EPA-600/7-77-049
May 1977
AMBIENT HYDROCARBON AND OZONE
CONCENTRATIONS NEAR A REFINERY
Lawrenceville, Illinois - 1974
by
H. H. Westberg, K. J. Allwine and E. Robinson
Air Resources Section
Chemical Engineering Department
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99164
Contract No. 68-02-1232
Project Officer
Joseph J. Bufalini
Gas Kinetics and Photochemistry Branch
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Sciences Research Lab-
oratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
In the summer of 1974, a study was undertaken to establish the effect of
refinery emissions on the air quality of a region. The refinery studied was
operated by Texaco in Lawrenceville, Illinois. Air sampling was conducted from
a ground based trailer and from aircraft. Results showed that the plume was
readily detectable as far as 25 miles downwind. No increase in ozone was
observed downwind of the refinery, probably because of the low reactivity of
the hydrocarbons (mostly alkanes) and the very low levels of nitrogen oxides.
IT i
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
FIGURES (cont.)
Number Page
A-l Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 13, 1974 44
A-2 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 14, 1974 47
A-3 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 15, 1974 50
A-4 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 16, 1974 53
A-5 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 17, 1974 55
A-6 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 19, 1974 59
A-7 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 20, 1974 62
A-8 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 21, 1974 65
A-9 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 22, 1974 69
A-10 Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 23, 1974 71
A-ll Location of hydrocarbon samples collected on
June 24, 1974 74
C-l June 13: Ozone survey flight 91
C-2 June 15: Ozone survey flight 92
C-3 June 20: Ozone survey flight 93
C-4 June 23: Ozone survey flight 94
C-5 June 24: Ozone survey flight 95
vn
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000AX5\tiff\2000XFIB.tif): Unspecified error
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Number Page
A-11 Data from Ground and Airborne Samples, June 24, 1974 ..... 75
B-l Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 13 ........................... 78
B-2 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 14 ........................... 79
B-3 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 15 ........................... 8n
B-4 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 16 ........................... 81
B-5 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 17 ........................... 82
B-6 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 18 ........................... 83
B-7 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 19 ........................... 84
B-8 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 20 ........................... 85
B-9 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 21 ........................... 8£
B-10 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 22 ........................... 37
B-ll Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 23 ........................... R,°,
B-12 Surface Measurements at Lawrenceville, Illinois on
June 24 ........................... »9
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Our gratitude is extended to Dr. J. Bufalini, EPA Project Officer, for
helpful suggestions concerning technical aspects of this work. The coopera-
tion of Texaco, Inc., in providing information on design and operation of the
Lawrenceville Refinery is gratefully acknowledged. Other colleagues at
Washington State University who made important contributions to this program
included D. F. Adams, R. A. Rasmussen, P. Weir and P. Zimmerman.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The modern petroleum refinery is a complex installation with a large num-
ber of potential air pollution sources and a wide variety of potential
emission constituents. The monitoring or even checking of all of the possible
sources in a refinery would be a practical impossibility. The Environmental
Protection Agency's publication, "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Fac-
tors," lists 24 categories of sources within a refinery, ranging in size from
huge catalytic cracking units to pipeline valves and flanges. Typically, the
air pollutant emissions from the various units in a refinery are based on an
estimation of loss as a function of the product throughput of the system. For
example, the hydrocarbon emission factor for the category "pipeline valves"
is given as 28 pounds per thousand barrels per day of refinery capacity. For
a fluid catalytic cracking unit, the emission estimation procedure is similar,
and the emission would be estimated on the basis of the EPA publication as 220
pounds per thousand barrels of fresh crude feed to the catalytic unit.
Although many refinery operators have monitored the emissions from parti-
cular units within their operation, most published estimates of the emissions
from refinery operations relate back to EPA research studies carried out in
2
southern California refineries in the 1950's. It is readily apparent, there-
fore, that the assessment of the air pollution environmental impact of a major
refinery is not a well defined procedure at this time and, furthermore, the
data available may not even be up-to-date with regard to current refinery
practices.
In an effort to improve the understanding of refining in pollution impact,
Washington State University undertook a study of the nature of the plume from
a major refinery located in a rural, low-background area. The relative isola-
tion of the refinery with regard to other major industrial and urban sources
1
-------
was an important aspect of this study because it permitted the refinery plume
to be uniquely identified. It was anticipated that results from this ambient
atmospheric research study should be useful in assessing the nature of air
pollution impacts from refinery operations, including both presently opera-
ting installations and proposed new refinery construction. Through correla-
tions between estimated emissions, as based on engineering design and
throughput and these atmospheric measurements., the results can be used to
assist in the development of a picture of the interactions between atmospheric
processes and the refinery source emissions. Although these research results
can form a basis for assessing certain refinery impacts in areas other than
the research area involved in this program, such an application must be made
with a full accounting for changes in meteorology, topography, and other
environmental factors.
Possible air pollution impacts from refinery operations include not only
the emissions of primary contaminants from the various operations within the
refinery complex but also a concern for possible atmospheric reactions involv-
ing these gases, resulting in the production of new and more harmful contam-
inants such as photochemical oxidants. Therefore, a significant part of this
research program was directed toward an assessment of the downwind plume to
determine whether photochemical reactions were occuring within the plume with
subsequent production of photochemically related atmospheric products.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this research program we were able to establish a number of character-
istics of the plume from a moderate-sized petroleum refinery in the Midwest.
These can be summarized as follows:
1. Aircraft traverses of the refinery plume provided an excellent means
of defining plume dispersion. Condensation nuclei counts, visual
range (integrating nephelometer) and hydrocarbon concentration were
used to define plume boundaries. The upper limit of plume disper-
sion generally coincided with the base of the mixing layer. At
distances of less than four miles from the refinery, plume width
corresponded closely to the dimensions of the refinery source area.
2. The typical plume at a distance of about 1-1/2 miles from the re-
finery showed NMTHC levels in the 1-2 ppm range, carbon monoxide
concentration of 3-5 ppm, NO levels of 30 ppb and a decrease in
/\
ozone levels relative to areas outside of the plume. Background
concentrations outside of the plume were generally less than .2 ppm
for NMTHC, approximately .7 ppm CO and 15 ppb NO .
A
3. Transport of the refinery plume as measured by aircraft traverses
showed that the plume could be identified on the basis of elevated
hydrocarbon levels out to a distance of 25 miles. The degree of
hydrocarbon dilution occurring in the plume was similar to what
would be predicted using relatively simple atmospheric diffusion
models both with regard to plume center!ine concentration and to the
crosswind integrated concentrations.
4. Most of the hydrocarbons in the plume are alkanes and therefore are
classifiable as "non-reactive" in the time span of our plume mea-
surements. Although there was some chemical loss of the
-------
photochemically reactive hydrocarbon propene, there was no evidence
of the formation of ozone in the plume as it moved downwind. In
fact, the plume was generally deficient in ozone compared to the
general airmass levels.
-------
SECTION 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND CONDITIONS
This research program was designed to be an integrated 3-dimensional air
sampling study concentrating on light hydrocarbon concentrations around the
test refinery and investigating possible related photochemical activity in the
downwind area. The research was carried out using comprehensive ground-level
data collected at a fixed laboratory site along with supplemental integrated
bag samples from a number of sites in the neighboring countryside. The 3-
dimensional aspect of the program was provided by an instrumented Cessna 336
aircraft. The aircraft collected bag samples for ground analysis and made
other air quality measurements from on-board instrumentation.
Measurements
The research base facility was a 23-ft mobile trailer laboratory equipped
for detailed gas chromatographic (GC) analysis of atmospheric hydrocarbon com-
pounds and for continuous monitoring of ozone, NO, NOp CO, CH., and total
hydrocarbons. The trailer laboratory also recorded the more important meteor-
ological parameters: wind speed and direction, temperature, dew point, and
solar radiation. The trailer station was kept at a single location during the
field program but Teflon bag samples were collected at various locations
around the refinery to supplement the plume assessment program. Table 1 lists
the various ground measurements made at the trailer and the specific and
instruments employed.
-------
TABLE 1. GROUND MEASUREMENTS FOR LAWRENCEVILLE REFINERY STUDIES
Methane Beckmann 6800 Air Quality
Total Hydrocarbon Gas Chromatograph
Carbon Monoxide
Individual C? - Cfi Perkin-Elmer 900 Gas Chromatographs
Hydrocarbons and Hewlett-Packard 3352 Data System
Ozone Meloy OA 350
Nitrogen Oxides Teco 14B (Moly Converter)
Wind Speed
Wind Direction Climet CI-60
Dew Point
Temperature
Solar Radiation
Airborne sampling was conducted in a Cessna 336 Skymaster. It is a cen-
ter line thrust, light twin-engined plane with an on-board instrumentation
package capable of measuring up to 18 pollutant and flight variables. These
are sequentially recorded on a Metrodata Systems 18-channel, four-track, 200-
character/inch magnetic-tape cartridge recorder. Measured variables are re-
corded once each 0.4 second, equivalent to 16.8 meters of traverse when flying
at 90 mph.
Table 2 lists the parameters continuously monitored in the aircraft.
TABLE 2. AIRCRAFT MEASUREMENTS
Gaseous and Particulate Measurements
Condensation Nuclei (Environment One)
Visual Range as calculated from Bscat (MRI integrating nephelometer
modified to increase its sensitivity)
Ozone (Bendix chemiluminescent)
Meteorological Measurements
Temperature
Relative Humidity
-------
TABLE 2. AIRCRAFT MEASUREMENTS (con't.)
Navigational Measurements
VOR (Vector Angle) Altitude
DME (Distance Measure) Air Speed
A manifold was assembled in the rear portion of the cabin, which allowed
rapid collection of air samples in Teflon bags. This consisted of a series
of 1/4" SS lines with interspersed toggle valves such that, simply by opening
the valve, ram air pressure would fill a 3-liter bag in about 15 seconds.
These bags were analyzed for CO, NO , etc. at various points along the flight
A
path.
Mapping of the flight path was accomplished through the use of continu-
ously collected VOR and DME signals plus a visual record kept by the pilot and
instrument operator aboard the aircraft.
Calibration
Calibration procedures were as follows:
Ozone Instruments - Complete calibration checks were performed twice weekly
with a McMillan 1000 ozone generator. With this ozone source, concentra-
tions in the range normally measured in ambient air (30-150 ppb) could
be dependably produced. The generator itself was checked several times
by the neutral buffered potassium iodide colorimetric method prior to
taking it into the field. Instrument zero checks were made daily.
Nitrogen Oxides Instrument - Calibrated once at the beginning of the sampling
period by making dilutions into Teflon bags from high-concentration
(10 ppm) tank. Background suppression checks were made at least daily.
Methane, THC and Carbon Monoxide - Once a day calibration from tanks con-
taining standards of known concentration.
Light Hydrocarbons - An internal standard (neo-hexane) of known concentration
was included in each light hydrocarbon analysis.
Light Scatter Instruments - Calibrated in our laboratory prior to use in the
field.
-------
Sampling Techniques
Ground level samples consisted of bag collections at various points out-
side the refinery fenceline and in the plume downwind of the refinery. The
bags used were made of Teflon film. Contamination free, battery operated
pumps were employed for filling these bags. In addition a continuous record
of NO , GO, CO, CH», and THC concentrations was obtained at the fixed trailer
site. These latter measurements required no entrapment of air in plastic
bags since the trailer was equipped with a stainless steel sampling stack and
internal manifold that allowed direct sampling of the outside air.
Aircraft flights were primarily designed to furnish information on plume
composition and dimensions at various distances downwind of the refinery.
On afternoons when meteorological conditions seemed favorable for oxidant
production, the aircraft was used to survey areas where plume associated ozone
build-up might be expected. The actual flight patterns are best classified
into four types.
1) Sampling arcs perpendicular to downwind plume drift-
6 ml.
REFINERY
2 ml.
4ml
Plum* Boundary.
~~~, Sample Collected.
Plume width and vertical profile information was obtained in this manner.
The latter was accomplished by flying across the plume at 500', 750', 1000',
1500', and 2000' above ground level. In addition a ground sample was col-
lected directly under the aircraft. Generally we used a combination of two
flights in close succession at distances shown in the diagram above. Thus
over roughly a two hour period, bag samples were collected at ground level
500', 750', 1000', 1500', and 2000' at say four and eight miles downwind of
the refinery.
8
-------
2) Series of edge and middle plume samples collected parallel to down-
wind drift-
REFINERY
4 mi.
WIND
DIR.
Plum* Boundary.
-—•- Sample Collected.
This type of sampling was designed to show differences in hydrocarbon
composition between various sections of the plume. Generally we worked within
four miles of the refinery at 1000' above ground level. Ground samples were
collected under the aircraft as well.
3) Sampling down the middle of the plume parallel to the wind direction
REFINERY
25 mi.
Plum* Boundary.
'—— Sompl* Collected.
The purpose here was to establish horizontal drift distance. Data and
bags were collected as far as 25 miles downwind using this procedure. All
sampling of this type was at 1000'.
-------
4) Downwind ozone survey-
REFINERY
45ml.
WIND
DIR.
Flight Poth.
This pattern was designed to determine whether elevated ozone levels
associated with the plume could be detected downwind of the refinery. As
shown above, the flight path consisted of a short upwind leg and two downwind
legs, the longest of which extended for approximately 50 miles.
Pilot ballon observations (pibal obs) were very helpful in vectoring the
aircraft into the plume of the refinery, especially in the areas at consider-
able distance from the source. The pilot ballons were released each day at
several points upwind and downwind of the refinery in order to determine the
upper level wind speed and direction. These observations were also very use-
ful in determining layers of wind shear and regions where the wind was signif-
icantly different from that recorded at ground-level.
The pibal program was carried out by Mr. Ev Quesnell, EPA meteorologist.
In addition, he installed and administered two weather stations. One station,
which provided wind speed, wind direction, temperature and relative humidity
data was located two miles south-southwest of the refinery and the second
station, including continuous wind speed and direction, was located five miles
northeast of the refinery at the airport.
10
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Our sampling program began in Lawrenceville on Thursday, June 13 and
finished Monday, June 24. During this period, aircraft sampling was performed
everyday except June 18. The weather was for the most cart warm with overcast
skies. Numerous thunderstorms occurred but they were quite localized and gen-
erally had little disrupting effect on aircraft operations.
The prevailing wind direction in this region of Illinois is from the
southwest. Thus we sought a location for our permanent ground based sampling
trailer to the northeast of the refinery. Figure 1 shows the trailer site -
approximately 1-1/2 miles east-northeast of the refinery.
Refinery Description
The Texaco Plant in Lawrenceville, Illinois was selected for this study
primarily because of its location - a large refinery in a region void of other
industrial and urban emission sources. Lawrenceville is a town of about 6,000
population. Figure 1 shows the location of the refinery on the southeast edge
of town.
Many of the present facilities of the refinery date back to the early
1950's when modernization of older facilities was commensed. In 1968 Texaco
instituted an extensive construction program aimed at compliance with new Fed-
eral and State pollution regulations. At the time of our study, the CO boiler
on the catalytic cracking unit was not yet in operation and the conversion
from fixed to floating roofs on storage tanks was still in progress. This
program is expected to be completed by late 1975. Table 3 lists refinery
3
crude rates and estimated emissions during the study period. Texaco person-
nel predict that CO emissions will become practically nil after start-up of
the CO boiler and that hydrocarbon emissions will decrease by 68 percent when
the conversion of floating roofs is complete.
11
-------
ftMl«: I" • I Ml.
Figure 1. Lawrenceville area maps
12
-------
TABLE 3. CRUDE CAPACITY AND PLANT EMISSIONS FOR TEXACO REFINERY:
JUNE 13-24, 1974
TOTAL CRUDE RUNNING TOTAL PLANT EMISSIONS (Lbs/day)
6/13
6/14
6/15
6/16
6/17
6/18
6/19
6/20
6/21
6/22
6/23
6/24
AVERAGE
Bbl/day
87,000
87,000
82,000
85,000
83,000
82,000
79,000
73,000
72,000
60,000
80,000
81,000
79,000
HC
25,931
25,933
25,903
25,953
25,926
25,896
25,899
25,899
25,787
25,731
25,769
25,797
25,861
NOX
8,906
8,577
8,632
9,621
8,142
8,156
8.719
7,112
7,181
5,935
6,572
7,993
8,040
CO
605,328
609,740
611,965
616,416
616.416
578,715
576,497
411,754
573,366
595,939
586,910
566,594
582,798
Participates
3,857
3,772
3,565
3,785
3,431
3,544
3,687
3,594
3,051
2,955
2,998
3,053
3,402
Gaseous Composition of the Refinery Plume
Figure 2 provides a graphical illustration of the general composition of
the refinery plume. At some time during nearly every day, winds originating
from the southwest quadrant (250-270°) carried the plume over the fixed ground
monitoring site. As can be seen in Figure 2, substantial changes occurred in
most measured parameters when this condition existed. Non-methane total
hydrocarbon (NMTHC) levels increased from a background concentration of
approximately .2 ppm to as high as 2 ppm. Carbon monoxide also increased al-
though the amount of increase was somewhat variable. Large increases (^ 7
fold) occurred at the beginning and end of the period shown, while lower CO
levels accompanied the plume on June 16.
Methane concentrations in and out of the plume are about the same, 1.7
13
-------
360
WIND DIR. 270
(DEG) I8O
NMTHC
(PPM)
CO
(PPM)
CH4
(PPM)
N02
(PPB) 20
NO
(PPB)
OZONE
(PPB)
Wind Direction 250° to 270°.
Refinery Plume Over Trailer.
Figure 2. Grouno measurements at trailer site on June 14-17,
14
-------
and 1.6 ppm respectively. Therefore, methane does not appear to be a major
component of refinery emissions. NO levels in the plume are about double
A
those measured in background air. Ozone is included in the figure to illus-
trate its inverse relationship with oxides of nitrogen. It should be re-
called that the data presented above was obtained at the trailer monitoring
site approximately 1.5 miles from the refinery. This is probably the best
measure of gross plume composition since the instruments which provided the
data all monitor outside air directly with no entrapment in bags involved.
Plume Dimensions
Aircraft sampling provided the best method for monitoring plume disper-
sion. A combination of techniques were employed to locate and define the
dimensions of the plume. Obvious starting points were determining wind dir-
ection both from our local weather stations and by observing visible refinery
plume drift. The latter was especially helpful when working close-in to the
refinery. Odor also provided a guide to plume location. However, it could
only be used as a rough measure since quite often bags collected on the basis
of odor alone were nearly void of hydrocarbons. Once the aircraft entered the
general plume drift area, condensation nuclei counts were used to precisely
define plume boundaries. A dramatic increase in CN levels always occurred as
the aircraft entered the plume followed by a corresponding decrease as it
exited from the plume. The integrating nephelometer could be used in the
same way. A decrease in visual range was recorded in the plume as compared to
areas outside the plume. When sampling close-in to the refinery, the ozone
instrument provided another indicator of plume position. Often a decrease in
ozone concentration would be observed when traversing the plume.
As an example of how these techniques were employed, the morning flight
on June 23 will be analyzed in detail. This survey involved flying arcs
perpendicular to the plume at two and eight miles downwind of the refinery.
Bag samples were collected at 500', 750', 1000', 1500', and 2000' at both dis-
tances plus on the ground under the aircraft. Surface winds were from the
north and constant so the general area of plume transport was easily deter-
mined. Several passes in a region eight miles south of the refinery served to
pin-point plume width and location. This was achieved primarily through the
use of the CN counter. Sample runs across the plume were then made at the
15
-------
altitudes mentioned above. Figure 3 shows a processed account of what the
flight operator sees on board the aircraft during a sampling arc.
The time span covered in this particular data record (10001 traverse) is
about three minutes. As the aircraft approached the plume, a CN count (third
column from the right) of about 6800 was recorded. At approximately 9:22,
the CN level began to rise and quickly exceeded 16000. Collection of bag
sample A-3 was started at 9:22:24 and stopped 33 seconds later at 9:22:57.
These points are marked in the figure. Twenty seconds later the CN levels
returned to approximately 7000 as the plane emerged from the plume. At this
distance no noticeable change occurred in the ozone level; however, there is a
definite decrease in visual range as measured by the integrating nephelometer
(fifth column from the right).
Figures 4 and 5 provide time plots of CN count, visual range and ozone
concentration for all passes through the plume at 2 and 8 miles. Information
obtained from bag samples collected in the plume is presented in Table 4. A
combination of information provided by the CN counter, nephelometer and in-
dividual hydrocarbon analyses was used as the basis for assigning crosswind
plume dimensions. From the data just presented for the morning of June 23 it
is clear that the upper limit of hydrocarbon dispersion was somewhat less than
2000'. Both at 2 miles and 8 miles there is a dramatic drop in hydrocarbon
concentration between 1500' and 2000' (Table 4). Examination of the vertical
temperature profile in this region shows a change of slope (warming trend) at
about 1800' which probably coincides with the upper limit of plume dispersion.
The CN data and visual distance readings support an upper boundary of less
than 2000' at 8 miles since no instrument response was observed. However it
can be seen in Figure 5 that a rise in CN was recorded at 2000' when 2 miles
downwind. This probably results from hot stack gases penetrating through the
top of the mixing layer.
Horizontal cross-sectional dimensions were best determined from CN count.
On June 23 elevated condensation nuclei levels were recorded for approximately
90 seconds when traversing the plume at 1000-1500' two miles from the refinery.
At an aircraft sampling speed of 90 mph, a plume width of 90 seconds trans-
lates into 2.3 miles. Thus at 2 miles downwind of the refinery our measure-
ments reveal a plume ceiling of about 1800' and a horizontal width of 2.3
miles.
16
-------
ATHJSPHEK1C NEASUktMLNTS
PWJJSCT —5 CITIES LIOHI HYOKUCAKuuN STUDY
SITt OF SANPUNS— !»W18
1525
1274
L C.I II TU
jo; 5
363 4
382 4
381 5
381 5
38J 5
387 5
392 4
395 5
401 4
414 5
41V 5
421 5
41d 4
411 5
9122124
1147
1149
1148
1146
1146
1147
1148
1147
1145
1148
1148
1145
1143
1146
102
102
102
103
104
104
105
105
lOo
100
106
105
103
1U4
143
143
142
143
142
143
143
142
142
142
142
142
142
141
52
52
51
52
52
52
53
52
52
53
52
52
52
52
9
10
15
16
22
31
35
38
41
40
43
44
43
35
121
117
104
100
86
72
67
64
61
62
59
58
59
67
23
21
19
20
19
20
19
20
20
21
23
22
22
22
1002
922
97*
1170
1332
1438
1738
1900
2074
2198
2250
2256
2270
2220
400 5
396 4
399 5 A
407 5
412 4
417 5
424 5
428 4
432 5
434 5
435 5
435 5
436 5 BAG A-3
433 5
9122157
1146
1143
1143
1138
1114
1113
1106
1098
1095
1096
1093
1093
1089
1073
1069
1057
1053
1059
1066
1070
1080
1084
1082
IO83
1089
1094
Ijj
10J
103
103
104
106
100
100
108
10,
103
10d
100
101!
100
109
110
111
113
115
118
122
125
12 f
129
1-il
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
141
142
142
141
142
1»1
141
142
141
141
141
140
1VO
140
140
141)
liS
L*U
rvy
52
52
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
44
53
53
ii
53
53
53
Sa
53
S3
i3
13
22
15
13
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
9
10
11
1?
1?
13
13
13
13
86
102
110
113
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
119
123
119
113
11?
Ill
108
1O8
lot
ion
21
22
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
21
22
21
22
22
22
t' 1
2024
1650
1187
9S7
1164
1874
2476
26 40
2518
22 64
2010
16UO
1352
1120
908
794
722
690
684
695
700
700
700
696
7O8
718
431 b
422 5
407 4
398 3 " '
407 5
427 5
439 5
442 5
440 5
435 5
430 5
423 5
413 5
405 5
39o 5
390 5
386 4
384 5
384 5
384 4
385 5
385 4
385 4
36* 5
385 >
3du 5
JUT1
17
-------
500 FT.
WnCLOMCTDI
•mantel
750 FT.
IOMTH.
«w
"JjMO
I-
90
20
_/yv^_^
1500 FT.
300
1~
r
90
20
2000
300
"&23O
j
i160
90
?0
y^T^v — r^ — '.
FT.
OFF SCALE
I
0 30 <0 90 HO 190 HO
TWEISEC)
M'°*
* 99
3
1"
TMMC)
r
90 90 o
TMiCMC)
30 tO 90 I2O 190 ItO
TtKBCCI
30 90 90 HO ISO HO
TMCOtC)
Figure 4. Plots of time vs conservation nuclei, visual range, and ozone concentration
while traversing the plume at 8 miles.
18
-------
CONKNMnON NUCCO
•ncLourmi
so *b to do BO
•
1000 FT.
JOOr
2000 FT.
900
"bzao
J MO
5
90
60 90 BO ISO *0
TWE IKC)
uioe
* 95
r
I
r
8,0
400 30 60 90 120 190 HO
TIMEBEC)
o 30 10 90 co no no
TIME (9CC)
Figure 5. Plots of time vs condensation nuclei, visual range and ozone concentration
while crossing the plume at 2 miles.
19
-------
TABLE 4. VERTICAL PROFILE OF LIGHT HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS (u9/nr)
Ethan*
Ethyl *M
Acttyltn*
Propane
Propen*
1-Butan*
n-Butane
MO- Pultun*
1-Buttn*
1-Buttn*
t-2-Butm*
Propyn*
c-2-BuUn*
1-PenUn<
n-P*ntan*
Cycloptntan*
1-Ptntm
1-Hixin*
3-NcthylptnUM
n-Hex«w
Cyclohtxan*
Tottl 01*f1ns
Total Parafflnt
Total iij/n3
Total DM C
Ground
Ltv«l
8.5
4.0
.5
23.0
3.5
54.0
30.0
.5
*
.5
*
9.0
4.0
1.0
.5
2.0
1.0
3.0
*
9.0
136
145
.22
500'
7.0
2.5
.5
17.5
4.0
39.0
30.5
1.0
.5
.5
*
19.0
7.5
1.0
1.0
3.5
2.0
3.5
*
9.0
131
140
.21
EloJ
750'
11.0
7.5
1.0
29.5
6.0
95.5
52.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
19.5
7.0
2.0
•
4.0
2.0
1.5
*
24.0
225
249
.38
It Ml 1*1
1000'
9.5
9.0
1.0
16.5
2.0
36.0
26.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
1.5
17.0
6.0
1.0
*
4.0
2.0
2.0
.5
20.5
123
144
.22
1500'
9.0
9.0
1.0
1S.O
3.0
54.5
68.5
2.5
4.5
5.0
3.5
47.5
15.5
2.5
3.5
10.0
6.5
3.5
1.5
29.5
237
267
.41
2000'
3.5
7.0
.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
*
*
*
•
10.0
2.0
•
*
1.5
.5
*
*
9.5
26.5
36.0
.06
Ground
Lewi
8.5
2.0
1.0
17.0
9.0
19.0
1.5
1.0
.5
*
13.0
*
1.0
3.5
2.0
6.5
2.0
11.5
SLI
104
.16
500'
8.5
4.0
*
18.0
8.0
17.5
1.S
2.0
1.5
2.0
11.0
1.0
.5
3.S
1.5
1.0
.5
14.5
75.5
M.O
.13
TUB m
7S01
9.0
4.0
.5
22.5
11.5
23.0
1.0
*
1.5
*
8.5
*
*
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
10.5
88^1
99.0
.15
I1«l
1000'
12.5
S.5
*
50.5
29.5
39.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
•
16.5
1.5
1.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
•
16.5
164
181
.28
1500'
13.0
4.0
1.0
41.5
28.5
50.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
•
37.0
19 A
Ic.U
1.0
1.0
5.5
4.5
2.0
*
14.5
1J6
210
.32
..
2000'
(.0
3.0
*
4.0
If
.3
2.5
9.S
*
*
*
*
7.S
2ft
.V
.5
•
2.5
1.0
.5
•
4.5
3LS
40.5
.06
less than .5 yg/nT
20
-------
One question that might arise at this point is: How legitimate is it to
assign plume width based on condensation nuclei count? We find that the plume
width determined from CN counts agrees closely with that expected based on
physical dimensions of the refinery. The Lawrenceville plant is rectangular
in shape with the long axis in an east-west direction. Thus the greatest
plume width should be measured when sampling north or south of the refinery.
As illustrated in Figure 6, this is what was found. Based on CN count the
plume was about twice as wide to the north and south as it was directly to the
east of the plant. Furthermore, sampling traverses northeast of the refinery
showed a plume width intermediate between that of east and north.
Good quantitative agreement exists between plume width at short distances
downwind and the size of the source area. At 90 mph the plane will cover
about 1.5 miles/min. A plume width of 35 seconds to the east of the refinery
equals a distance of .9 miles. This is the same as the north-south dimensions
of the plant. Likewise, a time of 75 seconds recorded to the north corre-
sponds to 1.9 miles in distance which again is nearly the same as the distance
between the east and west boundaries of the plant.
Downwind Plume Drift
We found elevated hydrocarbon levels as far as 24 miles downwind. Data
gathered on the afternoon of June 19 is shown in Table 5. These are aircraft
samples collected at 1000', 16 to 24 miles downwind of the refinery. Espe-
cially noteworthy here is the high concentration measured at 24 miles. During
the same flight a sample was collected at about this same distance, but out of
the plume, and thus can serve as a background comparison. Obviously the 16
and 22 mile bags were not in the main stream of the plume.
It is extremely difficult to draw conclusions and make generalizations as
to the absolute dilution of hydrocarbons with distance. This is highly de-
pendant on the prevailing meteorological conditions. Certainly wind speed and
wind shear plus mixing depth will be important factors. In addition the air-
craft sampling procedure used to monitor hydrocarbon dilution vs. distance is
tricky. Ideally, one should fly parallel with the plume and down its middle
collecting samples at increasing distances downwind. This is difficult be-
cause it requires a constant wind flow and that the aircraft heading selected
be absolutely in line with the wind direction. The data provided in Table 7 is
21
-------
4Mi
2 Mi.
Figure 6. Plume width (based on condensation nuclei levels) in relation to approximate
dimensions of the refinery.
22
-------
TABLE 5. LIGHT HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS DOWNWIND OF REFINERY ON JUNE 19
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
Total ppmC
16 miles
6.0
5.5
*
7.5
1.5
5.5
16.0
*
.5
*
*
11.5
5.0
*
.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
*
68
.10
19 miles
10.0
6.5
.5
21.0
2.5
15.5
47.0
4.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
31.5
14.0
3.0
1.5
9.5
3.5
3.5
1.5
187
.29
22 miles
10.5
6.0
*
17.5
2.5
8.5
16.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
10.5
5.0
.5
*
2.5
1.5
1.5
.5
895
.14
24 miles
6.5
7.0
1.0
28.0
2.5
45.5
190
2.5
2.5
6.0
5.0
126
49.0
6.0
3.0
34.5
18.5
18.5
3.0
541
.83
18 mile
Background
8.0
8.0
.5
6.5
1.0
2.0
5.5
*
.5
*
*
4.0
2.0
*
*
1.0
*
.5
.5
39.5
.06
+ , 3
ug/rn
* 3
less than .5 yg/m
our best result from this type of flight. It shows that under the conditions
at the time (southwest wind at 11 mph) there occurred about a 6% decrease in
23
-------
hydrocarbon concentration/mile. The fact that the ratio of light hydrocarbons
(C~ - C.) to the heavier (Cr- Cg) is fairly constant provides some assurance
that dilution was what we were measuring and not differences within the plume
itself.
TABLE 6. HYDROCARBON DILUTION VS. DISTANCE FROM REFINERY
Distance from
Refinery
1/2 mi.
4
8
Total4"
Concentration
158
113
81
C3~Vc,-Cc
b b
3.5
3.4
3.1
Relative
Concentration
1
.72
.51
Total Mg/m of Propane, i-Butane, n-Butane, i-Pentane, n-Pentane, i-Hexane
and n-Hexane.
The aircraft hydrocarbon sampling data obtained downwind of Lawrenceville
refinery have been analyzed and compared with meteorological diffusion calcul-
ations applicable to the same general situations. The aircraft sampling data
have been classified in terms of whether the samples apply to the center-line
average concentrations as a function of distance downwind from the refinery,
or to the crosswind integrated concentration at different distances from the
refinery. Table 7 shows the available crosswind integrated hydrocarbon con-
centrations along the plume center line as a function of downwind distance.
Each table shows the date of the flight, an indication of whether the flight
was an afternoon or a morning flight, the distance at which the sample col-
lection was obtained, the altitude of the aircraft above ground, the average
wind speed during the sampling period as indicated by the wind instruments
maintained at the trailer station, and the concentration in micrograms per
cubic meter obtained by GC analysis of the bag sample.
In the following diffusion study the aircraft bag-sampling data have been
adjusted to reflect an average hydrocarbon background concentration of
24
-------
3
35 pg/m . The concentrations shown in Tables 7 and 8 are the observed values,
3
not the adjusted numbers. This 35 pg/m background concentration was obtained
from the several samples made during the test period in directions not affected
by the refinery plume or major urban areas. There are variations in this back-
ground level estimate for the various daily conditions. It was not possible
to provide an identifiable background sample for each individual test day so
one single sample value has been used to correct all of the concentration data.
Figure 7 shows the analysis of the crosswind integrated concentration
data as obtained downwind from the Lawrenceville refinery. Four sampling
flights were available for analysis, two of which provided extremely useful
data and two provided only qualitative results. The most useful flight data
were obtained on June 20 in the afternoon and on June 24 in the morning. Note
that in Table 7 these are the two periods with a significant number of data
points. In the case of June 20, the concentration data extended from a dis-
tance of 5 miles out to 20 miles with crosswind integrated concentration
samples being obtained at distances of 5, 10, 15 and 20 miles from the re-
finery. One June 24, crosswind integrated concentration data were obtained
at distances of 5, 10, 20 and 25 miles from the refinery. It should be noted
that the y axis of Figure 7 is the background-corrected concentration times
the wind speed at the particular time of observation. This combination of
variables tends to smooth out some of the variations from day to day that are
caused merely by the dilution proportional to the wind speed. Figure 7 also
shows two theoretically calculated dispersion curves, labeled A and B. Curve
A is a dispersion calculation made to approximate type C or light instability
conditions while curve B is calculated to approximate an instability condition
which is somewhat more unstable than type C. More will be said about these
two calculated curves later in this discussion. In general, it appears that
the change in concentration of the crosswind integrated concentration for both
the tests, June 24 and June 20, are reasonably well approximated as functions
of distance by Curve B.
Figure 8 is a presentation of the data obtained during the five tests
when samples were taken to measure the downwind change in concentration along
the center line of the refinery plume. As with Figure 7, the y axis of Figure
8 is a function of the corrected concentration times the wind speed and the x
25
-------
TABLE 7. CROSSWIND HYDROCARBON DATA
Distance
Date (Miles)
6/19 PM 16
19
22
24
25
6/20 AM 5
10
15
20
20
PM 10
16
6/24 AM 5
10
20
25
25
Altitude
(Feet)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1500
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
u
(°/mph)
210/12
210/12
210/12
210/12
210/12
7
7
7
7
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Concentration
(yg/m3)
68
182
104
541
113
156
118
154
75
93
72
41
221
134
(121)
93
82
26
-------
TABLE 8. PLUME CENTERLINE HYDROCARBON DATA
Date
6/13 PM
6/15
6/21 PM
6/23 PM
6/24 PM
Distance
(Miles)
2-4
16-20
26-30
2
34
1-2
4-5
9-10
4
12
2
8
16
28
Altitude
(Feet)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
u
CYmph)
3
3
3
14
14
15
10
6
18
18
15
15
15
15
Concentration
(ug/m3)
162
68
62
51
34
128
173
228
66
37
198
78
50
60
27
-------
CROSSWIND PLUME CONCENTRATION
AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE
Concentration Corrected for 35/ig Background
and Obeerved Wind Speed
50
30-
20-
10
6
in
«
0.5
DJUNE 19
O JUNE 20 am
• JUNE 20pm
JUNE 24 am
i i i
10
MILES
20
40 60
Figure 7. Crosswind plume light hydrocarbon concentration as a function of distance.
28
-------
CENTERLINE PLUME CONCENTRATION
AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE
Concentration Corrected for 35pg/m* Background
and Observed Wind Speed
DJUNE I 3
JUNE 15
O JUNE 21
• JUNE 23
• JUNE 24 pm
Figure 8. Center!ine plume light hydrocarbon concentration as a function of distance.
29
-------
axis is distance in miles from the refinery. There is a lot of variation
from test to test and the differences from one day to the next are consider-
able. With regard to an expected decrease of concentration with distance,
the data collected on June 13, June 15, and June 24 appear to be most reason-
able. Since it was not possible to determine the actual location of the
center line of the refinery plume by direct observations, it would be ex-
pected that this set of data would have a considerable variation from one
test to the other due to observational and sampling difficulties. This was
the case. Figure 8 also shows the calculated downwind diffusion curve for
center line concentrations at an altitude of 1000 feet above the ground, the
altitude that was approximately maintained by the sampling aircraft for most
of the tests. The turbulence class is light instability or Type C. In gen-
eral, the rate of change of concentration as calculated from diffusion models
is reasonably close to the concentration change with distance as measured'on
at least three of the test days, namely the 13th, 15th and 24th of June.
On the basis of the data listed in Table 7 and 8 and the tabulations of
both observations and theoretical calculations shown in Figure 7 and 8, a
number of conclusions can be drawn relative to the downwind nature of the re-
finery plume. First, it is quite apparent that the downwind concentration
pattern from the Lawrenceville refinery, as indicated by the aircraft
sampling data at approximately 1000 feet, is in general agreement with what
would be expected on the basis of typical meteorological diffusion calcula-
tions. This result is shown both by the approximate center line concentra-
tion distribution with a distance from the refinery and the change of the
crosswind integrated concentration patterns as a function of distance. These
comments apply to distances from two or three miles from the refinery out at
least to distances of 25 to 30 miles. Furthermore, the refinery can appar-
ently be considered as a point source of pollutant hydrocarbons at these
distances. Turbulence characteristics of the air masses dispersing the re-
finery plume can apparently be described as having light to moderate instabil-
ity or turbulence causing the pollutant dispersion. In diffusion modeling
terminology, this situation is known as "Type C." The variations towards a
more unstable condition are in the direction of a type B stability, but the
instability is not as intense as is normally described for mid-day, summer
30
-------
conditions such as were encountered in this program. In crosswind plume data
the vertical turbulence coefficients are probably two or three times the
turbulence values for type C stability but they still are significantly less
than is usually indicated for a type B stability. These remarks in parti-
cular refer to the results of the crosswind integrated diffusion calcula-
tions, shown on Figure 7. The center line concentration distributions are
probably more readily described by type C stability. However, the difficulty
in making a truly representative center line co centration measurement with
aircraft sampling would probably tend to indicate a more stable plume than
was actually the case. Thus, there is probably no valid reason to assume
that the plume is not characterized by turbulence that is the same as indi-
cated by the crosswind data.
The aircraft samples indicate that on different days there were appar-
ently significant differences in the overall concentration levels in the
plume. Changes in total concentration levels would be expected on the basis
of differences in windspeed and stability. In the data used to plot Figure 7
and 8 an initial correction for changes in windspeed was made on the basis of
the recorded wind at the ground base trailer location. This is obviously
only a first approximation because the plume at 1000 feet would be influenced
by a significantly different windspeed, probably considerably higher. Ihe
concentration changes from day to day as observed in the Lawrenceville data
also would reflect day to day changes in the emissions from the source; how-
ever, these are probably a much smaller influence on the ooserved concentra-
tions than are the changes and impact of different meteorological conditions.
In any attempt to reproduce the downwind ground-level concentration from a
given refinery or other point source, it would obviously be necessary to in-
clude a very good approximation of the wind field because of its influence
not only on the direct dilution of the pollutant plume but also its effect; on
the plume rise from the source itself.
As indicated above, the aircraft sampling shows the Lawrenceville re-
finery is readily detectable in terms of hydrocarbon measurements for dis-
tances of more than 25 miles and that the nature of the transport plume is
generally predictable on the basis of meteorological diffusion principles.
31
-------
Plume Chemistry
The chemical composition of the refinery plume has been mentioned in most
of the preceding sections. Ot prime interest in terms of atmospheric chemis-
try are the relationships between hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and ozone.
It was pointed out earlier that methane was not an important component of the
plume, however, other members of the alkane family dominate the non-methane
hydrocarbon composition. Figure 9 shows a chromatogram typical of those en-
countered in the plume. Qualitatively, it is obvious that the saturated
hydrocarbons, propane, i-butane, n-butane, i-pentane and n-pentane, are most
prevalent. Also noticeable is the very small amount of acetylene present. In
general, unsaturated compounds comprise only about 10% of the total. This
value decreases to less than 1% in samples collected immediately adjacent to
the tank storage area. This data, of course, is only representative of the
lower molecular weight hydrocarbons since our individual hydrocarbon analysis
covered compounds of six carbon atoms and less. The question of what per-
centage this is of the total can be answered to some extent by comparing the
light hydrocarbon total with the non-methane total hydrocarbon value for a
number of samples. The two measurements can vary by as much as a factor of
two, but at the highest concentrations, where both types of analysis are most
accurate, the difference is normally about 20%. If the latter figure is used,
the light hydrocarbon totals we report represent approximately 80% of the
total non-methane hydrocarbon content of the plume.
When sampling within two miles of the refinery, differences were observed
in hydrocarbon composition within the plume. For example, on the afternoon of
June 16 two ground samples were collected to the southeast of the refinery.
The two collection points were within the plume but separated by about one
mile. Analysis of these samples showed considerable variation in the hydro-
carbon composition. The bag collected on the southern edge (tank side) of the
plume contained a larger proportion of hydrocarbons in the C5 and Cg molecular
weight range than did the one collected on the northern-most side of the plume.
This is illustrated in Table 9. On other occasions a similar behavior was ob-
served. Table 9 also shows results from aircraft samples collected to the
northwest of the refinery on June 21. Again on this afternoon, one side of the
plume was richer in Cg and Cg hydrocarbons than the other. Figure 10 summar-
izes this data. It can be seen that the side of the plume containing the
32
-------
1
INJECT
INCREASING TIME
Figure 9. Light hydrocarbon chromatogram typical of the plume.
33
-------
• 6.0
o o o
o o o
o o o
000
REFINERY
• 2.4
Figure 10. Variations in hydrocarbon composition within the plume.
34
-------
higher proportion of Cr and C,- hydrocarbons can be traced back to the western
edge of the plant. The major tank storage area is located on this edge of
the refinery and as shown in Table 9 the hydrocarbon ratio determined from
ground samples collected just outside the fenceline enclosing this tank area
agrees quite closely with the ratio measured downwind on that side of the
plume.
The disappearance of olefinic hydrocarbons has been used as a measure of
chemical aging within an air mass. Application of this principle to the re-
finery plume is possible if olefin decrease due to dilution can be clearly
defined or eliminated as a variable. A hydrocarbon dilution of approximately
6% per mile was established for the plume on the afternoon of June 21 (Table
6). Strictly on a dilution basis the propene content of the plume should de-
crease by about 50% at a distance of 8 miles downwind of the refinery. The
observed decrease was nearly 75% (12.5 yg/m at .5 miles to 3 yg/m at 8
miles). At 4 miles, however, the percentage decrease in propene is the same
as the dilution factor (25%). Thus on this basis it appears that chemical de-
gradation of propene begins at some point beyond 4 miles from the refinery
and is clearly evident at 8 miles downwind. Wind speeds during this sampling
period averaged about 10 mph, which means the 8 mile sample left the refinery
approximately one hour earlier.
The same conclusion can be reached by ratioing propene to the much less
reactive hydrocarbon n-pentane. This procedure eliminates dilution as a
variable since both species are plume constituents from the beginning. Exam-
ination of the propene/n-pentane ratio in the three samples collected on the
afternoon of June 21 shows a drop in propene content at the 8 mile collection
point:
Distance from Refinery Propene/n-pentane
.5 miles .6
4 .6
8 .3
That the lower ratio at 8 miles is truely due to a decrease in propene
and not an increase in n-pentane is substantiated by the fact that the ratio
of pentane to other low reactivity hydrocarbons is nearly constant at all
35
-------
distances. For example, the corresponding n-butane/n-pentane ratio is 2.6
at each of the three distances. Other flights showed a similar reduction in
propene content with distance.
The amount of NO we measured in the plume was relatively small. This
A
is not unexpected based on the emission figures presented in Table 3. Maxi-
mum NO values of about 55 ppb were recorded at the ground trailer. Bag
/\
samples collected in the aircraft never exceeded 45 ppb and were usually less
that 20 ppb. At distances greater than five miles downwind of the refinery,
plume NO levels were indistinguishable from background concentrations. As
/\
can be seen in Figure 2, by the time the plume reached the trailer monitoring
site (1.5 miles from refinery) most of the NO was in the form of N09. Since
X L-
the plume is richest in NO-, it is not surprising that it is deficient in
ozone. This also is clearly evident in Figure 2 since in most cases N0~ and
Oo traces are nearly mirror images of one another. Thus the ozone-nitric
oxide reaction appears to be primarily responsible for this rapid conversion
of NO to N02.
Aircraft traverses of the plume at distances of less than a mile down-
wind of the refinery always showed depressed ozone content relative to back-
ground air. Figure 11 shows a strip chart recording of ozone concentration
for three successive passes through the plume at about one mile from the re-
finery. At greater distances ozone depletions appear sometimes and not at
others. For example, in the 2 and 8 mile traverses shown in Figures 4 and
5, a small decrease in ozone can be seen at the 1500' elevation but little
effect below that.
Thus as the plume leaves the refinery, it carries along a large burden of
mostly unreactive hydrocarbons and relatively small amounts NO mainly in the
/\
form of N0?. Also in the initial stages it is somewhat depleted in ozone con-
tent.
Photochemical oxidant production from various sources is of special con-
cern at the present time. Consequently we were interested in checking for
ozone build-up in the plume as it proceeded downwind. Ozone survey flights
were conducted on the afternoons of June 13, 15, 20, 23 and 24. The general
flight pattern covered an area fr m about 15 miles upwind of the refinery to
40 miles downwind. Before each flight a careful examination of the morning
wind speed and direction provided the approximate downwind position of the
36
-------
LU
S»"
ID
-J
Q_
UJ
L
f—
s:
KH
•^2
t—
t—t
3
to
0
1— 1
ID
r— « '
•r- S-
s: o
CM ••-
•o
C CO
•r- CU
2 r*~
C CL
2 E'—
O (O CD
Q CO i —
CU "O IO
i— E
•r- 3
s: o
1 S-
CM O
00
.*: CM
E CM
(O *-".
h~ VO
CO
^ cr>
E r—
to -^,
4J +->
Q. 3 3 0
O DO 03 1—
i. 1 1
Q. -i- C
LO LO O LO LO LO
• • • • • •
O VO CO LO LO CM
i— CM
<£>
•
i — ID CT) CM CO CM
CO O CM LO i—
LO LO i — r — CO
r—
LO LO LO LO O O
r-. o LO LO CTI VD
r— I— CO
LO LO LO LO O ID
CM CO LO CTl «!l- i —
CM i — LO
O LO LO O O CO
• • • • • •
i — LT CM *J" CO LO
i — CM i —
O O O O O «=J-
ID OO •=!• «* CM CM
r- CO
CO
E
en o o
CU CU 3-11
E E O) CU CO LO
tO 10 E E r— 00
4-> 4-> tO IO tO
E E X X +J O
CU dl CU CU O T-
0. a. n: i i— -•->
1 1 1 1 tO
•i- E -i- E Q;
37
-------
Ul
8
8
O
55
<
UJ
g
FLIGHT TIME 1/2" p«r MINUTE
Figure 11. Ozone recording taken during aircraft passes through the plume.
38
-------
plume. On each of the flights we feel sampling occurred in the area where
plume associated ozone could have developed. However, no significant in-
crease in ozone levels was observed. Figures 12 and 13 show survey flight
paths for two different days. Arrows represent wind trajectories and thus
mark the path a parcel of air traveled as it left the refinery. Each arrow
represents the distance the parcel traveled in one hour beginning, in both
cases, at the refinery at 12 noon. Wind trajectory vectors are included for
two reasons. First to show that sampling actually took place in the area
of plume drift and second to indicate the speed of air movement prior to and
during the sampling period. This latter feature is quite important since it
dictates the time span over which photochemical oxidant could be formed. As
can be seen in the two survey maps, this time span is quite short - 3.5 hours
on June 20 and 3 hours on June 23. Considering this relatively short expo-
sure to sunlight and the unreactive nature of most plume hydrocarbons, it
is not surprising that we didn't observe any plume associated oxidant
build-up.
One notable feature in Figure 12 and 13 is the dependence of the
absolute magnitude of ozone levels on wind direction. Ozone concentrations
in the 60 ppb range accompanied winds from the southwest quadrant (June 20),
while the ozone levels were lower by a factor of two when northerly winds
prevailed. This is certainly not a refinery plume associated phenomena but
rather appears to be related to synoptic scale weather systems.
39
-------
JUNE 23
lil
33 31 32
27
30
2T
30
VincMnM
0 5 10
Scot* of milts
32
Figure 12. Aircraft flight path on the afternoon of June 23, 1974 with ozone
concentrations (ppb) marked at specific points along the route.
40
-------
JUNE 20
0 5 10
Seal* of- milts
64
61
62
Sullivan °
69
65
56
58
66
67 68
Figure 13, Aircraft flight path on the afternoon of June 20, 1974 with ozone
concentrations (ppb) marked at specific points along the route.
41
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emis-
sion Factors, 2nd Ed. EPA Pub. No. AP-42, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
April 1973.
2. U.S. Public Health Service, DHEW, Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum
Refineries: A Guide for Measurement and Control, PHS Pub. No. 763, USPHS
DHEW, Washington, D.C., 1960.
3. Bailey, B., Texaco, Inc., Personal communication.
4. Turner, D.B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, U.S. Public
Health Service, DHEW, PHS pub. No. 999-AP-26. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1969.
5. Edinger, J.G., McCutchan, M.H., Miller, P.R. Ryan, B.C., Schroeder, M.J.,
and Behar, J.V., J. Air Pollut. Contr. Assoc., 22 882 (1972).
42
-------
APPENDIX A
This appendix provides a complete listing of hydrocarbon, CO and NO
X
measurements made on bag samples collected on the ground and by aircraft.
For each day of sampling there will be:
1) Map(s) showing sample collection locations
2) Table(s) listing measured concentrations
Notes on Tables:
1) A in coding means aircraft collected sample.
2) G in coding means ground collected sample.
o
3) * means hydrocarbon concentration was less than .5 yg/m .
43
-------
BAG
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
Location
Morn, Highway 50 - 1 mile east Highway #1
Morn, Highway 50-1.6 mile east Highway #1
Morn, 3 mile south of refinery
Aft, refinery - north boundary
Morn, city survey, 1000'
Morn, 2 mile integrated, 500'
Morn, 2 mile, 500'
Morn, 2 mile, 1000'
Aft, 2-4 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 16-20 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 26-30 mile downwind, 1000'
Figure A-l. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 13, 1974,
44
-------
TABLE A-l. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES, JUNE 13, 1974
6-1
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
1-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total pg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NO (ppb)
14.
6.
1.
30.
4.
14.
39.
3.
2.
1.
1.
22.
15.
1.
•
8.
2.
5.
1.
175
.
1.
1.
27
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
5
0
5
5
5
4
3
6
6-2
17.5
12.0
2.5
35.5
5.5
9.0
31.0
2.0
2.5
.5
*
20.0
17.5
2.0
1.5
8.0
4.0
8.5
5.5
185
.5
1.3
1.7
28
G-
305
10
4
848
10
145
481
3
5
6
7
115
129
16
2
28
16
33
10
2177
3
1.
18
3
.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.6
.7
.9
6-4
51.5
30.0
.5
205
41.5
65.0
118
2.5
4.0
1.0
1.5
34.5
10.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
*
583
.3
10.2
1.7
17
A-T
6.0
11.5
1.0
9.0
1.5
3.0
7.0
.5
.5
*
*
8.5
3.5
*
1.5
2.0
2.0
*
57.5
.2
1.1
1.6
14
A-2
12.5
9.0
1.0
30.0
4.5
11.5
28.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
14.5
11.0
1.5
1.0
5.5
5.0
6.5
3.5
153
.4
1.4
1.6
14
A-3
11.
7.
.
22.
3.
10.
32.
1.
1.
•
*
25.
12.
1.
1.
4.
2.
5.
*
141
!
0
5
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
5
0
5
A-4
16.5
10.5
1.0
43.5
5.0
23.5
57.5
2.5
3.5
2.0
2.0
27.5
19.5
4.0
2.5
9.0
5.5
9.5
3.5
249
.6
1.8
1.7
45
-------
TABLE A-l. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
N0y (ppb)
A-5
12.5
18.5
1.0
38.0
11.0
14.5
29.0
4.0
6.0
2.0
2.0
10.5
5.5
1.0
*
2.5
1.0
2.5
.5
162
.5
6.2
1.6
15
A- 6
6.5
17.5
.5
9.0
8.5
2.5
5.0
2.0
4.0
.5
.5
4.5
2.0
*
2.0
*
1.0
1.5
*
67.5
.2
4.0
1.6
14
A- 7
5.0
14.5
.5
7.5
9.5
2.0
5.0
1.5
4.5
1.5
1.0
2.5
2.0
*
*
3.0
*
1.0
.5
61.5
.2
3.8
1.6
13
46
-------
lilg
I' " *<"*-• I
1 1 l« \-
•t , (•!,,. ,,-v
. i \ «'•] •<
JTT^r;,
47^^£$
''V^r £*n
" ^ "' i» i*'^"'*."
--•vV^r-^— •
J • ,' i I .f
^,-U-.'s^W'
"'/\ " \ )"
i*T^K'"=R:
±1 -! £\L
v^rY"^
t L ^ A «l*Wi R L'E '
••K^^r^jix
••r-.-'-T-Yi -'-^g
-f-^: - ••', ••
IJ: :[-;._ Vii^W*'^
y^'fji'Tjxi -/ ^
^B "J^
•''"' V -^-f
' 7 ' • • /^h/' a^^lb
^V^-^v^'^,,-;
i» » i ,i-f ^
IvVr-iX^."-
'• ' ,. !.• ',. ( :
tr-^'Y^;^
1' Vyi}:- '•'Qi.V
-; 7-'^}-f""f |
• J .(r'J.r-1-M
N
)"f[f:'
TT^^^S ..•:;'• K' '-'V. •;•
^fti vi^^^^^ s :'
J
L-
t:
YQ:
s-
i"
\
«L^if « i-!0?81^ "7^
rg^yry' .?|, I,.. -.^
^•fcTv^ /l~f'- "''.L ,• ' ' 1
trrr?fv--; --)- r-
"~\ >i "'.'!;•••, ' ' , V "' v, \~. > ' "
.•g-\ij^:V> \[ ;
\'"!:b"V^5f^-;-A-- ']./
,Y:ll-';^"'' Scale
" ^1^-. -^ '" = 3m'-
V,
? ' ^.
^h*^
-------
TABLE A-2. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES, JUNE 14, 1974
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
G-
30
10
4
63
4
22
63
2
3
2
1
34
24
2
10
6
11
4
300
1
1
1
22
2
.0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.1
.9
.8
A-2
33.5
8.5
1.0
105
14.5
50.0
100
3.0
3.5
2.0
1.5
48.0
23.0
2.5
2.0
7.0
5.5
9.0
420
1.1
1.7
1.7
A-3
25.5
12.0
1.0
75.5
16.5
35.5
68.5
6.0
7.0
4.0
3.0
35.5
18.0
3.0
2.5
6.0
3.0
7.0
2.5
332
.8
4.7
1.7
26
A-l
11.5
7.0
1.0
22.5
2.5
9.0
19.5
.5
1.0
.5
*
12.5
6.5
.5
*
2.5
2.5
3.5
103
G-3
8.5
7.5
1.5
16.0
5.0
8.0
22.0
3.5
4.5
2.0
1.5
18.5
13.0
1.0
1.0
6.5
3.0
5.5
1.0
130
.3
4.2
1.7
24
A-4
16
4
1
48
7
26
54
1
2
1
23
12
1
1
4
3
8
217
1
1
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.5
.6
.1
.7
A-5
14.
20.
1.
45.
17.
21.
42.
5.
7.
3.
2.
18.
10.
1.
2.
4.
2.
5.
1.
222
11.
1.
21
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
8
3
7
A-6
12.5
5.5
*
26.0
5.0
16.0
29.5
.5
1.0
*
.5
15.5
6.0
*
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
*
126
48
-------
TABLE A-2. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i- But ene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total pg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
G-4
15.5
6.5
1.0
47.0
6.0
25.5
53.0
4.0
5.0
2.5
1.5
18.0
11.5
2.5
2.0
5.5
3.0
4.0
3.5
218
.5
1.7
1.6
23
A-7
14.0
7.5
1.0
41.0
5.0
21.5
46.0
1.5
4.0
.5
.5
16.5
9.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
4.5
*
181
.5
1.6
1.7
A-8
11.5
5.0
1.0
31.0
5.0
16.5
37.0
3.5
4.0
2.5
1.5
16.5
9.5
1.0
.5
5.0
3.5
2.0
157
.5
2.0
1.6
A- 9
15.0
14.0
1.0
43.5
5.5
24.5
51.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
1.0
20.0
11.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
2.5
1.5
204
.8
2.0
1.6
G-l
11.0
5.5
1.0
16.5
2.0
7.5
15.5
.5
1.0
.5
*
8.5
5.5
1.0
.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
1.0
86.0
.3
.8
1.8
20
49
-------
BAG
6-1
G-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
LOCATION
Morn, 1 mile east of refinery
Morn, trailer manifold sample
Morn, 4 mile downwind, (under plane)
Morn, 8 mile downwind, (under plane)
Aft, 1 mile east of refinery
Morn, 4 mile downwind, 500'
Morn, 4 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 4 mile downwind, 1500'
Morn, 8 mile downwind, 500
Morn, 8 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 8 mile downwind, 1500'
Aft, 34 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 2 mile downwind, 1000'
Figure A-3. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 15, 1974
-------
TABLE A-3. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES. JUNE 15. 1974
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
G-
5
6
27
5
12
30
1
1
1
18
10
1
4
3
5
135
1
1
21
3
.5
.5
*
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.5
.0
.4
.4
.6
A-l
16.0
5.5
*
40.0
5.0
20.0
44.0
1.5
1.5
.5
.5
23.0
13.0
2.0
1.0
4.5
4.0
5.5
189
.6
1.6
1.6
A- 2
19.0
10.5
.5
67.5
7.0
29.0
63.0
5.0
4.5
3.0
2.5
26.5
14.5
2.5
2.0
10.0
6.0
7.5
3.0
289
.7
K8
1.6
A-3
9.
12.
.
26.
7.
7.
15.
2.
2.
1.
.
8.
5.
.
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
5
0
0
5
*
2.
1.
1.
105
1.
1.
14
0
0
5
4
2
6
G-4
3.0
6.0
.5
16.0
2.0
7.0
17.0
.5
*
*
9.5
4.5
1.0
.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
72.5
.3
1.4
1.5
18
A-4
12.5
20.0
.5
30.5
4.0
15.0
33.5
3.0
3.5
2.0
2.5
17.5
8.5
.5
.5
4.0
2.5
6.0
1.0
170
.7
1.3
1.5
A-5
9.
5.
.
17.
3.
9.
23.
2.
2.
a
5
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
*
n.
6.
t
3.
2.
4.
102
1.
1.
0
5
5
5
0
5
4
0
6
A-6
6.5
6.0
*
21.0
6.5
8.0
18.5
1.0
1.5
*
*
11.0
5.0
.5
.5
2.5
1.0
1.5
92.0
.3
1.5
1.6
18
51
-------
TABLE A-3. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
A-7
5.0
5
5.5
3.5
7.0
.5
1.5
*
3.5
1.5
.5
*
1.0
*
*
*
33.5
.1
.8
1.6
10
A-8
5.0
9.0
5.0
10.5
1.5
1.0
.5
*
7.5
3.5
.5
*
1.0
.5
*
*
51.0
.2
1.2
1.6
10
6-1
48.5
11.5
.5
153
25.0
84.0
222
10.5
9.5
7.5
6.0
189
no
7.0
5.0
41.0
23.0
37.5
7.0
1008
2.1
1.6
1.6
38
6-2
41.0
4.1
*
173
12.5
96.0
184
2.5
3.5
2.0
2.0
29.0
14.5
1.0
1.5
5.5
4.5
6.5
2.5
588
.9
1.2
1.6
42
6-5
6.0
1.5
.5
152
9.0
93.0
180
4.0
4.5
2.5
1.5
24.0
12.0
1.0
1.5
6.0
5.0
6.5
*
512
1.4
1.7
1.6
19
52
-------
BAG
LOCATION
G-l
6-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
Morn, flare-side bag (under plane)
Morn, middle bag (under plane)
Morn, tank-side bag (under plane)
Aft, flare-side bag (under plane)
Aft, middle bag (under plane)
Aft, tank-side bag (under plane)
Flare-side, 1-2 mile, 500'
Middle, 0-1 mile, 500'
Middle, 1-2 mile, 500'
Tank-side, 0-2 mile, 500'
Flare-side, 1-2 mile, 500'
Middle, 1-2 mile, 500'
Tank-side, 1-2 mile, 500'
Integrated across, 2 mile, 500'
Figure A-4. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 16, 1974,
-------
TABLE A-4. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES, JUNE 16, 1974
A-l
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total ug/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
11
1
1
28
2
13
32
2
3
3
1
17
6
2
1
2
1
130
1
1
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
*
.0
.0
.5
.0
.4
.0
.6
A- 2
19.0
4.0
.5
41.0
11.5
14.0
29.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
21.0
11.0
2.0
3.0
6.0
3.0
6.5
2.0
187
.5
2.6
1.6
A-3
16.
2.
.
40.
4.
20.
41.
3.
3.
3.
1.
21.
8.
.
1.
3.
1.
4.
.
178
1.
1.
5
0
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
0
0
5
0
5
6
3
6
A-4
7.5
5.0
*
17.0
2.5
10.5
26.5
1.0
1.0
.5
.5
26.5
12.0
1.5
.5
5.0
3.5
5.0
1.0
127
.5
1.0
1.6
12
G-l
10.0
5.5
*
16.5
1.5
10.0
21.0
*
.5
*
.5
11:5
3.5
.5
*
1.0
1.0
1.5
*
84.5
.2
.9
1.6
15
G-2
16.
6.
.
34.
4.
15.
37.
3.
3.
3.
1.
"22.
12.
1.
1.
4.
2.
8.
2.
177
1.
1.
15
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
1
6
G-
5.
2.
8.
.
4.
12.
•
.
*
*
11.
6.
1.
*
4.
3.
2.
*
62.
.
1.
12
3
5
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
0
5
5
5
2
8
7
54
-------
TABLE A-4. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOY (ppb)
A- 5
6.0
5.5
.5
5.0
2.0
2.0
7.0
1.5
*
7.0
3.5
1.0
*
1.5
.5
1.5
44.5
.3
1.2
1.6
A-6
10.0
6.0
*
16.5
8.0
19.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
12.0
7.5
1.0
1.0
3.5
1.5
6.0
*
98.0
.5
1.4
1.6
A-7
9.0
3.5
*
18.5
4.0
9.5
22.5
1.0
1.0
.5
*
14.5
8.0
1.5
1.5
4.0
3.0
5.0
*
107
.5
1.4
1.6
6-4
5.0
3.0
*
3.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
*
*
*
*
2.5
.5
1.0
*
*
1.0
1.0
*
25.5
.1
.9
1.6
9
G-5
30.5
3.0
1.0
129
3.5
74.5
147
2.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
11.0
5.5
2.0
*
2.5
1.5
4.0
1.5
429
.8
.8
1.6
11
G-6
10.5
3.5
.5
25.0
2.0
15.5
36.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
.5
16.0
8.0
1.0
1.5
4.0
3.0
4.0
*
135
.4
1.0
1.6
9
A-8
7.5
5.5
.5
16.0
2.5
9.5
19.5
*
5.5
3.0
1.0
2.0
.5
.5
*
73.5
.3
.8
1.6
8
-------
BAG
LOCATION
6-1
6-2
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Aft,
Aft,
Aft,
, 2
, 8
, 2
, 2
, 2
, 2
, 8
, 8
, 8
, 8
22
22
22
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
downwind
downwi nd
downwi nd ,
downwi nd ,
downwi nd ,
downwi nd ,
downwind,
downwind,
downwind,
downwind,
downwi nd ,
downwi nd ,
downwi nd ,
500'
750'
1000'
1500'
500'
750'
1000'
1500'
1000'
1500'
2000'
Figure A-5. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 17, 1974,
56
-------
TABLE A-5. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES, JUNE 17, 1974
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
G-l
26.
8.
•
60.
14.
29.
78.
2.
2.
2.
2.
54.
31.
6.
2.
11.
7.
12.
5.
357
.
1.
1.
21
5
0
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
9
3
7
A-l
30.0
6.0
.5
81.0
12.5
42.5
97.0
6.0
4.5
5.0
3.5
48.5
26.5
4.0
3.5
11.0
6.0
9.5
3.0
401
1.0
1.4
1.7
A-
15
3
54
8
30
73
2
2
2
2
43
24
2
1
8
5
9
3
290
1
1
2
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.8
.4
.6
A-3
39.0
10.0
1.0
113
16.5
66.0
123
4.5
4.5
4.0
2.5
45.5
30.0
2.5
5.5
12.0
7.5
13.5
5.5
514
1.4
2.9
1.7
A- 4
24.0
4.0
*
106
12.5
70.5
139
3.5
3.5
2.0
1.5
33.0
22.0
3.0
2.0
8.0
6.5
10.5
452
1.7
2.1
1.6
G-2
12.5
3.5
.5
40.5
3.0
15.0
33.5
.5
*
*
10.0
7.0
1.0
*
2.5
1.5
3.0
*
134
.5
1.2
1.6
14
A-5
7.0
3.5
.5
9.5
i.o'
8.0
12.0
.5
.5
*
*
6.0
3.0
*
*
1.5
.5
1.5
*
55.0
.4
1.2
1.6
A-
14
4
1
32
4
15
34
5
3
3
2
12
8
3
2
3
1
149
1
6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.0
.4
.9
.6
57
-------
TABLE A-5. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH. (ppm)
A- 7
14.5
4.0
.5
33.5
5.0
16.5
38.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
12.0
8.0
1.0
*
4.0
2.5
4.5
1.5
152
.5
1.2
1.6
A-8
12.0
3.5
.5
26.0
3.5
14.0
30.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
13.5
7.5
2.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.0
137
.5
1.2
1.6
A-9
9.0
8.5
*
7.5
5.0
3.5
11.0
*
.5
*
*
8.0
3.0
.5
*
1.5
1.0
.5
*
60.0
.3
1.4
1.6
A-10
9.0
11.5
.5
13.5
8.0
8.0
19.0
*
14.0
5.0
.5
*
2.5
1.0
2.0
*
93.5
.3
3.4
1.7
A-ll
5.5
5.5
*
11.5
4.5
4.5
14.5
*
.5
*
*
11.5
4.0
1.5
.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
*
69.5
.3
2.4
1.6
(ppb)
58
-------
BAG
LOCATION
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
Morn, tank farm sample
Morn, downtown, 6th & Jefferson
Morn, 2.5 mile downwind
Morn, clean air baq, 4*
Aft, 18 mile downwind,
Morn, upwind, 1000'
Morn, 4 mile downwind,
Morn, 4 mile downwind,
Morn, 4 mile downwind,
Aft, 16 mile downwind,
Aft, 19 mile downwind,
Aft, 22 mile downwind,
Aft, 24 mile downwind,
Aft, 25 mile downwind,
'z mile ENE of refinery
(3 mile W Lawrenceville)
500'
1000'
2000'
1000'
1000'
1000'
1000'
1500'
Figure A-6. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 19, 1974.
59
-------
TABLE A-6. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES. JUNE 19. 1974
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
G-l
576
5.5
*
1539
1.0
495
1416
9.0
17.0
14.5
531
506
34.0
7.5
129
70.5
152
37.5
5541
9.7
.7
1.9
21
6-2
28
9
61
24
30
119
8
7
4
90
86
9
6
22
13
32
552
1
1
1
105
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
.3
.0
.7
G-
30
5
2
197
15
129
156
2
3
1
14
9
5
3
7
582
1
2
1
26
3
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
*
.0
.5
.5
.0
*
.5
.0
.5
.5
*
.2
.1
.6
G-4
19.0
4.0
2.0
39.0
1.5
9.5
28.0
2.0
2.5
9.0
8.0
.5
*
2.5
1.0
3.0
1.0
123
.3
.8
1.6
20
A-l
5.0
3.0
*
5.0
1.0
2.0
6.0
*
.5
*
*
8.0
2.0
*
*
1.0
.5
.5
*
34.5
.2
1.0
1.6
16
A- 2
17.0
12.0
.5
57.0
10.5
29.5
49.0
5.5
6.0
3.0
4.5
33.5
19.0
3.0
2.5
7.5
4.0
7.0
2.0
273
1.0
2.2
1.6
21
A- 3
12.
11.
.
32.
9.
15.
27.
5.
4.
3.
2.
13.
9.
1.
1.
3.
1.
3.
1.
158
1.
1.
20
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
0
5
5
5
0
9
6
6
A-4
6.0
14.5
.5
6.5
7.5
1.5
6.0
.5
1.5
*
*
2.5
2.0
*
*
*
*
.5
*
49.5
.6
3.5
1.4
18
60
-------
TABLE A-6. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total ug/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
A-5
6.0
5.5
*
7.5
1.5
5.5
16.0
*
.5
*
*
11.5
5.0
*
.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
*
68.0
.6
1.2
1.6
A-6
10.0
.5
21.0
2.5
15.5
47.0
4.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
31.5
14.0
3.0
1.5
9.5
3.5
5.0
1.5
182
.1
1.3
1.6
A-7
10.5
18.5
*
17.5
2.5
8.5
16.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
10.5
5.0
.5
*
2.5
1.5
1.5
.5
104
A-8
6.5
7.0
1.0
28.0
2.5
45.5
190
2.5
2.5
6.0
5.0
126
49.0
6.0
3.0
24.5
18.5
14.5
3.0
541
.7
1.3
1.6
A-9
9.0
11.5
.5
12.0
1.5
6.5
22.5
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
16.0
9.0
.5
3.0
10.0
3.0
3.0
*
113
.7
1.4
1.6
G-5
8.0
8.0
.5
6.5
1.0
2.0
5.5
*
.5
*
*
4.0
2.0
*
*
1.0
*
.5
.5
39.5
.1
1.3
1.6
20
61
-------
BAG
LOCATION
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-4
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
Morn
Morn
Aft,
Aft,
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Morn
Aft,
Aft,
Aft,
, 5 mile downwind
, 10 mile downwind
tank farm, west of refinery
intown (corner 15th & State)
, 5 mile downwind, 500'
, 10 mile downwind, 500'
, 15 mile downwind, 500'
, 20 mile downwind, 500'
, 20 mile downwind, 500'
10 mile downwind, 1000'
16 mile downwind, 1000'
30 mile downwind, 1000'
Figure A-7. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 20, 1974,
62
-------
TABLE A-7. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES. JUNE 20, 1974
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOY (ppb)
G-l
12.5
4.5
*
27.5
4.5
15.5
26.5
1.5
3.5
1.0
11.0
6.0
.5
*
2.5
1.5
3.5
1.5
124
.3
1.2
1.7
18
G-2
10.5
6.5
*
9.5
.5
3.5
7.0
*
*
*
*
3.0
2.5
*
*
.5
1.0
*
*
44.5
.2
.9
1.7
17
A-l
13.5
5.0
*
34.5
11.5
23.0
35.5
.5
1 .0
*
*
12.0
8.0
*
1.0
3.5
3.0
3.5
*
156
.6
1.8
1.7
A-2
13.0
4.0
.5
24.0
2.5
10.5
22.5
4.0
6.0
2.0
1.5
12.0
6.5
.5
.5
3.0
1.5
2.5
1.0
118
.6
1.6
1.7
A- 3
14.5
5.5
1.0
32.5
4.5
14.5
28.0
4.0
1.5
19.5
10.0
3.5
2.5
4.5
2.5
3.5
1.5
154
.7
1.9
1.7
A-5
10.5
6.0
.5
21.5
3.0
9.5
17.0
*
.5
*
*
8.5
6.0
*
.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
.5
92.5
.4
2.0
1.7
A-4
10.5
8.5
1.5
14.0
5.5
7.0
12.0
*
*
*
7.0
4.0
1.0
*
2.0
.5
1.0
*
74.5
.5
1.6
1.7
63
-------
TABLE A-7. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOY (ppb)
A-6
8.5
8.0
.5
11.5
1.5
5.0
12.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
9.0
3.5
.5
*
2.5
1.5
1.5
.5
72.0
.3
.9
1.6
20
A-7
6.5
3.5
.5
8.5
1.5
4.5
7.0
*
*
*
4.5
2.5
*
*
1.0
.5
*
*
40.5
.1
.9
1.6
18
A-8 G-3
52.5
6.0
*
257
1.0
122
379
6.5
4.5
8.0
7.5
206
124
10.5
3.0
47.0
31.5
41.0
1307
.1 3.1
1.0 1.1
1.6 1.6
16 16
G-4
8.5
7.0
.5
7.0
1.0
3.5
10.5
.5
.5
.5
8.0
3.5
.5
*
2.0
3.5
1.5
.5
59.0
.2
1.2
1.6
18
G4
-------
BAG
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-4
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
LOCATION
Morn, flare-side of plume, (under plane)
Morn, middle of plume
Morn, tank-side
Morn, taken from trailer manifold
Morn, flare-side, 1 mile, 500'
Morn, flare-side, 1 mile, 1000'
Morn, middle, 1 mile, 500'
Morn, middle, 1 mile, 1000'
Morn, flare-side, 2 mile, 500'
Morn, flare-side, 4 mile, 500'
Morn, middle, 1 mile, 500'
Morn, middle, 2 mile, 500'
Morn, tank-side, 2 mile, 500'
Morn, tank-side, 4 mile, 500'
Aft, 9-10 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 4-5 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 1-2 mile downwind, 1000'
Sample of flare @ 500'
Tank-side of plume, 1-8 mile integ, 1000'
Flare-side of plume, 1-8 mile integ, 1000'
Figure A-8. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 21, 1974,
65
-------
TABLE A-8. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES, JUNE 21. 1974
6-1
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
11.
2.
1.
16.
1.
3.
11.
•
*
•
*
5.
4.
•
*
3.
1.
2.
.
64.
m
•
1.
16
5
0
5
0
0
5
0
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
3
8
6
6-2
19.5
4.0
1.5
66.5
4.0
58.0
84.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
38.5
13.0
2.5
1.5
9.0
5.0
6.5
2.0
334
.8
.8
1.6
16
6-3
76
4
606
3
206
801
1
1
1
1
308
416
25
104
66
150
34
2806
5
.
1.
15
.0
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
.5
*
.5
.0
.2
7
7
A-l
10.0
2.0
1.0
12.0
1.0
3.0
9.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
*
4.5
2.5
*
*
1.5
1.0
1.5
*
54
.4
.7
1.6
A- 2
9.0
2.5
.5
10.0
1.0
3.5
7.0
1.5
1.0
2.5
*
6.0
2.5
.5
*
2.0
*
2.5
*
52
.4
.7
1.6
A- 3
26.5
3.5
1.0
no
19.0
103
104
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
22.5
12.5
2.5
1.0
6.0
4.0
6.5
431
1.2
1.8
1.6
A-4
6.0
2.5
.5
7.5
1.5
2.5
6.0
.5
*
*
.5
3.5
2.0
*
*
.5
*
2.0
*
35.5
.4
.7
1.6
G-4
13
2
1
82
8
53
70
2
2
1
1
17
12
3
1
5
5
5
288
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.5
*
66
-------
TABLE A-8. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total ug/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
A- 5
9.5
3.0
*
13.5
1.5
4.0
9.0
1.5
1.5
3.0
*
5.5
4.0
.5
*
2.5
1.0
1.5
*
61.5
.3
1.1
1.6
A-6
9.0
4.0
*
12.0
1.5
4.0
11.5
2.0
*
5.5
3.5
1.0
*
3.0
1.0
2.0
.5
60.5
.4
1.1
1.6
A-9
15.0
4.5
.5
37.5
17.0
18.0
35.0
3.5
3.0
1.5
1.0
22.5
16.5
3.5
3.0
5.5
5.0
9.5
3.5
196
A-10
12.0
4.5
.5
25.5
11.5
8.0
29.0
1.5
1.5
.5
.5
24.5
19.0
4.0
1.5
6.0
4.5
7.5
2.5
165
.5
1.0
1.6
A-7
30.5
10.5
.5
120
15.0
70.0
85.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
3.5
18.0
11.0
3.5
6.0
3.5
4.5
2.0
398
A-8
27.0
5.5
.5
99.5
13.5
58.0
75.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
2.5
17.5
10.5
2.0
1.0
5.5
2.5
5.5
1.5
340
.9
2.3
1.6
A-14
1.2
3.5
1.6
24
67
-------
TABLE A-8. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
A-13
11.5
6.5
1.0
33.0
3.0
14.5
26.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
*
10.0
5.5
.5
.5
4.5
2.0
3.0
1.0
128
.5
1.7
1.6
A-12
13.5
8.0
.5
43.0
9.0
22.5
37.0
1.0
1.0
.5
*
14.0
9.0
2.0
1.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
*
173
A-ll
13.5
4.5
.5
56.0
12.5
34.0
52.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
20.0
11.5
4.0
1.0
4.0
3.5
5.0
*
228
.8
2.1
1.6
A-15
9.5
10.5
.5
12.5
2.0
7.5
13.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
.5
11.5
4.5
.5
*
2.5
2.0
9.5
*
90.0
.4
.8
1.6
19
A-16
8.5
17.0
.5
11.0
2.0
8.0
13.0
*
2.0
.5
.5
13.0
5.0
.5
2.5
2.0
5.5
2.0
94.0
.5
1.1
1.6
19
68
-------
/";,. ' v!. :-.yii..;
fc^vL i, K.-. Nil ;
V ' .B-^-ri—>T-—'-<—-f- ij-l
-K- •:: •& W-- •• r - -,S. - I-"' - 4 - «—I-S'
H r tfV- !• \
*;.'"(»^f|0^r
Scale
= 3mi.
BAG
6-1
6-2
A-l
A-2
LOCATION
Morn, tank farm, west of refinery
Morn, fenceline, south site
Morn, flare sample, 1000'
Morn, stack soot sample, 1000'
Figure A-9. Location of Hydrocarbon Sa.mnles Collected on June 22, 1Q74,
C9
-------
TABLE A-9. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES. JUNE 22. 1974
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane .
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
G-l
10.5
5.0
1.0
27.5
5.0
12.5
24.5
.5
.5
.5
*
10.5
6.5
2.5
*
3.0
16.0
5.5
1.0
133
.4
.8
1.6
15
G-2
7.5
3.5
1.5
39.5
5.5
134
871
7.0
1.5
1.5
*
852
869
55.5
2.0
197
120
218
46.5
3433
6.0
.9
1.6
22
A-l
17.5
11.8
4.0
25.5
3.5
11.5
25.0
2.0
*
1.5
.5
14.0
9.5
1.5
*
5.5
2.5
4.0
.5
140
.4
.7
1.5
A-2
14.0
6.5
2.5
38.0
9.5
18.0
50.5
3.0
2.5
1.5
*
30.5
18.0
3.0
2.0
8.0
6.0
8.5
*
222
70
-------
BAG
LOCATION
G-l
G-2
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-l 2
A-l 3
A-14
Morn, 2 mile downwind
Morn, 8 mile downwind
Morn, 2 mile downwind, 500'
Morn, 2 mile downwind, 750'
Morn, 2 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 2 mile downwind, 1500'
Morn, 2 mile downwind, 2000'
Morn, 8 mile downwind, 500'
Morn, 8 mile dcwnwind, 750'
Morn, 8 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 8 mile downwind, 1500'
Morn, 8 mile downwind, 2000'
Aft, 4 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 12 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 21 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, clean air, 22 mile SE, 1000'
Figure A-10. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 23, 1974.
71
-------
TABLE A-10. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES, JUNE 23, 1974
G-l
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
3
Total vtg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
8
2
1
17
5
9
19
1
1
13
11
1
3
2
6
2
104
1
1
22
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
*
.0
.0
*
.0
.5
.0
.5
.0
.4
.0
.6
A-l
8.5
4.0
*
18.0
3.0
8.0
17.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
11.0
5.0
1.0
.5
3.5
1.5
1.0
.5
90
.5
1.1
1.6
A-2
9.0
4.0
.5
22.5
3.5
11 ,5
23.0
1.0
*
1.5
*
8.5
6.5
*
*
3.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
99
.5
1.5
1.6
A-3
12.5
5.5
*
50.5
5.0
29.5
39.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
*
16.5
6.5
1.5
1.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
*
181
.8
1.3
1.6
A- 4
13.0
4.0
1.0
41.5
5.0
28.5
50.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
*
37.0
12.0
1.0
1.0
5.5
4.5
2.0
*
210
.8
1.5
1.7
A- 5
6.0
3.0
*
4.0
1.5
2.5
9.5
*
*
*
*
7.5
2.0
.5
*
2.5
1.0
.5
*
40.5
.5
1.0
1.6
G-2
8.
4.
.
23.
3.
54.
30.
•
*
•
*
9.
4.
1.
.
2.
1.
3.
*
145
1.
1.
14
A-6
5
0
5
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
7
7
2
17
4
39
30
1
19
7
1
1
3
2
3
141
1
1
.0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
*
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
*
.8
.4
.6
72
-------
TABLE A-10. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cycl'ohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOV (ppb)
A- 7
11.0
7.5
1.0
29.5
6.0
95.5
52.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
19.5
7.0
2.0
*
4.0
2.0
1.5
*
253
.8
1.4
1.7
A-8
9.5
9.0
1.0
16.5
2.0
38.0
26.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
1.5
17.0
6.0
1.0
*
4.0
2.0
2.0
.5
147
A- 9
9.0
9.0
1.0
18.0
3.0
54.5
68.5
2.5
4.5
5.0
3.5
47.5
15.5
2.5
3.5
10.0
6.5
3.5
1.5
269
1.0
1.1
1.6
A-10
3.5
7.0
.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
*
*
*
*
10.0
2.0
*
*
1.5
.5
*
*
36
.6
.8
1.7
A-n
7.0
4.5
.5
14.5
3.0
8.0
14.0
1.5
.5
*
*
7.0
3.5
*
*
1.0
*
.5
*
65.5
.4
1.0
1.6
9
A-12 A-13 A-14
5.5
5.0
.5
4.0
1.0
2.0
8.0
.5
*
*
*
5.5
2.0
*
*
1.5
.5
1.0
*
37
.3 .2 .2
1.0 .7 .8
1.6 1.6 1.7
797
73
-------
BAG
LOCATION
G-l
6-2
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
Morn, tank farm, west of refinery
Morn, fenceline, south site
Morn, 1 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 5 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 10 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 20 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 25 mile downwind, 1000'
Morn, 25 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 2 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 8 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 16 mile downwind, 1000'
Aft, 28 mile downwind, 1000'
Figure A-ll. Location of Hydrocarbon Samples Collected on June 24, 1974,
74
-------
TABLE A-ll. DATA FROM GROUND AND AIRBORNE SAMPLES, JUNE 24, 1974
A-l
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
i-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
8
3
25
3
18
36
1
1
1
1
20
10
2
1
4
3
3
.5
.0
*
.5
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
*
144
1
1
26
.5
.3
.6
A-
14
3
1
49
2
26
57
3
2
3
2
27
13
1
6
3
2
1
221
1
1
2
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.6
.3
.7
A-3
9.5
5.0
*
23.0
3.5
16.0
33.0
1.0
.5
1.0
1.0
19.5
9.5
*
5.0
2.5
4.0
*
134
.3
.9
1.9
8
A- 4
9
7
17
3
13
20
9
1
1
4
2
3
1
1
1
9
.0
.0
*
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.2
.7
A-5
11.5
2.0
1.0
22.0
1.0
7.5
21.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
9.0
5.5
1.0
*
2.5
1.5
1.5
.5
93
.3
.9
1.7
A-6
9.0
4.0
1.0
17.0
1.0
7.0
17.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
9.0
4.0
1.0
*
3.0
1.5
1.0
*
82
.3
.9
1.7
G-l
7
10
2
5
5
4
19
1
1
1
25
16
3
1
12
9
13
5
143
1
1
37
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
*
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.5
.0
.6
.8
.7
75
-------
TABLE A-11. (cont.)
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i -Butane
n-Butane
neo-Pentane
1-Butene
1-Butene
t-2-Butene
Propyne
c-2-Butene
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
1-Pentene
i-Hexane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Cyclohexane
Total yg/m
NMTHC (ppm)
CO (ppm)
CH4 (ppm)
NOX (ppb)
G-2
7.0
4.5
1.5
5.5
2.0
35
9.0
2.5
3.0
8.0
3.5
1.0
*
3.0
1.5
1.5
.5
89
.4
1.0
1.8
30
A-7
14.0
3.5
.5
47.0
6.0
31.0
54.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
14.5
7.0
*
1.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
*
198
.6
3.2
1.7
A-8
8.0
4.0
.5
13.5
2.0
7.0
18.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
8.0
4.0
*
*
2.5
1.0
1.5
.5
77.5
.3
1.7
1.7
A- 9
6.0
5.5
.5
6.5
1.5
4.0
11.0
.5
*
.5
*
9.0
4.0
*
*
.5
.5
*
*
50
.4
1.5
1.6
A-10
7.0
7.0
*
6.0
2.5
4.0
11.0
3.0
*
1.0
*
7.0
4.0
.5
*
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
59.5
.3
1.6
1.7
76
-------
APPENDIX B
Ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, non-methane total hydro-
carbon, carbon monoxide and methane concentrations are listed in this
appendix. Meteorological parameters including wind speed, wind
direction, temperature, dew point and solar radiation are also tabu-
lated. The data are compiled on a daily basis and recorded as hourly
averages. Time is Central Daylight Time.
-------
0
<
Q. O i^cooocio*d-Lr>LncMO->CMro
CO CT, OOOOI^OOCT><=t-OOCMr— Or— OOOi— r— e— i— CMl— i— OO
CTl r— r—
o"
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMi— i
O
00
o Q o» oooooooooootnoooooooooooo
» * CMCMr— r— i— r— f— CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMr— r-CM
uj C/5 -C
Ql i— i— i— i— i— i— CM'vJ-OOOOOOLOCMOOi— VO CO CM CO CO CM
E
UJ
o
•z.
UJ
oi -r
~ 2 CMi— n-CMCMCMCM
00 X Q.
Q.
UJ
o
a: X ^_ ^ ^ ^ ^ __ ^
- CM
D;
:D
oo
O "2 cMtniocTicyiocMOr—ooocy>oocnooOi
z s
CO
' 0"a —
^ JO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
fc- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
OOOOOOOOOi— r- i— i— i— r— r— r— r— r— CMCMCMCMCM
78
-------
Q
<
(T
Q.
O
o
oo
t—I
o
Cd
LU
C£
ZD
C/)
. 0>
> -o
si
21
O Q.
8 *
^
0
a
o"
oocjoococoi — oooo i
i— i— i— i— i— i— i— OO i— i— i— i
r— «3- r-^ oo co I--- CM
oicricricncrvcncMUDOO
oo «3- oo oo CM oo
oil— «=j- cocr>CMLnoLnuDr^«3-o<5j-U3«3-oocr>'vJ-i— i— CM
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
i— CM CO ^J~ LO ^O I CO CTt O i— CM CO *^~ LO t*O 1*^* 00 CT» O i— CM CO ^d"
OOOOOOOOOi— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— CMCMCMCMCM
-------
Q ^ OOOOOCO P*- OO *~~ O CO
< 7?
tr E
co co co (£> o o i— r-- CM o i— o 01 r--. o i— uo CM
Q ?
Lf)
r—
LU
i— i— COUOLOCMCOCM
0°
CMCJCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMi— i—
O
OO
»—( f^
O *-* if OOOOOQOOOOQOOQOOOOOOCPOOO
I—I
_l
I
(/) x:
111 »I
o
o: I Q.
O a
<
*> si
" o
ce
i r— i— i— CM r**« co r**. ^ oo i
oo
=t
LU
2!
LU
•9 Jf r- i— CM r— ^-CM
C£ Z Q
M o -S
I ZZ >C ^- i— •— i— r— r— r— CM
CQ Z O.
LU
GO
^ oootnaD r-oocy>i
CO CO CO CM I CM CM i— i
u.
^ — OOOOOOOOOOC5OOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooocpoooooooooooooooooooo
|— OOOOOOOOOr— r— i— i— i— i— r— r-,— r— CVJC\JCMC\JCM
-------
Q >»
< ^
IT £
•-D
2:
O
5?
*
TJ
LU
5;
00
cr>criCTicx)ocricTioocTioocor— LO^i-^r«d-
CMCVJCMC\JC\JCMCMCSJCMCVJC>vJCMCOC^CMC\JCMC\JOjrOCVJCVJCV)CM
CMCMCVJ
C\J
CVJCO^-— COr^CTlVDVOOOOi— CMCTlCTl
CMCMCMCNJ Ir— i—
-------
1^
UJ
o
in
>—i
o
QL o
Q °
O 0»
z
UJ
o;
oo
z
UJ
UJ
o;
RFACE
un
OQ
X Q.
O O-
o a
o
•« °L
3E Q.
OJ rj
0 Q.
O
OOOOO^Or^-OOVDODCTiUDCTiOOOOLOCTiCTiCnoCOOOO
i — i — ir)c\JU3OCT>LnunroocoLr>Lnoj
--
ronrocMi—oj^rv-coooooi—cjcococoevir—oo«d-coc\i(M
i— i— r— r— r— r-r— ,— r— CMCXICVJCMCVJCVJCMOJCMCMr— r— r— i— t—
0 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O OOO
mr^-oor---Lncor— «d-«d-r— r--r— Looocor--CT>r^iDcri r— coio
CMC\JCMc\j
cvi
CM i—
• oj r-~ co cvi ro
r— C\J r— r-
I r— i— CMCMCMCMrOCO o i— csi co ^~
OOOOOOOOOrf-i— i— i— i— r— i— i— i— i— CVJCVJOJOJOJ
-------
ooooocrii — CM r--.
~
i — cr> cr> o cr> oo i — o o o
•"•"'• —' i" *A> US «-» t I C^J
< •=
cr E
^L O o*» oo ^~ c\i u"> oo LO r— *tf" co uo to r*^. 0*1 CM cr> i
00 °
CT> 00 VO VO i^ ^i" ^X5 00 O"* r— CM r^. CO CO r-~ t-~ CO *^- r— 00 *O CM
o
O i— i— CM CM CM CM LT> CTi CO !"*•*. CTl CT» CTl i— CM i— CM O 1— ^3" CO CM CM CM
_ i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— CMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOrOCOCMCMCMCMCMCM
O
I—I
O & oooooooooooooooooooooooo
,— P— ,—.,— ,— ,— p-p-CMCM!— OJr—
-------
Q >f
< ^
cr E
oo vo co c\j oo oo i
_ 00 CO CO t~^ O1 i— Lf> OO CM CM I— OlOIVOOi—
Q- O
o LOLnLT>inLnio^^^r^roooooo-icy>oocriocT>cooocoio
i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— r— CM CM i— CM i— i— i— i— i—
o
0 CMCMCMCMCMCM<7lOOCOOOOLT>CO'
O CM CM CM CM CM CM i— r-r— CMCMCMCMOOrOrOOOOOCOCMCMCMCMCM
t—I
o
w ooooooooooooooooooooo oo
"W r— i— i— i— i— r— C\Ji— r— CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM r—
<" a.
o
z:
UJ
31 a.
O
«i
0£. O
^ 5 E
Q_ r— i— i— i— r— i— CMr— i— i— r— r— r— r— l— .— r— ,— r-r— CMCO
a
^ O "Q.
^«»
GO
1 ,-* ^1
fYi ^^j x5 *"*" ^** ^**** '"""''*' ^Xl* ^O ^3" OO W* CJ^ ^J ^J r™~ c 3 CO c^3 C3 ^j r^~ '
a- CMC\JC\JC\ICVJCMCVJC\Ji— i— C\JCMCMCMCMC\IC\JC\JCM
o S
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
h- OOOOOOOOOr— I^r— i— r— •— r— r—i— i— CMC\JC\ICMC\J
84
-------
0 >T
< ^
tr. E
o
00
I—I
o
LU
o
LU
oo
z
LU
C£
tTi
UJ
s:
LU
O
«£
u_
o:
oo
CO
O 0»
SI
* £
X Q.
0 Q.
81
O
0 f
z s
r— COlOCOi—
CMOOOO
UOLO-5)-^i-Lf)VOCT>'— CMCOOOOOCOrOOOOOCMr-r— r^lDLOlO
r— i— r— r— n-r— r-CMC\JCMOJCMC\)CMCVJCVJC\JCMCMr— r— i— r—
^~ i-~ O"l i— o
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
-
OOOOOOOOOi
CMCMCMCMCM
-------
O >s
26
oooooojoor-
r— noococvjcdcxicoooooo
_ _... _. OOOinoOOCMr-UDCTiLOCOCVl
CL O
CNJ ^^ O IO LO IO LO LT) LO LO LQ ^O r"** I f""^ C^ ^~ CD ^~ C\J r*^ ^~ ^D f"i g~^ <~^
1-1 i— i— i— i— i— i— i— r— i— i— CMCMCMCMCVJCMOdCVJCVJCMCJCVJCM
o H- o i—ocMro«d-cvjcococo^j- icor-ooOi—CMc\JOr->.vouour>
-------
< c
tr E
CM
CM
\- o°
a o>
SI
* £
x a.
o a.
00
oo
<
o
<
u_
a:
ZD
OO
o
II
•
O ex
Z a.
CQ
<
.— CMr— LO*d-COt3-*±r— OOCO
LT> CM CM UD co i— oco^frr^
t i co en r— r— o i i co co r— i— o
i— i— CM CM CM r-i— r— r-r-
co cr> o i— co un CM co r~- o i— o CM
01 vo «a- co co
oOl — LD i i LD <£> en i — r^ i i co co r
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CO CM i — i — i
oo o ooooooooooooooooooo
CM.— oo co i—r^i^.r^<£>cor^covOi— coiovor^-cocococo
COO CM r— r— r-OOr— OOOi— CMi— CMCMCMCMCOCOCO
CM
i — i — CMCMi
i— CO CM IO CM i— CM i
i i co i— i— i— i
i iLnmta-coco i ii— i— cnr~~oo
CM i—
ocnoooooooocncnocri i i •— CM «a- co co
•3-COCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCO
o CM o
LT) LO
cn vo cn r^ to
I r- CM CM CM
-------
o
2 E
OO UL* ^^ ^^ f"""**1 ^^ c™i OO OO OO C\J ^J" O*^ ^d~ ^"^ OO 00 O*) ^VJ r™~ f OO ^3 c^^i C^ ^T^ *.-O
CM Q O
1-1 oocricoooooooaDoooocoooi^r^
O h~ o mLn^-rorooo«d-mi— CTiOi— CMCMC\JI— .— OCTir-.LO*a-ooro
i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— i— CMCMCVlCMCMCMCMCMi— i— i— i— i— i—
oo
I—I
o
*^ """ oooooooooooooooooooooooo
W --------- - . _
w a
o
UJ
a:
, r ^^^^^^^^^ (
Q S oo en en OT oo oo oo co r-
UJ
o:
- y£
r— r— CM OJ
_ a.
UJ
o
«=c
1 -N^
_ a
CQ X> ^j-^t-^ ^j-^j-vo en o o o CT. r~-r^ io U3 10 10 r-vo Oi—CMro*J-uovor~.cOcTiOi— CMOO-*
OOOOOOOOOi— r- i— i— i— i— r— i— r— r— CMCVJCVJCMCM
88
-------
0
<
tr
CM
o
t/0
I— I
o
H 0°
o
LU
o:
00
a:
2
ui
o
CTioromr~~oocyii— i— ojcofoCMi—
i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — OJ CM CM CM CM CM CVJ
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
U3WDVOLO«^-«S-«^-Lf)^-LOi — Lf>i— mmUJLOLOVOCOCOOOVDVO
oocr»cx3cn
i— i— C\Ji— CSJCMi—
c\jc\jcoco«d-^i-«d-«d-rocoooc\jc\jc\j
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOi
CMCMCVICVJCVJ
89
-------
APPENDIX C
Maps showing ozone survey flight paths are provided in this
section. Ozone concentrations (ppb) are marked at points along the
route.
90
-------
Figure c-1. Ozone survey flight during afternoon hours on June 13.
varied between 180° and 200° at 5 mph.
Hinds
-------
Figure c-2. Ozone survey flight during afternoon hours on June 20.
direction was 220° at 8 mph.
Wind
92
-------
Figure C-3. Ozone survey flight during afternoon hours on June 15. Wind
direction was 280° at 13 mph.
93
-------
Figure c-4. Ozone survey flight during afternoon hours on June 23. Wind
direction was 350° at 15 mph.
94
-------
Figure C-5. Ozone survey flight during afternoon hours on June 24. Wind
direction was 350° at 11 mph.
95
-------
TECHNICS: REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions jn the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO
FPA-fSQQ/7/77--QA9
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOr*NO.
AMBIENT HYDROCARBON AND OZONE CONCENTRATIONS
NEAR A REFINERY
Lawrenceville, Illinois - 1974
5. REPORT DATE
May 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
H. H. Westberg, K. J. Allwine, and E. Robinson
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Air Resources Section
Chemical Engineering Department
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99164
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE625B EA-01
(Fy-77)
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1231
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory - RTF, NC
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
FinaL
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/09
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
In the summer of 1974, a study was undertaken to establish the effect of
refinery emissions on the air quality of a region. The refinery studied was op-
erated by Texaco in Lawrenceville, Illinois. Air sampling was conducted from a
ground based trailer and from aircraft. Results showed that the plume was
readily detectable as far as 25 miles downwind. No increase in ozone was
observed downwind of the refinery, probably because of the low reactivity of
the hydrocarbons (mostly alkanes) and the very low levels of nitrogen oxides.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
* Air pollution
* Refineries
* Smog
* Hydrocarbons
* Ozone
* Nitrogen oxides
* Sampling
Photochemical
reactions
b-IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Lawrenceville, 111.
c. COSATl Fjeld/Group
13B
131
04B
07C
07B
14B
07E
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
106
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
96
-------
------- |