34.316 42.458 40.983Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 28 0.82 0.53 0.14 40.769 42.309 41.234 42.544 42.341Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.1559 2.7509 2.3046 2.8710 2.7666GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.5407 0.5957 0.5546 0.6067 0.5971Autogfw,u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0 0 0 0Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2448.05 852.35 540.64 943.84 864.12Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask135.83 176.03 146.20 183.99 177.07Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1490.0 3182.2 1877.4 3567.9 3231.7Deck leg, adj, pt, ung141.36 179.46 151.28 186.94 180.44Deck leg, adj, ct, ung179.50 186.28 181.77 187.32 186.42Rim vent, wmag9.4923 12.112 10.160 12.640 12.181GH/SW, wma gask2.3809 2.6229 2.4449 2.6713 2.6292Autogfw,u/u0 0 0 0 0Access Hatch, b/g14.089 14.089 14.106 14.089 14.089Total 1972.7 3752.8 2383.4 4155.6 3804.6C-7Table C-5. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 503Tank 503Scans 196+Scan 356Fitting nfKFAKFbmFfi FfiVac Brk, gask3 6.2 1.2 0.9430.85032.558Sl gp well, gsc w/sl&wiper1 8.3 4.4 1.643.67952.480Deck leg, adj, pt, ung10 2 0.37 0.9132.10833.739Deck leg, adj, ct, ung28 0.82 0.53 0.1440.76941.118Rim vent, wmag2 0.71 0.1 12.15592.2655GH/SW, wma gask1 0.47 0.02 0.970.54070.5509Auto gfw, u/u0 14 5.4 1.100Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 3.2153.30 165.91Emissions, lb/yrVac Brk, gask131.89139.38Sl gp well, gsc w/sl&wiper186.74224.66Deck leg, adj, pt, ung137.27144.43Deck leg, adj, ct, ung174.30176.03Rim vent, wmag9.21739.6988GH/SW, wma gask2.31192.3587Auto gfw, u/u0 0Access Hatch, b/g13.68113.699Total 655.4710.3C-8Table C-6. Calculation of Fittings Emissions for Scans of External Floating Roof Tank 504Scans196+Scans205+Scans218+Scans220+Scans347+Fitting nfKFAKFbm FfiVacBrk,gask 0 6.2 1.2 0.94 0 0 0 0 0Unsl gp well, gsc w/sleeve 1 14 3.7 0.78 24.222 31.358 30.376 30.227 25.800Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 10 2 0.37 0.91 32.108 42.458 40.983 40.761 34.316Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 28 0.82 0.53 0.14 40.769 42.544 42.341 42.309 41.234Rim vent, wmaug 1 0.71 0.1 1 1.0779 1.4355 1.3833 1.3754 1.1523GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.5407 0.6067 0.5971 0.5957 0.5546Autogfw,u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0 0 0 0Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2101.91 121.60 118.88 118.46 106.25Emissions, lb/yrVacBrk,gask 0 0 0 0 0Unsl gp well, gsc w/sleeve 416.85 539.66 522.76 520.20 444.72Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 552.57 730.69 705.31 701.48 591.52Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 701.62 732.18 728.68 728.13 710.75Rim vent, wmaug 18.551 24.704 23.806 23.671 19.863GH/SW, wma gask 9.3065 10.441 10.277 10.252 9.5598Autogfw,u/u 0 0 0 0 0Access Hatch, b/g 55.0709 55.070 55.070 55.070 55.158Total 1754.0 2092.8 2045.9 2038.8 1831.6C-9Table C-7. Calculation of RIM Seal Emissions and Total Emissions for External Floating Roof Tanks 501, 502, 503, and 504TankScan #Scan DateTAA, RTAA, FTB,deg RIv, mphTLA, RTLA, F Stock liq. temp, R (1) Withdrawal rate during test, gal/hrPva(psi)P*RIM seal lossFitting loss Withdrawal loss, lb/hr Total loss, lb/hrlb/yrlb/hrlb/yrlb/hr501196+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18465.26 545.41 85.74 NA NA 10.9863 0.33097,9840.9112,4780.283 0.00 1.2501205+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 184610.36 545.41 85.74 NA NA 10.9863 0.330914,0191.6003,0350.346 0.00 1.9501220+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18469.51 545.41 85.74 NA NA 10.9863 0.330913,0061.4852,9450.336 0.00 1.8501347+8/7/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17366.32 545.46 85.79 82 0 10.9961 0.33159,2561.0572,6040.297 0.00 1.4501218+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18469.62 545.41 85.74 NA NA 10.9863 0.330913,1381.5002,9570.338 0.00 1.8502196+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18465.26 545.41 85.74 83 0 2.6150 0.04891,7140.1961,9730.225 0.00 0.4502220+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18469.51 545.41 85.74 83 58800 2.6150 0.04892,7910.3193,7530.428 0.08 0.8502347+8/7/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17366.32 545.46 85.79 85 0 2.6180 0.04901,9860.2272,3830.272 0.00 0.5502205+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 184610.36 545.41 85.74 83 0 2.6150 0.04893,0090.3434,1560.474 0.00 0.8502218+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18469.62 545.41 85.74 83 58800 2.6150 0.04892,8200.3223,8050.434 0.08 0.8503196+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18465.26 545.41 85.74 79 0 1.7026 0.03081,6640.190655 0.075 0.00 0.35033568/7/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17366.04 545.46 85.79 88 0 1.7047 0.03081,8590.212710 0.081 0.00 0.3504196+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18465.26 545.41 85.74 90 0 9.5629 0.25696,6980.7651,7540.200 0.00 1.0504205+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 184610.36 545.41 85.74 90 0 9.5629 0.256911,7611.3432,0930.239 0.00 1.6504218+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18469.62 545.41 85.74 90 0 9.5629 0.256911,0221.2582,0460.234 0.00 1.5504220+7/30/2007 542.92 (July data) 83.25 542.94 18469.51 545.41 85.74 90 0 9.5629 0.256910,9111.2462,0390.233 0.00 1.5504347+8/7/2007 543.12 (Aug data) 83.45 543.14 17366.32 545.46 85.79 90 0 9.5719 0.25737,7630.8861,8320.209 0.00 1.1(1) Using these temperatures reported by BP instead of the calculated liquid surface temperature typically would increase Pva slightly.

# C-10 Table C-8. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for External Floating Roof

Tanks 501, 502, 503, and 504

DIAL Scans DIAL

emissions,

lb/hr Modeled Range

EIQ Low EIQ High Tanks upwind

of scans

(low end of range) Other

tanks that

may be

upwind

(high end) low,

lb/hr high,

lb/hr

Scans 196, 198 3.5 2.84 2.84 8.6 8.6 501,502,503,504

Scans 205, 207, 208 8.7 3.53 4.35 7 7.8 501.504 502

Scans 218, 221 5 1.5 4.17 3.5 7.8 504 501,502

Scans 220, 224* 17 4.13 4.13 7.8 7.8 501,502,504

Scans 347, 353, 354, 355* 2.5 2.95 2.95 501,502,504

Scan 356 1 0.3 0.3 503

Average: 8.6 3.0 3.9 6.7 8.0

*Flux not good for calculating DIAL emissions.

# D-1 

# Appendix D

Estimation of Emissions from Vertical Fixed Roof

Tanks and External Floating Roof Tanks Storing

Various Products

# D-2 [This page intentionally left blank]D-3Table D-1. Estimation of Emissions for VerticalFixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 54, 55, and 56Tank 55Tank 54Tank 56Tank 53Tank 55Tank 54Tank 56Tank 55Given:Diameter, D150 120(2)150(2)120150120(2)1502)150Shell Height, HS39.44 39.79(2)39.35(2)39.9639.4439.79(2)39.352)39.44Max Liq. Height, HLXWorking Vol, VgalTurnovers, NFilling rate during DIAL,Qgal 0 0058,0000000bbl 0 001,381.00000ColorWhite White(2)White(2)WhiteWhiteWhite(2)White( 2)WhiteConditionGood Poor(2)Good(2)GoodGoodPoor(2)Good(2)Goodalpha0.17 0.340.170.170.170.340.170.17Roof (cone or dome)cone coneconeconeconeconeconeconecone roof slope, SR0.0625 0.06250.06250.06250.06250.06250.06250.0625LocationTexas City, TX Texas City, TXTexas City, TXTexas City, TXTexas City, TX Texas City, TXTexas City, TXTexas City, TXPA, psia14.703 14.70314.70314.70314.70314.70314.70314.703Pressure vent, PBPpsig 0.03 0.030.030.030.030.030.030.03Vacuum Vent, PBVpsig -0.03 -0.03-0.03-0.03-0.03-0.03-0.03-0.03DIAL test date25-Jul 25-Jul25-Jul7-Aug26-Jul26-Jul25-Jul7-Augscan numbers79, 80, 82, 84 79, 80, 82, 8479, 80, 82, 84377,378,379,38096, 97, 98, 99, 100 96, 97, 98, 99, 10096, 97, 98, 99, 100377,378,101, 102, 106, 107,108101, 102, 106, 107,108101, 102, 106, 107,108379,380Tank shell radius75 60756075607575TAXR 546.97 (3) 546.97(3)546.97(3)547.37(3)546.97 ( 3)546.97(3)546.97( 3)547.37(3)C 30.72 30.7230.7230.9430.7230.7230.7230.94TANR 538.87 ( 3) 538.87(3)538.87(3)538.87(3)538.87 (3)538.87(3)538.87(3)538.87(3)C 26.22 26.2226.2226.2226.2226.2226.2226.22TAAR 542.92 542.92542.92543.12542.92542.92542.92543.12C 28.47 28.4728.4728.5828.4728.4728.4728.58Solar insolation, I1846 (3) 1846(3)1846(3)1736(3)1846 (3)1846(3)1846( 3)1736(3)(continued)D-4Table D-1. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 54, 55, and 56 (continued)Tank 55Tank 54Tank 56Tank 53Tank 55Tank 54Tank 56Tank 55Contents:Diesel DieselDieselDieselDieselDieselDieselDieselA14.532 14.53214.53214.53214.53214.53214.53214.532B10202.1 10202.110202.110202.110202.110202.110202.110202.1CMV151 151151151151151151151Avg. Liq. Height, HL14(4)16.5(5)20(6)2120.916.5(5)20(6)4.35(during DIAL scans)Vapor Space Volumeft3 477,174 277,541369,554228,570355,240277,541369,554647,703Vapor Space Outageft 27.003 24.54020.91320.21020.10324.54020.91336.653Roof Outageft 1.563 1.2501.5631.2501.5631.2501.5631.563Roof Heightft 4.6875 3.75004.68753.75004.68753.75004.68754.6875Vapor Densitylb/ft3 0.0005982 0.00047130.00049340.00056680.00059820.00047130.00049340.0005971Liquid Surface TempR 558.32 550.72552.16556.58558.32550.72552.16558.26F 98.65 91.0592.4996.9198.6591.0592.4998.59C 37.03 32.8133.6136.0637.0332.8133.6137.00Bulk TempR 566 (7) 548(2)555(8)563566548(2)555(8)566(2)F 106.33 88.3395.33103.33106.3388.3395.33106.33Vapor pressurepsia 0.0237 0.01840.01940.02240.02370.01840.01940.0237Vapor Space Expansion Factor,Ke0.0263 0.04210.02630.02590.02630.04210.02630.0259Delta TVR 14.6189623.4059214.6189614.3833614.6189623.4059214.6189614.38336(continued)D-5Table D-1. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 54, 55, and 56 (continued)Tank 55Tank 54Tank 56Tank 53Tank 55Tank 54Tank 56Tank 55Highlighted calcs below not needed when true VP<0.1 psiaTLXR562.0556.6555.8560.2562.0556.6555.8561.9C39.136.135.638.139.136.135.639.0F102.396.996.1100.5102.396.996.1102.2TLNR554.7544.9548.5553.0554.7544.9548.5554.7C35.029.631.634.135.029.631.635.0F95.085.288.893.395.085.288.895.0PVXpsia0.026730.022410.021860.025220.026730.022410.021860.02663PVNpsia0.021040.015120.017120.019900.021040.015120.017120.02104Delta PVpsia0.005690.007290.004740.005320.005690.007290.004740.00559Vented Vapor Saturation Factor,Ks0.9671 0.97660.97900.97650.97530.97660.97900.9560STANDING LOSSlb/hr0.30270.22420.19570.13650.22730.22420.19570.3989Turnover factor1.0000 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000KP1.0000 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000WORKING LOSSlb/hr0.00000.00000.00004.670.000.00000.00000.00TOTAL LOSSlb/hr0.3030.2240.1964.810.2270.2240.1960.399(1) Data in Table are from BP or calculated, except where noted.(2) From TCEQ.(3) Value based on historical averages for July and August in Galveston; actualdata for test dates not available.(4) Approximation; slightly lessthan level at midnight on 7/26. No data from BPbefore midnight on 7/26. TCEQ did not indicatefilling on 7/25.(5) No data available for 7/25 or7/26. Value listed is from 7/27.(6) Assumed half full; no data available.(7) Elevated temperature reported by BP; not a calculated value.(8) Assumed. Temp 93 F on 7/27 and dropping slowly. No data for 7/25-7/26.D-6Table D-2. AP-42 Modeling Input Parameters forEFR Tank 98aContents lightnaphthaDiameter, ft150ColorwhiteConditionpoorShellLt rustConstructionWeldedPrimary sealMech shoeSecondary sealShoe mountedDeckpontoonShell clingage factor (Cs)0.0015Zero wind speed rim seal loss factor (KRA)1.6Wind speed dependent rim seal loss factor (KRB)0.3Seal-related wind speed exponent (n)1.6Tank paint solar absorptance (alpha)0.34Vapor pressure coefficientsA12.542B5590.15CVapor molecular weight (MV)92Product factor (KC)1Reid vapor pressure (RVP)12.3Liquid molecular weight (ML)123Slope of ASTM distillation0.77curve (S)Liquid density, lb/galAtmospheric pressure, psia14.703CityGalveston, TXaMost of the data are from the TCEQ report, reference 8. Vapor pressurecoefficients are from BP, reference 3. Factors are from AP-42, reference 5.Table D-3. Wind Speeds Measured During DIAL Scans of EFRTank 98aDateScan No.Wind speed,m/sDateScan No.Wind speed,m/s7/25/200779 4.57/26/200796 6804.1975.3824.7985.9844.9994.5Average 4.551004.6(10.18 mph) 101 5.21025.31067.41077.61086.3Average 5.81(13.00 mph)aData are from Table 2.2 in reference 1.

# D-7 Table D-4. Calculated Emissions from Fittings on EFR Tank 98 Using Conditions During DIAL Test

Scans Scans

79+ 96+

Fitting n f a 

# KFA KFb m Ffi Ffi

Vac Brk, gask 2 6.2 1.2 0.94 27.5986 27.599

Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper&sleeve 1 8.3 4.4 1.6 110.13 110.13

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 24 2 0.37 0.91 101.02 101.02

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 36 0.82 0.53 0.14 54.637 54.637

Rim vent, wmaug 2 0.68 1.8 1 27.008 27.008

GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.60434 0.60434

A uto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0 0

A ccess Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2 3.2

324.19 324.19

Emissions, lb/yr b



# Vac Brk, gask 766.65 766.65

Sl gp well, gsc w/wiper&sleeve 3059.2 3059.2

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 2806.1 2806.1

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 1517.7 1517.7

Rim vent, wmaug 750.26 750.26

GH/SW, wma gask 16.788 16.788

A uto gfw, u/u 0 0

A ccess Hatch, b/g 88.892 88.892

Total 9,005.6 9,005.6

a 

# Data are from reference 1.

b 

# Emissions estimated using AP-42 procedures, assu ming conditions during the DIAL test applied

all year.



# Table D-5. Calculated Rim Seal and Withdrawal Emissions for EFR Tank 98

When Using Conditions During the DIAL Test

Parameters Scans 79+ Scans 96+

Scan date 7/25/2007 7/26/2007

Daily average ambient temperature (TAA), °R 542.92 542.92

(July data) (July data)

Daily average ambient temperature, °F 83.25 83.25

Liquid bulk temperature, °R 543.96 543.96

Solar insolation factor (I), Btu/ft2·d 1846 1846

Average wind speed (v), mph 10.18 13.00

Daily average liquid surface temperature (TLA), °R 548.5 548.5

Daily average liquid surface temperature, °F 88.8 88.8

Stock liquid temperature, °R NA NA

Withdrawal rate during test, gal/hr 0 0

True vapor pressure (Pva), psia 10.476 10.476

Vapor pressure function (P*) 0.3019 0.3019

Rim seal emissions, lb/yr a 

# 57,856 82,358

Withdrawal emissions, lb/hr 0 0

a 

# Emissions estimated using AP-42 pr ocedures, assuming conditi ons during the DIAL test applied all year.

# D-8 Table D-6. Modeled Average Hourly Emissi ons From EFR Tank 98 During DIAL Test

Scans Rim seal loss, lb/hr Fitting loss, lb/hr Withdrawal loss, lb/hr Total loss, lb/hr



# 79+ 6.605 1.028 0 7.6

96+ 9.402 1.028 0 10.4

Table D-7. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53, 54,

55, 56, and EFR Tank 98

DIAL scans DIAL

Emissions,

lb/hr Modeled Range

EIQ

low EIQ

high Tanks clearly

upwind of

DIAL scans Other tanks

possibly

upwind Low,

b/hr High,

lb/hr



# Scans 79, 80, 82, 84* 1.9 0.3 8.4 1.0 NA 55 54, 56, 98

Scans 96, 97, 98, 99,

100, 101, 102, 106, 107,

108* 4.3 0.2 11.1 1.0 NA 55 54, 56, 98

Average: 3.1 0.3 9.7 1.0

Scans 377,378,379,380* 23.8 4.8 5.2 53 55

* Maybe others as well, de pending on length of scan.D-9Table D-8. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical FixedRoof Product Tanks 43, 18, 42, 60, 61, 63, and 65Tank 43Tank 60Tank 63Tank 61Tank 42Tank 65Tank 18Diameter, D117117117117 (2)117(2)117(2)117(2)Shell Height, HS41.6741.6741.841.8 (2)39.44(2)41.5(2)41.29(2)Max Liq. Height, HLXWorking Vol, VgalTurnovers, NFilling rate during DIAL, Qgal 410000000027300(2)bbl 976.200000650ColorBlack(2)Black(2)Black(2)Black(2)Black(2)Black(2)White(2)ConditionPoor (2)Good(2)Poor(2)Poor (2)Poor(2)Good(2)Good(2)alpha0.970.970.970.970.970.970.17Roof (cone or dome)coneconeconeconeconeconeconecone roof slope, SR0.06250.06250.06250.06250.06250.06250.0625LocationTexas City, TXTexasCity,TXTexasCity,TXTexasCity, TX TexasCity,TXTexasCity,TXTexasCity,TXPA, psia14.70314.70314.70314.70314.70314.70314.703Pressure vent, PBPpsig 0.030.030.030.030.030.030.03Vacuum Vent, PBVpsig -0.03-0.03-0.03-0.03-0.03-0.03-0.03DIAL test date8-Aug8-Aug8-Aug8-Aug8-Aug8-Aug8-Augscan numbers382,383,384,399,400,401,399,400,401,399,400,401, 399,400,401,399,400,401,399,400,401,388,389,390402,403,404402,403,404402,403,404 402,403,404402,403,404402,403,404Tank shell radius58.558.558.558.558.558.558.5TAXR 547.37 (3)547.37(3)547.37(3)547.37 (3)547.37(3)547.37(3)547.37(3)C 30.9430.9430.9430.9430.9430.9430.94TANR 538.87 (3)538.87(3)538.87(3)538.87 (3)538.87(3)538.87(3)538.87(3)C 26.2226.2226.2226.2226.2226.2226.22TAAR 543.12543.12543.12543.12543.12543.12543.12C 28.5828.5828.5828.5828.5828.5828.58Solar insolation, I1736 (3)1736(3)1736(3)1736 (3)1736(3)1736(3)1736(3)Contents:Furnaceoil (4)Furnaceoil(4)DecantoilLCCOLCCOfurnaceoilkeroseneS2.05 (2)2.05(2)0.85(2)1.5(2)RVP0.06 (2)0.06(2)0.0019(2)0.05(2)(continued)D-10Table D-8. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 43, 18, 42, 60, 61, 63, and 65 (continued)Tank 43Tank 60Tank 63Tank 61Tank 42Tank 65Tank 18A17.51417.51416.23614.124(5) 14.124(5)17.514(5)14.785(5)B13317.913317.911276.39478.69(5) 9478.69(5)13317.88(5)9950.12(5)CMV163163163163163163130Avg. Liq. Height, HL24.53.721.921(6) 20(6)21(6)21(6)(during DIAL scans)Vapor Space Volumeft3 197,704421,332227,055236,731222,109233,506231,248Vapor Space Outageft 18.38939.18921.11922.01920.65921.71921.509Roof Outageft 1.2191.2191.2191.2191.2191.2191.219Roof Heightft 3.65633.65633.65633.65633.65633.65633.6563Vapor Densitylb/ft3 0.00018080.00005080.00063280.00179480.00267430.00011220.0006390Liquid Surface TempR 592.76559.72564.20563.08577.64579.88542.58F 133.09100.05104.53103.41(7) 117.97(7)120.21(7)82.91(7)C 56.1637.8040.2939.6747.7649.0028.29Bulk TempR 608(8)549(8)557(8)555581585538F 148.3389.3397.3395.33121.33125.3378.33Vapor pressurepsia 0.00710.00190.02350.06650.10170.00430.0286Vapor Space Expansion Factor, Ke0.09590.09590.09590.09590.09350.09590.0259Delta TVR 53.2697653.2697653.2697653.2697653.2697653.2697614.38336(continued)Highlighted calcs below not needed when true VP<0.1 psiaTLXR606.1573.0577.5576.4591.0593.2546.2C63.645.247.747.155.256.430.3F146.4113.4117.8116.7131.3133.586.5TLNR579.4546.4550.9549.8564.3566.6539.0C48.830.432.932.340.441.626.3F119.886.791.290.1104.6106.979.3PVXpsia0.011560.003260.037270.098160.147200.007170.03229PVNpsia0.004210.001050.014500.044250.069040.002500.02532Delta PVpsia0.007350.002210.022770.053910.078160.004680.00697D-11Table D-8. Estimation of Emissions for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 43, 18, 42, 60, 61, 63, and 65 (continued)Tank 43Tank 60Tank 63Tank 61Tank 42Tank 65Tank 18Vented Vapor Saturation Factor, Ks0.99320.99610.97440.92800.89980.99510.9684STANDING LOSSlb/hr0.14190.08520.55941.57522.08140.10410.1544Turnover factor1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000KP1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000WORKING LOSSlb/hr1.12290.00000.00000.000.000.002.42TOTAL LOSSlb/hr1.2650.0850.5591.582.080.102.57(1) Data in table from BP or calculated, except where noted.(2) From TCEQ.(3) Value based on historical averages for August in Galveston; actual data for test dates not available.(4) BP information indicates this tank was storing fuel oil #6; assumed characteristics for furnace oil approximate those of fuel oil #6.(5) Calculated using equations in Figure 7.1-15 of AP-42.(6) Assumed half full.(7) From TCEQ. Assumed bulk temperature that gives this result.(8) Elevated temperature reported by BP; not a calculated value.D-12Table D-9. AP-42 Modeling input Parameters for EFR Tanks 11and 12aParameterstank 11tank 12Contents lightnaphthalightnaphthaDiameter, ft117 117VolumeTurnoversColorwhite whiteConditionGood GoodShellLt rust Lt rustConstructionWelded WeldedPrimary sealMech shoe Mech shoeSecondary sealRimmountedRimmountedDeckpontoon pontoonShell clingage factor (Cs)0.0015 0.0015Zero wind speed rim seal loss factor (KRA)0.6 0.6Wind speed dependent rim seal loss factor(KRB)0.4 0.4Seal-related wind speed exponent (n)1 1Tank paint solar absorptance factor (alpha)0.17 0.17Vapor pressure coefficientsA12.542 12.542B5590.15 5590.15CVapor molecular weight (MV)92 92Product factor (Kc)1 1Reid vapor pressure (RVP)12.3 12.3Liquid molecular weight (ML)123 123Slope of ASTM distillation curve (S)0.77 0.77Liquid density, lb/galAtmospheric pressure (P), psia14.703 14.703CityGalveston,TXGalveston,TXaMost of the data are from the TCEQ report, reference 8. Vapor pressurecoefficients are from BP, reference 3. Factors are from AP-42, reference 5.Table D-10. Wind Speeds Measured During DIAL Scans ofEFR Tanks 11 and 12aScan No.Windspeed, m/s3992.24001.94012.14022.240324041.6Average2(4.47 mph)aData are from Table 2.2 in reference 1.

# D-13 Table D-11. Calculated Emissions From Fittings on EFR Tank 11 Using Conditions During DIAL

Test

Scans

399+



# Fitting nf a 

# KFA KFb m Ffi

Vac Brk, gask 2 6.2 1.2 0.94 19.418

Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 23.014

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 8 2 0.37 0.91 24.365

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 17 0.82 0.53 0.14 24.511

Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.0463

GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.53052

Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0

Access Hatch, b/g 1 1.6 0 1 1.6

95.485

Emissions, lb/yr b



# Vac Brk, gask 487.52

Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 577.79

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 611.71

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 615.39

Rim vent, wmag 51.376

GH/SW, wma gask 13.319

Auto gfw, u/u 0

Access Hatch, b/g 80.340

Total 2437.4

a 

# Data are from reference 1.

b 

# Emissions estimated using AP-42 pr ocedures, assuming conditi ons during the DIAL test applied all year.

# D-14 Table D-12. Calculated Emissions From Fittings on EFR Tank 12 Using Conditions During DIAL

Test

Scans

399+



# Fitting nf a 

# KFA KFb m Ffi

Vac Brk, gask 2 6.2 1.2 0.94 19.418

Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 1 14 3.7 0.78 23.014

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 8 2 0.37 0.91 24.365

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 17 0.82 0.53 0.14 24.511

Rim vent, wmag 2 0.71 0.1 1 2.0463

GH/SW, wma gask 1 0.47 0.02 0.97 0.53052

Auto gfw, u/u 0 14 5.4 1.1 0

Access Hatch, b/g 2 1.6 0 1 3.2

97.085

Emissions, lb/yr b



# Vac Brk, gask 487.52

Unsl gp well, gsc w/wiper 577.79

Deck leg, adj, pt, ung 611.71

Deck leg, adj, ct, ung 615.39

Rim vent, wmag 51.376

GH/SW, wma gask 13.319

Auto gfw, u/u 0

Access Hatch, b/g 80.340

Total 2437.4

a 

# Data are from reference 1.

b 

# Emissions estimated using AP-42 pr ocedures, assuming conditi ons during the DIAL test applied all year.



# Table D-13. Calculated Rim Seal and Withdrawal Emissions for EFR

Tanks 11 and 12 When Using Conditions During the DIAL Test

Scans Scans 399+



# Scan date 8/8/2007

Daily average ambient temperature (TAA), °R 543.12

(Aug data)

Daily average ambient temperature, °F 83.45

Liquid bulk temperature, °R 543.14

Solar insolation factor (I), Btu/ft2·d 1736

Average wind speed (v), mph 4.47

Daily average liquid surface temperature (TLA), °R 545.46

Daily average liquid surface temperature, °F 85.793

Stock liquid temperature, °R NA

Withdrawal rate during test, gal/hr 0

True vapor pressure (Pva), psia 9.9055

Vapor pressure function (P*) 0.2729

Rim seal emissions, lb/yr a 

# 7,019

Withdrawal emissions, lb/hr 0

a 

# Emissions estimated using AP-42 pr ocedures, assuming conditi ons during the DIAL test applied all year.

# D-15 Table D-14. Modeled Average Hourly Emissi ons From EFR Tank 98 During DIAL Test

Scans Rim seal loss, lb/hr Fitting loss, lb/hr Withdrawal loss, lb/hr Total loss, lb/hr



# 11 399+ 0.801 0.274 0.00

12 399+ 0.801 0.278 0.00

Table D-15. Summary of DIAL and Modeled Emissi ons for Vertical Fixed Roof Product Tanks 53,

54, 55, 56, and EFR Tank 98

DIAL scans DIAL

Emissions,

lb/hr Modeled Range

EIQ, Low EIQ, High Tanks clearly

upwind of DIAL

scans Other tanks that may

be upwind Low, b/hr High, lb/hr



# Scans 382, 383, 384 2 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 43

Scans 388, 389, 390 9.3 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 43

Scans 399-404 9 0.6 9.1 4.6 NA 60, 63 11, 12, 18, 42, 61, 65

Upwind <1 4.7 11,12,18

* Maybe others as well, depending on length of scan.

# D-16 [This page intentionally left blank.]

# E-1 

# Appendix E

Activated Sludge Unit Characteristics and Compound

Properties Reported by BP

# E-2 [This page intentionally left blank]

# E-3 Table E-1. Activated Sludge Unit Parameters for WATER9 Modeling

Unit Name Parameter WATER9 Input

F-8 Activated Sludge Unit Wastewater Temperature (°C) 29

Length of Aerati on Unit (m) 56.8

Width of Aerati on Unit (m) 56.8

Depth of Aeration Unit (m) 6.7

Area of Agitation (each aerator, m 2 

# ) 400

Total Number of Agitators in the Unit 5

Power of agitation (each aerator, HP) 150

Impeller Diameter (cm) 274.32

Impeller Rotation (RPM) 47

Agitator Mechanical Efficiency 0.83

Aerator Effectiveness, alpha 0.83

If there is a plug flow, enter 1 0

Overall Biorate (mg/g bio-hour) 19

Aeration Air Flow (m 3 

# /s) 0.133

Activated Sludge Biomass (g/l) 3

If covered, then enter 1 0

Agitator Pump Rate (m 3 

# /s each) 4

pH 7.25E-4Table E-2. Pollutant Properties in BP WATER9 ModelingParameterGenericOrganicMaterialAmmoniaBenzeneEthylbenzeneMTBENaphthaleneStyreneToluene1,3,5-TMBXyleneXylene(m-)Xylene(o-)Propyl-benzene1,2,4-TMBMolecular Weight100 17.03 78.11 106.2 83.1 128.2 104.2 92.4 120.2 106.2 106.2 106.17 120.19 120.21Vapor Pressure, mmHgat 25°C25 7470 95.2 10 185.949 0.23 7.3 30 2.4 8.5 8 7 0.73886 2.1Density1 0.6818 0.874 0.87 0.97 1.14 0.9 0.87 1.02 1.02 0.86 0.88 1 0.876Boiling Point (°C)125 -33.4 80 136.2 64218 145 110.7 163.037 140 139 144.4 157.876 169Antoine's Coefficients, a 6.859312 7.55466 6.905048 6.975 6.85249 7.3729 6.945357 6.954 7.07436 7.940135 7.009 6.998 6.8734848.178473Antoine's Coefficients, b 1354.71 1002.711 1211.033 1424.255 1103.737 1968.36 1437.432 1344.8 1569.22 2090.317 1462.266 1474.679 1465.873 2342.421Antoine's Coefficients, c 215.5096 247.885 220.7996 213.21 222.72 222.61 208.38 219.48 209.58 273.16 215.11 213.69 209.2632 273.16Henry's Law Constants MeasuredInd. Estim.DIPPR911 Yaws &Yang, 1992SMackay &Shiu 1981 L SKartkopf 1973M SRTI Yaws &Yang, 1992SYaws & Yang,1992 SMackay & Shiu1981 L SSuperfund Staudingner1996 L SDIPPR911 Yaws & Yang,1992 SSanemasa(1982)K, (y/x) 25 °C1 3.3799 308.33 437.807 34.722 66.693 150.149 356.67 326.794 389.684 413 269.287 566.888 342.21K, (y/x) 100 °C100 1930 4270 267710 1720 2100 1.13E+05 3786.025 3250 2550 6594.797 4285.293Dl(cm2/s)9.57E-06 6.93E-05 1.02E-057.80E-06 1.05E-05 7.50E-06 8.00E-06 8.60E-06 8.67E-06 9.34E-067.80E-06 1.00E-05 8.57E-06 7.92E-06Dv(cm2/s)0.0782 0.259 0.088 0.075 0.1024 0.059 0.071 0.087 0.0602 0.0737 0.07 0.087 0.0643 0.0606Solubility (ppmw) 210.297 4.82E+05 1796.573 152 3.66E+04 80.318 300 515 2 169.334 200 175 11.451 57Hydrolysis Rate (l/s) 0 5.60E-10 0 0 501200 00 0.091 0.07 0.12 00Log10Octanol-Water 0 0.23 2.15 3.15 0.943.37 3.16 2.69 3.9997 3.15 3.2 2.95 3.5953 3.63Kmax(mg/g-hr) 19 19 19.1 6.8 17.56 42.47 31.1 73.48 31.1 40.8 31.1 40.79 15.3 15.3K1(l/g-hr) 1.1 0.043 120 2.1 0.712684 1 0.11 2.4 4.469394 1.8 2.219942 1.8 3.137307 3.23402E-5Table E-3. Default Pollutant Parameters in WATER9 that Differ from Values Used by BPParameterGenericOrganicMaterialAmmoniaBenzeneEthylbenzeneMTBENaphthaleneStyreneToluene1,3,5-TMBXyleneXylene(m-)Xylene(o-)Propyl-benzene1,2,4-TMBMolecularWeight88.13Vapor Pressure, mmHg at25 °C250 3.4Density0 0.86BoilingPoint(°C)55.2 159Antoine'sCoefficients,a0 6.95142 0Antoine'sCoefficients,b0 1491.297 0Antoine's Coefficients, c0207.14 0K,(y/x)25°C593.516K,(y/x)100°C0 0 0Dl (cm2/s)0 0 0Dv (cm2/s)0 0 0Solubility (ppmw)8,000 1,790052Hydrolysis Rate (l/s)00 0Log10Octanol-Water2.13 3.69Kmax(mg/g-hr)0 0 0K1(l/g-hr) 0 1.4 0 0

# E-6 [This page intentionally left blank.]

# F-1 

# Appendix F

Flare Gas Flow and Composition Data and Estimated

C3+ Controlled Emissions

# F-2 [This page intentionally left blank.]

# F-3 Table F-1. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for Flare No. 6

PV Label

PV Name

Eng Unit

MW

Agg Type

Date TORCH 6 Sel

Flow Valid

Flow

Mscf/hr

1H

Value CO2

Carbon dioxide

mole%

44.00

1H

Value C2H4

Ethylene

mole%

28.05

1H

Value C2H6

Ethane

mole%

30.07

1H

Value C2H2

Acetylene

mole%

26.04

1H

Value H2

Hydrogen

mole%

2.00

1H

Value O2

Oxygen

mole%

16.00

1H

Value N2

Nitrogen

mole%

28.00

1H

Value CH4

Methane

mole%

16.04

1H

Value

7/30/2007 0:00 32.613 0.5167 0 3.4919 0 0 0 2.4815 83.108

7/30/2007 1:00 32.659 0.5240 0 3.1919 0 0 0 2.7656 83.404

7/30/2007 2:00 33.024 0.5219 0 3.5339 0 0 0 2.5172 83.719

7/30/2007 3:00 32.849 0.5346 0 3.4284 0 0 0 2.7949 83.913

7/30/2007 4:00 33.244 0.5274 0 3.2423 0 0 0 2.5329 84.571

7/30/2007 5:00 33.375 0.5243 0 3.7864 0 0 0 2.8356 83.813

7/30/2007 6:00 33.213 0.5310 0 3.4451 0 0 0 2.6267 85.817

7/30/2007 7:00 33.414 0.5420 0 3.5173 0 0 0 2.8172 84.213

7/30/2007 8:00 33.559 0.5307 0 3.7420 0 0 0 2.5639 84.135

7/30/2007 9:00 36.978 0.5473 0 3.2971 0 0 0 2.8269 84.343

7/30/2007 10:00 36.993 0.5419 0 3.9721 0 0 0 2.5949 83.547

7/30/2007 11:00 37.340 0.5739 0 3.3550 0 0 0 2.7906 83.456

7/30/2007 12:00 37.998 0.5578 0 3.8770 0 0 0 2.5959 81.844

7/30/2007 12:38

7/30/2007 12:50

7/30/2007 13:00 38.841 0.5412 0 3.7654 0 0 0 2.7985 81.345

7/30/2007 14:00 37.237 0.5399 0 3.4987 0 0 0 2.7660 81.306

7/30/2007 14:52

7/30/2007 15:00 34.741 0.5419 0 3.0280 0 0 0 2.4746 81.636

7/30/2007 15:03

7/30/2007 15:16

7/30/2007 15:55

7/30/2007 16:00 29.996 0.5448 0 3.2335 0 0 0 2.6417 80.973

7/30/2007 16:44

7/30/2007 16:55

7/30/2007 17:00 28.226 0.5178 0 3.1107 0 0 0 2.7176 80.639

7/30/2007 18:00 27.552 0.5292 0 3.2531 0 0 0 2.4881 80.541

7/30/2007 19:00 28.878 0.5113 0 3.6702 0 0 0 2.6654 79.337

7/30/2007 20:00 31.722 0.5105 0 3.2158 0 0 0 2.6222 80.469

7/30/2007 21:00 32.469 0.5151 0 2.9536 0 0 0 2.5825 81.729

7/30/2007 22:00 36.385 0.5089 0 2.8610 0 0 0 2.5745 81.999

7/30/2007 23:00 41.731 0.4765 0 2.9099 0 0.8263 0 4.2064 72.323

8/7/2007 0:00 34.180 1.1882 0 2.7139 0 1.2264 0.0248 5.2379 58.904

8/7/2007 0:25

8/7/2007 0:44

8/7/2007 1:00 33.356 1.1194 0 3.5409 0 0.3031 0.0249 2.9891 77.200

8/7/2007 1:02

8/7/2007 2:00 33.004 1.1512 0 3.5855 0 0.1256 0.0187 2.8070 79.939

8/7/2007 3:00 33.334 1.1371 0 3.8070 0 0 0 2.4933 81.040

8/7/2007 4:00 33.042 1.1251 0 3.6424 0 0 0 2.7251 81.687

8/7/2007 5:00 32.606 1.1339 0 3.6343 0 0 0 2.5741 81.267

8/7/2007 5:52

8/7/2007 6:00 32.566 1.1497 0 3.5395 0 0 0 2.7481 81.641

8/7/2007 6:10

8/7/2007 7:00 32.500 1.1441 0 3.6443 0 0 0 2.5459 82.080

8/7/2007 8:00 32.987 1.1555 0 3.5984 0 0 0 2.6923 82.196

8/7/2007 9:00 37.572 1.1447 0 3.6552 0 0 0 2.5220 81.689

8/7/2007 10:00 36.969 1.1443 0 3.5430 0 0 0 2.7030 81.251

8/7/2007 11:00 36.691 1.1494 0 3.6207 0 0 0 2.5989 81.327

8/7/2007 12:00 36.988 1.1433 0 3.5452 0 0 0 2.6780 80.090

8/7/2007 13:00 36.495 1.1314 0 3.5726 0 0 0 2.5947 79.974

8/7/2007 14:00 35.027 1.1386 0 3.5755 0 0 0 2.6141 79.794

8/7/2007 15:00 31.459 1.1131 0 3.5789 0 0 0 2.5809 79.437

8/7/2007 16:00 27.497 1.1223 0 3.5161 0 0 0 2.5824 79.412

8/7/2007 17:00 25.604 1.1122 0 3.5750 0 0 0 2.5147 79.742

8/7/2007 18:00 27.845 1.1161 0 3.5969 0 0 0 2.6393 79.206

8/7/2007 19:00 30.275 1.0983 0 3.6399 0 0 0 2.5323 79.312

8/7/2007 20:00 32.742 1.1041 0 3.6949 0 0 0 2.6270 79.549

8/7/2007 21:00 33.908 1.0918 0 3.7181 0 0 0 2.5889 79.742

8/7/2007 22:00 33.774 1.0969 0 3.6234 0 0 0 2.5866 79.880

8/7/2007 23:00 34.009 1.0897 0 3.6466 0 0 0 2.4449 80.197

# F-4 Table F-1. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for Flare No. 6 (continued)

PV Label

PV Name

Eng Unit

MW

Agg Type

Date CO

Carbon

monoxide

mole%

28.00

1H

Value C3H8

Propane

mole%

44.09

1H

Value C4H10

Isobutane

mole%

58.12

1H

Value H2S

Hydrogen

sulfide

mole%

34.00

1H

Value C4H10

Butane

mole%

58.12

1H

Value C4H8

1-Butene

mole%

56.10

1H

Value C4H8

trans 2-

Butene

mole%

56.10

1H

Value C4H8

cis 2-Butene

mole%

56.10

1H

Value C4H6

1,3-Butadiene

mole%

54.09

1H

Value

7/30/2007 0:00 0 0.3462 0.3119 0 0.1497 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 1:00 0 0.3057 0.3015 0 0.1497 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 2:00 0 0.3213 0.3067 0 0.1497 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 3:00 0 0.3152 0.3214 0 0.1498 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 4:00 0 0.2996 0.3245 0 0.1498 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 5:00 0 0.3370 0.3204 0 0.1602 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 6:00 0 0.3342 0.2884 0 0.1593 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 7:00 0 0.3329 0.2746 0 0.1498 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 8:00 0 0.4079 0.2851 0 0.1498 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 9:00 0 0.3839 0.3225 0 0.1727 0.00208 0 0 0

7/30/2007 10:00 0 0.4992 0.3266 0 0.1747 0.00312 0 0 0

7/30/2007 11:00 0 0.4367 0.3140 0 0.1747 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 12:00 0 0.5277 0.2472 0 0.1745 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 12:38

7/30/2007 12:50

7/30/2007 13:00 0 0.7407 0.4291 0 0.2109 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 14:00 0 0.6073 0.3406 0 0.1682 0.00207 0 0 0

7/30/2007 14:52

7/30/2007 15:00 0 0.4557 0.3197 0 0.1516 0.00520 0 0 0

7/30/2007 15:03

7/30/2007 15:16

7/30/2007 15:55

7/30/2007 16:00 0 0.4233 0.3600 0 0.1494 0.00310 0 0 0

7/30/2007 16:44

7/30/2007 16:55

7/30/2007 17:00 0 0.4171 0.3829 0 0.1557 0.00311 0 0 0

7/30/2007 18:00 0 0.4618 0.3341 0 0.1494 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 19:00 0 0.5839 0.3682 0 0.1577 0.00311 0 0 0

7/30/2007 20:00 0 0.4971 0.3787 0 0.1598 0 0 0 0

7/30/2007 21:00 0 0.3895 0.3770 0 0.1527 0.00830 0 0 0

7/30/2007 22:00 0 0.3115 0.3697 0 0.1620 0.00415 0 0 0

7/30/2007 23:00 0 8.3158 0.3426 0 0.1319 0.01243 0 0 0

8/7/2007 0:00 0 18.6166 0.2091 0 0.1170 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 0:25

8/7/2007 0:44

8/7/2007 1:00 0 3.5306 0.4991 0 0.1722 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 1:02

8/7/2007 2:00 0 1.6714 0.3031 0 0.1495 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 3:00 0 0.8120 0.4892 0 0.1682 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 4:00 0 0.6327 0.3303 0 0.1496 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 5:00 0 0.6157 0.4569 0 0.1682 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 5:52

8/7/2007 6:00 0 0.5837 0.3500 0 0.1558 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 6:10

8/7/2007 7:00 0 0.5892 0.4499 0 0.1683 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 8:00 0 0.5756 0.3398 0 0.1746 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 9:00 0 0.6108 0.3781 0 0.1839 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 10:00 0 0.6137 0.4850 0 0.1952 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 11:00 0 0.7239 0.3416 0 0.1786 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 12:00 0 0.9502 0.4564 0 0.1971 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 13:00 0 0.7290 0.4086 0 0.1836 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 14:00 0 0.6554 0.3806 0 0.1732 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 15:00 0 0.6436 0.4602 0 0.1648 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 16:00 0 0.6155 0.4196 0 0.1679 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 17:00 0 0.6064 0.3743 0 0.1586 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 18:00 0 0.6114 0.4426 0 0.1534 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 19:00 0 0.6144 0.4009 0 0.1595 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 20:00 0 0.8314 0.3721 0 0.1576 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 21:00 0 0.8418 0.4044 0 0.1680 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 22:00 0 0.6075 0.4023 0 0.1742 0 0 0 0

8/7/2007 23:00 0 0.6003 0.3971 0 0.1638 0 0 0 0

# F-5 Table F-1. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for Flare No. 6 (continued)

PV Label

PV Name

Eng Unit

MW

Agg Type

Date H2O

Water

mole%

18.00

1H

Value C5 Plus

mole%

1H

Value Propylene

mole%

42.08

1H

Value Assumed

MW

C5+ Calculated

C3+ entering

Flare 6,

lb/hr Anticipated

C3+

emissions,

lb/hr

(98% reduction) DIAL

Emissions,

lb/hr

7/30/2007 0:00 0 9.5939 0 80 696.66 13.9

7/30/2007 1:00 0 9.3576 0 80 679.29 13.6

7/30/2007 2:00 0 8.9303 0 80 657.97 13.2

7/30/2007 3:00 0 8.5423 0 80 628.09 12.6

7/30/2007 4:00 0 8.3522 0 80 621.86 12.4

7/30/2007 5:00 0 8.2233 0 80 617.00 12.3

7/30/2007 6:00 0 6.7981 0 80 512.31 10.2

7/30/2007 7:00 0 8.1528 0 80 609.70 12.2

7/30/2007 8:00 0 8.0541 0.1311 80 613.73 12.3

7/30/2007 9:00 0 8.0521 0.0520 80 675.35 13.5

7/30/2007 10:00 0 8.2901 0.0499 80 699.48 14.0

7/30/2007 11:00 0 8.8489 0.0499 80 746.47 14.9

7/30/2007 12:00 0 10.1263 0.0499 80 862.19 17.2

7/30/2007 12:38 3

7/30/2007 12:50 3

7/30/2007 13:00 0 10.1190 0.0499 80 903.36 18.1 3

7/30/2007 14:00 0 10.7217 0.0498 80 900.28 18.0

7/30/2007 14:52 3

7/30/2007 15:00 0 11.3460 0.0415 80 877.42 17.5

7/30/2007 15:03 11

7/30/2007 15:16 2

7/30/2007 15:55 3

7/30/2007 16:00 0 11.6341 0.0374 80 776.20 15.5

7/30/2007 16:44 3

7/30/2007 16:55 4

7/30/2007 17:00 0 12.0058 0.0498 80 754.00 15.1

7/30/2007 18:00 0 12.1714 0.0716 80 745.27 14.9

7/30/2007 19:00 0 12.6739 0.0290 80 816.51 16.3

7/30/2007 20:00 0 12.1030 0.0436 80 856.48 17.1

7/30/2007 21:00 0 11.2540 0.0384 80 814.18 16.3

7/30/2007 22:00 0 11.1670 0.0426 80 902.44 18.0

7/30/2007 23:00 0 10.3817 0.0737 80 1352.73 27.1

8/7/2007 0:00 0 11.7583 0.0041 80 1605.83 32.1

8/7/2007 0:25 37

8/7/2007 0:44 22

8/7/2007 1:00 0 10.5955 0.0249 80 918.26 18.4

8/7/2007 1:02 13

8/7/2007 2:00 0 10.2239 0.0249 80 800.24 16.0

8/7/2007 3:00 0 10.0280 0.0249 80 771.61 15.4

8/7/2007 4:00 0 9.6910 0.0166 80 725.15 14.5

8/7/2007 5:00 0 10.1350 0.0145 80 752.69 15.1

8/7/2007 5:52 18

8/7/2007 6:00 0 9.8261 0.0062 80 723.05 14.5

8/7/2007 6:10 18

8/7/2007 7:00 0 9.3718 0.0062 80 696.23 13.9

8/7/2007 8:00 0 9.2589 0.0093 80 693.14 13.9

8/7/2007 9:00 0 9.8056 0.0104 80 837.16 16.7

8/7/2007 10:00 0 10.0587 0.0062 80 850.14 17.0

8/7/2007 11:00 0 10.0399 0.0197 80 838.55 16.8

8/7/2007 12:00 0 10.8807 0.0591 80 929.90 18.6

8/7/2007 13:00 0 11.3629 0.0435 80 941.19 18.8

8/7/2007 14:00 0 11.6437 0.0249 80 918.30 18.4

8/7/2007 15:00 0 11.9970 0.0249 80 851.24 17.0

8/7/2007 16:00 0 12.1398 0.0249 80 749.84 15.0

8/7/2007 17:00 0 11.8917 0.0249 80 682.39 13.6

8/7/2007 18:00 0 12.2097 0.0249 80 763.66 15.3

8/7/2007 19:00 0 12.2174 0.0249 80 829.24 16.6

8/7/2007 20:00 0 11.6395 0.0249 80 863.60 17.3

8/7/2007 21:00 0 11.4204 0.0249 80 881.30 17.6

8/7/2007 22:00 0 11.6048 0.0249 80 881.96 17.6

8/7/2007 23:00 0 11.4355 0.0249 80 874.86 17.5

# F-6 Table F-2. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for the Temporary Flare

Date Flare Header

Flow Tag

(High)

MSCFH Flare Header

Flow Tag

(Low)

MSCFH Carbon

Dioxide

44.00

mole % Ethylene

28.05

mole % Ethane

30.07

mole % Acetylene

26.04

mole % Hydrogen

2.00

mole % Oxygen

16.00

mole % Nitrogen

28.00

mole %

8/9/07 0:00 858 399.74 0.11 0.00 1.94 0.00 80.48 0.00 1.17

8/9/07 1:00 859 399.74 0.11 0.00 1.96 0.00 80.24 0.03 1.24

8/9/07 2:00 895 399.74 0.08 0.01 1.96 0.00 80.66 0.04 1.26

8/9/07 3:00 892 399.77 0.04 0.01 1.89 0.00 82.05 0.03 1.15

8/9/07 4:00 861 399.78 0.05 0.00 1.92 0.00 80.58 0.03 1.26

8/9/07 5:00 877 399.78 0.04 0.01 1.95 0.00 80.38 0.03 1.14

8/9/07 6:00 872 399.81 0.04 0.00 1.92 0.00 80.59 0.02 1.29

8/9/07 7:00 898 399.81 0.04 0.00 1.96 0.00 80.31 0.03 1.32

8/9/07 8:00 858 399.78 0.05 0.01 1.96 0.00 79.94 0.04 1.34

8/9/07 9:00 859 399.76 0.04 0.00 1.95 0.00 79.87 0.04 1.30

8/9/07 10:00 839 399.74 0.04 0.00 2.03 0.00 78.92 0.04 1.44

8/9/07 11:00 855 399.72 0.04 0.01 1.99 0.00 79.21 0.04 1.43

8/9/07 12:00 842 399.70 0.04 0.00 1.99 0.00 79.06 0.03 1.42

8/9/07 13:00 839 399.70 0.04 0.01 2.00 0.00 78.73 0.03 1.46

8/9/07 14:00 868 399.68 0.04 0.01 1.99 0.00 79.16 0.03 1.45

8/9/07 15:00 856 399.67 0.04 0.01 1.98 0.00 79.67 0.00 1.11

8/9/07 16:00 869 399.67 0.04 0.01 1.95 0.00 80.46 0.00 0.43

8/9/07 17:00 804 399.64 0.04 0.01 2.38 0.00 77.27 0.00 0.39

8/9/07 18:00 753 399.63 0.04 0.00 2.28 0.00 78.02 0.00 0.66

8/9/07 19:00 753 399.65 0.04 0.00 2.21 0.00 78.20 0.00 1.15

8/9/07 20:00 759 399.68 0.05 0.00 2.19 0.00 78.67 0.00 1.12

8/9/07 21:00 767 399.70 0.08 0.00 2.12 0.00 79.27 0.00 1.07

8/9/07 22:00 754 399.71 0.09 0.00 2.10 0.00 79.37 0.00 1.06

8/9/07 23:00 772 399.72 0.10 0.00 2.07 0.00 79.61 0.00 1.08

8/10/07 0:00 753 399.74 0.10 0.00 2.03 0.00 79.88 0.00 1.04

8/10/07 1:00 758 399.74 0.10 0.00 2.04 0.00 79.80 0.00 1.05

8/10/07 2:00 769 399.75 0.10 0.00 1.99 0.00 80.37 0.00 1.03

8/10/07 3:00 756 399.78 0.10 0.00 2.01 0.00 79.87 0.00 1.06

8/10/07 4:00 767 399.78 0.10 0.00 1.95 0.00 80.04 0.00 1.00

8/10/07 5:00 769 399.78 0.09 0.00 1.96 0.00 80.21 0.00 0.96

8/10/07 6:00 792 399.81 0.08 0.00 1.91 0.00 80.67 0.00 1.02

8/10/07 7:00 778 399.81 0.08 0.00 1.90 0.00 80.61 0.00 1.05

8/10/07 8:00 776 399.78 0.07 0.01 1.92 0.00 80.43 0.00 1.01

8/10/07 9:00 765 399.76 0.07 0.01 1.91 0.00 80.41 0.01 0.94

8/10/07 10:00 756 399.74 0.06 0.01 1.89 0.00 79.95 0.01 1.20

8/10/07 11:00 761 399.70 0.05 0.01 1.91 0.00 80.00 0.00 1.13

8/10/07 12:00 748 399.69 0.05 0.01 1.89 0.00 79.82 0.01 1.34

8/10/07 13:00 748 399.67 0.04 0.00 1.90 0.00 79.84 0.01 1.22

8/10/07 14:00 755 399.67 0.04 0.01 1.82 0.00 80.69 0.00 0.82

8/10/07 15:00 743 399.66 0.04 0.01 1.81 0.00 80.34 0.00 0.87

8/10/07 16:00 764 399.66 0.04 0.01 1.75 0.00 81.55 0.00 0.83

8/10/07 17:00 756 399.63 0.05 0.01 1.78 0.00 81.66 0.00 0.84

8/10/07 18:00 777 399.63 0.04 0.01 1.69 0.00 81.93 0.00 0.74

8/10/07 19:00 773 399.64 0.04 0.00 1.69 0.00 81.34 0.00 0.75

8/10/07 20:00 777 399.68 0.04 0.00 1.64 0.00 81.80 0.00 0.53

8/10/07 21:00 767 399.70 0.04 0.00 1.77 0.00 80.89 0.00 0.20

8/10/07 22:00 800 399.70 0.04 0.00 2.22 0.00 77.74 0.00 0.21

8/10/07 23:00 825 399.71 0.04 0.00 1.85 0.00 80.71 0.00 0.25

8/11/07 0:00 805 399.71 0.07 0.00 1.70 0.00 82.51 0.00 0.48

8/11/07 1:00 779 399.74 0.09 0.00 1.69 0.00 82.09 0.00 0.53

8/11/07 2:00 800 399.76 0.08 0.00 1.73 0.00 83.83 0.00 0.54

8/11/07 3:00 834 399.78 0.08 0.01 1.70 0.00 84.27 0.00 0.54

8/11/07 4:00 847 399.78 0.10 0.01 1.66 0.00 83.57 0.00 0.52

8/11/07 5:00 839 399.78 0.10 0.01 1.67 0.00 83.95 0.00 0.51

8/11/07 6:00 860 399.78 0.12 0.00 1.62 0.00 83.40 0.00 0.50

8/11/07 7:00 873 399.78 0.12 0.00 1.65 0.00 83.21 0.00 0.51

8/11/07 8:00 865 399.77 0.12 0.01 1.62 0.00 83.46 0.00 0.50

8/11/07 9:00 845 399.74 0.12 0.01 1.64 0.00 83.09 0.00 0.50

8/11/07 10:00 884 399.71 0.09 0.01 1.68 0.00 84.28 0.00 0.51

8/11/07 11:00 904 399.69 0.09 0.01 1.70 0.00 84.22 0.00 0.49

8/11/07 12:00 860 399.67 0.11 0.00 1.52 0.00 84.66 0.00 0.48

8/11/07 13:00 858 399.65 0.14 0.00 1.65 0.00 82.92 0.00 0.50

8/11/07 14:00 872 399.63 0.13 0.00 1.72 0.00 82.64 0.00 0.49

8/11/07 15:00 893 399.63 0.10 0.00 1.70 0.00 84.11 0.00 0.49

8/11/07 16:00 866 399.62 0.09 0.01 1.70 0.00 84.20 0.00 0.51

8/11/07 17:00 891 399.60 0.10 0.01 1.71 0.00 83.85 0.00 0.45

8/11/07 18:00 888 399.63 0.09 0.00 1.71 0.00 84.20 0.00 0.49

8/11/07 19:00 906 399.66 0.09 0.00 1.72 0.00 83.79 0.00 0.51

8/11/07 20:00 895 399.69 0.10 0.01 1.66 0.00 84.23 0.00 0.50

8/11/07 21:00 922 399.70 0.10 0.00 1.67 0.00 84.03 0.00 0.53

8/11/07 22:00 934 399.70 0.11 0.00 1.57 0.00 83.67 0.00 0.49

8/11/07 23:00 915 399.73 0.11 0.00 1.61 0.00 82.82 0.00 0.51

8/12/07 0:00

# F-7 Table F-2. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for the Temporary Flare (continued)

Date Methane

16.04

mole % Carbon

Monoxide

28.00

mole % Propane

44.09

mole % Isobutane

58.12

mole % Hydrogen

Sulfide

34.00

mole % Butane

58.12

mole % 1-Butene/

Isobutylene

56.10

mole % Trans - 2 -

Butene

56.10

mole % Cis - 2 -

Butene

56.10

mole %

8/9/07 0:00 6.84 0.00 2.68 1.33 0.00 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 1:00 6.90 0.01 2.70 1.35 0.00 1.19 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 2:00 6.64 0.01 2.71 1.34 0.00 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 3:00 5.63 0.00 2.64 1.30 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 4:00 6.70 0.01 2.65 1.33 0.00 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 5:00 7.20 0.00 2.67 1.32 0.00 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 6:00 7.13 0.00 2.62 1.29 0.00 1.14 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 7:00 7.20 0.00 2.68 1.32 0.00 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 8:00 7.12 0.01 2.71 1.35 0.00 1.20 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 9:00 7.23 0.01 2.68 1.35 0.00 1.20 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 10:00 7.29 0.01 2.80 1.43 0.00 1.29 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 11:00 7.25 0.00 2.72 1.37 0.00 1.23 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 12:00 7.19 0.01 2.74 1.39 0.00 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 13:00 7.17 0.00 2.75 1.40 0.00 1.28 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 14:00 7.17 0.00 2.69 1.33 0.00 1.20 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 15:00 7.19 0.00 2.67 1.31 0.00 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 16:00 7.17 0.00 2.63 1.28 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 17:00 8.77 0.00 3.19 1.53 0.00 1.36 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 18:00 8.38 0.00 3.06 1.47 0.00 1.29 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 19:00 8.12 0.00 2.96 1.42 0.00 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 20:00 8.04 0.00 2.90 1.37 0.00 1.21 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 21:00 7.96 0.00 2.80 1.31 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 22:00 7.91 0.00 2.79 1.29 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/9/07 23:00 7.87 0.00 2.75 1.26 0.00 1.13 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 0:00 7.77 0.00 2.70 1.24 0.00 1.12 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 1:00 7.69 0.00 2.72 1.26 0.00 1.13 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 2:00 7.65 0.00 2.63 1.19 0.00 1.07 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 3:00 7.53 0.00 2.71 1.27 0.00 1.15 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 4:00 7.51 0.00 2.65 1.24 0.00 1.12 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 5:00 7.56 0.01 2.65 1.21 0.00 1.09 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 6:00 7.52 0.00 2.56 1.15 0.00 1.01 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 7:00 7.43 0.00 2.58 1.17 0.00 1.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 8:00 7.49 0.01 2.60 1.17 0.00 1.03 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 9:00 7.45 0.00 2.60 1.17 0.00 1.03 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 10:00 7.41 0.00 2.59 1.22 0.00 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 11:00 7.40 0.00 2.60 1.21 0.00 1.14 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 12:00 7.30 0.00 2.61 1.20 0.00 1.10 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 13:00 7.38 0.01 2.61 1.19 0.00 1.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 14:00 7.31 0.00 2.51 1.14 0.00 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 15:00 7.10 0.01 2.52 1.19 0.00 1.01 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 16:00 7.10 0.00 2.39 1.09 0.00 0.92 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 17:00 7.05 0.00 2.44 1.11 0.00 0.94 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 18:00 6.70 0.01 2.32 1.05 0.00 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 19:00 7.48 0.00 2.30 1.04 0.00 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 20:00 7.38 0.00 2.26 1.04 0.00 0.86 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 21:00 8.14 0.00 2.40 1.10 0.00 0.91 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 22:00 9.37 0.00 2.98 1.37 0.00 1.13 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/10/07 23:00 8.48 0.00 2.54 1.15 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 0:00 9.55 0.00 2.32 1.05 0.00 0.81 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 1:00 10.80 0.00 2.29 1.06 0.00 0.83 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 2:00 9.37 0.00 2.40 1.13 0.00 0.89 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 3:00 9.18 0.00 2.32 1.07 0.00 0.83 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 4:00 9.98 0.00 2.26 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 5:00 9.60 0.00 2.26 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 6:00 10.39 0.00 2.16 1.01 0.00 0.78 0.01 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 7:00 10.44 0.00 2.20 1.04 0.00 0.81 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 8:00 10.22 0.00 2.19 1.04 0.00 0.81 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 9:00 10.48 0.00 2.23 1.07 0.00 0.84 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 10:00 9.11 0.00 2.32 1.11 0.00 0.89 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 11:00 9.22 0.00 2.31 1.08 0.00 0.86 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 12:00 9.40 0.00 2.07 0.98 0.00 0.77 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 13:00 10.64 0.00 2.21 1.07 0.00 0.85 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 14:00 10.84 0.00 2.26 1.06 0.00 0.84 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 15:00 9.36 0.00 2.28 1.08 0.00 0.85 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 16:00 9.12 0.00 2.32 1.13 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 17:00 9.60 0.00 2.30 1.10 0.00 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 18:00 9.21 0.00 2.30 1.10 0.00 0.86 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 19:00 8.80 0.01 2.34 1.14 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 20:00 9.23 0.00 2.27 1.11 0.00 0.87 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 21:00 9.32 0.00 2.28 1.14 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 22:00 10.23 0.00 2.11 1.02 0.00 0.78 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/11/07 23:00 10.81 0.00 2.18 1.09 0.00 0.85 0.02 0.00 0.00

8/12/07 0:00

# F-8 Table F-2. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Monitoring Data and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for the Temporary Flare (continued)

Date 1,3 Butadiene

54.09

mole % Water

18.00

mole % Total C5+

mole % Propylene

42.08

mole % GC Calculated

Net Heating

Value

btu/scf GC Calculated

Molecular

Weight

mole % Backout MW

of C5+ Temp Flare

VOC entering

(C3+),

lb/hr Total C3+ in

gas to temp

flare,

mole % Predicted Temp

Flare Emissions @

99.8%,

lb/hr

8/9/07 0:00 0.00 0.00 4.24 0.00 600.69 9.69 79.48 13634.34 9.45 27.269

8/9/07 1:00 0.00 0.00 4.25 0.00 602.53 9.77 79.70 13733.34 9.50 27.467

8/9/07 2:00 0.00 0.00 4.12 0.00 596.16 9.62 79.76 14054.57 9.37 28.109

8/9/07 3:00 0.00 0.00 4.10 0.00 585.10 9.32 79.69 13788.20 9.20 27.576

8/9/07 4:00 0.00 0.01 4.26 0.00 599.33 9.67 79.42 13699.11 9.45 27.398

8/9/07 5:00 0.00 0.00 4.08 0.00 597.29 9.60 80.06 13669.52 9.27 27.339

8/9/07 6:00 0.00 0.00 3.94 0.00 588.28 9.43 79.84 13147.60 9.00 26.295

8/9/07 7:00 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 592.59 9.53 79.62 13711.33 9.14 27.423

8/9/07 8:00 0.00 0.00 4.26 0.00 604.76 9.83 79.86 13779.02 9.54 27.558

8/9/07 9:00 0.00 0.00 4.32 0.00 606.10 9.83 79.12 13816.72 9.57 27.633

8/9/07 10:00 0.00 0.00 4.68 0.00 626.99 10.34 79.51 14500.75 10.23 29.002

8/9/07 11:00 0.00 0.00 4.70 0.00 622.32 10.24 79.83 14592.13 10.03 29.184

8/9/07 12:00 0.00 0.00 4.85 0.00 628.22 10.37 79.53 14685.38 10.25 29.371

8/9/07 13:00 0.00 0.00 5.10 0.00 637.42 10.61 79.75 15158.54 10.55 30.317

8/9/07 14:00 0.00 0.00 4.89 0.00 626.57 10.34 79.84 15058.35 10.14 30.117

8/9/07 15:00 0.00 0.00 4.84 0.00 622.70 10.15 79.55 14623.02 10.00 29.246

8/9/07 16:00 0.00 0.00 4.87 0.00 623.06 9.93 79.44 14781.59 9.95 29.563

8/9/07 17:00 0.00 0.00 5.02 0.00 668.02 10.90 79.56 15058.79 11.13 30.118

8/9/07 18:00 0.00 0.00 4.76 0.00 649.23 10.56 79.57 13437.19 10.62 26.874

8/9/07 19:00 0.00 0.00 4.61 0.00 635.33 10.42 79.55 13003.47 10.28 26.007

8/9/07 20:00 0.00 0.00 4.41 0.00 624.03 10.16 79.63 12613.40 9.91 25.227

8/9/07 21:00 0.00 0.00 4.21 0.00 611.02 9.87 79.68 12202.25 9.50 24.404

8/9/07 22:00 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.00 609.23 9.83 79.63 11951.33 9.45 23.903

8/9/07 23:00 0.00 0.00 4.12 0.00 603.06 9.72 79.73 12004.79 9.28 24.010

8/10/07 0:00 0.00 0.00 4.09 0.00 599.36 9.62 79.65 11576.75 9.17 23.154

8/10/07 1:00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00 603.41 9.71 79.59 11866.71 9.32 23.733

8/10/07 2:00 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 588.97 9.39 79.46 11408.33 8.86 22.817

8/10/07 3:00 0.00 0.01 4.26 0.00 604.79 9.75 79.31 11970.79 9.42 23.942

8/10/07 4:00 0.00 0.00 4.38 0.00 605.65 9.75 79.60 12217.92 9.41 24.436

8/10/07 5:00 0.00 0.00 4.22 0.00 599.50 9.60 79.77 11933.67 9.19 23.867

8/10/07 6:00 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.00 586.69 9.34 79.65 11737.86 8.79 23.476

8/10/07 7:00 0.00 0.00 4.12 0.00 589.97 9.41 79.42 11719.11 8.93 23.438

8/10/07 8:00 0.00 0.00 4.23 0.00 595.04 9.52 79.65 11909.11 9.06 23.818

8/10/07 9:00 0.00 0.00 4.37 0.01 599.43 9.59 79.41 11932.13 9.20 23.864

8/10/07 10:00 0.00 0.00 4.47 0.00 606.25 9.82 79.43 12150.22 9.47 24.300

8/10/07 11:00 0.00 0.00 4.54 0.00 608.52 9.84 79.72 12336.44 9.51 24.673

8/10/07 12:00 0.00 0.00 4.66 0.00 609.16 9.93 79.30 12216.12 9.58 24.432

8/10/07 13:00 0.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 611.31 9.94 79.53 12280.00 9.59 24.560

8/10/07 14:00 0.00 0.00 4.66 0.00 603.25 9.64 79.51 12056.96 9.31 24.114

8/10/07 15:00 0.00 0.00 5.09 0.00 619.10 10.01 79.68 12658.87 9.83 25.318

8/10/07 16:00 0.00 0.00 4.30 0.00 583.67 9.21 79.88 11415.38 8.72 22.831

8/10/07 17:00 0.00 0.00 4.10 0.00 579.25 9.09 79.54 11039.97 8.60 22.080

8/10/07 18:00 0.00 0.00 4.61 0.00 587.43 9.28 79.72 11964.93 8.88 23.930

8/10/07 19:00 0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 586.48 9.26 79.90 11628.43 8.69 23.257

8/10/07 20:00 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 583.12 9.11 79.37 11528.61 8.61 23.057

8/10/07 21:00 0.00 0.00 4.53 0.00 600.05 9.37 79.56 11822.29 8.96 23.645

8/10/07 22:00 0.00 0.00 4.92 0.00 651.65 10.49 79.47 14114.37 10.42 28.229

8/10/07 23:00 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.00 590.73 9.17 79.76 12081.26 8.65 24.163

8/11/07 0:00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.00 498.82 7.17 80.80 7036.56 5.68 14.073

8/11/07 1:00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 473.47 6.63 83.90 5250.22 4.72 10.500

8/11/07 2:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 453.51 6.15 4734.53 4.44 9.469

8/11/07 3:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 446.68 6.00 4699.65 4.24 9.399

8/11/07 4:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 449.54 6.08 4692.85 4.16 9.386

8/11/07 5:00 0.00 0.01 0.00 447.17 6.02 4641.26 4.16 9.283

8/11/07 6:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 446.88 6.02 4544.65 3.97 9.089

8/11/07 7:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.29 6.10 4729.29 4.07 9.459

8/11/07 8:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 448.62 6.06 4681.49 4.06 9.363

8/11/07 9:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 452.83 6.15 4688.32 4.16 9.377

8/11/07 10:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 449.37 6.06 5118.76 4.34 10.238

8/11/07 11:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 448.04 6.02 5148.18 4.27 10.296

8/11/07 12:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 436.98 5.80 4388.33 3.82 8.777

8/11/07 13:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 453.72 6.18 4765.48 4.16 9.531

8/11/07 14:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 456.81 6.24 4860.99 4.18 9.722

8/11/07 15:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 448.41 6.02 5047.32 4.24 10.095

8/11/07 16:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.82 6.06 5057.53 4.37 10.115

8/11/07 17:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 451.43 6.08 5095.85 4.29 10.192

8/11/07 18:00 0.00 0.01 0.00 448.35 6.03 5073.14 4.28 10.146

8/11/07 19:00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 469.25 6.51 71.32 6500.60 5.09 13.001

8/11/07 20:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 448.31 6.03 5101.59 4.27 10.203

8/11/07 21:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.84 6.10 5362.94 4.34 10.726

8/11/07 22:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 445.16 5.98 4898.64 3.93 9.797

8/11/07 23:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 454.19 6.18 5066.32 4.14 10.133

8/12/07 0:00

# F-9 Table F-3. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Data for the ULC Flare and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for Both the Temporary and ULC Flares

Date Flare Low Range

Flow

mscfh Flare High

Range Flow

mscfh Flare Gas

Carbon Dioxide

44.00

mole % Flare Gas

Ethylene

28.05

mole % Flare Gas

Ethane

30.07

mole % Flare Gas

Acetylene

26.04

mole % Flare Gas

Hydrogen

2.00

mole % Flare Gas

Oxygen

16.00

mole % Flare Gas

Nitrogen

28.00

mole % Flare Gas

Methane

16.04

mole % Flare Gas

Carbon

Monoxide

28.00

mole % Flare Gas

Propane

44.09

mole % Flare Gas

Isobutane

58.12

mole %

8/9/07 0:00 56.03 0.00 0.80 0.03 2.26 0.00 13.30 0.17 34.95 46.75 0.00 0.52 0.13

8/9/07 1:00 56.05 0.00 0.78 0.03 2.18 0.00 13.29 0.17 35.06 46.82 0.00 0.52 0.13

8/9/07 2:00 55.99 0.00 0.80 0.03 2.16 0.00 13.28 0.17 35.09 46.82 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/9/07 3:00 56.95 0.00 0.78 0.03 2.30 0.00 13.29 0.18 35.38 46.40 0.00 0.52 0.13

8/9/07 4:00 55.27 0.00 0.78 0.04 2.19 0.00 13.54 0.18 35.42 46.23 0.00 0.53 0.13

8/9/07 5:00 55.51 0.00 0.78 0.03 2.27 0.00 13.69 0.18 35.68 45.68 0.00 0.55 0.15

8/9/07 6:00 57.05 0.00 0.78 0.03 1.89 0.00 13.64 0.18 35.99 45.73 0.00 0.55 0.16

8/9/07 7:00 60.09 0.00 0.75 0.03 1.57 0.00 14.14 0.17 37.80 43.47 0.00 0.64 0.21

8/9/07 8:00 63.23 0.00 0.63 0.31 2.01 0.00 18.49 0.17 37.04 38.25 0.00 1.13 0.33

8/9/07 8:50

8/9/07 9:00 58.17 0.00 0.71 0.18 2.31 0.00 15.35 0.18 36.07 42.90 0.00 0.86 0.22

8/9/07 9:01

8/9/07 9:15

8/9/07 9:29

8/9/07 9:43

8/9/07 9:57

8/9/07 10:00 56.89 0.00 0.79 0.06 2.16 0.00 13.59 0.16 34.92 46.53 0.00 0.56 0.15

8/9/07 10:11

8/9/07 10:27

8/9/07 10:57

8/9/07 11:00 60.85 0.00 0.80 0.05 2.15 0.00 12.96 0.15 34.33 47.79 0.00 0.52 0.15

8/9/07 11:15

8/9/07 12:00 59.88 0.00 0.77 0.04 2.11 0.00 12.85 0.15 34.90 47.36 0.00 0.48 0.15

8/9/07 13:00 63.48 0.00 0.77 0.03 2.05 0.00 12.63 0.14 34.67 47.94 0.00 0.45 0.13

8/9/07 14:00 62.09 0.00 0.80 0.03 2.28 0.00 12.80 0.15 35.20 46.87 0.00 0.51 0.14

8/9/07 14:17

8/9/07 14:53

8/9/07 15:00 140.93 108.07 0.79 0.03 1.86 0.00 10.85 0.16 48.57 35.85 0.00 0.45 0.13

8/9/07 15:11

8/9/07 16:00 78.53 84.72 0.39 0.01 1.07 0.00 58.82 0.09 16.44 22.07 0.00 0.23 0.05

8/9/07 17:00 92.60 11.95 0.77 0.03 2.22 0.00 13.92 0.13 35.43 45.36 0.00 0.55 0.19

8/9/07 18:00 114.76 19.22 0.37 0.01 1.78 0.00 24.89 0.11 44.37 23.18 0.00 1.26 0.46

8/9/07 19:00 74.01 0.00 0.77 0.03 2.36 0.00 12.12 0.15 35.83 46.72 0.00 0.56 0.13

8/9/07 20:00 61.90 0.00 0.71 0.03 2.08 0.00 13.92 0.17 36.92 43.93 0.00 0.59 0.20

8/9/07 21:00 61.66 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.85 0.00 14.46 0.18 39.82 40.98 0.00 0.51 0.15

8/9/07 22:00 60.80 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.97 0.00 14.36 0.18 40.40 40.48 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/9/07 23:00 61.13 0.00 0.65 0.03 1.84 0.00 14.41 0.18 40.44 40.52 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 0:00 60.69 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.91 0.00 14.44 0.18 40.54 40.36 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 1:00 61.22 0.00 0.65 0.03 1.84 0.00 14.40 0.18 40.56 40.50 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 2:00 60.34 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.86 0.00 14.51 0.18 40.68 40.28 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 3:00 59.60 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.90 0.00 14.69 0.18 40.73 40.05 0.00 0.49 0.13

8/10/07 4:00 60.42 0.00 0.67 0.03 1.84 0.00 14.46 0.18 39.93 41.15 0.00 0.48 0.13

8/10/07 5:00 58.93 0.00 0.67 0.03 1.99 0.00 14.47 0.18 40.26 40.65 0.00 0.49 0.13

8/10/07 6:00 58.30 0.00 0.66 0.03 1.86 0.00 14.41 0.18 40.07 41.02 0.00 0.51 0.13

8/10/07 7:00 59.46 0.00 0.67 0.03 1.85 0.00 14.42 0.18 40.14 40.99 0.00 0.49 0.13

8/10/07 8:00 59.26 0.00 0.67 0.03 1.88 0.00 14.41 0.18 39.99 41.13 0.00 0.50 0.13

8/10/07 9:00 65.74 0.00 0.68 0.04 1.89 0.00 14.67 0.16 38.31 41.94 0.00 0.58 0.28

8/10/07 9:51

8/10/07 10:00 60.96 0.00 0.89 0.03 2.26 0.00 12.22 0.15 31.14 49.23 0.00 0.82 0.81

8/10/07 10:12

8/10/07 10:31

8/10/07 10:40

8/10/07 11:00 61.06 0.00 0.70 0.05 1.98 0.00 13.26 0.16 37.21 44.34 0.00 0.58 0.29

8/10/07 11:32

8/10/07 12:00 65.28 0.00 0.66 0.04 1.84 0.00 13.90 0.16 38.23 42.95 0.00 0.53 0.27

8/10/07 12:01

8/10/07 12:29

8/10/07 13:00 67.42 0.00 0.74 0.04 1.98 0.00 12.88 0.08 32.55 46.65 0.00 0.90 1.12

8/10/07 13:11

8/10/07 13:30

8/10/07 13:45

8/10/07 14:00 65.73 0.00 0.89 0.03 2.40 0.00 10.46 0.12 29.53 51.18 0.00 0.87 1.03

8/10/07 15:00 64.00 0.00 0.74 0.03 1.96 0.00 12.48 0.15 36.71 45.44 0.00 0.51 0.26

8/10/07 15:23

8/10/07 15:42

8/10/07 16:00 63.73 0.00 0.75 0.03 1.95 0.00 13.20 0.15 36.33 44.79 0.00 0.58 0.30

8/10/07 16:01

8/10/07 16:28

8/10/07 17:00 66.57 0.00 0.71 0.03 2.05 0.00 13.54 0.15 38.01 43.12 0.00 0.52 0.22

8/10/07 18:00 103.42 95.26 0.75 0.03 1.83 0.00 13.31 0.15 35.89 45.09 0.00 0.63 0.43

8/10/07 19:00 200.00 324.07 1.23 0.01 3.09 0.00 7.42 0.03 11.68 73.86 0.00 0.83 0.47

8/10/07 20:00 200.00 510.32 1.39 0.00 2.99 0.00 5.53 0.03 11.63 77.53 0.00 0.47 0.07

8/10/07 21:00 200.00 379.32 1.07 0.00 2.65 0.00 31.40 0.01 4.52 59.56 0.00 0.36 0.04

8/10/07 22:00 200.00 252.55 1.46 0.00 3.01 0.00 3.12 0.09 7.76 83.62 0.00 0.52 0.08

8/10/07 23:00 200.00 248.81 1.15 0.00 2.10 0.00 9.89 0.14 18.19 66.39 0.00 0.84 0.20

8/11/07 0:00 200.00 297.89 1.41 0.00 3.52 0.00 3.19 0.03 7.43 83.42 0.00 0.65 0.09

8/11/07 1:00 200.00 295.31 1.39 0.00 2.53 0.00 2.93 0.03 6.89 85.59 0.00 0.31 0.06

8/11/07 2:00 200.00 291.31 1.54 0.00 2.41 0.00 2.88 0.03 7.07 85.61 0.00 0.23 0.05

8/11/07 3:00 200.00 289.26 1.48 0.00 3.36 0.00 2.83 0.03 7.12 84.67 0.00 0.30 0.04

8/11/07 4:00 200.00 288.73 1.40 0.00 3.14 0.00 3.01 0.04 7.57 84.21 0.00 0.38 0.05

8/11/07 5:00 200.00 288.62 1.52 0.00 4.07 0.00 2.96 0.04 7.13 83.51 0.00 0.43 0.05

8/11/07 6:00 200.00 294.17 1.42 0.00 2.73 0.00 2.88 0.05 7.20 85.13 0.00 0.31 0.05

8/11/07 7:00 200.00 161.04 1.47 0.00 3.38 0.00 3.50 0.14 9.36 81.52 0.00 0.29 0.05

8/11/07 8:00 200.00 140.40 1.35 0.00 3.32 0.00 4.38 0.15 11.46 78.52 0.00 0.37 0.06

8/11/07 9:00 200.00 140.82 1.40 0.00 2.70 0.00 4.27 0.15 11.44 79.29 0.00 0.34 0.06

8/11/07 10:00 200.00 144.40 1.34 0.00 3.39 0.00 4.78 0.15 12.38 76.77 0.00 0.43 0.15

8/11/07 11:00 200.00 142.48 1.34 0.00 2.63 0.00 4.27 0.15 11.38 78.68 0.00 0.41 0.26

8/11/07 11:30

8/11/07 11:40

8/11/07 12:00 178.32 72.47 1.33 0.00 2.83 0.00 4.86 0.15 13.40 76.26 0.00 0.36 0.13

8/11/07 12:21

8/11/07 12:53

8/11/07 13:00 152.50 33.91 1.19 0.00 3.22 0.00 6.34 0.08 17.96 69.38 0.00 0.46 0.20

8/11/07 13:12

8/11/07 13:32

8/11/07 14:00 153.68 32.83 1.21 0.00 2.38 0.00 6.13 0.15 17.56 71.18 0.00 0.35 0.09

8/11/07 15:00 154.48 30.11 1.27 0.00 2.80 0.00 6.33 0.15 17.22 71.00 0.00 0.32 0.08

8/11/07 16:00 153.64 29.19 1.23 0.00 2.69 0.00 6.34 0.15 17.14 71.22 0.00 0.33 0.08

8/11/07 17:00 160.91 43.12 1.28 0.00 2.62 0.00 6.30 0.15 17.11 71.31 0.00 0.38 0.08

8/11/07 17:21

8/11/07 17:46

8/11/07 18:00 178.30 69.54 1.28 0.00 3.58 0.00 5.39 0.15 14.79 73.70 0.00 0.39 0.07

8/11/07 19:00 174.11 70.88 1.27 0.00 2.61 0.00 5.30 0.15 14.45 75.10 0.00 0.38 0.08

8/11/07 20:00 173.40 72.06 1.35 0.00 3.11 0.00 5.48 0.15 14.74 74.06 0.00 0.43 0.10

8/11/07 21:00 173.62 70.97 1.31 0.00 3.35 0.00 5.33 0.15 14.27 73.96 0.00 0.52 0.18

8/11/07 22:00 195.08 133.80 1.34 0.00 2.90 0.00 4.80 0.15 13.01 76.39 0.00 0.44 0.16

8/11/07 23:00 200.00 149.47 1.41 0.00 3.37 0.00 4.13 0.14 10.84 79.13 0.00 0.43 0.08

8/12/07 0:00

# F-10 Table F-3. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Data for the ULC Flare and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for Both the Temporary and ULC Flares (continued)

Date Flare Gas

Hydrogen

Sulfide

34.00

mole % Flare Gas

Butane

58.12

mole % Flare Gas 1-

Butene/

Isobutylene

56.10

mole % Flare Gas Trans

- 2 -Butene

56.10

mole % Flare Gas Cis - 2

-Butene

56.10

mole % Flare Gas 1,3

Butadiene

54.09

mole % Flare Gas Water

18.00

mole % Flare Gas Total

C5+

mole % Flare Gas

Propylene

42.08

mole % Flare ULC NHV

hourly avg

Btu/scf Flare Gas GC

Calcd

Molecular

Weight

MW Backout MW of

C5+ ULC Flare VOC

entering (C3+),

lb/hr

8/9/07 0:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.03 542.33 19.77 84.51 168.82

8/9/07 1:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.03 540.49 19.74 86.19 163.04

8/9/07 2:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.03 539.00 19.72 84.63 158.53

8/9/07 3:00 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.03 536.08 19.72 80.31 153.57

8/9/07 4:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.03 534.50 19.72 87.55 155.19

8/9/07 5:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.03 532.91 19.76 83.63 160.12

8/9/07 6:00 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.03 523.52 19.78 83.42 169.89

8/9/07 7:00 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.03 512.85 20.07 90.55 219.24

8/9/07 8:00 0.09 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.19 0.08 522.19 19.77 83.57 310.27

8/9/07 8:50

8/9/07 9:00 0.06 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.05 537.29 19.77 81.60 212.03

8/9/07 9:01

8/9/07 9:15

8/9/07 9:29

8/9/07 9:43

8/9/07 9:57

8/9/07 10:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.03 544.07 19.77 90.41 180.77

8/9/07 10:11

8/9/07 10:27

8/9/07 10:57

8/9/07 11:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.03 548.70 19.77 86.62 189.97

8/9/07 11:15

8/9/07 12:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 550.74 19.81 78.58 182.87

8/9/07 13:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.03 549.74 19.90 90.14 209.02

8/9/07 14:00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.03 536.49 19.90 78.66 193.82

8/9/07 14:17

8/9/07 14:53

8/9/07 15:00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.03 423.18 21.73 76.45 450.87

8/9/07 15:11

8/9/07 16:00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 433.45 10.52 68.98 154.36

8/9/07 17:00 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.03 521.67 19.84 75.14 321.65

8/9/07 18:00 0.02 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.97 0.02 499.23 20.91 80.94 1072.23

8/9/07 19:00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.04 523.63 20.18 81.82 257.51

8/9/07 20:00 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.04 523.67 20.07 79.56 229.06

8/9/07 21:00 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.03 496.21 20.25 83.07 215.98

8/9/07 22:00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.03 490.48 20.25 79.48 194.61

8/9/07 23:00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.03 489.03 20.25 81.51 200.53

8/10/07 0:00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.03 487.70 20.30 85.83 201.46

8/10/07 1:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.03 486.25 20.30 88.13 203.94

8/10/07 2:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.03 483.64 20.30 89.21 198.40

8/10/07 3:00 0.07 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.03 485.11 20.23 85.47 185.98

8/10/07 4:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.03 489.27 20.23 94.56 199.21

8/10/07 5:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.03 488.89 20.23 87.42 184.99

8/10/07 6:00 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.03 488.28 20.17 85.47 180.52

8/10/07 7:00 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.03 487.31 20.13 83.19 175.49

8/10/07 8:00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.03 489.09 20.13 85.76 175.58

8/10/07 9:00 0.13 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.03 560.06 20.15 82.47 251.35

8/10/07 9:51

8/10/07 10:00 0.25 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.03 586.22 20.59 83.21 408.71

8/10/07 10:12

8/10/07 10:31

8/10/07 10:40

8/10/07 11:00 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.03 532.18 20.32 89.52 249.16

8/10/07 11:32

8/10/07 12:00 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.03 536.75 20.27 87.18 256.75

8/10/07 12:01

8/10/07 12:29

8/10/07 13:00 0.29 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 0.03 648.02 20.99 79.32 551.11

8/10/07 13:11

8/10/07 13:30

8/10/07 13:45

8/10/07 14:00 0.39 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 0.07 650.25 21.35 84.51 587.68

8/10/07 15:00 0.11 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.03 554.91 20.60 94.73 303.72

8/10/07 15:23

8/10/07 15:42

8/10/07 16:00 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.03 541.23 20.58 93.17 329.81

8/10/07 16:01

8/10/07 16:28

8/10/07 17:00 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.03 529.02 20.49 90.43 294.47

8/10/07 18:00 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.03 636.82 20.36 81.76 506.18

8/10/07 19:00 0.25 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.01 790.81 18.29 78.46 1250.98

8/10/07 20:00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.01 736.32 17.80 73.80 635.06

8/10/07 21:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 738.49 13.22 86.89 499.37

8/10/07 22:00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 810.50 17.70 70.60 326.23

8/10/07 23:00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.01 777.09 18.44 84.33 877.41

8/11/07 0:00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 803.49 17.84 127.38 493.63

8/11/07 1:00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 830.92 17.51 106.90 319.70

8/11/07 2:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 830.32 17.45 83.26 207.62

8/11/07 3:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 830.80 17.63 101.96 249.72

8/11/07 4:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 835.34 17.63 99.53 282.75

8/11/07 5:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 837.45 17.86 114.73 391.30

8/11/07 6:00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 825.47 17.65 139.41 362.80

8/11/07 7:00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 806.57 17.86 97.83 211.26

8/11/07 8:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 790.31 18.13 122.09 321.32

8/11/07 9:00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 783.80 17.95 96.41 255.14

8/11/07 10:00 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 793.38 18.22 80.45 365.74

8/11/07 11:00 0.14 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 793.05 18.33 92.14 520.92

8/11/07 11:30

8/11/07 11:40

8/11/07 12:00 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 766.06 18.35 98.52 367.29

8/11/07 12:21

8/11/07 12:53

8/11/07 13:00 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 738.90 18.84 72.91 393.43

8/11/07 13:12

8/11/07 13:32

8/11/07 14:00 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 730.11 18.77 105.87 404.12

8/11/07 15:00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 734.75 18.77 110.75 407.77

8/11/07 16:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.01 734.99 18.63 97.22 365.91

8/11/07 17:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 746.06 18.52 80.43 333.82

8/11/07 17:21

8/11/07 17:46

8/11/07 18:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 759.87 18.52 94.40 366.10

8/11/07 19:00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 760.14 18.27 81.41 320.48

8/11/07 20:00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 766.90 18.32 73.05 296.79

8/11/07 21:00 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 776.91 18.58 81.26 449.59

8/11/07 22:00 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 791.37 18.38 84.94 456.21

8/11/07 23:00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 797.24 18.17 112.10 365.62

8/12/07 0:00

# F-11 Table F-3. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Data for the ULC Flare and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for Both the Temporary and ULC Flares (continued)

Date Total HC entering ULC

flare, lb/hr Total flare gas mass,

lb/hr Approx. steam

addition rate, lb/hr Steam-to-HC ratio,

lb/lb Steam-to-total flare

gas, lb/lb Downwind DIAL

Emissions Data Both

Flares C3+ (lb/hr) DIAL Temp Flare Only Windspeed, m/s Temp Flare VOC

entering (C3+) (From

Table F-2),

lb/hr Combined VOC from

Temp Flare and ULC

Flare (C3+),

lb/hr

8/9/07 0:00 1378.59 2918.15 20000 14.5 6.9 13,634 13,803

8/9/07 1:00 1371.81 2914.31 20000 14.6 6.9 13,733 13,896

8/9/07 2:00 1364.96 2907.30 20000 14.7 6.9 14,055 14,213

8/9/07 3:00 1377.09 2958.74 20000 14.5 6.8 13,788 13,942

8/9/07 4:00 1334.12 2870.84 20000 15.0 7.0 13,699 13,854

8/9/07 5:00 1334.32 2889.42 20000 15.0 6.9 13,670 13,830

8/9/07 6:00 1360.67 2972.51 20000 14.7 6.7 13,148 13,317

8/9/07 7:00 1400.98 3182.72 20000 14.3 6.3 13,711 13,931

8/9/07 8:00 1449.35 3318.86 20000 13.8 6.0 13,779 14,089

8/9/07 8:50 76

8/9/07 9:00 1382.54 3046.29 20000 14.5 6.6 13,817 14,029

8/9/07 9:01 100 1.8

8/9/07 9:15 127 1.8

8/9/07 9:29 129 1.5

8/9/07 9:43 50 1.2

8/9/07 9:57 56 0.6

8/9/07 10:00 1400.91 2964.31 20000 14.3 6.7 14,501 14,682

8/9/07 10:11 243 1.7

8/9/07 10:27 164 1.3

8/9/07 10:57 43 1.3

8/9/07 11:00 1526.83 3170.32 20000 13.1 6.3 14,592 14,782

8/9/07 11:15 374 3

8/9/07 12:00 1485.03 3122.82 20000 13.5 6.4 14,685 14,868

8/9/07 13:00 1601.30 3324.00 20000 12.5 6.0 15,159 15,368

8/9/07 14:00 1539.16 3255.41 20000 13.0 6.1 15,058 15,252

8/9/07 14:17 126 4.1

8/9/07 14:53 243 4.4

8/9/07 15:00 2799.30 8073.26 20000 7.1 2.5 14,623 15,074

8/9/07 15:11 181 4.4

8/9/07 16:00 1018.16 2111.33 20000 19.6 9.5 14,782 14,936

8/9/07 17:00 2264.13 4839.83 20000 8.8 4.1 15,059 15,380

8/9/07 18:00 2361.58 6348.69 20000 8.5 3.2 13,437 14,509

8/9/07 19:00 1860.81 3941.31 20000 10.7 5.1 13,003 13,261

8/9/07 20:00 1483.56 3275.20 20000 13.5 6.1 12,613 12,842

8/9/07 21:00 1376.87 3284.49 20000 14.5 6.1 12,202 12,418

8/9/07 22:00 1332.30 3238.23 20000 15.0 6.2 11,951 12,146

8/9/07 23:00 1339.27 3256.01 20000 14.9 6.1 12,005 12,205

8/10/07 0:00 1331.36 3239.99 20000 15.0 6.2 11,577 11,778

8/10/07 1:00 1343.78 3268.20 20000 14.9 6.1 11,867 12,071

8/10/07 2:00 1317.23 3220.35 20000 15.2 6.2 11,408 11,607

8/10/07 3:00 1287.08 3168.42 20000 15.5 6.3 11,971 12,157

8/10/07 4:00 1340.50 3211.67 20000 14.9 6.2 12,218 12,417

8/10/07 5:00 1292.87 3133.77 20000 15.5 6.4 11,934 12,119

8/10/07 6:00 1279.81 3092.57 20000 15.6 6.5 11,738 11,918

8/10/07 7:00 1295.25 3146.26 20000 15.4 6.4 11,719 11,895

8/10/07 8:00 1296.69 3136.30 20000 15.4 6.4 11,909 12,085

8/10/07 9:00 1518.54 3488.09 20000 13.2 5.7 11,932 12,183

8/10/07 9:51 567 3.8

8/10/07 10:00 1789.76 3330.75 20000 11.2 6.0 12,150 12,559

8/10/07 10:12 159 2.7

8/10/07 10:31 172 3.1

8/10/07 10:40 190 3.1

8/10/07 11:00 1492.96 3271.94 20000 13.4 6.1 12,336 12,586

8/10/07 11:32 142 3

8/10/07 12:00 1540.67 3484.97 20000 13.0 5.7 12,216 12,473

8/10/07 12:01 95 2.6

8/10/07 12:29 102 3

8/10/07 13:00 1989.85 3759.39 20000 10.1 5.3 12,280 12,831

8/10/07 13:11 169 3.3

8/10/07 13:30 209 3.2

8/10/07 13:45 24 3.1

8/10/07 14:00 2137.84 3732.59 20000 9.4 5.4 12,057 12,645

8/10/07 15:00 1635.46 3474.09 20000 12.2 5.8 12,659 12,963

8/10/07 15:23 57 2.4

8/10/07 15:42 191 3.2

8/10/07 16:00 1638.28 3460.03 20000 12.2 5.8 11,415 11,745

8/10/07 16:01 36

8/10/07 16:28 80

8/10/07 17:00 1618.89 3592.92 20000 12.4 5.6 11,040 11,334

8/10/07 18:00 2631.66 5560.25 20000 7.6 3.6 11,965 12,471

8/10/07 19:00 12176.38 15825.97 50000 4.1 3.2 11,628 12,879

8/10/07 20:00 18591.76 24095.21 50000 2.7 2.1 11,529 12,164

8/10/07 21:00 10859.98 12756.16 50000 4.6 3.9 11,822 12,322

8/10/07 22:00 9867.49 11906.30 50000 5.1 4.2 14,114 14,441

8/10/07 23:00 8283.21 12216.18 20000 2.4 1.6 12,081 12,959

8/11/07 0:00 11842.52 14197.50 46000 3.9 3.2 7,037 7,530

8/11/07 1:00 11608.67 13705.09 46000 4.0 3.4 5,250 5,570

8/11/07 2:00 11319.91 13446.18 46000 4.1 3.4 4,735 4,942

8/11/07 3:00 11386.12 13508.41 46000 4.0 3.4 4,700 4,949

8/11/07 4:00 11292.66 13508.45 46000 4.1 3.4 4,693 4,976

8/11/07 5:00 11524.85 13703.32 46000 4.0 3.4 4,641 5,033

8/11/07 6:00 11598.90 13760.77 46000 4.0 3.3 4,545 4,907

8/11/07 7:00 7646.93 9458.11 46000 6.0 4.9 4,729 4,941

8/11/07 8:00 7494.51 9607.67 20000 2.7 2.1 4,681 5,003

8/11/07 9:00 7394.35 9505.79 20000 2.7 2.1 4,688 4,943

8/11/07 10:00 7402.07 9667.65 20000 2.7 2.1 5,119 5,484

8/11/07 11:00 7597.17 9722.02 20000 2.6 2.1 5,148 5,669

8/11/07 11:30 301

8/11/07 11:40 311

8/11/07 12:00 6522.77 8662.04 20000 3.1 2.3 15 4,388 4,756

8/11/07 12:21 4

8/11/07 12:53 1

8/11/07 13:00 5260.90 7610.47 20000 3.8 2.6 4,765 5,159

8/11/07 13:12 88

8/11/07 13:32 244

8/11/07 14:00 5323.84 7625.55 20000 3.8 2.6 4,861 5,265

8/11/07 15:00 5393.28 7659.33 20000 3.7 2.6 5,047 5,455

8/11/07 16:00 5325.10 7562.14 20000 3.8 2.6 5,058 5,423

8/11/07 17:00 5524.18 7882.05 20000 3.6 2.5 5,096 5,430

8/11/07 17:21 326

8/11/07 17:46 311

8/11/07 18:00 6433.80 8744.64 20000 3.1 2.3 5,073 5,439

8/11/07 19:00 6215.13 8423.36 20000 3.2 2.4 6,501 6,821

8/11/07 20:00 6158.73 8420.31 20000 3.2 2.4 5,102 5,398

8/11/07 21:00 6345.02 8568.67 20000 3.2 2.3 5,363 5,813

8/11/07 22:00 7211.91 9512.44 20000 2.8 2.1 4,899 5,355

8/11/07 23:00 7597.79 9646.37 20000 2.6 2.1 5,066 5,432

8/12/07 0:00

# F-12 Table F-3. Inlet Gas Flow Rate and Composition Data for the ULC Flare and Estimated Controlled

Emissions for Both the Temporary and ULC Flares (continued)

Date Anticipated C3+ Emissions (assuming 98% reduction), lb/hr Estimated Temp flare C3+ emissions

(assuming 99.8% reduction)

(From Table F-2),

lb/hr Combined C3+ emissions assuming 99.8% reduction in temp flare

and the following reduction in ULC flare, lb/hr

From ULC

flare From Temp

flare From both

flares 50% 90%

8/9/07 0:00 3.376 272.69 276.06 27.27 111.68 44.15

8/9/07 1:00 3.261 274.67 277.93 27.47 108.99 43.77

8/9/07 2:00 3.171 281.09 284.26 28.11 107.38 43.96

8/9/07 3:00 3.071 275.76 278.84 27.58 104.36 42.93

8/9/07 4:00 3.104 273.98 277.09 27.40 104.99 42.92

8/9/07 5:00 3.202 273.39 276.59 27.34 107.40 43.35

8/9/07 6:00 3.398 262.95 266.35 26.30 111.24 43.28

8/9/07 7:00 4.385 274.23 278.61 27.42 137.04 49.35

8/9/07 8:00 6.205 275.58 281.79 27.56 182.70 58.59

8/9/07 8:50

8/9/07 9:00 4.241 276.33 280.58 27.63 133.65 48.84

8/9/07 9:01

8/9/07 9:15

8/9/07 9:29

8/9/07 9:43

8/9/07 9:57

8/9/07 10:00 3.615 290.02 293.63 29.00 119.38 47.08

8/9/07 10:11

8/9/07 10:27

8/9/07 10:57

8/9/07 11:00 3.799 291.84 295.64 29.18 124.17 48.18

8/9/07 11:15

8/9/07 12:00 3.657 293.71 297.37 29.37 120.81 47.66

8/9/07 13:00 4.180 303.17 307.35 30.32 134.83 51.22

8/9/07 14:00 3.876 301.17 305.04 30.12 127.02 49.50

8/9/07 14:17

8/9/07 14:53

8/9/07 15:00 9.017 292.46 301.48 29.25 254.68 74.33

8/9/07 15:11

8/9/07 16:00 3.087 295.63 298.72 29.56 106.74 45.00

8/9/07 17:00 6.433 301.18 307.61 30.12 190.94 62.28

8/9/07 18:00 21.445 268.74 290.19 26.87 562.99 134.10

8/9/07 19:00 5.150 260.07 265.22 26.01 154.76 51.76

8/9/07 20:00 4.581 252.27 256.85 25.23 139.76 48.13

8/9/07 21:00 4.320 244.04 248.36 24.40 132.39 46.00

8/9/07 22:00 3.892 239.03 242.92 23.90 121.21 43.36

8/9/07 23:00 4.011 240.10 244.11 24.01 124.27 44.06

8/10/07 0:00 4.029 231.54 235.56 23.15 123.88 43.30

8/10/07 1:00 4.079 237.33 241.41 23.73 125.70 44.13

8/10/07 2:00 3.968 228.17 232.13 22.82 122.02 42.66

8/10/07 3:00 3.720 239.42 243.14 23.94 116.93 42.54

8/10/07 4:00 3.984 244.36 248.34 24.44 124.04 44.36

8/10/07 5:00 3.700 238.67 242.37 23.87 116.36 42.37

8/10/07 6:00 3.610 234.76 238.37 23.48 113.74 41.53

8/10/07 7:00 3.510 234.38 237.89 23.44 111.18 40.99

8/10/07 8:00 3.512 238.18 241.69 23.82 111.61 41.38

8/10/07 9:00 5.027 238.64 243.67 23.86 149.54 49.00

8/10/07 9:51

8/10/07 10:00 8.174 243.00 251.18 24.30 228.66 65.17

8/10/07 10:12

8/10/07 10:31

8/10/07 10:40

8/10/07 11:00 4.983 246.73 251.71 24.67 149.25 49.59

8/10/07 11:32

8/10/07 12:00 5.135 244.32 249.46 24.43 152.81 50.11

8/10/07 12:01

8/10/07 12:29

8/10/07 13:00 11.022 245.60 256.62 24.56 300.12 79.67

8/10/07 13:11

8/10/07 13:30

8/10/07 13:45

8/10/07 14:00 11.754 241.14 252.89 24.11 317.95 82.88

8/10/07 15:00 6.074 253.18 259.25 25.32 177.18 55.69

8/10/07 15:23

8/10/07 15:42

8/10/07 16:00 6.596 228.31 234.90 22.83 187.73 55.81

8/10/07 16:01

8/10/07 16:28

8/10/07 17:00 5.889 220.80 226.69 22.08 169.31 51.53

8/10/07 18:00 10.124 239.30 249.42 23.93 277.02 74.55

8/10/07 19:00 25.020 232.57 257.59 23.26 648.75 148.35

8/10/07 20:00 12.701 230.57 243.27 23.06 340.59 86.56

8/10/07 21:00 9.987 236.45 246.43 23.64 273.33 73.58

8/10/07 22:00 6.525 282.29 288.81 28.23 191.34 60.85

8/10/07 23:00 17.548 241.63 259.17 24.16 462.87 111.90

8/11/07 0:00 9.873 140.73 150.60 14.07 260.89 63.44

8/11/07 1:00 6.394 105.00 111.40 10.50 170.35 42.47

8/11/07 2:00 4.152 94.69 98.84 9.47 113.28 30.23

8/11/07 3:00 4.994 93.99 98.99 9.40 134.26 34.37

8/11/07 4:00 5.655 93.86 99.51 9.39 150.76 37.66

8/11/07 5:00 7.826 92.83 100.65 9.28 204.93 48.41

8/11/07 6:00 7.256 90.89 98.15 9.09 190.49 45.37

8/11/07 7:00 4.225 94.59 98.81 9.46 115.09 30.58

8/11/07 8:00 6.426 93.63 100.06 9.36 170.02 41.49

8/11/07 9:00 5.103 93.77 98.87 9.38 136.94 34.89

8/11/07 10:00 7.315 102.38 109.69 10.24 193.11 46.81

8/11/07 11:00 10.418 102.96 113.38 10.30 270.76 62.39

8/11/07 11:30

8/11/07 11:40

8/11/07 12:00 7.346 87.77 95.11 8.78 192.42 45.51

8/11/07 12:21

8/11/07 12:53

8/11/07 13:00 7.869 95.31 103.18 9.53 206.25 48.87

8/11/07 13:12

8/11/07 13:32

8/11/07 14:00 8.082 97.22 105.30 9.72 211.78 50.13

8/11/07 15:00 8.155 100.95 109.10 10.09 213.98 50.87

8/11/07 16:00 7.318 101.15 108.47 10.12 193.07 46.71

8/11/07 17:00 6.676 101.92 108.59 10.19 177.10 43.57

8/11/07 17:21

8/11/07 17:46

8/11/07 18:00 7.322 101.46 108.78 10.15 193.20 46.76

8/11/07 19:00 6.410 130.01 136.42 13.00 173.24 45.05

8/11/07 20:00 5.936 102.03 107.97 10.20 158.60 39.88

8/11/07 21:00 8.992 107.26 116.25 10.73 235.52 55.68

8/11/07 22:00 9.124 97.97 107.10 9.80 237.90 55.42

8/11/07 23:00 7.312 101.33 108.64 10.13 192.94 46.69

8/12/07 0:00United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgencyOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsSector Policies and Programs DivisionResearch Triangle Park, NCPublication No. EPA-453/R-10-002November 2010