Performance Test of Steam-Assisted 

and Pressure Assisted Ground Flare Burners 

with Passive FTIR – Garyville 

Final Report

March 21, 2013

Marathon Petroleum Company, LP

Garyville Refinery

4663 West Airline Highway

Garyville, LA 70051

Prepared by

Clean Air Engineering, Inc.

Project No: 12082

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 2

Contents

1.0  Background and Summary....................................................................................................... 4

2.0  Test Program Overview.......................................................................................................... 15

2.1  Objectives of Test Program................................................................................................ 15

2.2  Testing Organization........................................................................................................... 15

2.3  Flare System Components.................................................................................................. 15

2.3.1  Purpose........................................................................................................................ 15

2.3.2  Flare Tips (Garyville Refinery)...................................................................................... 15

2.3.3  Flare Tips (John Zink Test Facility) ............................................................................... 18

2.3.4  Vent Gas and Assist Measurement (John Zink Test Facility)....................................... 19

2.4  Vent Gas Composition........................................................................................................ 21

2.5  Test Series Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 22

2.6  PFTIR Testing Description................................................................................................... 24

2.6.1  PFTIR Locations............................................................................................................ 24

2.6.2  Video Recordings......................................................................................................... 25

2.6.3  Preliminary Results and QA/QC................................................................................... 25

2.6.4  Pilot Test Results.......................................................................................................... 25

2.6.5  Traverse Results........................................................................................................... 26

2.7  Measurements Taken During Test Program ...................................................................... 28

2.7.1  Vent Gas Composition ................................................................................................. 28

2.7.2  Net Heating Value of the Combustion Zone (NHVcz).................................................. 28

2.7.3  Steam to Vent Gas Ratio (S/VG) .................................................................................. 29

2.7.4  Exit Velocity ................................................................................................................. 29

3.0  Test Series VS1 and SN1 (SKEC burners)................................................................................ 30

4.0  Test Series SN2 (Elevated Steam‐Assist Flare Tip)................................................................. 36

5.0  Test Series PA1 and PA2 (LRGO Burners)............................................................................... 38

6.0  Comparisons to Other Steam‐Assisted Flare Tips.................................................................. 40

7.0  Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 46

Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 48

A.1  Data Tables......................................................................................................................... 48

A.2  Process Conditions............................................................................................................. 51

A.2.1 Test Series SN1 ............................................................................................................. 51

A.2.2  Test Series SN2 Nitrogen............................................................................................. 53

A.2.3  Test Series SN2 Steam................................................................................................. 55

A.2.4  Test Series VS1 ............................................................................................................ 57

A.2.5  Test Series PA1 ............................................................................................................ 59

A.2.6  Test Series PA2 ............................................................................................................ 61

A.2.7  Test Series LTS ............................................................................................................. 63

A.3  Calculations........................................................................................................................ 65
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 3

A.3.1  Vent Gas Molecular Weight ........................................................................................ 65

A.3.2  Net Heating Value of Combustion Zone...................................................................... 65

A.3.3  Steam to Vent Gas Ratio (S/VG).................................................................................. 67

A.3.4  Total Hydrocarbons from PFTIR .................................................................................. 67

A.3.5  Flare Combustion Efficiency........................................................................................ 67

A.3.6  Tip Velocity .................................................................................................................. 68

A.3.7  Combustion Efficiency Multiplier................................................................................ 68

A.4  The PFTIR Test Method ‐ Description, Operation, and Analysis........................................ 69

A.4.1  Technology Overview.................................................................................................. 69

A.4.2  PFTIR Calibration Overview......................................................................................... 70

A.4.3  Siting Configuration..................................................................................................... 71

A.4.4  Operation .................................................................................................................... 72

A.4.5  Aiming.......................................................................................................................... 73

A.4.6  Data Reduction............................................................................................................ 75

A.4.7  Interferences............................................................................................................... 79

A.4.8  Data Filtering ............................................................................................................... 79

A.5  PFTIR Theory and Operation.............................................................................................. 80

A.5.1  PFTIR Analytical Method and Procedure .................................................................... 80

A.5.2  From Radiance to Transmission Spectra..................................................................... 81

A.5.3  Determination of Flare Temperature.......................................................................... 82

A.5.4  From Transmission to Absorption Spectra.................................................................. 84

A.6  PFTIR QA/QC ...................................................................................................................... 86

A.6.1  Replicates .................................................................................................................... 86

A.6.2  Simultaneous Runs...................................................................................................... 87

A.6.3  Traverse Results .......................................................................................................... 88

A.6.4  Long Term Stability Test.............................................................................................. 90

A.7  Vent Gas Composition ........................................................................................................... 91

A.8  Personnel Involved with Flare Performance Test.............................................................. 96

A.9  Minute Data of Runs.......................................................................................................... 97

A.10  Video Camera Descriptions.............................................................................................. 98

A.10.1  NEC/Mikron TH5104.................................................................................................. 98

A.10.2  FLIR A320................................................................................................................... 99

A.10.3  Axis Q1755............................................................................................................... 100

A.11  Video of Runs................................................................................................................. 101

A.12 Daily Calibration Data and Spectra ................................................................................. 102

A.13 Background Times and Spectra....................................................................................... 103

A.14  PFTIR Raw Data and Spectra .......................................................................................... 104

A.15  Airtech Gas Chromatography Report............................................................................. 105

A.16  John Zink Test Report..................................................................................................... 106
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 4

1.0  Background and Summary

As required by Paragraph 52 of Marathon Petroleum Company’s Flare Consent Decree (No. 

2:12-cv-11544-DML-MJH) entered on August 30, 2012, Marathon Petroleum Company (MPC) 

conducted performance testing on the Garyville ground flare burners at the John Zink test facility 

in Tulsa, Oklahoma from August 3rd to August 11th, 2012. This test was the third performance 

test on refinery flares by MPC, following the tests in Texas City, TX, in 2009 and Detroit, MI, in 

2010. 

The main objective of the test was to develop an operating envelope for both types of the John 

Zink burners used on the Garyville ground flares. These burners are deployed in multiple stages. 

The first four stages use the steam assist burners (SKEC) and the following stages use the 

pressure assist burners (LRGO). Each stage is triggered by increasing vent gas flow rate. 

Therefore, the LRGO burners only operate during high flow venting scenarios. The performance 

tests were conducted using Passive Fourier Transform Infrared (PFTIR) instruments developed 

by Industrial Monitor and Control Corporation (IMACC). The specific analytical method used 

for these tests is the same method used and validated during testing conducted by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in 2010. This memo summarizes the test results 

and compares them to results from previous flare tests. 

The purpose and major benefit of an assisted flare is to significantly reduce the amount of smoke 

(visible emissions) that would otherwise be created by combustion. The burners tested in this 

program include both steam-assist and pressure-assist. In a typical system, an assist medium such 

as steam is injected into the flare combustion zone to deliver educted air as well as mixing 

energy. Pressure assisted flares rely on increased exit velocity of the flare gas to educt more air 

into the gas. Over-assist is a generic description of an undesirable operating condition possible in 

assisted flare systems. For example, in an over-steaming scenario, the amount of steam and 

educted air introduced into the combustion reaction zone diminishes, rather than promotes, the 

efficiency of the combustion process if introduced in large enough quantities relative to the flare 

gas flow rate. 

The operating envelope of a flare is bounded by excess smoke (too little assist) on one side and 

decreased combustion efficiency resulting in excess emissions of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) (too much assist) on the other. Smoke suppression is easily monitored by visually 

observing whether smoke is present. However, the ability to measure or even identify excess 

emissions caused by over-assisting is a more difficult task. Standard emission estimation 

techniques have generally assumed a 98% combustion efficiency or higher when calculating 

VOC emissions from flares regardless of assist rate. 

Regulatory requirements for flares are contained in 40 CFR §60.18 and §63.11. These 

requirements were developed from a series of flare emissions tests led by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) from 1983 – 1986. The requirements include 

maintaining a flare pilot, operating with a minimum net heating value of 300 BTU/scf in the vent 

gas, operating at exit velocities of less than 60 ft/s (or up to 400 ft/s depending upon the vent gas 

net heating value), and operating with a limited amount of visible emissions. However, a flare 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 5

can be operated in compliance with these requirements and still have low combustion efficiency 

due to over-assisting. 

Prior to the recent refinery tests of flare performance, including the US EPA tests in the mid1980s, flare tests were conducted on pilot-scale test flares or on flares operating at moderate to 

high vent gas loads. However, a flare typically operates at low vent gas loads (i.e. high 

turndown) under normal conditions until a process upset or other operating condition requires the 

operator to flare waste gas. Thus, the flare normally operates at high turndown for the majority of 

the operating year, a condition for which there was little to no available performance data.

In the past, measuring the combustion products from a flare was difficult and dangerous. 

However, recent technological advances have produced remote sensing instruments capable of 

measuring combustion products such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and select 

hydrocarbons without the safety hazards introduced by physically sampling a flare plume. One 

such instrument is the PFTIR, which characterizes a plume’s chemical make-up (carbon dioxide, 

carbon monoxide, and total hydrocarbons) in units of concentration × pathlength. Using this 

technology, the absolute concentration cannot be determined from a flare plume, but the product 

of concentration × pathlength (e.g., ppmv × meters), can be used in combustion efficiency 

calculations. The PFTIR is a relatively new tool and was recently blind-validated against 

extractive sampling results for flare plume testing by TCEQ and the University of Texas in 2010. 

The PFTIR was first used for refinery flare testing at MPC Texas City in 2009. Several accuracy, 

precision, and bias checks were performed during the recent flare tests to better characterize the 

PFTIR measurement technique. 

Because of the practical and logistical difficulties of conducting a test of a ground flare at an 

actual refinery, this test program was carried out on a test cell at the John Zink test facility in 

Tulsa, Oklahoma. Three burners of each type were tested each identical to the burners installed 

at the Garyville facility. 

Figure 1-1: John Zink Test Stand (showing SKEC burners installed). 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 6

Combustion efficiency was measured under several combinations of vent gas composition and 

flare operating parameters. Each of these combinations is referred to as a “test condition” in this 

report. The following test conditions were used during this project. 

Test SN1 SKEC Steam-assist burners. 100% Tulsa natural gas (TNG) 

Objective: To determine the performance curve of the burner at the minimum flow rate. 

Test SN2 Large steam-assisted flare tip. 20/80 TNG/propylene 

Objective: To determine if nitrogen dilution and steam dilution have the same effect on 

combustion efficiency. 

Test VS1 SKEC Steam-assist burners. Velocity Screening Test 

Variable TNG/nitrogen mix 

Objective: To identify the minimum NHVcz needed to maintain a flame over a range of exit 

velocities. 

Test PA1 LRGO Pressure-assist burners. Variable TNG / nitrogen mix. 

Objective: To determine the minimum NHVcz that supports good combustion at sonic velocity. 

Test PA2 LRGO Pressure-assist burners. Variable TNG / nitrogen mix. 

Objective: To determine the minimum NHVcz that supports good combustion at minimum 

velocity. 

The PFTIR performance test conducted on John Zink’s SKEC burners, LRGO burners, and 

elevated steam flare produced valuable insights into the efficiency performance of ground flare 

burners under a variety of conditions. Tests were conducted while flaring gases containing a 

mixture of Tulsa natural gas (TNG), propylene, and nitrogen. For the results presented below, 

relationships between combustion efficiency and other parameters were analyzed: 

 VG Composition – Composition of the gas being sent to the flare tip 

 NHVcz – Net heating value of the combustion zone gas (BTU/scf) 

 S/VG – Actual steam to vent gas ratio (lb steam/lb vent gas) or (scf steam/scf vent gas) 

 Exit Velocity – Velocity of gases exiting the flare tip 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 7

A summary of results from the VS1 and SN1 tests is shown in Figures 1-2 through 1-8 below. 

Figure 1-2: NHVcz vs. CE for SN1 & VS1 (SKEC Burners) 

Figure 1-3: NHVcz vs. CE for SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 8

Figure 1-4: S/VG (lb/lb) vs. CE for SN1 & VS1 (SKEC Burners) 

 Figure 1-5: S/VG (lb/lb) vs. CE for SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 9

Figure 1-6: S/VG (scf/scf) vs. CE for SN1 & VS1 (SKEC Burners) 

 Figure 1-7: S/VG (scf/scf) vs. SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 10

Figure 1-8: Tip Velocity vs. Minimum NHVcz (SKEC Burners) 

A summary of results from the SN2 test is shown in Figure 1-9 through 1-11 below. 

Figure 1-9: NHVcz vs. CE for SN2 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 11

Figure 1-10: S/VG (Mass Basis) vs CE for SN2 

Figure 1-11: S/VG (Volume Basis) vs CE for SN2 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 12

Finally, a summary of results from the PA1 and PA2 tests is shown in Figures 1-12 and 1-13 

below. 

Figure 1-12: NHVcz vs. CE for PA1 & PA2 (LRGO Burners) 

Figure 1-13: Tip Velocity vs. NHVcz for LRGO Burners 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 13

Addition details for each of these tests are found in the Results section within the main body of 

this report. 

Conclusions

The PFTIR test of the SKEC burners, LRGO burners, and elevated steam flare provided data to 

support the following conclusions. 

SKEC Burners

 When TNG is used as fuel, the SKEC burners maintain high combustion efficiency until 

NHVcz falls to less than 300 BTU/scf. This is consistent with past PFTIR studies on 

steam-assisted flare tips. 

 The SKEC burners maintain high combustion efficiency at exit velocity limits higher 

than those established by 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. At velocities greater than 60 ft/sec 

and up to sonic (maximum) velocity, the burner operates efficiently until the NHVcz falls 

to a point where the flame is extinguished. Therefore, the SKEC burners should be 

exempt from the velocity limits established in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. 

 The S/VG does not appear to be a factor for the SKEC tip until the exit velocity falls 

below 60 ft/s. Therefore, when operating at velocities greater than 60 ft/s, an S/VG limit 

should not apply to the SKEC burners. At velocities less than 60 ft/s, a S/VG limit of 3 

lb/lb or 3 scf/scf could be used by the SKEC burners to assure high combustion 

efficiency. 

 The test data suggests that a Combustion Efficiency Multiplier of 6.37 would be required 

to maintain 98% combustion efficiency on the North and South Ground Flares. Paragraph 

46 of MPC’s flare consent decree states that as of June 20, 2017, the North and South 

Ground Flares will be subject to a Combustion Efficiency Multiplier of 7.1. This appears 

to be higher than what is required to maintain 98% combustion efficiency. 

LRGO Burners

 When TNG is used as fuel, the LRGO burners maintain high combustion efficiency until 

the NHVcz falls to a point where the flame is extinguished. Under all conditions tested, 

these burners maintained an average CE equal to or greater than 99%. Under all 

conditions tested, the flame extinguishes at an NHVcz of approximately 550 BTU/scf. 

This test program demonstrated that as long as the LRGO burners are lit, they maintain 

high combustion efficiency. To ensure the LRGO burners are operating at high 

combustion efficiency, the NHVcz of the LRGO burners should be kept above 550 

BTU/scf. This eliminates any need for Combustion Efficiency Multipliers. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 14

 The LRGO burners maintain high combustion efficiency at exit velocities much higher 

than those allowed by 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. The flares operated efficiently at 

velocities up to sonic which would represent the maximum velocity achievable. 

Therefore, the LRGO burners should be exempt from the velocity limits established in 40 

CFR 60.18 and 63.11.

 Elevated Steam-Assist Flare 

 When steam was used as a diluent, combustion efficiency dropped off significantly when 

NHVcz was reduced below about 300 BTU/scf. This is consistent with past PFTIR 

studies on large, elevated steam-assisted flare tips. However, when nitrogen was used as a 

diluent, combustion efficiency did not significantly decline until NHVcz reached about 

200 BTU/scf. The results of this test show a potential difference between the effects of 

steam dilution and nitrogen dilution on flare combustion efficiency. It should be noted 

however, that this data conflicts with other data on nitrogen vs. steam dilution collected 

in previous tests. More study may be needed to resolve this issue. 

Effect of Pilots

 The presence or absence of a pilot does not appear to significantly affect the performance 

of the burners, either positively or negatively. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 15

2.0  Test Program Overview

2.1  Objectives of Test Program

The overall objectives of the Garyville test program were as follows: 

1. Demonstrate that the John Zink LRGO pressure-assisted and SKEC steam-assisted 

burners can achieve compliance with necessary combustion efficiency requirements at 

velocities greater than 400 ft/s. 

2. Determine the minimum NHVcz that will achieve necessary combustion efficiency 

requirements on the LRGO pressure-assisted burners. 

3. Determine the proper steam-assisted operating envelope in terms of NHVcz for the 

SKEC steam-assisted burners. 

2.2  Testing Organization

The test was conducted with the assistance of Clean Air Engineering, Industrial Monitoring and 

Controls Corporation (IMACC), and John Zink. 

Clean Air Engineering IMACC John Zink 

500 W Wood St. 800 Paloma, Suite 100 11920 East Apache 

Palatine, IL 60067 Round Rock, TX 78645 Tulsa, OK 74116 

Because the test required personnel from John Zink’s operations, maintenance, and engineering 

staff, a cross-functional team was formed between IMACC, Clean Air Engineering, John Zink, 

and MPC in order to staff, monitor and record test results. 

2.3  Flare System Components

2.3.1		Purpose

A flare is one of the most important safety devices in use at a refinery. Its purpose is to safely 

combust gases generated by emergency or upset conditions within a process unit. As a result, a 

flare must function over a large and variable range of operating scenarios. These vary from 

typical stand-by operation at minimum flow conditions to efficiently combusting gases generated 

from a full power outage or other process safety relief scenario. 

Like the Texas City and Detroit flare tests, the Garyville test addressed the normal (i.e., high 

turndown) operating range. However, the Garyville test also included some high flow scenarios. 

The LRGO burners are only operated during high flow scenarios. 

2.3.2		Flare Tips (Garyville Refinery)

Garyville constructed two ground flares as part of the Garyville Major Expansion (GME) project 

in 2008-2009. The ground flares consist of multiple rows of stages, each having multiple burners 

per row. The first four stages on each ground flare include steam-assist burners, while stages five 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 16

and above are pressure-assist burners. The GME North Ground flare has a total of 10 stages, 

while the South Ground flare has a total of 8 stages. Each has an additional maintenance row. 

The first stage of each flare is always in service. The remaining stages are opened based upon 

pressure, with advanced programming logic that opens staging valves to successive stages. The 

steam-assisted burners are SKEC burners, and pressure-assisted burners are LRGO burners. 

Tables 2.3.2-1 and 2.3.2-2 list design specifications for the SKEC and LRGO burners. 

Figure 2.3.2-1: Left - SKEC Burner. Right - LRGO Burner. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 17

SKEC Burners 

Flare Tip Details 

Flare Tip Manufacturer John Zink

Flare Tip Installation Date 2008‐2009

Flare Tip Size 4.64 sq. in. exit area per burner

Flare Tip Model Number SKEC

Summary of Flare Design Information 

Parameter Value Units 

First Stage Design Purge Rate (continuous) per burner 0.833 scfm

Non‐First Stage Design Purge Rate (min) per burner 7.9 scfm

Non‐First Stage Design Purge Rate (max) per burner 19.26 scfm

Pilot Rate (per pilot) 50 scfh

North Ground Flare Minimum Hydraulic Capacity per burner 4123 lb/hr

North Ground Flare Maximum Hydraulic Capacity per burner 4206 lb/hr

South Ground Flare Minimum Hydraulic Capacity per burner 3475 lb/hr

South Ground Flare Maximum Hydraulic Capacity per burner 3798 lb/hr

Table 2.3.2-1: SKEC Burner Specifications 

LRGO Burners 

Flare Tip Details 

Flare Tip Manufacturer John Zink

Flare Tip Installation Date 2008‐2009

Flare Tip Size 3.11 sq. in. exit area per burner

Flare Tip Model Number LRGO‐D

Summary of Flare Design Information 

Parameter Value Units 

Design Purge Rate (min) per burner 7.28 scfm

Design Purge Rate (max) per burner 26.9 scfm

Pilot Rate (per pilot) 50 scfh

North Ground Flare Minimum Hydraulic Capacity  per burner 4237 lb/hr

North Ground Flare Maximum Hydraulic Capacity per burner 4280 lb/hr

South Ground Flare Design Hydraulic Capacity per burner 2909 lb/hr

Table 2.3.2-2: LRGO Burner Specifications 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 18

2.3.3		Flare Tips (John Zink Test Facility)

Because of the practical and logistical difficulties of conducting a test of a ground flare at an 

actual refinery, this test program was carried out on a test cell at the John Zink test facility in 

Tulsa, Oklahoma. Three burners of each type were tested each identical to the burners installed 

at the Garyville facility. 

Figure 1-1: John Zink Test Stand (showing SKEC burners installed). 

The SN2 test series was conducted on an elevated steam-assist flare tip. This is the same flare tip 

used for the flare study conducted by TCEQ and the University of Texas. Table 2.3.2-3 lists 

design specifications for this flare tip. 

Figure 2.3.2-2: Elevated Steam-Assist Flare Tip used for Test Series SN2 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 19

Elevated Steam-Assist Flare Tip 

Flare Tip Details 

Flare Tip Manufacturer John Zink

Flare Tip Size 36 sq. in.

Flare Tip Model Number EEF‐QSC‐36

Summary of Flare Design Information 

Parameter Value Units 

Pilot Rate (per pilot) 86 scfh

Maximum Hydraulic Capacity (Propylene) 937,000 lb/hr

Table 2.3.2-3: Elevated Steam-Assist Flare Specifications 

2.3.4		Vent Gas and Assist Measurement (John Zink Test Facility)

Table 2.3.3-1 lists the equipment used by Airtech Environmental Services to measure the vent 

gas composition. Table 2.3.3-2 lists the instruments used to monitor and control the vent gas and 

process conditions during the test campaign. 

Equipment Information Manufacturer Model 

Gas Chromatograph with FID Detector Hewlett Packard 5890 Series II 

Analytical Column Agilent Technologies HP-Plot/Q 

Gas Chromatograph with TCD Detector SRI 8610A 

Analytical Column Suppelco 60/80 Carboxen 1000 

Table 2.3.3-1: Gas Chromatography Equipment 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 20

4” Auto Meter Run (Propylene and Natural Gas)

Instrument Description Instrument 

4” Static Pressure Transmitter Rosemount 3051TG 

4” Temperature Element Type K Thermocouple 

4” Temperature Transmitter Rosemount 3144D 

4” Flow Transmitter (Differential Pressure) Rosemount 3051CD 

10” Auto Meter Run (Large Natural Gas Flows) 

Instrument Description Instrument 

10” Static Pressure Transmitter Rosemount 3051CG 

10” Temperature Element Type K Thermocouple 

10” Temperature Transmitter Rosemount 3144D 

10” Flow Transmitter (Differential Pressure) Rosemount 3051CD 

1” Portable Meter Run (Small Natural Gas Flows) 

Instrument Description Instrument 

Multivariable Flow Transmitter Rosemount 3095MA 

Temperature Element 100 Ohm Pt. RTD 

3” Manual Meter Run (Vaporized Nitrogen Flows) 

Instrument Description Instrument

Multivariable Flow Transmitter Rosemount 3095MA 

Temperature Element 100 Ohm Pt. RTD 

4” Manual Meter Run (Small Nitrogen Flows) 

Instrument Description Instrument

Multivariable Flow Transmitter Rosemount 3095MA 

Temperature Element 100 Ohm Pt. RTD 

Steam Flow 

Instrument Description Instrument 

Ultrasonic Steam Flow Transmitter GE GS868 

Gage Pressure Transmitter Rosemount 3051CG 

Temperature Element Type K Thermocouple 

Temperature Transmitter Rosemount 3144PD 

Center Steam on 36” QS Steam-Assisted Burner 

Instrument Description Instrument 

Gage Pressure Transmitter Rosemount 3051CG 

Temperature Element Type K Thermocouple 

Fuel Manifold (SKEC and LRGO Burners) 

Instrument Description Instrument 

Gage Pressure Transmitter Rosemount 3051CG 

Temperature Element Type K Thermocouple 

 Weather 

Instrument Description Instrument 

Barometric Pressure Sensor R. M. Young 61302L 

Wind Speed & Direction Instrument R. M. Young 05103 

Table 2.3.3-2: John Zink Process Control Equipment
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 21

2.4  Vent Gas Composition

The vent gas composition was determined by both the John Zink flow measurements on the 

individual gas streams and also by gas chromatography (GC). Airtech Environmental Services 

Inc. (Airtech) was contracted to analyze the vent gas composition by GC. At the beginning of the 

test (8/2-8/4, 2012), Airtech found issues with the stability of the GC-TCD analyzer. This issue 

affected the ability of the GC to accurately measure CO2 and nitrogen concentrations. 

Temperature changes within the mobile trailer contributed to the problems. An extra air 

conditioner was brought into the trailer to stabilize the temperature. 

Figure 2.4-1 shows differences between the Airtech GC measurement and the John Zink flow 

measurements on each run. Because the Airtech GC and John Zink flow measurements were 

very different on 8/3-8/4 and because there were problems with the GC calibration and 

temperature stability on these days, John Zink flow measurements were used to determine the 

fuel composition on 8/3-8/4 (SN2 test series). Also, John Zink flow measurements were used to 

determine fuel composition for VS1 2 (1) and the long term stability tests as there were no GC 

samples taken during these runs. The fuel for the SN1 test series was pure Tulsa Natural Gas 

(TNG). The fuel composition measurements from the SN1 test were averaged to determine the 

composition of TNG. This average TNG composition was applied to the TNG flow for the runs 

where John Zink flow measurements were used instead of the GC measurements. During the 

early stages of testing, EPA approved the use of the John Zink flow measurements to determine 

vent gas composition. 

 

Figure 2.4-1: Differences between AirTech and John Zink Vent Gas Measurements 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 22

2.5  Test Series Descriptions

Each test series is conducted with a different test gas composition or flow rate. Within each test, 

the Net Heating Value in the combustion zone (NHVcz) or the Net Heating Value of the vent gas 

(NHVvg) was varied as specified below. In addition, with EPA’s approval, the actual test series 

were slightly modified from the descriptions contained in the Consent Decree. These changes 

are noted in the test series descriptions along with the reasons for the changes. 

Test SN1 SKEC Steam-assist burners. 100% TNG 

Objective: To determine the performance curve of the burner at the minimum flow rate. 

Vent gas flow was set at the lowest achievable flow rate (~4 ft/sec exit velocity). Steam assist 

was varied. The initial test condition was set at the minimum steam rate (cooling steam rate). 

Subsequent test conditions increased the steam rate to achieve successively lower NHVcz values 

until a combustion efficiency of <93% was measured or until the flame was extinguished. 

Combustion efficiency did not drop below 93% until NHVcz was reduced to 100 BTU/scf. . Full 

20-minute test runs with replicates were conducted. 

Test SN2 Large steam-assisted flare tip. 20/80 TNG / propylene 

Objective: To determine if nitrogen dilution and steam dilution have the same effect on 

combustion efficiency. 

In the velocity screening tests, both steam and nitrogen are used to maintain a target NHVcz. 

This test determines whether the assumption that nitrogen and steam have equivalent effect on 

combustion efficiency is correct. Testing was performed on the John Zink steam assisted 

elevated flare tip used for the TCEQ study referenced above. The test was conducted in two 

phases. First, the NHVcz was lowered by dilution with nitrogen in steps from about 350 Btu/scf 

to the point at which combustion efficiency dropped below 93%. In the second phase, the same 

test conditions were repeated with center steam as the diluent. No upper steam was used. 10-

minute test runs were conducted. There were no replicate runs for this test. A 20/80 

TNG/propylene mix was used in this test to be more representative of actual refinery waste gas. 

Test VS1 SKEC Steam-assist burners. Velocity Screening Test 

Variable TNG/nitrogen Mix 

Initial Objective: To identify a rough operating curve showing the 98% CE as a function of exit 

velocity and NHVcz 

Initial Test Plan: This test will establish a rough operating region to be used for Test VS2. The 

Test will begin at sonic velocity, 100% TNG (~900 BTU/scf), and no steam or nitrogen 

dilution (minimum steam off). NHVcz will be lowered in 100 BTU/scf increments through 

steam and/or nitrogen dilution until combustion efficiency (CE) drops below 98%. At this 

point, NHVcz will be held constant while exit velocity decreases in 100 fps increments. This 

will continue until CE rises above 98%. At this point, the cycle repeats – holding exit velocity 

constant and reducing NHVcz until the next “crossover” point then holding NHVcz constant 

and decreasing exit velocity. This procedure will be repeated until minimum (baseline) exit 

velocity is reached. At each point, the NHVcz and exit velocity will be “tuned” to dial in a 

more precise 98% CE point. The end result will be a series of points defining the 98% CE 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 23

curve as a function of exit velocity and NHVcz. For this rough screening test, runs will be a 

minimum of 10 minutes in length with no replicates. 

Modified Objective: To identify the minimum NHVcz needed to maintain a flame over a range of 

exit velocities. 

Modified Test Plan: The objective of the VS1 tests as described in the original test plan was to 

identify a rough operating curve showing the 98% CE as a function of exit velocity and NHVcz. 

However, it was evident after the first few test runs that the flame would almost always 

extinguish before the combustion efficiency dropped below 98%. At this point, given the test 

results, it was evident that the original plan was unworkable. A decision was made to change the 

objective of the VS1 test to identify the minimum NHVcz necessary to maintain a flame at each 

exit velocity tested. VS1 replicates were then performed at the identified minimum NHVcz 

values. The test began at sonic velocity and 100% Tulsa natural gas (~900 Btu/scf). NHVcz was 

lowered in 100 Btu/scf increments through steam and/or nitrogen dilution until the flame was 

extinguished. This point is then established as the minimum NHVcz needed to maintain a flame 

at this velocity. The NHVcz was then lowered by 100 Btu/scf for the next test and exit velocity 

was lowered in 100 fps increments until the flame was extinguished again. This process was 

continued to establish the minimum NHVcz needed to maintain a flame over an exit velocity 

range from sonic down to 4 fps. 10-minute test runs with selected replicates were conducted. 

Test VS2 SKEC Steam-assist burners. Velocity Screening Test 

Initial Objective: To establish a robust operating curve showing the 98% CE as a function of exit 

velocity and NHVcz. 

Initial Test Plan: At each of the “crossover” points identified in Test VS1, full 20-minute test 

runs with replicates will be conducted. At several points, curve sensitivity will be determined 

by sampling at operating conditions slightly above and below the curve. The number of 

sensitivity points will be determined by how many crossover points are identified. Sensitivity 

points will be a minimum of 10 minutes with no replicates. 

Modified Test Plan: This test series was eliminated because the flame was extinguished before 

CE dropped below 98% during Test VS1. Therefore, it was not possible to establish an 

operating curve showing 98% CE as a function of exit velocity and NHVcz. To replace VS2, 

replicate runs were added to the modified Test VS1. 

Test PA1 LRGO Pressure-assist burners. Variable TNG / nitrogen mix. 

Objective: To determine the minimum NHVcz that supports good combustion at sonic velocity. 

Initial Test Plan: Operation at maximum (sonic) velocity (~13 pounds pressure) at multiple vent 

gas NHVcz levels. Initial test was conducted with 100% Tulsa natural gas (~900 Btu/scf). 

Subsequent test conditions added nitrogen to the fuel to reach successively lower NHVcz values 

until a combustion efficiency of <93% was reached. In all cases, the flame was extinguished 

before the CE level of 93% was reached. Full 20-minute test runs with replicates were 

conducted. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 24

Modified Test Plan: The test series was modified slightly, although the objective remained the 

same. The first test point was conducted at an NHVcz of 900 BTU/scf and the second test point 

was conducted at a NHVcz of 600 BTU/scf. At both points, the CE was greater than 99%. 

Because the CE for both points was greater than 99%, it was decided there was no need to test 

the LRGO burners at the intermediate NHVcz values of 800 BTU/scf and 700 BTU/scf. The 

flame was extinguished when the NHVcz reached 550 BTU/scf. 

Test PA2 LRGO Pressure-assist burners. Variable TNG / nitrogen mix. 

Objective: To determine the minimum NHVcz that supports good combustion at minimum 

velocity. 

Initial Test Plan: Operation at minimum velocity (~4 pounds pressure) at multiple vent gas 

NHVcz levels. Initial test was conducted with 100% Tulsa natural gas (~900 Btu/scf). 

Subsequent test conditions added nitrogen to the fuel to reach successively lower NHVcz values 

until a combustion efficiency of <93% was reached. In all cases, the flame was extinguished 

before the CE level of 93% was reached. Full 20-minute test runs with replicates were 

conducted. 

Modified Test Plan: The test series was modified slightly, although the objective remained the 

same. The first test point was conducted at an NHVcz of 900 BTU/scf and the second test point 

was conducted at a NHVcz of 600 BTU/scf. At both points, the CE was greater than 99%. 

Because the CE for both points was greater than 99%, it was decided there was no need to test 

the LRGO burners at the intermediate NHVcz values of 800 BTU/scf and 700 BTU/scf. The 

flame was extinguished when the NHVcz reached 550 BTU/scf. 

2.6  PFTIR Testing Description

The IMACC instrument used to determine gas composition of the flare plume for each test 

condition listed in Section 2.5 is the Passive Fourier Transform Infrared (PFTIR) analyzer. 

PFTIR analysis operates on the principle of spectral analysis of thermal radiation emitted by hot 

gases. Passive means that no “active” infrared light source is used. Instead, the hot gases of the 

flare are the infrared source. The spectrometer is a receiver only. This approach is possible 

because the infrared emission spectra of hot gases have the same patterns or “fingerprints” as 

their absorption spectra do. Consequently, observing a flare with an infrared instrument allows 

for identification and quantification of species through emission spectroscopy just as with 

absorption spectroscopy. A detailed description of the instrument and testing procedures are 

found in Appendix A.4 and A.5. 

2.6.1		PFTIR Locations

Two PFTIR instruments were used for this test program. The locations of the PFTIR instruments 

were carefully selected with the intent of ensuring a good view of the flare plume regardless of 

wind direction. 

For the test series on the SKEC and LRGO burner tips, the PFTIR 1 location was inside a trailer 

northeast of the burner set up. For the SN2 test series, the PFTIR 1 location was inside a trailer 

just northwest of the control room. For all test series, the PFTIR 2 location was inside a trailer 

just south of the control room. Both PFTIRs were operated from the trailers. Both PFTIRs 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 25

collected data during a run for simultaneous readings. However, only some runs had 

simultaneous readings due to high flow conditions and computer malfunctions. 

Figure 2.6.1-1 shows maps of the PFTIR locations in relation to the flares. Appendix A.4.2 

contains more detailed information about each PFTIR location. 

 Figure 2.6.1-1: Maps of the PFTIR Locations in Relation to SKEC/LRGO and Elevated 

Steam-Assist Flare Tips 

2.6.2		Video Recordings

During the test program, video cameras recorded flare activity from both PFTIR locations. At 

each location, one stationary visible light camera and one stationary infrared light camera were 

recording the flare tip. Additionally, one infrared camera was mounted on each PFTIR and 

recorded the aiming position of each PFTIR. The types of cameras used during the test program 

are listed in Appendix A.10. 

2.6.3		Preliminary Results and QA/QC

On-site preliminary combustion efficiency results were computed. On-site replicate and run 

length decisions were made with the preliminary combustion efficiency results. By design, these 

preliminary results did not take into account the sky backgrounds, compound lists, and 

interferents that are incorporated after the test program is complete (see Appendix A.4.9). Thus, 

the final combustion efficiency results may change from field measurements. 

To ensure useable combustion efficiency results from the PFTIR, serveral QA/QC tests were 

performed during the test program. These tests included simultaneous measurements, a pilot test 

series, and multiple traverses. Appendix A.6 contains data from these QA/QC tests. 

2.6.4		Pilot Test Results

In order to determine whether or not the pilot had any measureable effect on combustion 

efficiency, combustion efficiency was measured on the SKEC burners with NHVcz set at 400 

BTU/scf and exit velocity set at 20 ft/s. Data was collected first with the pilot lit, and second 

with the pilot off. Figure 2.6.4-1 shows the results of the pilot test. From this test, it is clear that 

the pilot does not play a significant role in maintaining good combustion efficiency on the SKEC 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 26

burners. The average combustion efficiency with the pilot lit was 98.1%. The average 

combustion efficiency with the pilot off was 98.6%. 

Figure 2.6.4-1: Pilot Test Results 

2.6.5		Traverse Results

The optimum aiming point for the PFTIR is typically about one flame length from the flame tip. 

This insures that all combustion is complete prior to measurement. Optimal aiming position is 

monitored by observing the intensity of the CO2 and CO lines in the single beam spectrum and 

the effects on the resulting absorbance spectrum. This is done to avoid detector saturation. 

When the flare is obviously lit but the PFTIR reports a combustion efficiency of 0%, this 

indicates improper aiming of the PFTIR. A combustion efficiency measurement of 0% when the 

flare is lit indicates that the PFTIR is unable to measure CO2. 

In order to determine how sensitive aiming position is with respect to determination of 

combustion efficiency, a traverse along the plume path was conducted. During this traverse, the 

PFTIR was gradually moved farther from the flame tip while measuring combustion efficiency 

under constant conditions. Figure 2.6.5-1 shows the result of the VS1 traverse. Both PFTIRs 

participated in the VS1 traverse. The VS1 traverse conditions were the same conditions used in 

the VS1 6 test runs. Figure 2.6.5-2 shows examples of PFTIR aiming positions. 

The traverse shows that as long as the PFTIR is aimed between the flame tip and one flame 

length from the flame tip, the PFTIR combustion efficiency measurements will be relatively 

consistent. However, if the PFTIR aiming position is farther than one flame length away from 

the flame tip, the signal to noise ratio may drop to a point where the PFTIR cannot effectively 

measure combustion efficiency. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 27

Figure 2.6.5-1: VS1 Traverse Results 

Figure 2.6.5-2: Example Aiming Points 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 28

2.7  Measurements Taken During Test Program

The PFTIR performance test conducted on John Zink’s SKEC burners, LRGO burners, and 

elevated steam flare produced valuable insights into the efficiency performance of ground flare 

burners under a variety of conditions. Tests were conducted while flaring gases containing a 

mixture of Tulsa natural gas (TNG), propylene, and nitrogen. For the results presented below, 

relationships between combustion efficiency and other parameters were analyzed: 

 VG Composition – Composition of the gas being sent to the flare tip 

 NHVcz – Net heating value of the combustion zone gas (BTU/scf) 

 S/VG – Actual steam to vent gas ratio (lb steam/lb vent gas) or (scf steam/scf vent gas) 

 Exit Velocity – Velocity of gases exiting the flare tip 

These parameters were selected because they can potentially be used during normal flare 

operation to maintain high combustion efficiency. Paragraph 53 of MPC’s Flare Consent Decree 

required that these measurements were made during the test program. Analysis of the 

combustion efficiency results from the PFTIR during this test established a relationship between 

combustion efficiency and these parameters. Descriptions of the calculations for these 

parameters are contained in Appendix A.3. 

2.7.1		Vent Gas Composition

Vent gas composition is measured so that NHVcz can be determined. Vent gas composition 

cannot be used alone in a flare control scheme because it does not take into account any assist 

media that is added downstream of the measurement point. 

Section 2.4 explains how VG composition was measured. Section 2.5 describes the vent gas 

compositions for each test series. 

2.7.2		Net Heating Value of the Combustion Zone (NHVcz)

NHVcz may be used as a control parameter for flare operation. The relationship between NHVcz 

and combustion efficiency has a wider scope and takes into account more process variables than 

a steam-based parameter. For example, inerts in the vent gas are taken into account for the 

NHVcz calculation so the relationship to combustion efficiency remains valid when inerts are 

variable in the vent gas. NHVcz requires the flare operator to measure vent gas composition. 

Using a GC, vent gas composition may only be measured in 10+ minute increments due to the 

lengthy analytical cycle. 

NHVcz, which includes total assist media to the flare tip, is a calculated term representing the net 

heating value of all components in the combustion zone. The combustion zone is directly above 

the flare tip and is the point at which all materials combine for combustion. The NHVcz is 

therefore the resultant heat content from the mixture of the vent gas from the flare header and the 

total assist media. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 29

2.7.3		Steam to Vent Gas Ratio (S/VG)

S/VG can be used to supplement a flare control scheme but cannot be used alone since it does 

not take into account the effects of inerts in the vent gas. Establishing a relationship between 

S/VG and combustion efficiency enables flare operators to better program steam control logic to 

improve combustion efficiency. 

2.7.4		Exit Velocity

Exit velocity can impact flare performance by contributing to flame instability. For some 

burners, a relationship between vent gas composition (NHVcz, LFLcz), assist media (S/VG), exit 

velocity, and combustion efficiency may be established to minimize flame instability. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 30

3.0  Test Series VS1 and SN1 (SKEC burners)

The fuel gas for both test series was TNG. The VS1 test began at sonic velocity and a NHVcz of 

900 BTU/scf. Tip velocity and NHVcz were adjusted incrementally to determine an acceptable 

operating envelope for the SKEC burners. NHVcz was controlled with both steam and nitrogen 

injection. For the VS1 test series, CE remained relatively constant at a high level until the flare 

went out. The SN1 tests were conducted at a tip velocity of 4 fps. NHVcz was lowered from 300 

BTU/scf to 50 BTU/scf in 50 BTU/scf increments using steam injection. For the SN1 test series, 

the flare did not extinguish and combustion efficiency showed significant decline around NHVcz 

levels of 300 BTU/scf and S/VG levels of 3 lb/lb or 3 scf/scf. This is consistent with past PFTIR 

studies on steam-assisted flare tips. 

Figure 3.0-1 shows the relationship between NHVcz and CE. Figure 3.0-2 shows the relationship 

between NHVcz and CE for the SKEC burners with past base load test series. Figure 3.0-3 

shows the relationship between S/VG (mass basis) and CE. Figure 3.0-4 shows the relationship 

between S/VG (mass basis) and CE for the SKEC burners with past base load test series. Figure 

3.0-5 shows the relationship between S/VG (volume basis) and CE. Figure 3.0-6 shows the 

relationship between S/VG (volume basis) and CE for the SKEC burners with past base load test 

series. Figure 3.0-7 shows the minimum NHVcz required to maintain a flame over a range of exit 

velocities. These values are compared to the EPA velocity limits from 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. 

The test results show that the SKEC burners are capable of maintaining very high combustion 

efficiency at velocities exceeding the limits established by 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. 

Paragraph 53d of the MPC Flare Consent Decree requires MPC to propose Combustion 

Efficiency Multipliers for calculating the NHVcz-limit for the North and South Ground Flares. 

Using daily vent gas composition data for both the North and South Ground flares from 3/7/2012 

– 3/17/2013, an average net heating value of the vent gas at its lower flammability limit (NHVvglfl) was determined. NHVvg-lfl can be used to determine appropriate Combustion Efficiency 

Multipliers for the North and South Ground Flares. Table 3.0-1 contains average vent gas 

concentrations and other calculated parameters for both the North and South Ground Flares. In 

the future, the South Ground Flare vent gas composition will resemble the North Ground Flare 

vent gas composition. Therefore, the North and South Ground Flares should use the same 

Combustion Efficiency Multiplier. The test data suggests that a Combustion Efficiency 

Multiplier of 6.37 would be required to maintain 98% combustion efficiency on the North and 

South Ground Flares. Paragraph 46 of MPC’s flare consent decree states that as of June 20, 

2017, the North and South Ground Flares will be subject to a Combustion Efficiency Multiplier 

of 7.1. This appears to be higher than what is required to maintain 98% combustion efficiency. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 31

Figure 3.0-1: NHVcz vs. CE for SN1 & VS1 (SKEC Burners) 

Figure 3.0-2: NHVcz vs. CE for SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 32

Figure 3.0-3: S/VG (lb/lb) vs. CE for SN1 & VS1 (SKEC Burners) 

 Figure 3.0-4: S/VG (lb/lb) vs. CE for SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 33

Figure 3.0-5: S/VG (scf/scf) vs. CE for SN1 & VS1 (SKEC Burners) 

Figure 3.0-6: S/VG (scf/scf) vs. SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 34

Figure 3.0-7: Tip Velocity vs. Minimum NHVcz for SKEC Burners 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 35

Compound South Ground 

Flare 

North Ground 

Flare 

Oxygen (mol %) 0.02 0.10

Carbon Monoxide (mol %) 0.00 0.02

Nitrogen (mol %) 1.99 6.53

Carbon Dioxide (mol %) 0.06 0.86

Hydrogen (mol %) 86.43 16.78

Methane (mol %) 7.00 62.47

Acetylene (mol %) 0.00 0.00

Ethylene (mol %) 0.10 0.29

Ethane (mol %) 2.02 5.24

Propylene (mol %) 0.13 0.30

Propane (mol %) 1.09 3.02

Iso‐butane (mol %)   0.23 0.69

N‐butane (mol %) 0.19 0.78

1‐butene (mol %) 0.02 0.10

Trans‐butene (mol %) 0.00 0.04

Cis‐butene (mol %) 0.00 0.03

1,3‐butadiene (mol %)   0.00 0.00

Pentane + (mol %) 0.09 2.71

Other Parameters 

Vent Gas Volume % 99.38 99.96

NHVvg (BTU/scf) 1,208.66 1,081.47

LFLvg (volume %) 0.0404 0.0435

NHVvg‐lfl(BTU/scf) 48.83 47.08

Proposed NHVcz‐limit (BTU/scf) 300 300

Appropriate  Combustion Efficiency Multiplier 6.14 6.37

Table 3.0-1: Average VG Compositions, Calculated Parameters, and Appropriate 

Combustion Efficiency Multipliers for the North and South Ground Flares 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 36

4.0  Test Series SN2 (Elevated Steam‐Assist Flare Tip)

The purpose of the SN2 test series was to compare the effects of nitrogen dilution vs. steam 

dilution on flare performance. The SN2 test was conducted on the elevated steam-assisted flare 

used for the TCEQ tests. Two test series were conducted. One test series used nitrogen to adjust 

NHVcz and one test series used center steam to adjust NHVcz. For both test series, the fuel was 

an 80% propylene/20% TNG mixture.

Each test series began with NHVcz set to 350 BTU/scf. The NHVcz was lowered to 150 

BTU/scf in 50 BTU/scf increments using either steam or nitrogen for dilution. The results of the 

two tests show that nitrogen dilution and steam dilution may have a different effect on flare 

combustion efficiency. When steam was used as the diluent, combustion efficiency began to 

decline at an NHVcz of 300 BTU/scf. This is consistent with past PFTIR studies of steamassisted flare tips. However, when nitrogen was used as the diluent, combustion efficiency did 

not show significant decline until an NHVcz of 200 BTU/scf. Note that these results conflict 

with other steam vs. nitrogen dilution tests conducted on earlier PFTIR test programs. 

Figure 4.0-1 shows the relationship between NHVcz and CE. Figure 4.0-2 shows the relationship 

between S/VG and CE for the SN2 Steam test series on a mass basis. Figure 4.0-3 shows the 

relationship between S/VG and CE for the SN2 steam test series on a volume basis. 

Figure 4.0-1: NHVcz vs. CE for SN2 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 37

Figure 4.0-2: S/VG (Mass Basis) vs. CE for SN2 Steam 

Figure 4.0-3: S/VG (Volume Basis) vs. CE for SN2 Steam 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 38

5.0  Test Series PA1 and PA2 (LRGO Burners)

Two different tests were conducted on the LRGO pressure-assisted burners: PA1 and PA2. The 

fuel gas for the both test series was TNG. Nitrogen was used to adjust NHVcz. The PA1 test was 

conducted at sonic velocity and the PA2 test was conducted at minimum velocity. For both test 

series, CE remained relatively constant at a very high level until the flare went out around 550 

BTU/scf. 

Figure 5.0-1 shows the relationship between NHVcz and CE. Finally, Figure 5.0-2 shows the 

results from the LRGO PA1 and PA2 tests in comparison to the EPA velocity limits from 40 

CFR 60.18 and 63.11. The test results show that the LRGO burners are capable of maintaining 

very high combustion efficiency at velocities exceeding the limits established by 40 CFR 60.18 

and 63.11. 

Figure 5.0-1: NHVcz vs. CE for PA1 and PA2 (LRGO Burners) 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 39

Figure 5.0-2: Tip Velocity vs. NHVcz for LRGO Burners 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 40

6.0  Comparisons to Other Steam‐Assisted Flare Tips

Figures 6.0-1, 6.0-4, and 6.0-7 show the results of the Garyville steam-assisted tests with the 

results of previous PFTIR tests of steam-assisted flares from Texas City, Detroit, Flint Hills 

Resources (FHR), and TCEQ. Figures 6.0-2, 6.0-5, and 6.0-8 show only the results of the 

Marathon steam-assisted test series. Figures 6.0-3, 6.0-6, and 6.0-9 show only the results of the 

SKEC burner tests with base load tests from Texas City, Detroit, and FHR. The results from the 

SN2 test series correlate well to the results from the tests of other large, steam-assisted flares. 

This is expected since this test was conducted on an elevated flare tip -- the same tip that was 

used for the TCEQ steam test series. The SN2 results match the results of the propylene tests 

conducted by TCEQ. However, at Texas City and Detroit, combustion efficiency appeared to 

drop off at higher NHVcz levels. This trend was not observed during the SN2 tests. The VS1 test 

runs were conducted with high NHVcz values, so a significant drop in combustion efficiency 

was not observed during the VS1 test series. Combustion efficiency on the SKEC burners 

appeared to remain high until NHVcz dropped below 300 BTU/scf or until S/VG was increased 

to approximately 3 lb/lb or 3 scf/scf. This was consistent with past PFTIR studies, most 

specifically with test series at base load conditions. However, the test results for the SN1 test 

series differ from the elevated tip results in that they show that the SKEC tip tends to be more 

efficient at lower NHVcz values. In one case, the measured combustion efficiency was greater 

than 97% at an NHVcz value as low as 150 BTU/scf. The improved performance at very low 

NHVcz levels may be a result of non-mixing steam. 

At the low flow and low NHVcz conditions during the SN1 test, the combustion zone was very 

small and compact and located below the steam injection point in the plume. This may account 

for the higher than expected combustion efficiency measured under these conditions. Under 

these extremely low flow rates, non-mixing steam is present. This non-mixing steam plays no 

role in the combustion zone, resulting in the higher than expected results. 

It should be noted that the flames tested on all of the elevated tips at high turndown can be 

classified as a “buoyant” flame. Flames generated on the ground flare burners are, in general, at 

much higher exit velocities and can be classified as a “jetting” flame. The one exception is the 

SN1 test series where the burners were operating at extremely low flow rates not indicative of 

normal operation (i.e. ~ 4 ft/sec). With this flow rate, the flame could be classified as “buoyant”. 

It is expected from the available literature that jetting flames have different performance 

characteristics than buoyant flames. Jetting flames tend to inspirate more air as a consequence of 

their higher exit velocity and thus tend to achieve higher combustion efficiency at lower NHVcz 

values. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 41

Figure 6.0-1: NHVcz vs. CE for all MPC, FHR, and TCEQ Steam-Assisted Test Series 

Figure 6.0-2: NHVcz vs. CE for all MPC Steam-Assisted Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 42

Figure 6.0-3: NHVcz vs. CE for SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 

Figure 6.0-4: S/VG (lb/lb) vs. CE for all MPC, FHR, & TCEQ Steam-Assisted Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 43

 Figure 6.0-5: S/VG (lb/lb) vs. CE for all MPC Steam-Assisted Test Series 

 Figure 6.0-6: S/VG (lb/lb) vs. CE for SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 44

Figure 6.0-7: S/VG (scf/scf) vs. CE for all MPC, FHR, & TCEQ Steam-Assisted Test Series 

Figure 6.0-8: S/VG (scf/scf) vs. CE for all MPC Steam-Assisted Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 45

 Figure 6.0-9: S/VG (scf/scf) vs. SKEC Burners & Other Base Load Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 46

7.0  Conclusions

The PFTIR test of the SKEC burners, LRGO burners, and elevated steam flare provided data to 

support the following conclusions. 

SKEC Burners

 When TNG is used as fuel, the SKEC burners maintain high combustion efficiency until 

NHVcz falls to less than 300 BTU/scf. This is consistent with past PFTIR studies on 

steam-assisted flare tips. 

 The SKEC burners maintain high combustion efficiency at exit velocity limits higher 

than those established by 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. At velocities greater than 60 ft/sec 

and up to sonic (maximum) velocity, the burner operates efficiently until the NHVcz falls 

to a point where the flame is extinguished. Therefore, the SKEC burners should be 

exempt from the velocity limits established in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. 

 The S/VG does not appear to be a factor for the SKEC tip until the exit velocity falls 

below 60 ft/s. Therefore, when operating at velocities greater than 60 ft/s, an S/VG limit 

should not apply to the SKEC burners. At velocities less than 60 ft/s, a S/VG limit of 3 

lb/lb or 3 scf/scf could be used by the SKEC burners to assure high combustion 

efficiency. 

 The test data suggests that a Combustion Efficiency Multiplier of 6.37 would be required 

to maintain 98% combustion efficiency on the North and South Ground Flares. Paragraph 

46 of MPC’s flare consent decree states that as of June 20, 2017, the North and South 

Ground Flares will be subject to a Combustion Efficiency Multiplier of 7.1. This appears 

to be higher than what is required to maintain 98% combustion efficiency. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 47

LRGO Burners

 When TNG is used as fuel, the LRGO burners maintain high combustion efficiency until 

the NHVcz falls to a point where the flame is extinguished. Under all conditions tested, 

these burners maintained an average CE equal to or greater than 99%. Under all 

conditions tested, the flame extinguishes at an NHVcz of approximately 550 BTU/scf. 

The results of this test program demonstrate that as long as the LRGO burners are lit, 

they maintain high combustion efficiency. To ensure the LRGO burners are operating at 

high combustion efficiency, the NHVcz of the LRGO burners should be kept above 550 

BTU/scf. This eliminates any need for Combustion Efficiency Multipliers. 

 The LRGO burners maintain high combustion efficiency at exit velocities much higher 

than those allowed by 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. The flares operated efficiently at 

velocities up to sonic which would represent the maximum velocity achievable. 

Therefore, the LRGO burners should be exempt from the velocity limits established in 40 

CFR 60.18 and 63.11.

Elevated Steam-Assist Flare 

 When steam was used as a diluent, combustion efficiency dropped off significantly when 

NHVcz was reduced below about 300 BTU/scf. This is consistent with past PFTIR 

studies on large, elevated steam-assisted flare tips. However, when nitrogen was used as a 

diluent, combustion efficiency did not significantly decline until NHVcz reached about 

200 BTU/scf. The results of this test show a potential difference between the effects of 

steam dilution and nitrogen dilution on flare combustion efficiency. It should be noted 

however, that this data conflicts with other data on nitrogen vs. steam dilution collected 

in previous tests. 

Effect of Pilots

 The presence or absence of a pilot does not appear to significantly affect the performance 

of the burners, either positively or negatively. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 48

Appendices

A.1  Data Tables

Due to the large quantity of data collected for this project, three levels of data reduction are 

provided. Sections 3-6 are the most concise summary providing run averages for a few key 

parameters at each test condition. Appendix A.2 provides more details on the individual test 

series, show a large number of test parameters, and provide wind information. Appendices A.11 

through A.16 contain raw run data collected during the test program and any additional 

calibration or support data. 

Data Summary Tables

The following data table includes summary data for each run. Column headings for this table are 

described below: 

Condition: The designation for each test condition described in Section 2.5. 

Run: The run number indicating the test and replicate. For example, Run 3 (2) indicates Test 3, 

Replicate 2. A test is a given NHVcz and exit velocity set points. 

Run ID: The unique identifier assigned to each test run 

Flare Tip: The specific flare tip tested during a test run. 

Start Time: The date and time each run began. 

End Time: The date and time each run ended. 

Std Flare Gas Flow: The average vent gas flow in standard cubic feet per hour. 

Flare Gas Flow: The average vent gas flow in pounds per hour. 

Flare Tip Velocity: The average velocity that the vent gas is exiting the tip in feet per second. 

Flare Gas NHV: The average net heating value of the vent gas in BTU per standard cubic foot. 

Steam Flow: The average steam flow to the flare tip in pounds per hour. This is the sum of the 

center steam flow (constant at 250 lb/hr) and ring steam flow. 

Instrument: The instrument(s) used to measure the fuel composition. 

Nitrogen: The average mole percent nitrogen in the vent gas. 

THC: The average mole percent of total hydrocarbons in the vent gas. 

MWvg: The average molecular weight of the vent gas in pounds per pound-mole. 

Wind Direction: The average wind direction during the run in degrees. 

Wind Speed: The average wind speed during the run in miles per hour. 

S/VG: The average steam to vent gas ratio during the run. 

NHVcz: The average combustion zone gas net heating value in BTU per standard cubic foot. 

CE (weighted): The average weighted combustion efficiency for the run. 
Table A.1-1: Data Summary for All SKEC Test Runs 

Condition Run Run ID Flare Start Time End time Std Flare Gas Flow Flare Gas Flow Flare Tip Velocity Flare Gas NHV Steam Flow Instrument Nitrogen THC MWvg Wind Direction Wi

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Tip ‐‐ ‐‐ scf/hr lb/hr ft/s BTU/scf lb/hr ‐‐ mol % mol % lb/lbmol ° (N=0, E=90) 

SN1 1 (1) 32 SKEC 8/7/2012 15:41:15 8/7/2012 16:19:00 1,361 60 3.91 909 130 GC 2.0 100.2 17.0 206 SN1 1 (2) 49 SKEC 8/9/2012 9:54:20 8/9/2012 10:16:00 1,359 61 3.90 917 129 GC 1.5 98.5 17.3 294 SN1 1 (3) 59 SKEC 8/9/2012 17:31:20 8/9/2012 17:55:00 1,379 61 3.96 905 121 GC 2.4 99.2 17.1 226 SN1 2 (1) 33 SKEC 8/7/2012 16:45:40 8/7/2012 17:11:00 1,373 61 3.95 905 183 GC 1.9 99.0 17.2 69 SN1 2 (2) 50 SKEC 8/9/2012 10:25:01 8/9/2012 10:45:00 1,359 61 3.91 916 166 GC 1.5 97.7 17.2 286 SN1 2 (3) 60 SKEC 8/10/2012 9:14:45 8/10/2012 9:37:00 1,376 61 3.95 920 172 GC 1.4 98.4 17.2 119 

SN1 3 (1) 39 SKEC 8/8/2012 9:26:45 8/8/2012 10:03:00 1,343 61 3.86 911 233 GC 1.5 98.3 17.5 280 SN1 3 (2) 51 SKEC 8/9/2012 10:55:30 8/9/2012 11:16:00 1,358 61 3.90 916 238 GC 1.5 97.7 17.2 278 

SN1 3 (3) 61 SKEC 8/10/2012 9:47:30 8/10/2012 10:09:00 1,365 61 3.92 920 236 GC 1.3 96.9 17.2 213 

SN1 4 (1) 40 SKEC 8/8/2012 10:19:00 8/8/2012 10:43:00 1,348 61 3.87 917 328 GC 1.4 97.2 17.3 302 SN1 4 (2) 52 SKEC 8/9/2012 11:37:30 8/9/2012 11:58:00 1,359 60 3.90 910 331 GC 1.3 97.0 17.1 158 SN1 4 (3) 62 SKEC 8/10/2012 10:23:45 8/10/2012 10:45:00 1,364 60 3.92 928 324 GC 1.3 100.6 17.1 161 

SN1 5 (1) 41 SKEC 8/8/2012 11:09:30 8/8/2012 11:33:00 1,355 60 3.89 909 533 GC 1.0 96.1 17.1 282 SN1 5 (2) 53 SKEC 8/9/2012 12:10:30 8/9/2012 12:32:00 1,358 60 3.90 909 518 GC 1.4 96.0 17.1 127 SN1 5 (3) 63 SKEC 8/10/2012 10:53:01 8/10/2012 11:15:00 1,366 60 3.92 913 519 GC 1.1 99.5 17.0 138 

SN1 6 (1) 42 SKEC 8/8/2012 11:49:50 8/8/2012 12:13:00 1,315 60 3.78 892 1149 GC 3.8 91.8 17.5 290 SN1 6 (2) 54 SKEC 8/9/2012 12:43:15 8/9/2012 13:04:00 1,340 60 3.85 898 1018 GC 2.8 95.8 17.2 187 SN1 6 (3) 64 SKEC 8/10/2012 11:22:50 8/10/2012 11:44:00 1,356 60 3.90 911 1115 GC 1.2 100.7 17.0 194 

VS1 1 (1) 19 SKEC 8/6/2012 13:47:50 8/6/2012 14:04:00 392,925 17,656 1129.09 902 192 GC 2.7 96.3 17.3 53 VS1 2 (1) 20 SKEC 8/6/2012 14:18:01 8/6/2012 14:28:00 362,252 17,010 1040.95 835 1201 Flow Meters 10.0 89.4 18.1 99 

VS1 2 (2) 47 SKEC 8/8/2012 16:32:01 8/8/2012 16:45:00 381,306 18,364 1095.71 788 257 GC 13.9 82.9 18.6 234 VS1 2 (3) 55 SKEC 8/9/2012 14:55:45 8/9/2012 15:09:00 358,285 16,968 1029.55 820 257 GC 11.9 87.3 18.3 83 

VS1 3 (1) 21 SKEC 8/6/2012 16:05:01 8/6/2012 16:17:00 243,725 11,871 700.36 774 1474 GC 16.8 83.3 18.8 148 VS1 4 (1) 22 SKEC 8/6/2012 16:59:40 8/6/2012 17:11:00 241,229 12,228 693.19 701 306 GC 24.6 76.1 19.5 240 VS1 4 (2) 46 SKEC 8/8/2012 15:56:01 8/8/2012 16:09:00 241,212 12,345 693.14 707 260 GC 22.7 74.3 19.7 278 VS1 4 (3) 56 SKEC 8/9/2012 15:21:30 8/9/2012 15:33:00 244,023 12,380 701.22 720 256 GC 21.5 75.5 19.6 216 VS1 5 (1) 23 SKEC 8/6/2012 17:43:30 8/6/2012 17:55:00 275,875 14,076 792.74 691 299 GC 25.8 74.0 19.7 93 VS1 6 (1) 25 SKEC 8/7/2012 10:56:30 8/7/2012 11:10:00 102,104 5,452 293.40 646 263 GC 32.4 71.1 20.6 183 VS1 6 (2) 45 SKEC 8/8/2012 15:16:01 8/8/2012 15:28:00 102,714 5,502 295.16 619 257 GC 32.2 65.6 20.7 256 VS1 6 (3) 57 SKEC 8/9/2012 15:52:30 8/9/2012 16:04:00 103,920 5,448 298.62 650 259 GC 27.9 65.3 20.2 192 VS1 7 (1) 29 SKEC 8/7/2012 12:45:45 8/7/2012 12:57:00 34,825 1,930 100.07 563 256 GC 40.0 61.4 21.4 185 VS1 7 (2) 44 SKEC 8/8/2012 14:45:01 8/8/2012 14:57:00 34,155 1,904 98.15 580 256 GC 37.9 60.5 21.5 286 VS1 7 (3) 58 SKEC 8/9/2012 16:36:01 8/9/2012 16:48:00 35,784 1,916 102.83 613 255 GC 32.8 63.9 20.6 181 VS1 9a (1) 31 SKEC 8/7/2012 14:34:01 8/7/2012 14:47:00 21,078 1,180 60.57 537 253 GC 42.2 58.0 21.6 108 VS1 Traverse 1, PFTIR 1 26.1 SKEC 8/7/2012 11:20:40 8/7/2012 11:24:00 102,848 5,584 295.54 612 263 GC 35.7 66.4 20.9 208 

VS1 Traverse 2, PFTIR 1 27.1 SKEC 8/7/2012 11:24:40 8/7/2012 11:29:00 102,356 5,571 294.13 604 260 GC 36.4 65.5 21.0 215 

VS1 Traverse 3, PFTIR 1 28.1 SKEC 8/7/2012 11:32:40 8/7/2012 11:36:00 99,132 5,409 284.86 595 264 GC 37.0 64.7 21.0 141 

VS1 Traverse 1, PFTIR 2 26.2 SKEC 8/7/2012 11:20:40 8/7/2012 11:24:00 102,848 5,584 295.54 612 263 GC 35.7 66.4 20.9 208 

VS1 Traverse 2, PFTIR 2 27.2 SKEC 8/7/2012 11:24:40 8/7/2012 11:29:00 102,356 5,571 294.13 604 260 GC 36.4 65.5 21.0 215 

VS1 Traverse 3, PFTIR 2 28.2 SKEC 8/7/2012 11:32:40 8/7/2012 11:36:00 99,132 5,409 284.86 595 264 GC 37.0 64.7 21.0 141 

Pilot Test On (2) 17 SKEC 8/6/2012 10:44:20 8/6/2012 10:51:00 6,882 307 19.77 912 442 GC 1.7 97.6 17.2 112 

Pilot Test Off (1) 18 SKEC 8/6/2012 10:59:10 8/6/2012 11:06:00 7,595 339 21.83 912 437 GC 1.7 97.6 17.2 99 

Test Conditions Process Data VG Composition Data Weather 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 50

Table A.1-2: Data Summary for All LRGO Test Runs 

Table A.1-3: Data Summary for All SN2 Test Runs 

Condition Run Run ID Flare Start Time End time Std Flare Gas Flow Flare Gas Flow Flare Tip Velocity Flare Gas NHV Steam Flow Instrument Nitrogen THC MWvg Wind Direction Wi

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Tip ‐‐ ‐‐ scf/hr lb/hr ft/s BTU/scf lb/hr ‐‐ mol % mol % lb/lbmol ° (N=0, E=90) 

PA1 1 (1) 68 LRGO 8/10/2012 16:30:30 8/10/2012 16:52:00 321,086 14,192 1376.57 909 0 GC 1.6 97.8 17.0 115 

PA1 1 (2) 74 LRGO 8/11/2012 10:28:30 8/11/2012 10:50:00 314,583 14,040 1348.69 911 0 GC 1.2 98.3 17.2 146 

PA1 1 (3) 75 LRGO 8/11/2012 10:55:40 8/11/2012 11:17:00 317,181 14,075 1359.83 910 0 GC 1.3 98.4 17.1 148 

PA1 4 (1) 69 LRGO 8/10/2012 17:11:15 8/10/2012 17:33:00 275,855 14,960 1182.66 587 0 GC 36.8 63.7 20.9 164 

PA1 4 (3) 73 LRGO 8/11/2012 10:01:01 8/11/2012 10:22:00 293,124 15,868 1256.69 597 0 GC 36.3 65.4 20.9 128 

PA1 4 (4) 76 LRGO 8/11/2012 11:25:30 8/11/2012 11:42:00 290,601 15,876 1245.88 581 0 GC 37.8 63.3 21.1 129 

PA2 1 (1) 65 LRGO 8/10/2012 14:29:45 8/10/2012 14:51:00 181,306 8,026 777.30 910 0 GC 1.6 98.8 17.1 197 

PA2 1 (2) 66 LRGO 8/10/2012 15:08:01 8/10/2012 15:29:00 181,094 8,036 776.40 911 0 GC 1.6 97.1 17.1 148 

PA2 1 (3) 67 LRGO 8/10/2012 15:39:30 8/10/2012 16:00:00 181,265 8,035 777.13 908 0 GC 1.6 97.0 17.1 143 

PA2 4 (1) 71 LRGO 8/11/2012 9:12:50 8/11/2012 9:34:00 164,334 8,786 704.54 610 0 GC 33.8 66.1 20.6 104 

PA2 4 (2) 77 LRGO 8/11/2012 12:53:20 8/11/2012 13:16:00 161,703 8,848 693.26 578 0 GC 39.1 64.5 21.1 152 

PA2 4 (3) 78 LRGO 8/11/2012 13:23:40 8/11/2012 13:45:00 163,071 8,937 699.13 577 0 GC 39.3 64.6 21.1 151 

LTS 1 6 LRGO 8/3/2012 20:24:15 8/3/2012 20:40:00 91,509 4,080 3530.89 912 0 Flow Meters 1.7 97.6 17.2 174 

LTS 3 24 LRGO 8/6/2012 18:31:33 8/6/2012 18:43:00 91,832 4,095 3543.37 912 0 Flow Meters 1.7 97.6 17.2 62 

LTS 4 38 LRGO 8/7/2012 17:57:20 8/7/2012 18:15:00 91,222 4,067 3519.81 912 0 Flow Meters 1.7 97.6 17.2 68 

LTS 6 70 LRGO 8/10/2012 18:03:20 8/10/2012 18:15:00 92,239 4,113 3559.07 912 0 Flow Meters 1.7 97.6 17.2 197 

LTS 7 79 LRGO 8/11/2012 14:11:10 8/11/2012 14:23:00 90,257 4,024 3482.59 912 0 Flow Meters 1.7 97.6 17.2 190 

Test Conditions Process Data VG Composition Data Weather 

Condition Run Run ID Flare Start Time End time Std Flare Gas Flow Flare Gas Flow Flare Tip Velocity Flare Gas NHV Steam Flow Instrument Nitrogen THC MWvg Wind Direction Wi

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Tip ‐‐ ‐‐ scf/hr lb/hr ft/s BTU/scf lb/hr ‐‐ mol % mol % lb/lbmol ° (N=0, E=90) 

SN2 Nitrogen 1 7 TCEQ 8/4/2012 9:56:15 8/4/2012 10:08:00 84,999 6,541 3.34 346 0 Flow Meters 81.8 18.1 29.7 202 

SN2 Nitrogen 2 8 TCEQ 8/4/2012 10:13:40 8/4/2012 10:25:00 85,427 6,528 3.36 301 0 Flow Meters 84.2 15.8 29.5 190 SN2 Nitrogen 3 9 TCEQ 8/4/2012 10:33:20 8/4/2012 10:45:00 85,737 6,498 3.37 251 0 Flow Meters 86.9 13.1 29.2 188 SN2 Nitrogen 4 10 TCEQ 8/4/2012 10:51:01 8/4/2012 11:03:00 85,424 6,418 3.36 198 0 Flow Meters 89.6 10.4 29.0 194 SN2 Nitrogen 5 11 TCEQ 8/4/2012 11:12:01 8/4/2012 11:23:00 85,725 6,389 3.37 149 0 Flow Meters 92.2 7.8 28.7 206 

SN2 Steam 1 (2) 2 TCEQ 8/3/2012 17:15:55 8/3/2012 17:28:00 13,362 1,286 3.35 1902 3363 Flow Meters 0.3 99.5 37.1 143 

SN2 Steam 2 (1) 3 TCEQ 8/3/2012 17:53:55 8/3/2012 18:05:00 15,756 1,514 3.38 1899 3284 Flow Meters 0.3 99.5 37.0 153 

SN2 Steam 3 (1) 4 TCEQ 8/3/2012 18:21:40 8/3/2012 18:33:00 11,452 1,104 3.29 1905 3383 Flow Meters 0.3 99.5 37.2 146 

SN2 Steam 4 (2) 12 TCEQ 8/4/2012 11:48:01 8/4/2012 12:04:00 6,717 644 3.35 1895 3670 Flow Meters 0.3 99.5 37.0 190 

SN2 Steam 4 (3) 14 TCEQ 8/4/2012 12:38:50 8/4/2012 12:50:00 6,698 644 3.32 1902 3635 Flow Meters 0.3 99.5 37.1 215 

SN2 Steam 5 (1) 13 TCEQ 8/4/2012 12:17:20 8/4/2012 12:29:00 8,889 856 3.39 1903 3612 Flow Meters 0.3 99.5 37.1 210 

Test Conditions Process Data VG Composition Data Weather 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 51

A.2  Process Conditions

A.2.1 Test Series SN1

The purpose of test series SN1 is to determine the performance curve of the SKEC burners at the 

minimum flow rate. 

Process Conditions 

Figures A.2.1-1 shows vent gas composition, process conditions, wind speed, and wind direction 

for test series SN1. 

Figure A.2.1-1: Vent gas composition, vent gas flow, exit velocity, NHVcz, S/VG, wind 

speed, and wind direction for SN1 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 52

Run Table 

Table A.2.1-1 details which PFTIR was used for each run, the run length, and any important 

notes. 

Run PFTIR Used Run Length Notes 

1 (1) Both 37 minutes 

1 (2) PFTIR 2 21 minutes 

1 (3) PFTIR 2 23 minutes 

2 (1) Both 25 minutes 

2 (2) PFTIR 2 20 minutes 

2 (3) Both 22 minutes 

3 (1) PFTIR 2 36 minutes 

3 (2) PFTIR 2 20 minutes 

3 (3) Both 21 minutes 

4 (1) PFTIR 2 23 minutes 

4 (2) PFTIR 2 21 minutes 

4 (3) Both 21 minutes 

5 (1) PFTIR 2 23 minutes 

5 (2) PFTIR 2 21 minutes 

5 (3) Both 22 minutes 

6 (1) PFTIR 2 23 minutes 

6 (2) PFTIR 2 21 minutes 

6 (3) Both 21 minutes 

Table A.2.1-1: Run Details for SN1 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 53

A.2.2		Test Series SN2 Nitrogen

The purpose of test series SN2 Nitrogen is to determine if nitrogen dilution and steam dilution 

have the same effect on combustion efficiency. 

Process Conditions 

Figures A.2.2-1 shows vent gas composition, process conditions, wind speed, and wind direction 

for test series SN2 Nitrogen. 

Figure A.2.2-1: Vent gas composition, vent gas flow, exit velocity, NHVcz, wind speed, and 

wind direction for SN2 Nitrogen 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 54

Run Table

Table A.2.2-1 details which PFTIR was used for each run, the run length, and any important 

notes. 

Run PFTIR Used Run Length Notes 

1 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

2 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

3 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

4 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

5 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

Table A.2.2-1: Run Details for SN2 Nitrogen 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 55

A.2.3		Test Series SN2 Steam

The purpose of test series SN2 Steam is to determine if nitrogen dilution and steam dilution have 

the same effect on combustion efficiency. 

Process Conditions 

Figures A.2.3-1 shows vent gas composition, process conditions, wind speed, and wind direction 

for test series SN2 Steam. 

Figure A.2.3-1: Vent gas composition, vent gas flow, exit velocity, NHVcz, S/VG, wind 

speed, and wind direction for SN2 Steam 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 56

Run Table

Table A.2.3-1 details which PFTIR was used for each run, the run length, and any important 

notes. 

Run PFTIR Used Run Length Notes 

1 (1) N/A 3 Minutes Aborted because of issues with boiler consistency 

1 (2) Both 11 Minutes 

2 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

3 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

4 (1) N/A 6 Minutes Aborted because of issues with boiler consistency 

4 (2) Both 16 Minutes 

4 (3) Both 11 Minutes 

5 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

Table A.2.3-1: Run Details for SN2 Steam 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 57

A.2.4		Test Series VS1

The purpose of test series VS1 is to identify the minimum NHVcz needed to maintain a flame 

over a range of exit velocities on the SKEC burners. 

Process Conditions 

Figures A.2.4-1 shows vent gas composition, process conditions, wind speed, and wind direction 

for test series VS1. 

Figure A.2.4-1: Vent gas composition, vent gas flow, exit velocity, NHVcz, S/VG, wind 

speed, and wind direction for VS1 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 58

Run Table

Table A.2.4-1 details which PFTIR was used for each run, the run length, and any important 

notes. 

Run PFTIR Used Run Length Notes 

1 (1) Both 15 Minutes 

2 (1) PFTIR 1 12 Minutes 

2 (2) PFTIR 2 13 Minutes 

2 (3) PFTIR 2 13 Minutes 

3 (1) Both 12 Minutes Flare went out by itself after data collection stopped. 

4 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

4 (2) PFTIR 2 12 Minutes 

4 (3) PFTIR 2 11 Minutes 

5 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

6 (1) Both 13 Minutes 

6 (2) PFTIR 2 12 Minutes 

6 (3) PFTIR 2 11 Minutes 

7 (1) Both 11 Minutes 

7 (2) PFTIR 2 12 Minutes 

7 (3) PFTIR 2 12 Minutes 

8 (1) N/A 3 Minutes Aborted because two burners went out. 

9a (1) Both 12 Minutes 

9a (2) PFTIR 2 15 Minutes Stack behind flare plume. No useable data. 

Table A.2.4-1: Run Details for VS1 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 59

A.2.5		Test Series PA1

The purpose of test series PA1 is to determine the minimum NHVcz that supports good 

combustion at sonic velocity on the LRGO burners. 

Process Conditions 

Figures A.2.5-1 shows vent gas composition, process conditions, wind speed, and wind direction 

for test series PA1. 

Figure A.2.5-1: Vent gas composition, vent gas flow, exit velocity, NHVcz, wind speed, and 

wind direction for PA1 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 60

Run Table

Table A.2.5-1 details which PFTIR was used for each run, the run length, and any important 

notes. 

Run PFTIR Used Run Length Notes 

1 (1) Both 21 Minutes 

1 (2) Both 21 Minutes 

1 (3) Both 21 Minutes 

4 (1) Both 21 Minutes 

4 (2) N/A 2 Minutes Run aborted after burner went out. 

4 (3) Both 21 Minutes 

4 (4) Both 17 Minutes Run stopped after burner went out. 

Table A.2.5-1: Run Details for PA1 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 61

A.2.6		Test Series PA2

The purpose of test series PA2 is to determine the minimum NHVcz that supports good 

combustion at minimum velocity on the LRGO burners. 

Process Conditions 

Figures A.2.6-1 shows vent gas composition, process conditions, wind speed, and wind direction 

for test series PA2. 

Figure A.2.6-1: Vent gas composition, vent gas flow, exit velocity, NHVcz, wind speed, and 

wind direction for PA2 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 62

Run Table

Table A.2.6-1 details which PFTIR was used for each run, the run length, and any important 

notes. 

Run PFTIR Used Run Length Notes 

1 (1) Both 21 Minutes 

1 (2) Both 21 Minutes 

1 (3) Both 21 Minutes 

4 (1) Both 21 Minutes 

4 (2) Both 22 Minutes 

4 (3) Both 21 Minutes 

Table A.2.6-1: Run Details for PA2 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 63

A.2.7		Test Series LTS

The purpose of test series LTS is to demonstrate the repeatability of PFTIR measurements over 

an extended period. This test may also provide information on the effects of uncontrolled 

variables such as wind on the overall test result. The LTS test series was conducted on the LRGO 

burners. Every effort was made to ensure the controllable variables were held as constant as 

possible from run to run. 

Process Conditions 

Figures A.2.7-1 shows vent gas composition, process conditions, wind speed, and wind direction 

for test series LTS. 

Figure A.2.7-1: Vent gas composition, vent gas flow, exit velocity, NHVcz, wind speed, and 

wind direction for LTS 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 64

Run Table 

Table A.2.7-1 details which PFTIR was used for each run, the run length, and any important 

notes. 

Run PFTIR Used Run Length Run Notes 

1 PFTIR 2 15 Minutes 

2 PFTIR 2 13 Minutes Process data logger turned off. Run Discarded. 

3 Both 11 Minutes 

4 PFTIR 2 17 Minutes 

5 PFTIR 2 11 Minutes Run considered an outlier. Run Discarded. 

6 Both 12 Minutes 

7 Both 12 Minutes 

Table A.2.7-1: Run Details for LTS 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 65

A.3  Calculations

The following calculations are used this report. In addition to the calculations listed below, many 

of the calculations used in reducing the PFTIR data are provided in Appendix A.5. 

The Gas Chromatograph (GC) measured the following hydrocarbons. 

i Measured 

Component 

MW 

(lb/lb-mol)

NHV 

(BTU/scf) 

LFL 

(Vol. %) Range GC Units 

1 Nitrogen 28.02 0 ∞ 0 - 100 Mole % 

2 Carbon Dioxide 44.01 0 ∞ 0 - 100 Mole % 

3 Methane 16.04 896.2 5.0 0 - 100 Mole % 

4 Ethane 30.07 1595.3 3.0 0 - 100 Mole % 

5 Propane 44.1 2281.4 2.1 0 - 100 Mole % 

6 Propylene 42.08 2150.6 2.4 0 - 100 Mole % 

7 Normal Butane 58.12 2967.5 1.8 0 - 100 Mole % 

Table A.3-1. List of hydrocarbons measured by Gas Chromatograph 

A.3.1		Vent Gas Molecular Weight

The hydrocarbon molecular weight is calculated as: 

௜ܹܯ ∗ ௜݈݋݉ ෍ ൌ௚ ௩ܹܯ

଻

௜ୀଵ

Equation A.3-1 

Where: 

MWvg = molecular weight of the vent gas (lb/lb-mol) 

MWi = molecular weight of each compound i from Table A.3-1 (lb/lb-mol) 

moli = mole percent of each compound i from Table A.3-1 (%) 

A.3.2		Net Heating Value of Combustion Zone

The Net Heating Value of the Vent Gas (NHVvg) is calculated and reported from the GC at the 

conclusion of each analytical cycle. The Net Heating Value is the Lower Heating Value or LHV 

defined as: 

“Lower Heating Value” or “LHV” shall mean the theoretical total quantity of 

heat liberated by the complete combustion of a unit volume or weight of a fuel 

initially at 25° Centigrade and 760 mmHg, assuming that the produced water is 

vaporized and all combustion products remain at, or are returned to, 25° 

Centigrade; however, the standard for determining the volume corresponding to 

one mole is 20° Centigrade. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 66

The Combustion Zone Gas Net Heating Value is the flow-weighted average NHV of all 

combustion zone components. The contribution of pilot gas to the NHVcz is not considered 

significant. 

ܰܪܸ௖௭ ൌ ൫ܳ௩௚ ∙ ܰܪܸ௩௚൯

൫ܳ௩௚൯ ൅ ሺܳ௦ሻ Equation A.3-2 

Where: 

NHVcz = combustion zone gas net heating value " ("BTU" ⁄scf) 

Qvg = volumetric vent gas flow rate (scf/hr) 

NHVvg = net heating value of vent gas (Btu/scf) 

Qs = volumetric steam flow rate (scf/hr) 

The calculation of each component is shown below. 

Volumetric flow rates 

Gas and steam flow data was provided in units of mass flow (lb/hr). This was converted to 

volumetric flow (scf/hr) by the following equation. 

ܳൌ݉ሶ ∙

385.5

ܯܹ Equation A.3-3 

Where: 

Q = volumetric flow rate for steam or vent gas (scf/hr) 

mሶ = mass flow rate for steam or vent gas (lb/hr) 

MW = molecular weight of steam or vent gas (lb/lb-mol) 

385.5 = molar volume of an ideal gas at 68 °F and 1 atm (scf/lb-mol) 

Net heating value of the vent gas 

௜ܸܪܰ ∗ ௜ݔ෍ൌ௚ ௩ܸܪܰ

଻

௜ୀଵ

Equation A.3-4 

Where: 

NHVvg = net heating value of vent gas (BTU/scf) 

i = individual pure component in vent gas 

xi = concentration of individual pure component in vent gas (volume fraction) 

NHVi = net heating value of pure individual component i (Btu/scf) 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 67

A.3.3		Steam to Vent Gas Ratio (S/VG)

The Steam to Vent Gas Ratio is calculated (as the name implies) as follows: 

S/VG ൌ

݉ሶ ௦௧௘௔௠

݉ሶ ௩௚

Equation A.3-5 

Where: 

S/VG = steam to vent gas ratio (lb/lb) 

݉ሶ ௦௧௘௔௠ = steam mass flow rate (lb/hr) 

݉ሶ ௩௚ = vent gas mass flow rate (lb/hr) 

Note: S/VG may also be calculated on a volumetric basis using steam and vent gas volumetric 

flow rates. 

A.3.4		Total Hydrocarbons from PFTIR

The total hydrocarbon values reported by the PFTIR measurements are adjusted by carbon 

weighting as follows: 

ܶܥܪ௪ ൌ ܥ஼ுర ൅2∙ܥ஼మுర ൅3∙ܥ஼యுల ൅ 4 ∙ ൫ܥ஻௨௧ ൅ ܥଵ,ଷ஻௨௧൯

஼ுܥ∙5൅

Equation A.3-6 

Where: 

THCw = weighted total hydrocarbons from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

CCH4 = methane from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

CC2H4 = ethylene from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

CC3H6 = propylene from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

CBut = butane from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

C1,3But = 1,3 butadiene from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

CHC = pentane and larger hydrocarbons from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

2,3,4,5 = number of carbon atoms in each molecule" 

A.3.5		Flare Combustion Efficiency

Combustion Efficiency means the efficiency of converting organic compounds to carbon dioxide 

as measured in the flare plume. Flare combustion efficiency is calculated as follows: 

ൌ ܧܥ

ଶܱܥ

௪ܥܪܶ ൅ ܱܥ ൅ ଶܱܥ

 Equation A.3-7 

Where: 

CE = flare combustion efficiency (%) 

CO2 = carbon dioxide from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

CO = carbon monoxide from PFTIR (ppm•m) 

THCw = weighted total hydrocarbons from PFTIR (ppm•m) 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 68

A.3.6		Tip Velocity

The velocity of the combustion zone gas (vczg) also referred to as “tip velocity” is calculated as 

follows. 

ݒ௖௭௚ ൌ ܳ௩௚ ൅ ܳ௖ି௦௧௘௔௠

௣௜௧ܣ

Equation A.3-8 

Where 

vczg = velocity of the combustion zone gas 

Qvg = volumetric flow rate of the vent gas 

Qc-steam = volumetric flow rate of the vent gas 

Atip = open area of the flare tip 

A.3.7		Combustion Efficiency Multiplier

The Combustion Efficiency Multiplier is calculated as follows 

∗௭௖ܸܪܰ ൌ ܣ

௚௩ܮܨܮ ∗ ௚௩ܸܪܰ

Equation A.3-9 

Where 

A = combustion efficiency multiplier 

NHVvg = net heating value of the vent gas 

LFLvg = lower flammability limit of the vent gas 

NHVcz* = target net heating value of the combustion zone 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 69

A.4  The PFTIR Test Method ‐ Description, Operation, and Analysis

A.4.1		Technology Overview

The instrument used to measure the gas composition of the flare plume is the Passive Fourier 

Transform Infrared (PFTIR) analyzer. To monitor elevated flares, standard “active” IR 

spectroscopy could be used. However, it is difficult from a practical standpoint to pass a beam of 

IR light through an elevated flare plume and then capture the transmitted light. A flare plume is 

constantly moving and would require that the IR light beam constantly move to remain inside the 

flare plume. Therefore, for this project, a “passive” approach is used that does not require an 

independent IR light source. PFTIR analysis operates on the principle of spectral analysis of 

thermal radiation emitted by hot gases. “Passive” means that no “active” infrared light source is 

used. Instead, the hot gases of the flare are the infrared source. The spectrometer is a receiver 

only. 

Most stack test and fence-line measurement technologies either physically extract a sample of 

gas from a stack into a sample cell or “shoot” a reference beam across the stack or along the 

fence-line. These technologies measure how much of a reference IR beam is absorbed by the gas 

at various wavelengths. This process generates an “absorption spectrum”. Since these techniques 

are a mature technology, many references and software tools available for analyzing absorption 

spectra. 

The PFTIR approach is possible because hot gases emit radiation at the same frequencies as they 

absorb. The result is referred to as a “radiance spectrum.” Since the infrared radiance spectra of 

hot gases have the same patterns or “fingerprints” as the absorption spectra, it is possible to 

convert radiance spectra to absorption spectra and then to use the many available analytical tools 

to determine gas concentrations. Figure A.4.3-1 shows a schematic of a PFTIR measuring a flare 

plume. 

For this test program, Dr. Robert Spellicy of Industrial Monitor and Control Corporation 

(IMACC) oversaw the PFTIR operation and data analysis. Dr. Spellicy and IMACC developed 

both the PFTIR instrument and the analytical software. 

Figure A.4.1-1: Schematic of PFTIR Measuring a Flare Plume 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 70

There is one main difference between the two approaches: the radiance spectrum from hot gases 

is proportional to the concentration of the gas (as it is absorption), but it also affected by gas 

temperature. In standard absorption FTIR, the temperature of the gas is known and controlled. 

With PFTIR measurements on a flare plume, the temperature is unknown. Therefore, when 

conducting PFTIR measurements, the temperature of the flare plume must be determined. Details 

of how this temperature determination is made are found in Appendix A.5.3. 

Consequently, unlike absorption spectroscopy, the PFTIR signal must be calibrated in absolute 

units of radiance. This requires that the instrument be calibrated utilizing an IR source of known 

spectral radiance. This calibration is accomplished with a commercial black body calibrator. This 

calibrator produces a known IR distribution as predicted by the Planck function. Details of the 

calibration are found in Appendix A.4.2.

Calibrations were performed each day at the beginning and end of testing. Calibration results are 

found in Appendix A.12. 

A more detailed treatment of PFTIR theory is found in Appendix A.5. 

A.4.2		PFTIR Calibration Overview

In order to perform calibrations on the PFTIR, a calibration cart is used. See Figure A.2-1. This 

cart consists of a telescope, identical to the telescope on the PFTIR. At the focal point of the 

telescope is a mount where various calibration materials are placed as described below. The 

telescope acts as a collimator providing a collimated beam with the same diameter as the PFTIR 

telescope. When the collimator and the PFTIR are aligned, the calibration source fills the PFTIR 

field of view. To perform the calibrations, the calibration cart was placed next to the base of the 

flare and aimed toward the PFTIR. The two were then aligned and each calibration source, in 

turn, was placed in the collimator. The PFTIR then collected data from each source. This data is 

then used in the analytical software to calibrate the raw signal and to correct for interferences. 

Figure A.4.2-1: The Calibration Cart 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 71

Several calibrations were performed throughout the test program to account for the effects of sky 

background and atmospheric radiance and transmittance. Three radiant sources with various 

characteristics were placed at the focal point of the collimator at roughly the same distance from 

the PFTIR as the flare. Precise alignment of the PFTIR with the collimator was critical during 

these calibrations. The sky background calibrations were performed as needed during testing. 

Calibration files are found in Appendix A.12. 

Black Body Calibration 

To calibrate the PFTIR signal in absolute units of radiance, a black body with an IR source of 

known spectral radiance was used. A commercial black body calibrator was placed in the 

collimator at the base of the flare, which produced a known IR spectrum as predicted by the 

Planck function. The calibration of this black body standard is traceable to the National Institute 

for Standards and Technology (NIST). This calibration was done at least once each day. 

IR Source Calibration 

To determine the atmospheric transmission loss between the flare plume and the PFTIR, an 

infrared (IR) source was placed in the collimator at the base of the flare. It created a strong IR 

signal that the PFTIR could detect to determine atmospheric transmission. This calibration was 

done at the beginning and end of each day. 

Cold Source Calibration 

Since the air and PFTIR are not at absolute zero, they radiate also. This radiation will be detected 

by the PFTIR. To determine the atmospheric radiance generated by the air between the flare 

plume and the PFTIR and from the PFTIR instrument itself, a cold source of liquid nitrogen in a 

windowed cup was placed in the collimator at the base of the flare. It zeroed any radiance except 

for that created by the atmosphere and the PFTIR. This calibration was done at the beginning and 

end of each day. 

Sky Background Calibration 

Background radiance calibrations were conducted as needed during the test program. When the 

background changed behind the flare plume, such as when clouds were passing, backgrounds 

were taken more often. It was not uncommon to take a background every 10 minutes during a 

run. During the background calibration, the PFTIR would swing off the flare plume and collect a 

reading for approximately one minute, then swing back to the flare plume and continue 

collecting data. Background times are included in the PFTIR raw data in Appendix A.13.

A.4.3		Siting Configuration

Figure A.4.3-1 shows the locations of the SKEC/LRGO burners and the elevated steam-assist 

flare tip, as well as each PFTIR. For testing conducted on the SKEC and LRGO burner tips, the 

PFTIR 1 location was inside a trailer northeast of the burner set up. For the SN2 test series, the 

PFTIR 1 location was inside a trailer just northwest of the control room. For all test series, the 

PFTIR 2 location was inside a trailer just south of the control room. Both PFTIRs were operated 

from the trailers. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 72

Whenever possible data was collected by both PFTIRs during a run for simultaneous readings. 

However, only some runs had simultaneous readings due to high flow conditions and equipment 

malfunctions. 

The main control room for the flare test was located at the flare pad just west of the 

SKEC/LRGO burner manifold. Two computer displays showed process data from the plant and 

video camera feeds from each PFTIR location. All camera recording was stopped and started 

from the control room. Radios were used to communicate between the flare test control room and 

the PFTIR locations. 

 

 Figure A.4.3-1: Maps of the PFTIR Locations in Relation to SKEC/LRGO and Elevated 

Steam-Assist Flare Tips 

A.4.4		Operation

Each PFTIR was housed in a trailer. These trailers were positioned to obtain the best view of the 

flare plumes regardless of wind conditions. Calibrations for each PFTIR were performed at the 

beginning and end of each day. Results of these daily calibrations are found in Appendix A.12. 

After calibration was completed, the equipment was ready to begin testing. Before each test run, 

a sky background was obtained. Additional sky backgrounds were taken approximately every 10 

minutes or as sky conditions changed during testing. 

Both PFTIRs collected data during a run for simultaneous readings. However, for some runs only 

one PFTIR was operational due to high flow conditions and equipment malfunctions. When both 

PFTIRs were collecting spectra, the results were averaged to determine combustion efficiency. 

Wind speed changed the profile of the flare plume. When the wind speed was relatively low, the 

flare plume was more upright and compact. When the wind speed was relatively high, the flare 

plume was more horizontal and elongated. Aiming was adjusted for wind speed to capture a 

representative section of the flare plume that was not too close to the flare flame and not too cold 

for the PFTIR to be effective. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 73

A.4.5		Aiming

Proper aiming of the PFTIR is critical to acquisition of consistent, reliable data. Ideally, the 

PFTIR should be aimed near the centerline of the flare plume about one flame length away from 

the flame tip. At this distance, all thermal destruction reactions have reached completion. 

However, the plume is a moving target. Therefore, in an attempt to maintain an optimal view, the 

PFTIR operator must continually adjust the aiming position of the PFTIR. This task becomes 

increasingly difficult when the wind is shifting, causing the plume to move in different 

directions. Aiming is poor and readings are invalid when the flare plume is blowing directly 

away from the PFTIR.

Because two PFTIRs were used at separate locations for the tests, at least one PFTIR always had 

a good view of the flare plume. Aiming videos were monitored during the test program to ensure 

that acceptable aiming was maintained. The best opportunity for the PFTIR to obtain a 

representative sample of the flare plume is when: 

1. The flame is buoyant and plume is rising directly above the flame, or 

2. The flame is “bent over” by the wind and the plume is roughly perpendicular to the 

PFTIR field of view. Figure A.4.5-1 shows a perpendicular view from a PFTIR location. 

Figure A.4.5-1: Example of Good Plume Alignment with PFTIR 

The worst alignment occurs when the flame and plume are bent by the wind and blowing directly 

away from the PFTIR. Figure A.4.5-2 shows an example of poor PFTIR alignment. When this 

occurs, the flare structure, tip, and flame block the view of the plume from the PFTIR, making it 

difficult to obtain a representative sample of the plume. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 74

Figure A.4.5-2: Example of Poor Plume Alignment with PFTIR 

This effect can be seen visually on the PFTIR aiming camera. Figure A.4.6-3 shows example 

images of good plume alignment and poor plume alignment, respectively. The crosshair on the 

images shows the PFTIR field aiming point. Data collected from a poorly aligned plume may 

result in invalid data. 

	 	

Figure A.4.6-3: Left – Aiming Camera with Good Plume Alignment. Right – Aiming 

Camera with Poor Plume Alignment 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 75

To avoid the problem of poor plume alignment, two PFTIRs were placed at separate locations so 

at least one PFTIR had good plume alignment regardless of wind direction. However, because 

many of the test runs featured high exit velocities, wind speed and direction had little impact on 

the ability of the PFTIRs to get a good reading. 

A.4.6		Data Reduction

Once collected, the raw PFTIR data must be processed to yield the individual flare component 

concentrations. This data processing was performed by Dr. Robert Spellicy from IMACC. Data 

were compiled at approximately one minute intervals. Each one minute point consists of 

approximately 40 individual measurements averaged into a single spectrum. 

The data analysis procedure has four major components: 

1. Convert the raw interferogram to a single-beam spectrum using a Fourier Transform 

process. 

2. Isolate the flare transmissivity from the other interferences listed above. 

3. Convert the isolated flare transmissivity spectrum to an absorbance spectrum so it can be 

further analyzed with standard spectroscopic techniques. 

4. Determine the concentrations of individual components of the flare plume from the 

absorbance spectrum. 

Each of these steps is discussed briefly below. A more detailed treatment is found in Appendix 

A.5. 

Step 1 – Convert the raw interferogram to a radiance spectrum 

The raw data from the PFTIR are in the form of an interferogram, which is radiance as a function 

of FTIR scan position. The Fourier Transform (FT) process converts this data into a radiance 

spectrum, which is radiance as a function of wavelength or, in this case, wavenumber. The result 

is what is referred to as a “single beam” radiance spectrum. These single beam spectra have been 

supplied on the data hard drives that accompany this report. The FT process is a standard 

spectroscopic procedure and is not discussed in detail in this report. 

Step 2 – Isolate the flare transmission spectrum 

Once the radiance spectrum has been generated, the flare transmission must be isolated from all 

the interferants that the PFTIR also “sees”. In order to accomplish this, each term in Equation 

A.4-1 above must be determined. This is done as follows: 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 76

Background radiance (Nbkg) – As described in Appendix A.4.5, at least once each day, the 

PFTIR was aimed at an unobstructed part of the sky. Since the background radiance is affected 

by conditions such as sun position and cloud cover, this procedure was repeated whenever a 

significant change in background was observed. 

Flare transmissivity (τflr) – This is the value we are looking for and is the result when all 

competing factors are removed. It actually appears two places: 1) in transmitting the sky 

background through the flare to the PFTIR and 2) in the radiance term for the flare itself. The 

flare transmission must be extracted from the complex mixture of signals received by the PFTIR. 

This task is accomplished by the IMACC software. 

Atmospheric transmissivity (τatm) – This value is determined by aiming the PFTIR at an IR 

source and taking the ratio of the value obtained (minus the atmospheric radiance) to a “synthetic 

background” spectrum. This synthetic background (referred to as I0) represents the shape of the 

radiance spectrum that would be generated by the PFTIR in the absence of all gases. For this 

project the IR source was a SiC source operated at a temperature of 1250 K. This is a standard 

source used in most active FTIR systems. This source has sufficient signal throughout the 

infrared to allow for a transmission spectrum to be determined over the range of wavenumbers 

needed. 

Flare plume radiance (Nflr) – Plume radiance is (1 – plume transmission) times the Planck 

function (evaluated at the temperature of the plume). The plume radiance is the desired 

measurement for flare testing. However, as discussed elsewhere, the plume radiance signal is 

mixed with other signals and so must be corrected with respect to this interference. 

Atmospheric radiance (Natm) – This value is determined by aiming the PFTIR at very cold source 

in the calibration telescope located at the same distance from the PFTIR as the flare. Any 

radiance observed will then be due to the intervening atmosphere plus any radiance from the 

PFTIR instrument itself. This measured value is referred to as Mn. For this project, the cold 

source was a windowed cup filled with liquid nitrogen where the level of the liquid nitrogen was 

just below the collimator inlet. 

PFTIR radiance (Nf) – PFTIR radiance is the emissions of the instrument itself. It is measured 

together with atmospheric radiance and is part of the Mn measurement. 

Once these values are known, they are applied to the total radiance spectrum by IMACC 

proprietary software to isolate the flare transmission spectrum. For a more detailed description of 

this process, see Appendix A.5. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 77

Step 3 – Convert the transmission spectrum to an absorption spectrum 

Once the flare transmission spectrum has been isolated, it must be converted to an absorbance 

spectrum so that standard spectroscopic techniques can be used for further analysis. 

Transmission and absorbance are related by the Beer-Lambert law through the following 

equation. 

߬௣௟௨௠௘ ൌ ݁ି௄ሺజሻ∗௖∗௟ Equation A.4-2

Essentially, absorbance is the negative log of transmission, thus: 

Absorbanceሺ߭ሻ ൌ ሺ0.434ሻܭሺ߭ሻ ∗ ܿ ∗ ݈ Equation A.4-3

See Appendix A.5 for further detail. This conversion is a standard spectroscopic procedure. 

Step 4 – Determine the concentrations of individual components in the flare plume 

Once the absorbance spectrum has been generated, there are several analytical techniques that 

may be used to estimate individual component concentrations. For this project, a modified 

Classical Least Squares (CLS) analysis was used. IMACC proprietary software was used for this 

step of the data analysis. The modifications to standard CLS include algorithms for linearizing 

the absorbance for each analyte with concentration, corrections for spectral baseline shifts, 

corrections for any spectral line shifts observed, and algorithms for dynamic reference spectra 

selection based upon observed concentrations of each compound. 

The CLS technique compares measured spectra to combinations reference spectra of known 

concentration and interfering compounds and matches the absorbance of the data and the 

references to determine gas concentration. This process is performed for all components present 

to account for all spectral features present. 

After fitting, CLS also determines the difference or residual between the measured and scaled 

references. The fitting process minimizes the residuals in each analysis region. The software 

used for this project uses dynamic reference selection to select reference spectra based upon 

measured gas concentrations. In most cases, this means different reference spectra will be chosen 

for each analyte in the measured spectrum. This process will be repeated up to four times to 

optimize all spectra compared to the measured data. 

A flow chart of the PFTIR data analysis process is shown in Figure A.4-10. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 78

Figure A.4.8-1: PFTIR Data Analysis Progression 

PFTIR Data Analysis Progression

Interferogram

(volts vs cm retardation)

Radiance Spectrum

(Single Beam)

(volts vs wavenumber)

Radiant Energy From 

Flare Plume Fourier Transform

Mn Corrected

Radiance Spectrum

(Single Beam)

(volts vs wavenumber) Subtract Mn

Converted

Radiance Spectrum

(Single Beam)

(Radiance Units) Calibration Apply BB 

Bkgnd Corrected

Radiance Spectrum

(Single Beam)

(Radiance Units)

Sky Background 

Correction

Flare Plume

Transmittance 

Spectrum

(Radiance Units) IMACC Software

Flare Plume

Absorbance 

Spectrum

(Radiance Units) Negative Log

Individual 

Component 

Concentration

(ppm-meters) CLS Analysis

Note: Data indicated in grey 

boxes are provided as raw 

data files.
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 79

A.4.7		Interferences

For final analysis of the PFTIR spectra, a list of possible interferences is included with the 

method and raw PFTIR data files. These include components that are likely to appear in the 

spectra but have no impact on the combustion efficiency calculation. The major interferent is 

typically water, but other compounds like ozone and nitrogen oxides are also included. 

A.4.8		Data Filtering

The raw FTIR data (one minute averages) are reported from the analytical software with a 2-

sigma (2σ) error calculated from the fit of the reference spectra to the sample spectra. Any 

individual component measurement that was less than 2 times this error (i.e., 4σ) was not used in 

calculating combustion efficiency. 

This filtering eliminates non-detectable individual components from the combustion efficiency 

calculation. For very poor combustion efficiencies, the CO2 region of the spectra is very weak 

and might not pass through the detection filter described above. Without a CO2 reading, the 

combustion efficiency drops to zero. However, this does not mean that combustion is not 

occurring. It just means that the signal for CO2 is too weak to detect. Evidence of combustion 

still appears with the detection of CO, a product of inefficient combustion, but this cannot be 

used to calculate combustion efficiency. Therefore, runs that do not have CO2 readings but do 

have CO readings are marked as below the detection limit for CO2. No combustion efficiency is 

listed for these runs, even though the flare is not snuffed. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 80

A.5  PFTIR Theory and Operation

A.5.1		PFTIR Analytical Method and Procedure

Gases have highly variable absorption with wavelength. It is this variation that produces the 

absorption patterns that allow for their identification in the infrared. If the transmission of a gas 

is given by ߬ሺߥ, ܶሻ then ሾ1െ߬ሺߥ, ܶሻሿ is the amount of absorption. The radiation the gas emits at 

temperature T is then given by: 

ܰሺߥ, ܶሻ ൌ ሾ1െ߬ሺߥ, ܶሻሿ ∙ ܰ௕௕ሺߥ, ܶሻ Equation A.5-1 

For flare measurements, it is this signal that is being detected from the hot gases above the 

combustion zone. 

As shown in Figure A.5.1-1, the total radiance measured by the PFTIR consists of: 

1. The background radiance altered by its transmission through the flare plume and through 

the atmosphere between the plume and the PFTIR instrument. 

2. The flare radiance altered by its transmission through the atmosphere between the plume 

and the PFTIR instrument. 

3. The atmospheric radiance of the air between the flare plume and the PFTIR instrument. 

4. The radiance from the PFTIR instrument itself. 

Figure A.5.1-1: Contributions to the measured flare radiance. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 81

The total radiant signal received then consists of: 

ܰ௧௢௧௔௟ ൌ ܰ௕௞௚ ∙ ߬௙௟௥ ∙ ߬௔௧௠ ൅ ܰ௙௟௥ ∙ ߬௔௧௠൅ܰ௔௧௠ ൅ ܰ௙ Equation A.5-2 

In Equation A.5-2, the arguments ሺߥ, ܶሻ have been dropped for clarity and the individual terms 

are: 

ܰ௧௢௧௔௟ ൌ total radiance 

ܰ௕௞௚ ൌ background sky radiance 

݂݈߬ݎ ൌ flare transmissivity

߬௔௧௠ ൌ atmospheric transmissivity

ܰ௔௧௠ ൌ atmospheric	radiance	

ܰ௙ ൌ radiance	of	the	FTIR	instrument	itself

The actual measurements performed by the PFTIR consist of the following: 

ܯ ௥௟௙ൌ the measured plume radiance 

ܯ ௕ൌ the measured background radiance taken by moving the PFTIR off the 

flare to monitor the sky background. This is given by: 

ܯ ௕ൌ ܰ௕௞௚ ∙ ߬௔௧௠ ൅ ܰ௔௧௠ ൅ ܰ௙

ܯ ௡ൌ a measurement made looking at the calibration source (see below) with a 

cold (liquid nitrogen) emitter in place of the normal (black body) 

ܯ ௕௕ൌ a measurement made looking at the calibration source with a commercial 

black body emitter in the source 

߬௔௧௠ ൌ measured atmospheric path transmission 

A.5.2		From Radiance to Transmission Spectra

Based on these measurements Equation A.5-2 can be rearranged to give the plume transmission 

as: 

߬௙௟௥ ൌ ܥ ∙ ൫ܯ ௥௟௙െ ܯ௡൯െܰ஻஻

௙௟௥ ∙ ߬௔௧௠

஻஻ܰሻെ௡ ܯ െ௕ ܯሺ ∙ ܥ

௙௟௥ ∙ ߬௔௧௠

Equation A.5-3 

In this equation, the superscript on the Planck function radiance (NBB) denotes that this is the 

Planck function computed at the temperature of the flare. C is a calibration measurement made 

with a black body calibration source. This is the initial derivation that has had some proprietary 

modifications to improve stability and performance. 

Atmospheric transmission ߬௔௧௠ is also measured using the calibration source. In this case the 

black body is replaced by a standard infrared source and the measurement is made at a path 

length roughly equal to that of the slant-path from the PFTIR to the flare. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 82

Atmospheric transmission is then given by: 

߬௔௧௠ ൌ ܯூோ െ ܯ௡

଴ܫ

Equation A.5-4 

MIR is the measured signal from the calibration source using the IR source and Mn is the 

measured cold source as defined earlier. The only term not defined is I0. This is the so-called 

synthetic background. It is frequently used in open-path FTIR measurements to convert a 

measured spectrum to transmission. It represents the shape of the spectrum that the PFTIR would 

measure if no gases were present. It can be synthesized from the ሺܯூோ െ ܯ௡ሻ measurement by 

doing a mathematical fit to points in the spectrum known to be free of molecular absorptions. An 

example is given in Figure A.2-2. In this figure, the bottom plot is the measured spectrum (here a 

relatively clean spectrum done in the laboratory), the middle plot the points chosen for fitting, 

and the top plot the mathematical fit to the chosen points. The top plot is the I0 spectrum. 

Figure A.5.2-1: Development of synthetic spectrum 

A.5.3		Determination of Flare Temperature

With Equations A.5-3 and A.5-4, Equation A.5-2 then contains only measured or computed 

terms. However, to compute the Planck function at the temperature of the flare,ܰ஻஻

௙௟௥, the flare 

gas temperature must be known. Fortunately, this can be measured using features in the PFTIR 

data itself. One convenient feature is the CO band near 2150 cm-1. Figure A.2-3 shows this 

band at two different temperatures. The upper plot is at ambient temperature (300 K) and the 

bottom plot is at 550 K. The effect of increasing temperature is to expand the band shifting the 

peak position away from band center while increasing the strength of the weaker lines farther 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 83

from band center. This is a sensitive function of temperature, so the shape of the band essentially 

measures temperature. 

 

Figure A.5.3-1: Structure of the Fundamental CO Band at 300K (top) and 550K (bottom) 

showing alteration of band shape with temperature 

The CO lines arise (in emission) from a transition of the molecule from a higher 

vibration/rotation state to a lower one. The transitions are dictated by quantum mechanics. 

However, the intensities of the individual lines are strongly influenced by the number of 

molecules in the initial state available to make the transition. This “population” of the initial 

states is dictated by the Boltzmann distribution which is given by: 

ܰ௃" ൌ ܰ଴ ∙

1 ൅ "ܬ ∙ 2

ܳ ∙ ݁

ିா"

௞∙் Equation A.5-5 

Here Nj” is the number of molecules in the initial rotational state defined by the rotational 

quantum number J”. N0 is the total number of molecules available, E” the energy of the initial 

state, k Boltzmann’s constant, T the absolute temperature, and Q a “partition sum.” The partition 

sum is just the sum of the exponential term over all possible energy levels. If the log of the 

measured intensity of the CO lines is plotted against the initial state energy, the plot is linear and 

its slope is proportional to 

݄ܿ

݇ܶ Equation A.5-6 

Where h is Planck’s constant and c the speed of light. 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 84

Temperature can therefore be determined by measuring the slope of the plot. An example of this 

process is shown in Figure A.5.3-2. In this case the temperature was 225°C and the group of 

lines to the left in Figure A.5.3-2 was used. These are defined as the R-branch lines of the CO 

band. 

Figure A.5.3-2 Plot of the log of the measured intensity of the CO lines vs. initial state 

energy 

Given temperature, all terms in Equation A.5-3 can be determined. Equation A.5-3 represents the 

transmission spectrum, just as would be observed if an active FTIR were used and an IR beam 

propagated through the plume. As a result, the same algorithms used in normal spectroscopy can 

be used to analyze this transmission spectrum. 

A.5.4		From Transmission to Absorption Spectra

As in normal absorption spectroscopy, the transmission is exponential in gas concentration. That 

is transmission is given by: 

߬௣௟௨௠௘ ൌ ݁ି௄ሺఔሻ∙௖∙௟ Equation A.5-7 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 85

Where ܭሺߥሻ is the absorption coefficient for the spectral line, c the gas concentration, and l the 

path length in the gas. Effectively ܭሺߥሻ is the reference standard in the FTIR for the gas being 

monitored. Taking the negative log of this equation gives what is called Absorbance. For 

historical reasons, log base 10 is used and thus gives: 

ܣܾݎ݋ݏܾܽ݊ܿ݁ሺߥሻ ൌ ሺ0.434ሻ ∙ ܭሺߥሻ ∙ܿ∙݈ Equation A.5-8 

Where the constant 0.434 is the log base 10 of e. Absorbance is linear in concentration 

times path length and the absorbance spectrum is analyzed using standard Classical Least 

Squares (CLS) procedures to get the individual gas concentrations in the spectrum. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 86

A.6  PFTIR QA/QC

A.6.1		Replicates

Replicate runs were performed for many of the test conditions. Table A.6.1-1 below shows the 

largest absolute variation in combustion efficiency between all test replicates. 

1st Replicate 2nd Replicate 3rd Replicate 4th Replicate 

Condition CE (%) CE (%) CE (%) CE (%) Largest ΔCE (%) 

SN1 1 97.7 98.5 97.1 1.4 

SN1 2 97.6 97.4 96.2 1.6 

SN1 3 94.5 94.3 93.5 1.0 

SN1 4 97.4 96.0 92.9 4.5 

SN1 5 81.3 94.0 88.5 12.7 

SN1 6 87.4 87.7 89.8 2.4 

SN2 Nitrogen 1 99.0 N/A 

SN2 Nitrogen 2 99.1 N/A 

SN2 Nitrogen 3 98.8 N/A 

SN2 Nitrogen 4 97.1 N/A 

SN2 Nitrogen 5 87.2 N/A 

SN2 Steam 1 98.7 N/A 

SN2 Steam 2 98.9 N/A 

SN2 Steam 3 96.3 N/A 

SN2 Steam 4 67.8 71.4 3.6 

SN2 Steam 5 82.2 N/A 

VS1 1 99.7 N/A 

VS1 2 100.0 99.9 99.8 0.2 

VS1 3 99.8 N/A 

VS1 4 99.8 99.1 99.8 0.7 

VS1 5 99.8 N/A 

VS1 6 99.5 99.7 99.9 0.4 

VS1 7 98.5 99.0 99.4 0.9 

VS1 9a 97.1 N/A 

PA1 1 98.7 100.0 100.0 1.3 

PA1 4 98.5 99.8 100.0 1.5 

PA2 1 98.9 98.8 100.0 1.2 

PA2 4 99.8 99.4 99.3 0.5 

Table A.6.1-1: Combustion Efficiencies of Replicate Runs 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 87

A.6.2		Simultaneous Runs

Several runs during the test campaign were performed with both PFTIRs collecting data. The 

Table A.6.2-1 below lists the average combustion efficiencies for each run from both PFTIRs. 

Run PFTIR 1 CE (%) PFTIR 2 CE (%) CE Difference (%) 

SN1 1 (1) 97.7 93.1 4.6 

SN1 2 (1) 97.6 97.2 0.4 

SN1 2 (3) 96.2 93.8 2.4 

SN1 3 (3) 93.5 94.1 0.6 

SN1 4 (3) 92.9 93.2 0.3 

SN1 5 (3) 88.5 91.8 3.3 

SN1 6 (3) 88.4 89.8 1.4 

VS1 1 (1) 99.7 99.8 0.1 

VS1 3 (1) 99.8 99.7 0.1 

VS1 4 (1) 99.8 99.9 0.1 

VS1 5 (1) 99.8 99.6 0.2 

VS1 6 (1) 99.5 99.8 0.3 

VS1 7 (1) 98.5 99.5 1.0 

VS1 9a (1) 97.1 99.1 2.0 

SN2 Nitrogen 1 99.0 98.9 0.1 

SN2 Nitrogen 2 99.1 98.7 0.4 

SN2 Nitrogen 3 98.8 97.7 1.1 

SN2 Nitrogen 4 97.1 96.4 0.7 

SN2 Nitrogen 5 87.2 80.2 7.0 

SN2 Steam 1 (2) 98.7 98.0 0.7 

SN2 Steam 2 (1) 98.9 98.9 0.0 

SN2 Steam 3 (1) 96.3 96.5 0.2 

SN2 Steam 5 (1) 82.2 88.3 6.1 

PA1 1 (1) 98.7 96.3 2.4 

PA1 1 (2) 100.0 99.7 0.3 

PA1 1 (3) 100.0 99.7 0.3 

PA1 4 (1) 98.5 99.9 1.4 

PA1 4 (3) 99.8 99.9 0.1 

PA1 4 (4) 100.0 99.8 0.2 

PA2 1 (1) 98.9 99.9 1.0 

PA2 1 (2) 98.8 100.0 1.2 

PA2 1 (3) 99.9 100.0 0.1 

PA2 4 (1) 99.8 99.9 0.1 

PA2 4 (2) 99.4 99.4 0.0 

PA2 4 (3) 99.3 99.9 0.6 

Table A.6.2-1: Simultaneous Runs 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 88

A.6.3		Traverse Results

The optimum aiming point for the PFTIR is typically about one flame length from the flame tip. 

This insures that all combustion is complete prior to measurement. Optimal aiming position is 

monitored by observing the intensity of the CO2 and CO lines in the single beam spectrum and 

the effects on the resulting absorbance spectrum. This is done to avoid detector saturation. 

When the flare is obviously lit but the PFTIR reports a combustion efficiency of 0%, this 

indicates improper aiming of the PFTIR. A combustion efficiency measurement of 0% when the 

flare is lit indicates that the PFTIR is unable to measure CO2. 

In order to determine how sensitive aiming position is with respect to determination of 

combustion efficiency, a traverse along the plume path was conducted. During this traverse, the 

PFTIR was gradually moved farther from the flame tip while measuring combustion efficiency 

under constant conditions. Figure 2.6.5-1 shows the result of the VS1 traverse. Both PFTIRs 

participated in the VS1 traverse. The VS1 traverse conditions were the same conditions used in 

the VS1 6 test runs. Figure 2.6.5-2 shows example PFTIR aiming positions. 

The traverse shows that as long as the PFTIR is aimed between the flame tip and one flame 

length from the flame tip, the PFTIR combustion efficiency measurements will be relatively 

consistent. However, if the PFTIR aiming position is farther than one flame length away from 

the flame tip, the signal to noise ratio may drop to a point where the PFTIR cannot effectively 

measure combustion efficiency. 

Figure A.6.3-1: VS1 Traverse Results 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 89

Figure A.6.3-2: Example Aiming Points 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 90

A.6.4		Long Term Stability Test

The purpose of test series LTS is to demonstrate the repeatability of PFTIR measurements over 

an extended period. This test may also provide information on the effects of uncontrolled 

variables such as wind on the overall test result. The LTS test series was conducted on the LRGO 

burners. Every effort was made to ensure the controllable variables were held as constant as 

possible from run to run. Figure A.6.4-1 shows the results of the long term stability test. 

Figure A.6.4-1: NHVcz vs CE for Long Term Stability Test Series 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 91

A.7  Vent Gas Composition

Figure A.7-1 shows the vent gas component distribution for each run. Figure A.7-2 shows the net 

heating value contributions of each vent gas component for each run. Tables A.7-1 to A.7-3 list 

the vent gas component distribution for each run. Tables A.7-4 to A.7-6 list the net heating value 

contributions of each vent gas component for each run. 

Figure A.7-1: Vent Gas Component Distribution for Each Run 

Figure A.7-2: Vent Gas Net Heating Value Contributions for Each Run
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 92

Table A.7-1: Vent Gas Component Distribution for all SKEC Test Runs 

Condition Run Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide Methane Ethane Propane Propylene Normal Butane Total Molar Weight

‐‐ ‐‐ (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (lb/lb‐mol)

SN1 1 (1) 2.0 0.2 95.8 4.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 102.4 17.0

SN1 1 (2) 1.5 0.8 93.1 4.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 100.8 17.3

SN1 1 (3) 2.4 0.4 94.7 4.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 102.1 17.1

SN1 2 (1) 1.9 0.9 94.5 4.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 101.9 17.2

SN1 2 (2) 1.5 0.6 92.7 4.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 99.8 17.2

SN1 2 (3) 1.4 0.5 93.3 4.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.3 17.2

SN1 3 (1) 1.5 1.6 92.9 4.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 101.4 17.5

SN1 3 (2) 1.5 0.6 92.7 4.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 99.8 17.2

SN1 3 (3) 1.3 0.6 91.9 4.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 98.8 17.2

SN1 4 (1) 1.4 1.0 92.0 4.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 99.6 17.3

SN1 4 (2) 1.3 0.8 92.8 3.7 0.4 0.0 0.1 99.1 17.1

SN1 4 (3) 1.3 0.0 95.0 4.9 0.6 0.0 0.1 101.9 17.1

SN1 5 (1) 1.0 1.0 92.0 3.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 98.1 17.1

SN1 5 (2) 1.4 1.0 91.9 3.7 0.4 0.0 0.1 98.4 17.1

SN1 5 (3) 1.1 0.7 95.2 3.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 101.3 17.0

SN1 6 (1) 3.8 0.8 87.1 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 96.4 17.5

SN1 6 (2) 2.8 0.7 91.6 3.7 0.4 0.0 0.1 99.2 17.2

SN1 6 (3) 1.2 0.8 96.5 3.7 0.4 0.0 0.1 102.7 17.0

VS1 1 (1) 2.7 0.8 91.5 4.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 99.7 17.3

VS1 2 (1) 10.0 0.7 85.1 3.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 100.0 18.1

VS1 2 (2) 13.9 0.9 79.3 3.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 97.6 18.6

VS1 2 (3) 11.9 0.4 82.9 3.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 99.5 18.3

VS1 3 (1) 16.8 0.4 79.3 3.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.5 18.8

VS1 4 (1) 24.6 0.3 72.8 3.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 101.0 19.5

VS1 4 (2) 22.7 1.2 70.6 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 98.1 19.7

VS1 4 (3) 21.5 1.0 71.8 3.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 98.1 19.6

VS1 5 (1) 25.8 0.0 70.5 3.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 99.8 19.7

VS1 6 (1) 32.4 0.5 66.7 3.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 104.0 20.6

VS1 6 (2) 32.2 0.8 62.6 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 98.6 20.7

VS1 6 (3) 27.9 0.3 62.4 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 93.6 20.2

VS1 7 (1) 40.0 0.5 58.2 2.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 101.9 21.4

VS1 7 (2) 37.9 0.7 57.0 2.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 99.2 21.5

VS1 7 (3) 32.8 0.3 61.0 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 97.0 20.6

VS1 9a (1) 42.2 0.3 55.3 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.6 21.6

VS1 Traverse 1, PFTIR 1 35.7 0.3 62.4 3.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 102.4 20.9

VS1 Traverse 2, PFTIR 1 36.4 0.3 61.7 3.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 102.3 21.0

VS1 Traverse 3, PFTIR 1 37.0 0.3 61.1 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 102.1 21.0

VS1 Traverse 1, PFTIR 2 35.7 0.3 62.4 3.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 102.4 20.9

VS1 Traverse 2, PFTIR 2 36.4 0.3 61.7 3.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 102.3 21.0

VS1 Traverse 3, PFTIR 2 37.0 0.3 61.1 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 102.1 21.0

Pilot Test On (2) 1.7 0.7 92.9 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.0 17.2

Pilot Test Off (1) 1.7 0.7 92.9 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.0 17.2
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 93

Table A.7-2: Vent Gas Component Distribution for all LRGO Test Runs 

Table A.7-3: Vent Gas Component Distribution for all SN2 Test Runs 

Condition Run Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide Methane Ethane Propane Propylene Normal Butane Total Molar Weight

‐‐ ‐‐ (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (lb/lb‐mol)

PA1 1 (1) 1.6 0.6 93.6 3.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 17.0

PA1 1 (2) 1.2 1.1 93.6 4.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.6 17.2

PA1 1 (3) 1.3 0.8 94.1 3.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 100.6 17.1

PA1 4 (1) 36.8 0.3 61.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.8 20.9

PA1 4 (3) 36.3 0.4 62.4 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 102.1 20.9

PA1 4 (4) 37.8 0.4 60.4 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 101.5 21.1

PA2 1 (1) 1.6 0.6 94.4 3.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 101.0 17.1

PA2 1 (2) 1.6 0.6 92.7 4.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 99.4 17.1

PA2 1 (3) 1.6 0.7 92.9 3.7 0.4 0.0 0.1 99.3 17.1

PA2 4 (1) 33.8 0.5 63.5 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.3 20.6

PA2 4 (2) 39.1 0.4 61.6 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 104.0 21.1

PA2 4 (3) 39.3 0.5 61.6 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 104.4 21.1

LTS 1 1.7 0.7 92.9 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.0 17.2

LTS 3 1.7 0.7 92.9 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.0 17.2

LTS 4 1.7 0.7 92.9 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.0 17.2

LTS 6 1.7 0.7 92.9 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.0 17.2

LTS 7 1.7 0.7 92.9 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.0 17.2

Condition Run Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide Methane Ethane Propane Propylene Normal Butane Total Molar Weight

‐‐ ‐‐ (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (mol %) (lb/lb‐mol)

SN2 Nitrogen 1 81.8 0.0 3.4 0.2 0.0 14.6 0.0 100.0 29.7

SN2 Nitrogen 2 84.2 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.0 12.7 0.0 100.0 29.5

SN2 Nitrogen 3 86.9 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.0 10.5 0.0 100.0 29.2

SN2 Nitrogen 4 89.6 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.0 8.3 0.0 100.0 29.0

SN2 Nitrogen 5 92.2 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 6.3 0.0 100.0 28.7

SN2 Steam 1 (2) 0.3 0.1 18.6 0.8 0.1 80.0 0.0 100.0 37.1

SN2 Steam 2 (1) 0.3 0.1 18.8 0.8 0.1 79.8 0.0 100.0 37.0

SN2 Steam 3 (1) 0.3 0.1 18.4 0.8 0.1 80.2 0.0 100.0 37.2

SN2 Steam 4 (2) 0.3 0.1 19.1 0.9 0.1 79.4 0.0 100.0 37.0

SN2 Steam 4 (3) 0.3 0.1 18.6 0.8 0.1 80.0 0.0 100.0 37.1

SN2 Steam 5 (1) 0.3 0.1 18.5 0.8 0.1 80.1 0.0 100.0 37.1
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 94

Table A.7-4: Vent Gas Net Heating Value Contribution for all SKEC Test Runs 

Condition Run Nitrogen NHV Carbon Dioxide NHV Methane NHV Ethane NHV Propane NHV Propylene NHV Normal Butane NHV Total NHVvg

‐‐ ‐‐ BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf

SN1 1 (1) 0.0 0.0 838.5 64.1 6.0 0.0 0.7 909.4

SN1 1 (2) 0.0 0.0 827.9 74.7 12.5 0.0 2.3 917.3

SN1 1 (3) 0.0 0.0 831.6 63.6 8.3 0.0 1.9 905.3

SN1 2 (1) 0.0 0.0 831.2 65.7 7.1 0.0 1.1 905.1

SN1 2 (2) 0.0 0.0 832.0 69.7 12.0 0.0 2.7 916.4

SN1 2 (3) 0.0 0.0 832.9 73.0 11.8 0.0 2.3 920.0

SN1 3 (1) 0.0 0.0 821.2 73.6 13.2 0.0 2.7 910.8

SN1 3 (2) 0.0 0.0 832.0 69.7 12.0 0.0 2.7 916.4

SN1 3 (3) 0.0 0.0 832.9 70.2 13.6 0.0 3.0 919.6

SN1 4 (1) 0.0 0.0 827.6 72.6 13.3 0.0 3.1 916.5

SN1 4 (2) 0.0 0.0 839.0 60.0 9.4 0.0 2.0 910.5

SN1 4 (3) 0.0 0.0 835.6 76.0 13.7 0.0 3.0 928.3

SN1 5 (1) 0.0 0.0 840.3 60.3 6.1 0.0 2.3 909.0

SN1 5 (2) 0.0 0.0 837.0 59.9 9.6 0.0 2.1 908.5

SN1 5 (3) 0.0 0.0 842.0 59.4 9.7 0.0 2.0 913.1

SN1 6 (1) 0.0 0.0 809.1 69.2 11.7 0.0 2.5 892.5

SN1 6 (2) 0.0 0.0 827.4 59.4 9.5 0.0 2.0 898.4

SN1 6 (3) 0.0 0.0 841.9 57.7 9.4 0.0 2.0 911.0

VS1 1 (1) 0.0 0.0 822.3 67.5 9.9 0.0 1.9 901.7

VS1 2 (1) 0.0 0.0 762.1 61.0 9.6 0.0 2.0 834.7

VS1 2 (2) 0.0 0.0 727.8 53.1 6.2 0.0 1.2 788.2

VS1 2 (3) 0.0 0.0 746.6 62.9 9.1 0.0 1.7 820.2

VS1 3 (1) 0.0 0.0 706.7 57.2 8.2 0.0 1.4 773.6

VS1 4 (1) 0.0 0.0 645.7 48.3 6.0 0.0 0.9 700.9

VS1 4 (2) 0.0 0.0 644.8 53.1 7.9 0.0 1.5 707.2

VS1 4 (3) 0.0 0.0 656.3 53.3 8.6 0.0 1.8 719.9

VS1 5 (1) 0.0 0.0 633.5 50.3 6.4 0.0 0.9 691.1

VS1 6 (1) 0.0 0.0 574.7 59.5 9.9 0.0 2.4 646.4

VS1 6 (2) 0.0 0.0 569.0 43.7 5.3 0.0 1.0 618.9

VS1 6 (3) 0.0 0.0 597.1 45.0 5.9 0.0 1.5 649.6

VS1 7 (1) 0.0 0.0 511.8 45.4 5.4 0.0 0.7 563.3

VS1 7 (2) 0.0 0.0 514.6 39.0 25.1 0.0 0.8 579.5

VS1 7 (3) 0.0 0.0 563.6 42.7 5.7 0.0 1.3 613.3

VS1 9a (1) 0.0 0.0 492.2 40.4 4.3 0.0 0.6 537.4

VS1 Traverse 1, PFTIR 1 0.0 0.0 545.9 54.6 9.3 0.0 2.1 611.9

VS1 Traverse 2, PFTIR 1 0.0 0.0 541.0 52.9 8.2 0.0 1.6 603.6

VS1 Traverse 3, PFTIR 1 0.0 0.0 536.0 51.2 7.1 0.0 1.0 595.3

VS1 Traverse 1, PFTIR 2 0.0 0.0 545.9 54.6 9.3 0.0 2.1 611.9

VS1 Traverse 2, PFTIR 2 0.0 0.0 541.0 52.9 8.2 0.0 1.6 603.6

VS1 Traverse 3, PFTIR 2 0.0 0.0 536.0 51.2 7.1 0.0 1.0 595.3

Pilot Test On (2) 0.0 0.0 832.2 66.6 10.5 0.0 2.2 911.6

Pilot Test Off (1) 0.0 0.0 832.2 66.6 10.5 0.0 2.2 911.6
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 95

Table A.7-5: Vent Gas Net Heating Value Contribution for all LRGO Test Runs 

Table A.7-6: Vent Gas Net Heating Value Contribution for all SN2 Test Runs 

Condition Run Nitrogen NHV Carbon Dioxide NHV Methane NHV Ethane NHV Propane NHV Propylene NHV Normal Butane NHV Total NHVvg

‐‐ ‐‐ BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf

PA1 1 (1) 0.0 0.0 839.0 60.5 7.5 0.0 1.5 908.6

PA1 1 (2) 0.0 0.0 834.0 66.9 8.7 0.0 1.4 911.0

PA1 1 (3) 0.0 0.0 837.9 62.1 8.6 0.0 1.6 910.2

PA1 4 (1) 0.0 0.0 542.0 39.7 4.5 0.0 0.8 587.0

PA1 4 (3) 0.0 0.0 547.6 42.4 5.6 0.0 1.0 596.6

PA1 4 (4) 0.0 0.0 532.9 41.7 5.4 0.0 0.9 580.9

PA2 1 (1) 0.0 0.0 838.1 61.4 8.6 0.0 1.7 909.7

PA2 1 (2) 0.0 0.0 836.0 64.1 8.8 0.0 1.8 910.7

PA2 1 (3) 0.0 0.0 837.6 60.2 8.7 0.0 1.8 908.3

PA2 4 (1) 0.0 0.0 567.4 35.7 5.7 0.0 1.1 609.9

PA2 4 (2) 0.0 0.0 530.3 41.2 5.5 0.0 0.9 577.8

PA2 4 (3) 0.0 0.0 528.7 41.8 5.4 0.0 0.9 576.9

LTS 1 0.0 0.0 832.2 66.6 10.5 0.0 2.2 911.6

LTS 3 0.0 0.0 832.2 66.6 10.5 0.0 2.2 911.6

LTS 4 0.0 0.0 832.2 66.6 10.5 0.0 2.2 911.6

LTS 6 0.0 0.0 832.2 66.6 10.5 0.0 2.2 911.6

LTS 7 0.0 0.0 832.2 66.6 10.5 0.0 2.2 911.6

Condition Run Nitrogen NHV Carbon Dioxide NHV Methane NHV Ethane NHV Propane NHV Propylene NHV Normal Butane NHV Total NHVvg

‐‐ ‐‐ BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf BTU/scf

SN2 Nitrogen 1 0.0 0.0 30.7 2.5 0.4 312.9 0.1 346.5

SN2 Nitrogen 2 0.0 0.0 26.3 2.1 0.3 272.3 0.1 301.2

SN2 Nitrogen 3 0.0 0.0 21.9 1.8 0.3 226.6 0.1 250.6

SN2 Nitrogen 4 0.0 0.0 17.5 1.4 0.2 178.8 0.0 197.9

SN2 Nitrogen 5 0.0 0.0 13.1 1.0 0.2 134.9 0.0 149.3

SN2 Steam 1 (2) 0.0 0.0 166.8 13.3 2.1 1,719.0 0.4 1,901.7

SN2 Steam 2 (1) 0.0 0.0 168.4 13.5 2.1 1,715.0 0.5 1,899.4

SN2 Steam 3 (1) 0.0 0.0 164.8 13.2 2.1 1,724.2 0.4 1,904.7

SN2 Steam 4 (2) 0.0 0.0 171.3 13.7 2.2 1,707.5 0.5 1,895.1

SN2 Steam 4 (3) 0.0 0.0 166.8 13.3 2.1 1,719.0 0.4 1,901.7

SN2 Steam 5 (1) 0.0 0.0 165.8 13.3 2.1 1,721.7 0.4 1,903.3
A.8  Personnel Involved with Flare Performance Test

Marathon Petroleum Company, LP 

Jim Manning 

Brandon Monistere 

Jim Wilkins 

Ruth Cade 

Clean Air Engineering, Inc. 

Scott Evans 

Dan Pearson 

Tim Rodak 

Jim Wright 

Volker Schmid 

Junior Lopez 

Industrial Monitor and Control Corporation (IMACC) 

Dr. Robert Spellicy 

Mark Sloss 

John Zink Company, LLC 

Zach Kodesh 

Scott Fox 

Cliff Pugh 

Richard Lawhead 

Craig Skaggs 

Charlie Crown 

Marvin Thomas 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 97

A.9  Minute Data of Runs

Minute data spreadsheets and charts are located on the 

digital media provided with this report. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 98

A.10  Video Camera Descriptions

During the test program, a total of six video cameras recorded flare activity from the lot and road 

locations (see Appendix A.4.2 for location information). Four infrared cameras and two visible 

light cameras were used. This appendix describes the video cameras used. Appendix A.11 

contains the video taken by these cameras. 

A.10.1		NEC/Mikron TH5104

This infrared camera was used as an aiming camera for PFTIR 1. It was mounted on the PFTIR 

telescope. The PFTIR operator used the image from this camera to aim the instrument. An 

examination of this video stream gives an indication of PFTIR aiming accuracy. Figure A.6-1 

shows an example image from this camera. The crosshair (added for this report) shows the area 

analyzed by PFTIR 1 (see Appendix A.4.2 for location descriptions). 

Figure A.10.1-1: Image from NEC/Mikron TH5104 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 99

A.10.2		FLIR A320

This infrared camera was used as a stationary thermal camera at both PFTIR locations. It 

captured a general thermal view of the flare during the test program. It has a broad spectral range 

from 7.5 to 13 microns (1333 to 769 wavenumbers). The temperature scale on the camera was 

not calibrated for transparent gases, so any temperatures shown were considered relative 

indicators only. Figures A.10.2-1 and A.10.2-2 show example images from the FLIR A320 

cameras. The FLIR A320 camera was mounted on PFTIR 2. The PFTIR operator used the image 

from this camera to aim the instrument. Figure A.6-4 shows an example image of the FLIR A320 

camera being used as the aiming camera for PFTIR 2. 

Figure A.10.2-1: Image from FLIR A320 – Stationary 

Figure A.10.2-1: Image from FLIR A320 – PFTIR 2 Aiming 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 100

A.10.3		Axis Q1755

This visible light camera was used as a stationary visual camera at both PFTIR locations. The 

HD cameras provided a detailed visible light image of the flare operation. The purpose of the 

Axis Q1755 cameras was to provide a visual image corresponding to the PFTIR locations during 

testing. Figure A.6-5 shows example images from the Axis Q1755 camera. 

Figure A.10.3-1: Images from Axis Q1755 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 101

A.11  Video of Runs

Videos of runs are located on the digital media 

provided with this report. 

   
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 102

A.12 Daily Calibration Data and Spectra

Daily Calibration Data and Spectra are located on the 

digital media provided with this report. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 103

A.13 Background Times and Spectra

Background Times and Spectra are located on the 

digital media provided with this report. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 104

A.14  PFTIR Raw Data and Spectra

PFTIR raw data and spectra are located on the 

digital media provided with this report. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 105

A.15  Airtech Gas Chromatography Report

The Airtech Gas Chromatography Report is located 

on the digital media provided with this report. 

 
Marathon Petroleum ‐ Garyville Ground Flare Burner Test Report Page 106

A.16  John Zink Test Report

The John Zink Test Report is located on the 

digital media provided with this report.