ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EP A-330/2-77-026 a
Emission Tests
Mobil Oil Corp oration
Torrance, California
(September 1 2-1 3, 1 9 7 7)
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
DENVER. COLORADO
AND	/ £%*
REGION IX, SAN FRANCISCO	I
DECEMBER 1977
(Revised - March 1978)

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Enforcement
EVA-ZZO/2-77-026a
EMISSION TESTS
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION
Torrance, California
(September 12-13, 1977)
December 1977
[Revised March 1978]
National Enforcement Investigations Center - Denver
and
Region IX - San Francisco

-------
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION 		1
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 		2
III PROCESS DESCRIPTION 		5
IV TEST PROCEDURES		8
SAMPLING LOCATIONS 		8
TEST METHODS		10
PROCESS MONITORING 		13
V TEST RESULTS		14
FIGURES
1	FCC Unit Diagram and Air Pollution
Controls 		6
2	Source Testing Locations, FCC Units ....	9
TABLES
1	Data Summary - FCC West Stack, Station 1901	18
2	Data Summary - FCC East Stack, Station 1902	19
3	Particulate Data-LAAPCD Procedure 		20
4	Particulate Data-Method 5 Procedure ....	21
5	Particulate Data-Method 5 (+) Procedure . .	22
6	Process Data Summary		23
7	Visible Emission Observation 		24
8	Continuous Monitoring Data
FCC West Stack, (1901)		25
APPENDICES
A	Presurvey Inspection Report
B	Sample Train Construction Details
C	Calibration Procedures and Data
D	Chain-of-Custody Procedures and Records
E	Analytical Procedures and Data
F	Process and Control Equipment Operating Data
G	Test Data and Example Calculations

-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Mobil Oil Company operates a 20,700 m3 (130,000 bbl)/day
integrated crude oil refinery in Torrance, California. On November 6-7,
1975, a process inspection was conducted by National Enforcement Inves-
tigations Center (NEIC) personnel to evaluate the facility compliance
with the Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District (LAAPCD)* regulations.
One recommendation of this inspection was that the fluid catalytic
cracking (FCC) unit particulate emissions be source sampled. Based on
this recommendation, Region IX of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) requested NEIC to source test the FCC particulate emissions.
On July 12, 1977, NEIC personnel performed a presurvey inspection
to determine if the FCC emissions could be sampled [Appendix A]. It was
concluded that sampling was feasible if minor modifications were made to
the sampling platforms on the two (west and east) FCC stacks (Stations
1901 and 1902).
During the period September 14 to 18, 1977, the FCC emissions were
tested to determine the compliance with LAAPCD Rule 52, which limits
particulate emission concentrations from Stations 1901 and 1902 to 83
3
and 88 mg/m (0.036 and 0.038 gr/scf), respectively, and Rule 54 which
limits the total emission rate from both stacks to 13.6 kg (30 lb)/hr.
Visible emission observations were also made and compared to the LAAPCD
Rule 50 (Ringlemann Chart) which limits visible emissions to less than
20% opacity, except for excursions of not more than three minutes in any
hour.
* The Agency title has since been changed to Metropolitan Zone} South
Coast Air Quality Management District; however> EPA has not yet approved
all State Implementation Plan revisions. The LAAPCD regulations are
considered applicable by EPA.

-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1.	Between September 14 and 18, 1977 particulate source tests were
conducted on the two FCC stacks of the Mobil Oil Corporation,
Torrance Refinery to determine compliance with LAAPCD Rules 52
and 54. During this period, the FCC process feed rate averaged 3
million kg (6.7 million lb)/hr and no significant process changes
were noted. The ESP instrument readings showed that one ESP field
was not operating and another was malfunctioning.
2.	Test results were interpreted using the following definitions:
LAAPCD	- Inorganic particulate less sulfates (as
h^SO^ "2 b^O) collected by the filter,
acetone wash and impingers 1, 2, and 3).
Method 5	- Particulate collected at a temperature of
120°C (248°F) by the filter and acetone
wash.
Method 5 (+) - Particulate matter as defined by Method 5
plus the nonsulfate (as H2S04 '2 H^O) parti-
culate collected by impingers 1,2, and 3).
Based on the LAAPCD definition, the particulate concentrations
measured at Stations 1901 and 1902 (37 and 83 mg/m ) were less
3
than the LAAPCD Rule 52 which allows 83 and 88 mg/m , respectively.
The mass emission rate (16.1 kg/hr) exceeded the Rule 54 limit of
13.6 kg (30 lb)/hr by 18%. If, however, all the errors inherent
in the test procedure are cumulative, these errors could affect
the results by an estimated +20% of the actual emission rate.

-------
3
Further during the tests, one of the five ESP fields was shut down
and a second was operating erratically; this could account for the
emission rate being above the allowable rate.
As indicated below, the west FCC stack particulate concentrations
determined by the Method 5 and Method 5 (+) definitions comply with
the 83 mg/m^ (.036 gr/scf) limitation, but are 46% and 84% greater
than the LAAPCD concentration results (37 mg/m3 or 0.016 gr/scf).
The mass emissions are 49% and 83% greater than the LAAPCD results,
respectively.
Average Particulate
Concentration
mg/m	gr/scf
LAAPCD
West Stack
East Stack
TOTAL
Method 5
West Stack
East Stack*
Method 5 (+)
West Stack
East Stack*
Allowable Emissions
West Stack
East Stack
TOTAL
37
83
54
69
83
88
0.016
0.036
0.024
0.030
0.036
0.038
Average Mass Emission
Rate
kg/hr	Ib/hr
5.3
10.8
16.1
7.9
9.6
11.7
23.7
35.4
17.4
21.4
13.6
30.0
* Testing at the east FCC stack (Station 1902) was performed using
an unheated probe which does not meet Method 5 requirements;
therefore, the results were not interpreted using the Method 5
or Method 5 (+) definitions of particulate.

-------
Visible emissions from the two FCC stacks never exceeded 15%.
These emissions are less than LAAPCD Rule 50 which limits the
emissions to less than 20% opacity.

-------
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The Mobil Oil Company produces fuel gas, LPG, aviation gasoline,
motor gasoline, jet fuel, distillates, fuel oil, weed oil, sulfur and
coke. The refinery, which was modernized in 1967, employs about 600
people and operates three 8-hour shifts, 7 days/week, year round.
Major processes used at this refinery include crude desalting,
atmospheric distillation, vacuum distillation, delayed coking, catalytic
cracking, hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, hydrotreating, alkylation,
hydrogeneration, hydrogen production and sulfur recovery. A brief
description of the FCC process and air pollution control equipment are
provided below.1
Spent catalyst in the FCC unit is continuously removed from the
reactor portion and introduced through piping into the catalyst regener-
ation portion [Figure 1]. Here the petroleum coke, tars and other
residual deposits which form on the catalyst surface are burned off.
The recovered catalyst is then recycled to the reactor. Catalyst
particles which are entrained in the exhaust gases are captured by a
series of cyclones internal to the regenerator unit and returned to the
regenerator.
The regenerator unit exhaust gases contain carbon monoxide, parti-
culate matter, aldehydes, sulfur oxides, ammonia and oxides of nitrogen.
In order to minimize the carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and to recover
the fuel value of this material, the regenerator exhaust gases are
combusted in a waste heat boiler. The CO boiler exhaust gases are then
passed through a two-chamber Buell electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
1 State Implementation Flan Air Pollution Inspection of Mobil Oil
Company, Los Angeles County, California, EPA 330/2-76-011, February
1976} page 8.

-------
Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Unit
Reactor
Catalyst
Combustion
Gases
Regenerator
Foster-Wheeler
Carbon monoxide
Boi1er
Figure 1: Mobil Oil Corporation, Torrance, Calif.
FCC Unit Diagram and Air Pollution Controls
Stacks
Sample Platforms
Buel 1
Electrostatic
Precipitator
note: Capital letters of ESP indicate individual
sections with separate controls

-------
7
consisting of five fields (labeled A, B, C, D and E) [Figure 1]. Each
field is composed of two electrical sections with one transformer-
rectifier(T-R) set/field. This ESP uses ammonia injection, i.e.,
ammonia gas is injected into the inlet gas stream to the ESP to improve
the ionization of the gas. Each chamber of the ESP is equipped with its
own stack.

-------
IV. TEST PROCEDURES
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Particulate emissions from the FCC unit at Mobil Oil's Torrance
Refinery were tested from September 14 to 18, 1977. Three test runs
were performed at each of the following locations:
FCC West Stack - Station 1901
FCC East Stack - Station 1902
The two 2.7 m (9 ft) diameter stacks have identical geometries,
sampling platforms, ports and accesses [Figure 2]. The sampling ports
are 6.4 m upstream of any flow disturbance. There are four 10 cm (4 in)
ports (north, south, east and west) located at 90° intervals around the
stack. Lugs (padeyes) are located 1.8 m (6 ft) above the east and west
ports. The sampling platform is located 0.9 m (3 ft) below these ports.
The west stack (Station 1901) is equipped with an Environmental
Data Corporation (EDC) continuous monitor for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitric oxide (NO). This monitor uses a 20 cm (8 in) diameter 1.8 m (6
ft) long slotted tube to maintain optical alignment and to reduce
sample path length. The tube is located 0.8 m (2.5 ft) downstream of
the sampling ports and 10° to 15° to the right of the south port. A
preliminary velocity traverse conducted on September 15 indicated that
no aberrations in measured velocities occurred at any traverse points.
It was concluded that the slotted tube did not cause a flow disturbance
at the sampling location.

-------
Lugs 6 ft
Above E&W Ports
Lugs 6 ft
Above E&W
Ports
(9 ft)
(9 ft)
4-10 cm ports
SC^/ N0X Analyzer
c± Z
4-10 cm ports
3 ft)
8.2 m (27 ft)
Sampling platform
Note: Both stacks have
identical geometries
West Stack
East Stack
Figure 2: Mobil Oil Corporation, Torrance, California
Source Testing Locations, F.C.C. unit.

-------
10
TEST METHODS
Particulate testing was performed according to the procedures
specified by Method 52 with the following exceptions:
1.	As a result of equipment malfunction, all tests at the FCC
east stack (Station 1902) were conducted with an unheated
stainless steel probe. Probe temperatures were monitored and
ranged from 38°C (100°F) to 93°C (200°F).
2.	During the FCC west stack (Station 1901) testing, probe and
oven temperatures occasionally were below the specified range
of 107° to 135°C (225° to 275°F).
3.	The contents of impingers 1-3 were retained and analyzed for
particulate (organic and inorganic) and sulfate.
In accordance with Method l2, 48 points were sampled during each
run, 24 points on a diameter. Sampling time was 2 minutes/point for a
total of 96 minutes. The south and west ports of each stack were used.
All sampling runs were structured to provide a sample volume of 849 dry
std. liters (30 dscf). Actual sample volumes ranged from 781 to 891 dry
std. liters (27.6 to 31.4 scf).
The sampling train used was the Model AP 5000 manufactured by
Scientific Glass, Inc. [Appendix B] which was configured as follows:
1.	Stainless steel (316) nozzle
2.	Glass-lined (Station 1901) or stainless steel-lined
(Station 1902) probe
3.	Glass fiber filter (11.4 cm diameter)
2 Code of Federal Regulations (Federal Register), Part 40, Title 60.
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Appendix A,
Reference Methods, August 18, 1977.

-------
11
4.	First impinger -- modified Greenburg-Smith with 100 ml
distilled water
5.	Second impinger -- Greenburg-Smith with 100 ml distilled
water
6.	Third impinger -- modified Greenburg-Smith, empty
7.	Fourth impinger -- modified Greenburg-Smith with approximately
200 g of silica gel
Moisture content of the gas stream was determined from the increase in
volume in the first three impingers and the weight gain of the silica
gel (Method 42).
Stack gas molecular weight was based on the average analyses of
three gas samples. Gas samples were obtained by the grab sample tech-
nique of Method 32. Analyses were performed with Fyrite type combustion
gas analyzers.
Three sampling runs, all within the isokinetic range of 90% to
110%, were performed on each stack. Prior to each run, the sampling
train was leak-checked at 38 cm (15 in) Hg. At the completion of the
run, a second leak check was conducted at the highest vacuum recorded
during the test. These checks are acceptable if the leakage rate does
not exceed 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm).
All pitobe assemblies, dry gas and orifice meters used in this test
had been calibrated prior to leaving Denver and were recalibrated upon
return [Appendix C]. The pitobe assemblies used during the compliance
test were those identified as 10-2 and 10-4.
An NEIC mobile laboratory, located at the plant, was used for all

-------
12
sampling train preparation and sample recovery. Sample recovery pro-
ceeded as follows:
1.	All filters were returned to their storage container (petri-
dish) and sealed with aluminum foil.
2.	The nozzles, probes, cyclones and front portion of the glass
filter holder were washed with acetone and the washings from
each train were collected in a glass jar with a Teflon*-lined
cap.
3.	The volumes contained in impingers 1, 2 and 3 were measured
as part of the moisture determination. The impingers and
connecting glassware were rinsed with distilled, deionized
water, and the rinse added to the impinger contents in a
glass jar with a Teflon-lined cap.
4.	Impinger 4, which contained silica gel, was weighed to
determine the moisture gain. The silica gel was discarded.
All samples were returned to NEIC Denver and the chemistry
laboratories by chain-of-custody procedures [Appendix D].
The samples were analyzed for particulate and sulfate as indicated
.below. A full description of the analytical procedures is provided
in Appendix E.
Sample
filter
acetone wash
impinger
Analysis Required (Analytical Procedure)
particulate (Method 5), sulfate (Method 82)
particulate (Method 5), sulfate (Method 8)
inorganic particulate (LAAPCD Source
Sampling Manual3), sulfate (Method 8)
* Brand name
2	Ibid
3	Air Pollution Source Testing Manual, 1972, LAAPCD, Revised Edition.

-------
13
Filter, acetone and water blank (unused) samples were	taken during
the survey and analyzed by the procedures described above.	The blank
residues were subtracted from the sample values before the	results were
calculated.
PROCESS MONITORING
The FCC unit was monitored to determine whether conditions were
representative of normal operating conditions and to determine the
process weight rate. This required reading and recording operating
data for the FCC unit, CO boiler and ESP every half hour [Appendix F],
The three most important process parameters observed and recorded
were: 1) the oil feed rate to the FCC reactor; 2) the catalyst circu-
lation rate to the FCC reactor; and 3) the air feed to the FCC regen-
erator. The first two parameters were added together to determine the
FCC process weight. However, only the first and third process para-
meters were read in the FCC control room. The second parameter, catalyst
circulation rate, was calculated by the Company and provided to the
process observer.
The FCC pollution control equipment instrumentation was monitored
primarily to determine whether this equipment was operated under steady-
state conditions. The process observer recorded the primary current,
secondary current, primary voltage and spark rate for the ESP and the
flue gas BTU value and air feed rate for the CO boiler.

-------
V. TEST RESULTS
The Mobil FCC west stack (Station 1901) and east stack (Station
1902) were each sampled three times. Isokinetic sampling rates for the
six runs ranged from 97.8% to 107.4%, within the specified range of 90%
to 110%. Test data [Appendix G] are summarized in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and
5.
During the test period, the FCC unit was operating at a uniform
rate of 9,550 (60,000 bbl)/day of oil [Table 6]. The catalyst
circulation rate and air feed rate varied little [Appendix F]. Thus,
the FCC process weight averaged 3.04 million kg (6.71 million lb)/hr.
Company personnel stated that the FCC unit was operating at the normal
capacity. The fact that the oil feed rate during the NEIC tests (60,000
bbl/day) was about 9,400 bbl/day greater than the oil feed rate of a
previous source test (Truesdail Laboratories-March 28, 1974) lends
credence to this opinion.
Particulate emission limitations were determined from the measured
effluent volumetric flow rates [Tables 1 and 2], the measured process
weight rates [Table 6] and the applicable tables in LAAPCD Rules 52 and
54. The west and east FCC stacks have particulate concentration limits
of 83 and 88 mg/m^ (0.036 and 0.038 gr/scf) respectively. Total parti-
culate emissions from the FCC unit are limited (Rule 54) to 13.6 kg
(30 lb)/hr.
The survey testing program was designed to employ Method 5 proce-
dures because they meet all the LAAPCD sampling requirements. During
the actual survey, because of equipment malfunctions, probe and oven
temperatures could not always be maintained within the temperature range,

-------
15
i.e., 107° to 135°C (225° to 275CF), specified by Method 5. The FCC
west stack (Station 1901) probe temperatures averaged within this temp-
erature range, but the average oven temperature for one run was as low
as 96°C (204°F). During the FCC east stack (Station 1902) testing,
probe and oven temperatures averaged between 37° and 81°C (99° and
178°F), and 91° and 121°C (195° and 250°F), respectively.
The test results were interpreted using the following particulate
definitions:
LAAPCD
Inorganic particulate less sulfate (as
H^SO^ '2 h^O) collected by the filter,
acetone wash and impingers 1, 2 and 3.
Method 5
Particulate collected at a temperature of
120°C (248°F) by the filter and acetone wash
Method 5 (+)
Particulate matter as defined by Method 5
plus the nonsulfate (as H2S04 '2 H^O)
particulate collected by impingers 1,
2 and 3
The previously mentioned probe and oven temperatures have no effect
on the LAAPCD particulate results because any sulfur compounds (sulfates)
that condense due to low temperatures (<107°C or 225°F), and thus con-
tribute to the total particulate catch, are not included in the emission
calculations. The sulfate particulate contribution is subtracted from
the total particulate catch and this net result is used to determine
the emissions.
Based on the LAAPCD calculation procedures, the average FCC con-
centration and mass emissions were as follows:

-------
16

Concentration
mq/m qr/scf
Mass
kg/hr
lb/hr
Station 1901 (west)
37
0.016
5.3
11.7
Station 1902 (east)
83
0.036
10.8
23.7
TOTAL


16.1
35.4
According to Rule 52, the allowable particulate concentrations of
Stations 1901 and 1902 are 83 and 88 mg/m^ (0.036 and 0.038 gr/scf),
3
respectively. Station 1901 concentration was 37 mg/m (0.016 gr/scf),
45% of the allowable. Station 1902 concentration was less than the
allowed 88 mg/m (0.038 gr/scf) by 6%. The combined mass emissions were
16.1 kg/hr (35.4 lb/hr), 18% more than the 13.6 kg/hr (30 lb/hr) allowed;
however, 18% is considered within the accuracy of the test method. It
should be noted that one ESP field (E) was shut down during the testing
and a second field (D) was operating erratically.
The Method 5 and Method 5 (+) results could be affected by the probe
and oven temperature variations. Condensed sulfur compounds (sulfates)
due to low temperatures (<107°C or 225°F) are included in the particulate
catch used in the emission calculations. Therefore, Method 5 and Method
5 (+) emission data were not calculated for the east FCC stack (Station
1902) because the probe and oven temperatures averaged 41° and 4°C (75
and 7°F), respectively, lower than the required temperature of 107°C
(225 0 F).
Despite some temperature variations, the Method 5 and Method 5 (+)
emission data were calculated for the west FCC stack (Station 1901).
Probe temperatures averaged within the required temperature range as did
the oven temperature of one run. The average oven temperatures for the
other two tests (105° and 96°C or 221° and 204°F) were slightly less
than required (107°C or 225°F). It was concluded that the emission data
would be representative because the temperature variations (2° and 12°C
or 4° and 21°F) were small and no visible signs of sample condensation

-------
17
were observed during sample cleanup.
Based on the above Method 5 and Method 5 (+) particulate definitions,
the average Station 1901 concentration and mass emissions were as follows:
Method 5 and Method 5 (+) testing results are 50% and 83%, respectively,
greater than the LAAPCD results.
The visible emissions from the two stacks were less than the LAAPCD
Rule 50 limitation of 20% opacity [Table 7]. Only once did an individual
observation reach 15% opacity.
Concentration
mq/m	gr/scf
Mass
lb/hr
Method 5
Method 5 (+)
54	0.024 7.9
69	0.030 9.6
17.4
21.4
The opacity data obtained by NEIC personnel agreed with the Lear-
Siegler transmissometer reading in the FCC west stack [Table 8].

-------
18
Table 1
DATA SUMMARY - FCC WEST STACK, STATION 1901
MOBIL OIL
TORRANCE,, CALIFORNIA
Volume Sampled (STP)t
Ft3
Liters
Moisture %
Molecular weight (dry)
Barometric Pressure
cm of Hg
in of Hg
Stack Gas Temperature
°F
°C
Stack Gas Velocity
Ft/sec
m/sec
Volumetric Flow Rate (STP)t
Ft3/min
m3/mi n
% Isokinetic
Particulate collected (mg)
Filter
Acetone wash
Impinger catch (inorganic)
Impinger catch (organic)
Sulfate Collected as H9S0. '2 H90 (mg)
Filter	L 4 <-
Acetone wash
Impinger catch (inorganic)
Run Number
1	2	3
30.65	30.12	31.45
868	853	891
12.2	10.8	11.1
30.34	29.96	29.96
76.3	76.2	76.4
30.03	30.01	30.09
515	502	513
268	261	267
48.9	46.5	45.6
14.9	14.2	13.9
89,000	87,200	84,500
2,510	2,460	2,390
98.7	97.8	106.8
16	16	8
28	25	49
241	311	271
0	1	1.5
11	11	1
28*	24	7
241*	285	261
t STP-Standard Temperature (68°F)and pressure (29.92 in of Eg) - Dry
* Actual value was greater than particulate catch, therefore, the value
of the particulate catch was substituted.

-------
19
Table 2
DATA SUMMARY - FCC EAST STACK, STATION 1902
MOBIL OIL
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA
Volume Sampled (STP)t
Ft3
Li ters
Moisture %
Molecular weight - dry
Barometric Pressure
cm of Hg
in of Hg
Stack Gas Temperature
°F
°C
Stack Gas Velocity
Ft/sec
m/sec
Volumetric Flow Rate (STP)t
Ft3/min
m3/min
% Isokinetic
Particulate Collected (mg)
Fi1ter
Acetone wash
Impinger catch (inorganic)
Impinger catch (organic)
Sulfate Collected as H9SCL '2 H90 (mg
Filter	c 4 L
Acetone wash
Impinger catch (inorganic)
Run Number
1	2	3
29.22	27.59	30.40
828	781	861
13.6	11.6	9.0
30.54	30.54	30.54
76.3	76.3	76.3
30.04	30.04	30.04
505	520	521
263	271	272
40.9	40.6	42.3
12.5	12.4	12.9
74,000	74,200	79,300
2,090	2,100	2,240
107.4	101.5	104.4
15	18	22
72	67	88
281	431	401
0.5	0	1
4	7	12
0	47	18
267	431*	401*
t STP-Standard Temperature (68°F) and pressure (29.92 in of Hg) - Dry
* Actual value was greater than particulate catch, therefore3 the value
of the particulate catch was substituted.

-------
20
Table 3
PARTICULATE DATA - LAAPCD PROCEDURE*
MOBIL OIL COMPANY
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA


Run Number


1
2
3
Ave
Station 1901 (west stack)




Particulate Catch (mg)
5
32
58

Concentration




gr/scf
0.0025
0.016
0.029
0.016
mg/m3
5.8
38
66
37
Emission Rate




lb/hr
1.8
12
21
11.7
kg/hr
0.84
5.4
9.5
5.3
Station 1902 (east stack)




Particulate Catch (mg)
97
31
80

Concentration




gr/scf
0.051
0.017
0.041
0.036
mg/m3
117
40
93
83
Emission Rate




lb/hr
32.5
11
27.5
23.7
kg/hr
14.7
5.0
12.5
10.7
Total Emissions
lb/hr	35.4
kg/hr	16.1
Emission Limitations
Concentration
Station 1901-gr/scf	0.036
mg/m3	83
Station 1902-gr/scf	0.038
mg/m3	88
Emission Rate
lb/hr	30.0
kg/hr	13.6
* LAAPCD - Inorganic particulate less sulfates (as ^2^4 ' ^ ^2^ c0^ea^ed
by the filter, acetone wash and impingers 1, 2 and 3.

-------
21
Table 4
PARTICULATE DATA - METHOD 5 PROCEDURE*
MOBIL OIL COMPANY
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA
Station 1901 (west stack)
Particulate Catch (mg)
Concentration
gr/scf
mg/m3
Emission Rate
1 b/hr
kg/hr
Station 1902 (east stack)
Run Number
1 2 3 Ave
44
41
57

0.022
0.021
0.028
0.024
51
48
64
54
16.2
16
20
17.4
7.4
7.3
9.1
7.9
No Results**
Emission Limitations
Concentration
Station 1901-gr/scf	0.036
mg/m3	83
* Method 5 - Particulate collected at a temperature of 120°C (248°F)
by the filter and acetone wash.
** No data reported since testing was not performed according to Method 5
procedures.

-------
22
Table 5
PARTICULATE DATA - METHOD 5 (+) PROCEDURE*
MOBIL OIL COMPANY
TORRANCE3 CALIFORNIA
Station 1901 (west stack)
Particulate Catch (mg)
Concentration
gr/scf
mg/m3
Emission Rate
lb/hr
kg/hr
Station 1902 (east stack)
Run Number
1 2 3 Ave
44
68
68

0.022
0.035
0.033
0.030
51
80
76
69
16.2
25
23
21.4
7.4
11
10.4
9.6
No Results**
Emission Limitations
Concentration
Station 1901-gr/scf	0.036
mg/m3	83
* Method 5 (+) - Particulate matter as defined by Method 5 plus the
nonsulfate (as H^O^ '2 H^O) particulate collected by impingers 1,
2, and 3.
** No data reported since testing was not performed according to Method 5
procedures.

-------
23
Table 6
PROCESS DATA SUMMARY
MOBIL OIL
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA
Catalyst	Process
Oil Feed	Circulation	Weight
lb/hr	kg/hr lb/hr	kg/hr lb/hr
Date
(mi 11
ions)
(mi
11 ions)
(mi
11i ons}
9/15
0.34
0.75
2.95
6.50
3.28
7.25
9/16
0.34
0.76
2.77
6.11
3.11
6.86
9.17
0.34
0.76
2.51
5.53
2.85
6.29
9/18
0.34
0.76
2.58
5.68
2.92
6.44
Average




3.04
6.71

-------
Table 7
VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION
DATA SUMMARY
MOBIL OIL
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA
Range of
:e_ Station	No. Run No.	Emission Opacity
6	1901	2	5*
7	1901	3	5-10
1901	3	5*
1902	1	5-15
9/18 1902	2	5-10
1902	3	5*
No range

-------
25
Table 8
CONTINUOUS MONITORING DATA3 FCC WEST STACK (1901)
MOBIL OIL
TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA
Concentration
Date Hour	Opacity^	S0o (ppm)	NO. (ppm)
t-	X
9/15 1115	8	200	200
9/16 1100	10	200	80
1630	15	200	80
9/17 0930	9	200	100
1410	9	220	70

-------
APPENDIX A
PRESURVEY INSPECTION REPORT

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY	A~1
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
ro Chief, Field Operations Branch	date August 11, 1977
pp.
3m Paul R. dePercin
- bject Presurvey Inspection of the Mobil Oil Corporation, Torrance Refinery,
Torrance, California
On July 12, 1977, John Powell and Lynn Brown, Los Angeles Air
Pollution Control District (LA APCD) and the writer inspected the Torrance
Refinery of Mobil Oil Corporation, Torrance, California, to obtain information
necessary to conduct a source test of the fluid catalytic cracking (FCC)
stack. Information gathered included the FCC process description, air
.pollution control equipment configuration, source testing feasibility, and
process and control equipment operating data availability. Of particular
interest were the available sampling locations and what modifications to
these locations were needed to conduct EPA source testing.
The plant representatives contacted were Messrs. Carl Mehl, Environmental
Control Manager, and Ronald Wilkniss, Environmental Surveillance Supervisor.
EPA Region IX requested NEIC, Denver to source test the FCC stack
emissions to determine their compliance status. A source test, conducted
on May 30, 1974, by Truesdail Lab Inc., determined the FCC particulate
emissions to be 8.3 kg (18.4 lb)/hr, well in compliance with the emission
limitation (LA APCD Rule 54) of 13.6 kg (30 lb)/hr. However, the source
test emission rate calculations excluded the ammonium sulfate particulate
contribution, a non-standard calculation procedure. Because the source test
calculation procedures are questionable, the FCC unit compliance status is
unknown.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The Mobil Oil Corporation operates an integrated petroleum refinery at
Torrance, California, with a rated capacity of 130,000 bbl of crude oil per
day. Major processes used at this refinery include crude desalting, atmospheric
distillation, vacuum distillation, delayed coking, catalytic cracking,
hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, hydrotreating, alkylation, hydrogeneration,
hydrogen production, and sulfur recovery. Because NEIC was requested to
source test the catalytic cracking process emissions, the catalytic cracking
process is more fully described below.

-------
A-2
fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit1
Spent catalyst from the FCC unit is continuously removed from the
reactor portion and introduced through piping into the catalyst regeneration
3H)_rtton,Here the petroleum coke, tars, and other residual deposits which
form on "the catalyst surface are burned off the catalyst fines. The recovered
catalyst is then recycled to the reactor. Catalyst particles which are
s^tra-ined in the exhaust gases are partially captured by a series of cyclone
¦^elwtra-tors internal to the regenerator unit. Particles captured by these
cyclones are returned to the regenerator.
FAIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT1
^The"regenerator unit exhaust gases contain carbon monoxide, particulate
setter,"aldehydes, sulfur oxides, ammonia, and oxides of nitrogen. In order
Itd:minimize the carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and to recover the fuel value
cdf.fh'is".material, the regenerator exhaust gases are combusted in a waste
¦jheatlboiler. .The CO boiler exhaust gases are then passed through a Buell
-electrostatic precipitator (ESP) consisting of two parallel banks with five
stages"per bank [Figure 1]. This Buell ESP unit requires ammonia injection,
i.e.T_ammonia gas is injected into the inlet gas stream to the ESP to improve
¦the^ionization of the gas.
.SOURCE SAMPLING FEASIBILITY
LSamp1e~ Locations
eJhe.two parallel ESP banks (east and west) each have a 2.7 m (9 ft)
ajneier. stack [Figure 2]. These two stacks have identical geometries,
sampling platforms and ports, and accesses. The sampling ports are 6.4 m
^2]Ift'or 2.3 diameters) downstream from and 1.8 m (6 ft or 0.7 diameters)
upstream of any flow disturbance. There are four 10 cm (4 in) ports (north,
south, east and west) located at 90° intervals around the stack. Lugs
^padeyes^ are located 1.8 m (6 ft) above the east and west ports. The
s^fpT-fng-p-latform is located 0.9 m (3 ft) below these ports. 1.2 m (4 ft)
out-from the stack and 0.9 m (3 ft) above the sampling platform is the
7cP-':ac*^or.m rai^n9> directly in front of the sample ports.
Two possible problere exist when testing the west ESP stack. The EDC*
p.SO^/WO' analyzer has a 20 cm (8 in) diameter probe in the stack, which has a
h;£..cni.(2 in) wide slit** for 1.8 m (6 ft) of the probe length (2.7 m or 9 ft).
s'oO^'^ -1S	^ downstream from the ports and 10 to 15° to the
process is r.c*-T -
1 State Implementation Plan Air Pollution Inspection of Mobil Oil Company,
Los Angeles County, California, EPA 330/2-76-011, February 1976, page 8.
* Brand name - Environmental Data Corporation
** Slit parallel to gas flow.

-------
CO
I
«=t
luid .Catalytic
-acking Unit
Combustion
Gases
Catalyst
rator
Foster-Wheeler
Carbon monoxide
Boiler
li Mobil Oil Corporation, Torrance, Calif.
FCC Unit Diagram and A1r Pollution Controls
^Stacks
"n.
Sample Platforms
A
Buell
Electrostatic
Precipitator
note: Capital letters of ESP indicate Individua]
sections with separate controls

-------
<53*
I
<
Lugs 6 ft'
)Ove EfiW
^orts
^2! N0X Analyzer,
4-10 cm ports
4?.7 m.
(9 n)
:==~
A
0.8 m
I?.5 ft).
f
8.2 m (27 ft)
I-
West Stack
3.3 m
< >
1.8 m (6 ft)
/
"C
0.9 m
JL
3 ft)
6.4 m (21 ft)

2.7 m
(9 ft)
-/
^Lugs 6 ft
Above E&M Ports
4-10 cm ports

Sampling platform
Note: Both stacks have
identical geometri
(11 ft)
East Stack

-------
Railing

Platform
A-5
Top View
Port
-S	
Centerlirie
Stack
Port
Platform
1
1.5 FT
Tr
Railing
Side View
Figure Horizontal and Vertical
clearances requried by sacpling
train.

-------
A-6
right of the south port, close enough to the ports to possibly cause flow
interferences. Velocity measurements, in the source test previously mentioned,
have not found any flow disturbances and, therefore, particulate sampling can be
performed at this location.
The second problem is the thermocouple probe in the east port of the FCC
west stack. Some interference from the probe is expected if the probe extends
more than 3 cm (1.2 in) into the stack. In this case, a proper traverse from
the west port probably is not possible, and it will be necessary to have the
thermocouple removed.
Modifications
Modifications to the sampling facilities are necessary before particulate
sampling can be performed. The sampling platform railing is directly in front
of the south and v/est sampling ports and thus sections of this railing must
be cut away as shown in Figure 3. Also, padeyes must be attached to each
stack 1.8 m (6 ft) over the south ports in order to use the monorail system.
As mentioned previously, if the thermocouple in the FCC west stack, east port
interferes with the sampling traverse, the thermocouple must be removed.
Miscellaneous
The NEIC air sailing van can be driven to the base of the stacks where
electric power is available. Each stack has a pulley system for hauling
equipment to the sample platform, but cable or rope is needed. Radios can
be used in the plant, however, the company wishes to be informed of the
radio frequency used.
PROCESS AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT OBSERVATIONS
In the FCC unit control room, instruments indicate the FCC unit and
CO boiler operating conditions. All instruments will be observed during
each source test run to determine whether steady-state operations exist,
and to obtain the process data necessary for calculating of FCC process
weight. The FCC process weight is defined as the sum of the oil feed rate
and the catalyst circulation rate to the reactor portion of the FCC unit.*
Since the oil feed rate (bbls/day) and catalyst circulation rate (tons/min)
are directly recorded in the FCC control room, the FCC process weight can
easily be determined.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The two FCC ESP stacks can be particulate sampled by Method 5. The
sampling locations are acceptable, but require modification before sampling
can be conducted. The company should perform the following modifications:
~Telephone conversation with James Nance, LA APCD on July 15, 1977.

-------
A-7
a.	For both FCC ESP stacks remove the platform railings in front
of the south and west ports to provide the clearance necessary
for testing according to EPA Method 5. The attached Figure 3
gives the necessary vertical and horizontal clearances from the
port centerline.
b.	For both FCC ESP stacks install lugs (padeyes), like those over
the east and west ports, 1.8 m (6 ft) over the south ports.
Furthermore, the company should provide the following:
a.	A parking space for the NEIC air sampling van (8 ft x 40 ft)
near the base of the ESP stacks.
b.	Electric power for this van, either a standard range plug or
two 110 volt, 20 amp lines.
c.	Electric power for the sample train control modules; 110 volt,
20 amp each, on top of the FCC ESP.
Process operations will be monitored in the FCC unit control room to
ensure steady-state operating conditions exist. Access to the control room
will be required by the process observer. The company should provide the
following process data for each sampling period:
a. Oil feed rate to the FCC reactor (bbls/day)
b. Catalyst circulation rate to the FCC reactor (tons/min).

-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE TRAIN CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

-------
B-1
STACK SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
The Scientific Glass Model AP-5000 modular STAC-O-LATUR1™ sampling
train consists of a control unit, a sampling unit and a vacuum unit. The
units are connected together with quick disconnect electrical and air
lines and umbilical cords.
The AP-5000 control unit contains the following:
1.	Dual-inclined manometer (range 0-5" H?0) for indicating the
pitot tube velocity pressure and the orifice pressure drop.
2.	Temperature control for the oven and probe.
3.	A flow valve and a bypass valve for adjusting sampling rates.
4.	Digital Temperature Indicator (DTI) which gives an instant
readout from six (6) points; stack, probe, oven, impinger
outlet, meter inlet, meter outlet by the use of a selector
switch.
5.	Umbilical cords of (50 and 100 ft lengths) which interconnect
the control and sampling units.
6.	Communications sets are wired through control unit, umbilical
cord to the sampling unit.*
The sampling unit is made up of three distinct sections: impinger
case, oven, and probe. All three sections can be converted to form one
sampling unit or can be separated for unusual sampling conditions.
Below are the individual component descriptions.
1.	Probe Sheath - Made of 316 stainless steel. The nozzle end
is packed with asbestos string. The ball joint (sampling
unit) end has a woven teflon 0 Ring as packing material.
2.	Probe liner - 5/8" O.D. medium wall glass (pyrex) or stainless
steel (316) tubing logarithmically wrapped with nicrome heating
element, having a resistance of 2 ohms/ft. The liner is
insulated with fiberglass and asbestos with a type K thermocouple
imbedded for sensing the probe temperature.
3.	Filter Frit - Porous glass frit (coarse) banded to silicone
rubber.
* Separate communication system used during this test program.

-------
B-2
4. Oven - Fiberglass insulated capable of maintaining 120°C
(248°F) in cold weather (0°C).
The vacuum unit (pump) is capable of drawing a high vacuum (50 cm
Hg) and a moderate volume (14 1pm) of air. The pump is rotary fiber
vane type which does not require lubrication, but oil bath filters are
used for pump protection.

-------
APPENDIX C
CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
AND DATA

-------
C-l
DISCUSSION OF CALIBRATIONS
As discussed in the test report the pitobe assembly and the dry gas
meter were calibrated before and after the source test survey. Each
piece of equipment met the accuracy criteria contained in the procedures
in this appendix prior to the source test survey. Post-survey calibrations
are conducted and compared with pre-survey calibrations.
One dry gas meter accuracy coefficient changed from 1.02 to 0.98
while the other changed from 0.98 to 0.96. However, neither coefficient
changed more than 5% as allowed in Section 5.3 of Method 5 (40 CFR Part
60, Appendix A).
The calibration coefficients of pitobe 10-2 (east stack) and 10-4
(west stack) changed from 0.76 to 0.80 (+5.3%) and 0.83 to 0.80 (-3.6%),
respectively. However, Method 2 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A) makes no
mention of using the post-survey pitobe calibration coefficients,
inferring initial coefficients should be used in all calculations, i.e.
for isokinetic and emission rate determinations.
Using the pre-survey pitobe coefficients the isokinetic rates
range from 97.8 to 107.4%. With the post-survey pitobe coefficients
the isokineter rates would range from 96.4 to 110.6%.
If the post-survey coefficients for both the dry gas meters and
pitobe assemblies were used to recalculate the mass emission rate from
both stacks, the effect would be to reduce the report result (36 lb/hr)
by 1%.

-------
C-2
UEIC PROCEDURE FOR
CALIBRATION OF DRY GAS METER
AND ORFICE METER
Dry gas meters are used in source testing units to accurately
measure sample volumes drawn during testing. A critical orfice is
also installed to provide a known sampling rate so that isokinetic
sampling can be maintained. These units will be calibrated before
and after each sampling trip.
Calibration is accomplished by making simultaneous total volume
measurements with a calibrated wet test meter and the dry gas meter.
The wet test meter roust be previously calibrated from a primary standard.
Calibration is performed follows:
1.	Level wet test meter and adjust the water level to the
proper point.
2.	Level and zero the manometer on sampling control unit.
3.	Leak check unit and air hoses at 15 inch Hg (leakage rate must
be zero). Assemble vacuum line to the wet test meter.
(Caution: NO NOT Leak Check System by Plugging the Inlet to
the Wet Test Meter, this will cause internal damage to the
meter.)
A. Warm up control unit by operating vacuum pump for 30 minutes
with wet test meter connected in series.
5.	Close the course valve and open the fine adjust (by-pass) valve.
6.	Turn or vacuum pump, open course adjust valve and turn the fine
adjust valve until manometer reads 0.5" l^O (All).

-------
C-3
7.	Simultaneously record the dry gas meter reading, wet test
meter reading and time. Record temperature of wet test
meter, inlet and outlet temperature of dry gas meter and
atmospheric pressure during the test run.
8.	Allow pump to run until the wet test meter indicates
exactly 5 cubic feet of air have passed through the system
(10 cubic feet when a AH of 2, 3 and A inches H^O are used)
and record time.
9.	Repeat steps 5-9 for AH of 1", 2" 3" and 4" H^O.
10.	Calibration record will be kept in a permanent file at NEIC.
Copies will be made for field use.
Calculations
Calculate the accuracy of the dry gas meter (y) as follows:
Vw Pb (td + 460)
y ~ Vd (Pb + AH (tw + 460)
13.6)
Where:
V = Volume of gas metered, wet test meter, ft.
w
3
= Volume of gas metered, dry gas meter, ft.
P, ¦= Atmospheric pressure, inches Hg
b
t^ = Dry gas meter temperature, °F (t^ in — t^ out)
2
= Wet test meter temperature, °F
If Y ^ 1.00 (+0.02) then gas meter will be taken to Public Service
Company of Colorado gas meter shop for adjustment and/or repair.
Orfice meter coefficient (AH@ = 0.317 AH
P (td+460)
b
(tw+460) 9
Vw

-------
C-4
Where:
= Volume of gas metered, wet test meter, ft
= Atmospheric pressure
= Dry gas meter temperature, °F
tw = Wet test meter temperature, °F
0 = Time elapsed, minutes

-------
C-5
Orifice Meter Calibration
Date

Box No.
5&.r /
JM-'-O.
Barometric pressure, P^=	in. Hg Dry gas meter No.	f_
hcAj---- L
Orifice
Manometer
setting,
AH
in. HoO
Gas volume
wet test
meter
v
ft3
Gas volume
dry gas
meter
v
ft3
Temoerature •
Wet Test
Meter
V
Dry gas meter
Inlet
di'
°F
Outlet
""do'
°F
Average
td>
°F
Time
0,
min
AHg
0.5
o
13



mi

X

1.0
So
73

0^
£1
W
\°
tb
,-V-
i titi
2.0
10
10 O
73
?o
P 7
C
11(3
fy
&
3.0
10
ID Of
13
CtsA
/—¦

ca
7 it,
¦&
c

4.0
10
IQ.Ol
~7L1
G-.
i /
O;
lol

/?//,
Average
Calculations
AH
0.5
AH
13.6
0.0368
Vw.Pb (td + ?60)
Vh Tpfi7HTTC> 460)
- , 13-6 , N
^{Q4u1-\- Y~/? r-M
I/.
0;
AH?

0.0317AH
Ph (tH+ 460)
f(t., + 460) G
1— Vy / —
P-C>
?P>ox l?73//AW
VSE^KrOL 3" -I
1.0
0.0737 5 ^f C	
	S ,-r /	r o'^i	-i «-H -C-"i
O or> i"? X/¦ P	7 ,-a
2M tr7 ( £7
'J
2.0
0.147

12_
<->/_ o >
/ L fO-O /i-f j_ |u	-»
o t \ r
f T?<-i u't.r.S\ n /'	CrHi-c-')
?<-'	i'oo)

/o
4.0
0.294
/C, <"> '-t.'-f / f	)
(ovifp-fv~7-t- pf^'VStj-f
C->"C-C;i ^• C?
py.ti ^?d-hUU>)

>c>

Where:
v3
Tw
Jd
Pb
0
Volume, v/et test meter
Volume Dry gas meter
Temperature, Wet Test Meter
Temperature, Dry Gas Meter
Atmospheric Pressure, Inches Hg
Time, minutes
Calibration by: yP' ¦ y-
Checked by:
ih
--1
Remarks:
4/24/77

-------
C-6
Orifice Meter Calibration
Date

Box flo.	- %
p^f 6 "3
Barometric pressure, Pfa=	in. Hg Dry gas meter No.
lc-=\K-CKec-k.@tZ"/f\ -- o.o d-^rn
Ori fi ce
Manometer
setting,
AH
in. Ho0
Gas volume
wet test
meter
V
ft3
Gas volume
dry gas
meter
v
n3
Temperature
Time
0,
min
y
AH@
Wet Test
Dry gas meter
Meter
Inlet
Outlet
Average
°F
ldi'
°F
tdo'
°F
td»
°F
0.5
5

79-
7V
73
p/T
t/.OS
.ft
A 73
1.0
5
£0*7
73
7(=
13
n ll.o3(Jo)( 1-y
p" l=3Cv3
.6- J
1.0
0.0737 J (7li,6THLO)
0, 03l~7^/0 ff?3i+/Lc>>?o£]i-
\ cz-r-.0731X7$-*
^L3(~}L}XttJL-c)L J
2.0
0.147 | /OX5U f-rth-o}
£: C3'-ioX;o r ^7^-f //3L1
1 /d.n (.1^ L-? i-
jo J
3.0
0.219 | /cvt-O'J <.3
ocJr.f>i9)('7L= i-

4.0

£ o30 0 IzTl
1 /O fY fa+- ^?^)C17+HL- o~)
^ 4.tk-c3>L to J
Where:
Remarks:
v3
T,
Id
Pb
e
V/
Volume, v/et test meter
Volume Dry gas meter
Temperature, Wet Test Meter
Temperature, Dry Gas Meter
Atmospheric Pressure, Inches
Time, minutes
Calibration by:
Checked by:	
Hg
4/2 <777

-------
C-7
Date
Orifice Meter Calibration
?! ll	Box flo._
5GT- /
— I » „ - ^
Barometric pressure, P|3=	in. Hg Dry gas meter No.
/-1c	~ ,
CL i 

tin
.99
njL
1.0
5
So
c>?.<
cr


m
•f?
HG
2.0
10
/o,o^
7 O
(a 3
lc3
(.tt
!/.3±
ft
/ 7
AH
AH
13.6
V„ Ph (td + 460)
0.0317AH
	2
(t,., + 460) G

Vh (P^+aH ) (tw + 160)
Ph (tri+ 460)
1— vw
0.5
0.0368
- 13.6 „ N
j> > zA b 3 < C3 UL c)
co3nv.,«r
C(ZV 4"'3 -r O^L^)(t/f ¦/ '-'L- C >
03. -Tf -J
1.0
0.0737

.o'in* 1
Y6?
5"C^U ^3 -r. o? 3 T) (a?,
?lf,.^r6M + L!boN)
J
2.0
0.147
/c y.7.^ (Cb'f-t ijt r\
C 'i O < fc 70 tM > ^ 11 ~7~il <-
1 fc CZ (1L> u''l -r . >^V 7;> -f
9H c/i(t£.&u£l_ ytJ J
3.0
0.219
I /O-A III C3> ( L~7 f
3 rr-To^i^-^/7'-rsY''
!C OK, (-2.X .U^y^C -r<-lud>
j/M -1
4.0
0.294
/CvT 1 ^ t Ui, o>
VOt vx
1 /0,.| | ( Z<-I c-3t .-L^ch f 7.-
2iK c*3 cKpN\ /o J
Where:
v3«
Tw =
Pb =
0 =
Calibration by:^
Volume, v/et test meter
Volume Dry gas meter
Temperature, Wet Test Meter Checked by:
Temperature, Dry Gas Meter
Atmospheric Pressure, Inches Hg
Time, minutes

t
A i-vO
Remarks:
4/24/77

-------
C-8
Orifice Meter Calibration
Date

Box No.

Barometric pressure, Pb=	in. Hg Dry gas meter No.
P i. l-V (. 'r • I l	
£rf\\Lc\ fD, r
Ori fi ce
Manometer
setting,
AH
in. HqO
Gas volume
wet test
meter
V,
w:
ft*
Gas volume
dry gas
meter
ft*
Temperature
Wet Test
Meter
V
Dry gas meter
Inlet
tdi'
Outlet
°F
Average
td»
°F
Time
0,
min
Y
AH@
0.5
.^7/7
&
?£T
73
7 V
//. 11
ft
) ?o
1.0
3M
?0
lb
73 7-! ti'-b-V CVVlYQp-r <-fl-oS~
0.147 |	<-h r ^
\m :•/:>' i>r?V^c i '-'l
1%
ah@
i$L3
0.0317AH
Ph (tri+ 460)
(t,„ + 460)9

O '> \~~7 * . JT F&c -*-*/< d>>!! d.7
i (~
9^?r7q
o -? i~i v