&EPA
EPA/600/R-09/136
September 2009
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions from Petrochemical Transport
Barges Using Optical Remote Sensing
Final Report
-------
EPA/600/R-09/136
September 2009
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions from Petrochemical Transport
Barges Using Optical Remote Sensing
by
Eben Thoma
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Appendices ii
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
List of Acronyms v
Executive Summary vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Project Description 1
2. Description of Test Sites, Measurement Methods and Site Deployment 4
2.1 Aerial PGIE Observations 5
2.2 Ground-based PGIE Observations 7
2.3 Scanning OP-FTIRs and OTM 10 Protocol 7
2.3.1 OTM 10 and the Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Method 10
2.3.2 OTM 10 Fugitive Emission Quantification 14
2.3.3 Supporting Measurements for Ground-based ORS 14
2.3.3.1 Meteorological Data 14
2.3.3.2 OP-FTIR Instrument-Mirror Distance 15
2.3.4 PIC Emission Measurements with OP-FTIR Instrument 15
2.3.5 Meteorological Data Collection with the R.M. Young Heads 16
2.3.6 Optical Path Length Determination with the Topcon Theodolite 17
2.3.7 Calculating Emission Flux using the VRPM Method 17
2.3.8 Site Deployment Description at the Lock 18
2.4 Bagging Tests 18
3. Aerial and Ground-based PGIE Results and Discussion 20
3.1 Aerial PGIE Observations by LSI 20
3.2 On board Barge PGIE Observations by LSI 24
3.3 PGIE Observations From the Lock Wall 34
4. OTM 10 AM Emission Flux and Trace Compound Speciation Results 42
4.1 Data Graphs and Tables for Select Events 42
4.1.1 Summary of the Results of Analysis of Trace VOC Concentrations 54
Instances of Emissions Detected with the PGIE but not with ORS
Measurements 54
4.2
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
4.3 Evaluation of AM Emissions from Tugs
5. Bagging Test Emission Estimate Results
6. Comparison of OP-FTIR and Bagging Test Emission Flux Results
7. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
7.1 Instrument Calibration
7.2 Assessment of DQI Goals
7.2.1 DQI Check for Analyte PIC (OP-FTIR) Measurement
7.2.2 PGIE Relative Opacity DQI Assessment
7.2.3 Meteorological Head DQI Assessment
7.2.4 Topcon Theodolite DQI Assessment
7.2.5 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance
Estimate of Uncertainty in the OTM 10 Emission Flux Measurements
Uncertainty in the LDEQ Leak Bagging Estimates
General Data Limitations
Deviations from the QAPP
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
8. Summary
9. References
55
57
58
61
61
61
62
63
63
64
64
65
67
68
68
69
72
List of Appendices
A. LSI Report: Leak Detection using LSI Infrared Gas Imaging, BEM 1 Barge Study; Aerial Imaging
(October 27, 2008)
B. LSI Aerial PGIE Images
C. LSI Report: Leak Detection using LSI Infrared Gas Imaging, BEM 1 Barge Study; Ground Crew
Survey (October 21, 2008)
D. LSI Ground Survey PGIE Images
E. LDEQ/ARCADIS Lock Wall PGIE Images
F. Alkane Mixture (AM) Measurement by OP-FTIR
G. OTM 10 Data Graphs and Tables
H. LDEQ Onboard Leak Bagging Test Report: Barge Emissions Measurement Project Final Report;
SAGE Environmental Consulting (December 29, 2008)
I. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations for 9 Barge Emissions
Events to Investigate the Contribution of Emissions from Tugs
J. Response to Comments from the American Waterways Operators
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Relative Response of Hydrocarbon with LSI Infrared Imaging Camera (FLIR) 6
Table 2-2. Target Compound List 16
Table 3-1. Summary Table of Barge Leaks Identified by LSI Aerial Survey 20
Table 3-2. Summary Table of Barge Leaks Identified by LSI Ground-based Observations 25
Table 3-3. Summary Table of Barge Leaks Identified by LSI Lock Wall Observations 35
Table 3-4. Summary Table of Barge Leaks Identified by LDEQ/ARCADIS Lock Wall
Observations 38
Table 4-1. 9/247 2008 - Event #1 43
Table 4-2. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/24/2008, Event #1 43
Table 4-3. 9/297 2008 - Event #2 44
Table 4-4. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/29/2008, Event #2 45
Table 4-5. 10/1/2008-Event #2 46
Table 4-6. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/1/2008, Event #2 47
Table 4-7. 10/27 2008 - Event #2 48
Table 4-8. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/27 2008, Event #2 49
Table 4-9. 10/57 2008 - Event #1 50
Table 4-10. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/5/2008, Event #1 51
Table 4-11. 10/9/2008- Event #7 52
Table 4-12. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/9/2008, Event #7 53
Table 4-13. Summary of VOC Analysis 54
Table 4-14. Summary of Leak Events Detected by the PGIE but not ORS Instrumentation 55
Table 5-1. Summary of LDEQ Bagging Test Results 57
Table 6-1. Summary of LDEQ Bagging Test Barge Totals and Most Significant OTM 10
Results 59
Table 7-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description 61
Table 7-2. Data Quality Indicator Goals for the Project 62
Table 7-3. Results of Flux Values Calculated by the VRPM Fit Explorer Program With a
Fixed Peak Plume Concentration Location and Varying Values of the oy
Parameter 66
Table 7-4. Results of Flux Values Calculated by the VRPM Fit Explorer Program with a
Fixed oy Parameter and Varying Peak Plume Concentration Locations 66
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lock Study Site and Measurement
Configurations 9
Figure 2-2. Images Illustrating OTM 10 Setup and Barges at the Port Allen Lock 10
Figure 2-3. General OTM 10 VRPM Measurement Configuration 11
Figure 2-4. Representation of Lock Cross Section and Wind Flow 13
Figure 2-5. IMACC OP-FTIR Instrument and Scanner 15
Figure 2-6. Images from LDEQ Leak Bagging Study 19
Figure 3-1. Example #1 from LSI Helicopter Survey - Leak from Vent on Aft Side of Barge
A27 22
Figure 3-2. Example #2 from LSI Helicopter Survey - Leak from Vent Stack in Center of
Barge A34 23
Figure 3-3. Example #3 from LSI Helicopter Survey - Leak from Top Hatches on Bow of
Barge A31 23
Figure 3-4. Example from LSI Ground Survey- Sampling During Bagging Test 28
Figure 3-5. Leak from Cargo Hatch on Barge G2- Mass Leak 1.86 g/s 28
Figure 3-6. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G4- Mass Leak 0.31 g/s 29
Figure 3-7. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G4-Mass Leak 0.19 g/s 29
Figure 3-8. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G4-Mass Leak 0.24 g/s 30
Figure 3-9. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G5-Mass Leak 0.73 g/s 30
Figure 3-10. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G5- Mass Leak 1.43 g/s 31
Figure 3-11. Leak from Vent on Barge G6- Mass Leak 1.45 g/s 31
Figure 3-12. Leak from Cofferdam Hatch on Barge G6-Mass Leak 1.99 g/s 32
Figure 3-13. Leak from Cargo Hatch on Barge G7-Mass Leak 3.12 g/s 32
Figure 3-14. Leak from Pressure Relief Valve on Barge G8- Mass Leak 5.78 g/s 33
Figure 3-15. Example #1 from LSI Ground Survey-Leaking Hatch on Barge L1-Total
Mass Emission from Barge 0.521 g/s 36
Figure 3-16. Example #2 from LSI Ground Survey-Leaking Valve on Barge L2-Total
Mass Emission from Barge 0.521 g/s 37
Figure 3-17. Example #3 from LSI Ground Survey - Leaking Hatch on Barge L6- Total
Mass Emission from Barge 0.415 g/s 37
Figure 3-18. Example #1 from Ground Survey with LDEQ Camera - Leaking Hatch from
Barge L10 (there was no OTM 10 emission flux measurement for this time
period) 39
Figure 3-19. Example #2 from Ground Survey with LDEQ Camera - Leaking Vent from
Barge L23- Total OTM 10 Mass Emission from Barge 0.490 g/s 40
IV
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 3-20. Example #3 from Ground Survey with LDEQ Camera - Leaking Valve from
Barge L13- Total OTM 10 Mass Emission from Barge 0.106 g/s 40
Figure 4-1. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 9/247 2008, Event #1 44
Figure 4-2. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 9/297 2008, Event #2 46
Figure 4-3. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/1 / 2008, Event #2 48
Figure 4-4. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/212008, Event #3 50
Figure 4-5. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/5/ 2008, Event #1 52
Figure 4-6. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/9/ 2008, Event #7 53
List of Acronyms
AM Alkane Mixture
BEM Barge Emission Measurement
DQI Data Quality Indicators
ECPB Emissions Characterization and Prevention Branch
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
HLDS Hawk Leak Detection System
LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
LSI Leak Surveys Inc.
MDL Minimum Detection Limit
MOP Miscellaneous Operating Procedures
MSCHD Memphis and Shelby County Tennessee Health Department
NEdT Noise Equivalent Delta Temperature
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OP-FTIR Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORS Optical Remote Sensing
OTM 10 EPA ORS Test Method OTM 10
PAC Path Averaged Concentration
PAMS Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station
PGIE Passive Gas Imaging Equipment
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
PIC Path Integrated Concentration
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality Control
R4 EPA Region 4
R6 EPA Region 6
RSD Relative Standard Deviation
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
SSE Sum of Squared Errors
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
AM Total Hydrocarbon
TNMHC Total Non-methane Hydrocarbons
UV-DOAS Ultraviolet Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VRPM Vertical Radial Plume Mapping
WAM Work Assignment Manager
WC Wind Criteria
WSC Wnd Speed Criteria
VI
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Executive Summary
Recent airborne remote sensing survey data acquired with passive gas imaging equipment
(PGIE), also known as infrared cameras, have shown potentially significant fugitive volatile
organic carbon (VOC) emissions from petrochemical transport barges. A collaborative group
with members from the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA R6),
the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL) and National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) was formed to further investigate this topic. The common goals of the
collaboration centered on improving knowledge of fugitive emissions from this source
category and advancing field application information for select remote sensing techniques
useful for identification and assessment of fugitive emissions from difficult to monitor sources
such as barges.
To meet these goals the group conducted a field campaign in Baton Rouge, Louisiana from
September 24 through October 9, 2008. This field campaign is described in this report and
involved several complementary remote sensing and onboard leak rate measurement
efforts. The study included aerial PGIE surveys of barges located on the Mississippi River
and inter-coastal Waterway to identify barges with significant fugitive emissions. Additional
ground-based PGIE observations of barges from the Port Allen Lock wall and also onboard a
number of barges were conducted to closely observe fugitive leaks and identify leaking
components. To support this work, an LDEQ study quantified emission leak rates using a
bagging technique from a total of eight barges that were identified by the aerial remote
sensing PGIE survey. To complement these efforts, EPA method OTM 10 with open-path
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used at the Port Allen lock to produce
hydrocarbon emission measurements from barge traffic traveling through the lock.
The aerial PGIE survey detected leaks from 45 different barges located in the Mississippi
River and the Intracoastal Waterway over a five day period. The ground-based PGIE
monitoring detected leaks from over 18 different barges in the Port Allen lock during the
study. The remote sensing surveys provided significant information regarding the practical
use of infrared cameras for detection of emissions from petrochemical transport barges.
This study produced a PGIE image database that informs the use of this technology by
providing a basis for comparison of the qualitative PGIE leak images with estimated leak
rates. This comparison helps improve PGIE survey technique understanding for barge
emissions and other source categories.
VII
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
In general, the employed PGIE equipment was found to be robust, easy to use, and
possessed sufficient detection sensitivity for this application. The PGIE remote sensing
approach was judged to be extremely useful for both aerial survey and close range fugitive
leak inspection of petrochemical transport barges. The PGIE technique was able to identify a
large range of leaks with large leaks detectable from the air and smaller leaks more easily
observed at close range. PGIE observations were easier to execute during mid-day to late
afternoon time periods due to more favorable background imaging conditions (improved
background radiance from hot barge surfaces and lower shadow interference) and because
fugitive emissions were likely more pronounced as the barges became heated by solar
radiation and ambient temperature during the day. PGIE observations were very useful for
identification of specific leaking components and verification of subsequent leak repair
activities.
Based on aerial observations, eight barges with observed large leaks were selected for
onboard leak emission rate measurements as part of the LDEQ bagging survey. For this
effort, a total of 23 leak points from eight barges were bagged to estimate mass emission
rates. The measured total non-methane hydrocarbon emissions flux values from individual
leaks during the bagging study ranged from 0.07 g/s to 5.77 g/s. Summing all measured
leaks for each individual barge yielded a barge total leak rate ranging from 1.13 g/s to 6.24
g/s. The average value of total leak rate measurement for eight barges was 3.3 g/s.
EPA method OTM 10 monitoring was conducted at the Port Allen lock wall from September
24 through October 9. A total of 97 barge sets passed through the lock during the
observation period. Six barge events showed significant fugitive hydrocarbon emissions as
measured by OTM 10 with values ranging from 0.047 g/s to 3.39 g/s alkane mixture (AM)
flux rate with an average value of 0.83 g/s. The instrumentation used to apply the OTM 10
method exhibited sufficient operational robustness and detection sensitivity during the
current study. Additionally, the OTM 10 technique was able to identify and assess emission
rates from a range of leak sizes as long as the prevailing wind brought the emitted plume
through the vertical plane of the measurement configuration.
Due to project constraints, there was no opportunity to conduct simultaneous emission
measurements by OTM 10 and the bagging technique on the same barge. A baseline
comparison of measurement results on different barges shows that the average total barge
emission estimate by OTM 10 (0.83 g/s) was lower than the similar average from the
bagging study (3.3 g/s). The maximum total barge emission estimates from the two
techniques were more comparable (3.39 g/s with OTM 10 and 6.24 g/s with the bagging
method). The somewhat lower OTM 10 values may be partially explained by the fact that
the barges selected for the bagging experiments were identified by airborne survey as
VIM
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
having very significant leaks and may not represent an average emission case whereas the
OTM 10 measurements were conducted on barges moving through the lock with no
selection process and therefore may represent a more typical sample cross section.
Note that the emission estimates presented in this report represent a snapshot in time.
Fugitive emissions from petrochemical barges are believed to vary significantly due to
ambient temperature, thermal load, product mix, load state, and equipment condition and
equipment design. Since there is limited information on how these variables affect fugitive
emissions, extrapolation of data contained in this report is not recommended.
IX
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Recent airborne survey data using passive gas imaging equipment (PGIE), also known as
infrared cameras, have shown potentially significant fugitive volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from petrochemical transport barges. This is of interest as VOCs are
precursors to ground-level ozone formation, contributing to the degradation of air quality,
especially in urban areas. A collaboration of interested parties was formed to further
investigate this issue. This group has common interests to expand knowledge of this source
category and to further develop Optical Remote Sensing (ORS) techniques which facilitate
fugitive emission identification and measurements from these and related sources.
The collaborative group consists of two main sub-groups which will individually sponsor and
execute two separate Barge Emission Measurement (BEM) studies. Subgroup 1 consists of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA R6), the EPA Office of
Research and Development (ORD) National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) and National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ). Subgroup 1 financially sponsored and executed BEM1 which occurred in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana in September 24 through October 9, 2008 and is the subject of this report.
Subgroup 2 consists of EPA Region 4 (EPA R4) and the Memphis and Shelby County
Tennessee Health Department (MSCHD) which was awarded an EPA Communities-Scale
Monitoring Grant to plan and execute BEM2 in the fall of 2009. Each BEM project will benefit
through active involvement of the above mentioned subgroups in addition to consultation
from the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), the BLF Consulting
Group, and interested industry groups. The results of the studies will likely be compared in a
separate publication.
1.2 Project Description
This report describes the BEM 1 field campaign conducted in Baton Rouge, Louisiana from
September 24 to October 9, 2008. BEM 1 investigated VOC emissions from petro-chemical
transport barges using portable gas imaging equipment PGIE (infrared cameras), EPA
Method OTM 10 with Open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectrometers, in
addition to leak bagging tests (manual leak rate measurements).
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
The objectives of the study were:
• To improve knowledge of fugitive VOC emissions from petrochemical transport barges.
• To demonstrate and advance the field application of select ORS techniques (EPA OTM
10 OP-FTIR and PGIE) for identification and quantification of fugitive emissions from
difficult to monitor sources.
• Identify sources of fugitive leaks from multiple barges
To accomplish these goals, the project team conducted several complementary efforts:
1. Aerial PGIE surveys of barges located on the Mississippi River and inter-coastal water
ways identified barges with significant fugitive emissions.
2. Ground-based PGIE observations of barges from the Port Allen Lock wall and also
onboard several barges identified and closely observe fugitive leaks.
3. Onboard leak emission bagging measurements were conducted by LDEQ on several
barges to quantify leak rates and allow comparison with PGIE images.
4. EPA Method OTM 10 with open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used
at the Port Allen lock to produce hydrocarbon emission measurements from barge traffic
traveling through the lock.
The body of this report summarizes the main aspects of the BEM 1 study with collections of
representative images and emission measurement details contained in the Appendices A
through I. With the exceptions noted below, this project was conducted by ARCADIS U.S.,
Inc. (ARCADIS), Durham, NC, under EPA ORD contract No. EP-C-04-023, Work
Assignment No. 4-47. ARCADIS executed the OTM 10 portion of the field campaign,
analyzed the OP-FTIR and OTM 10 data, produced draft versions of data tables and image
collections and contributed to descriptions continued in this report. EPA Personnel were
primary authors on the main body and summary sections of the report.
Section 2 of this report describes the measurement methods, instruments, and field setup for
the BEM1 campaign.
Section 3 of the report describes the aerial and ground-based PGIE observations of barges
on the Mississippi River and Intracoastal Waterway and Port Allen Lock. This portion of the
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
study was funded by EPA and was executed by Leak Surveys, Inc. (LSI), under subcontract
to ARCADIS and by ARCADIS using PGIE owned by LDEQ. A summary of LSI results
along with several representative PGIE screenshots are presented in Sections 3.1 (aerial)
and 3.2 (ground-based). Section 3.3 presents this same information forthe PGIE
observations made on the lock wall by ARCADIS. Additional details and images from this
part of the project are contained in Appendices A through E.
Section 4 of the report describes measurements made on the Port Allen Lock wall by
ARCADIS using two scanning optical remote sensing instruments (OP-FTIR), in combination
with the OTM 10 protocol (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim.html). These
measurements provided hydrocarbon emission estimates of a representative alkane mixture
(AM) and speciated concentration measurements for several trace compounds for barges
passing through the lock. Section 4 presents a description of notable events, the AM mass
emission flux values measured during each event, a screenshot of the leaks from the PGIE
observations, and the results of the trace compound analysis. Additional information on the
OTM 10 portion of the study is contained in Appendices F and G.
Section 5 summarizes the findings of the onboard leak rate measurements performed by
Sage Environmental for LDEQ on several barges during the study. The leak bagging
measurements used U.S. EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (U.S. EPA,
1995), with some variations. The LDEQ report on the bagging experiments is reproduced in
its entirety in Appendix H for reference. It is noted that a draft version of this BEM 1 study
report was reviewed by the American Waterways Operators and their comments concerning
the LDEQ bagging study along with responses from Sage Environmental Consulting are
reproduced in Appendix J.
Section 6 of the report presents a general comparison of emissions levels from the set of
barges passing through the Port Allen lock observed during the OTM 10 study with the
barges measured during the LDEQ bagging study. Section 7 provides QA information
including discussions on general uncertainty and data limitations. Section 8 summarizes the
conclusions forthe study.
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the agency nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
2. Description of Test Sites, Measurement Methods and Site Deployment
The experimental approach for BEM1 included three main elements: PGIE for aerial and
ground-based observations, fugitive emission estimation by EPA Method OTM 10 at the Port
Allen and leak bagging tests of emissions from several barges. Following a general
description of PGIE, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 describe the details of the aerial and ground-based
PGIE observations conducted for this study. Section 2.3 shows the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Port Allen lock site and describes the EPA OTM 10 method used to assess the
mass emission flux of a representative alkane mixture (AM) in addition to trace compound
speciation. Section 2.4 describes the bagging procedure employed in the LDEQ effort to
quantify fugitive emissions leaks onboard several barges.
Of special interest to this study is the use of PGIE remote sensing systems to investigate
fugitive emissions from barges. The PGIE infrared cameras were used to qualitatively detect
the presence of fugitive emissions and to observe the leaking component to inform
emissions inventory knowledge. The details of the specific PGIE used in this study are
provided in Section 2.1. In general, the infrared camera detects thermal energy emitted by
objects in the optic field of view or scene as motion imagery or video. Thermal energy is
absorbed by molecules in the camera's field of view. If the molecules are present in high
concentrations, and if their infrared-active molecular vibrations are within the bandpass of the
camera, the molecules are detected. The fugitive emission or leak is detected by the PGIE
operator by observing the relative brightness of the camera pixels that comprise the scene.
Gas leaks appear as black or very dark plumes in the video relative to other objects in the
scene. These plumes are dynamic as well, which assists in discriminating gas leaks from
other scene objects such as thermal shadows or cold objects. The camera video is recorded
onto a solid state recorder for future analysis. More information on the PGIE camera can be
found in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality SOP #SAMP-020, Operation of
FUR Systems THERMAGAS GasFindIR Camera, presented as Appendix C of the project
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (EPA, 2008).
The study was conducted from September 24 through October 9, although measurements
from each of the three study elements were not collected continuously during this time. The
weather conditions observed during the study period were relatively normal conditions for the
Port Allen area (normal average daytime high temperatures ranging from 86° F on
September 24 to 82°F on October 9).
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
2.1 Aerial PGIE Observations
The aerial PGIE observations were made by Leak Surveys Inc. (LSI) from September 24
through October 1, 2008 (10 am to 5 pm). The crew used the Hawk Leak Detection System
(HLDS), developed by LSI after 12 years of research and development on optical imaging.
The PGIE used was a modified Indigo (FLIR/lndigo Systems Corp., Goleta, CA) Merlin MID
camera, which is a specialized thermal imaging camera that allows the operator to visualize
a plume of VOC gases, allowing the leaking barge component to be identified. The PGIE
was mounted on a helicopter using a FAA inspected and certified Tyler vibration isolating
mount. The camera video was cabled to the operator inside the aircraft. The aircraft was
generally deployed to conduct monitoring of barges upriver of the lock prior to actual arrival
at the lock site. A standard digital camera was used for photographing the barge under
surveillance for future reference. A GPS unit was used to log the location and time and date
of the contact.
The PGIE has a nominal spectral range of 1 to 5.4 urn. Using a 30 x 30 urn InSb detector
with a 320 x 240 pixel array, the camera has the capability to vary the integration times from
5 ms to 16.5 ms. The detector is operated at near liquid nitrogen temperatures using an
integral Sterling cooler which provides the system with an NEdT of no more than 18 mK
providing excellent sensitivity.
The spectral range is further limited with the use of a notch filter specifically designed for the
detection of hydrocarbon infrared adsorption in the 3 micron region. The narrow bandpass
range of the filter is less than the infrared spectral absorption of gas-phase hexane. The filter
notch is positioned so that alkane gases have a significant response within the bandpass
range.
Various lenses including a 25 mm, a 50 mm, and a 100 mm lens were used. The 25 mm
lens provided a 22 x 16 degrees field of view with an f-number of 2.3. The 50 mm lens
provided an 11 x 8 degrees field of view with an f-number of 2.3.
The use of a narrow bandpass filter provides spectral discrimination that allows the detection
of compounds that have a vibration mode in the infrared region of the filter. Not all
hydrocarbons have infrared absorptions within the filter range. Table 2-1 shows the
theoretical relative response of various compounds of interest using 1 cm-1 resolution
infrared spectra (Infrared Analysis, Inc., Anaheim, CA). Using propane as the reference
spectrum with a relative response of 100, methane's response is approximately 10 percent
of the same concentration of propane and hexane is 1.5 times the response of propane at
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
the same concentration. The filter is set to the infrared region of the spectrum that primarily
corresponds to the infrared absorption of alkanes. Other hydrocarbons exhibit various
degrees of absorption of infrared energy in this region as indicated in the table.
Table 2-1. Relative Response of Hydrocarbon with LSI Infrared Imaging Camera (FLIR)
Compound
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Iso-Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane
Octane
Ethylene
Propylene
Iso-Butylene
2-Methyl-2-Butane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Pentene
Benzene
Toluene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Relative Response
Propane = 100%
9
43
100
118
137
143
155
157
136
3
20
37
4
7
7
4
21
38
23
32
The aerial surveys were performed using a two-person crew consisting of the pilot and the
camera operator. The survey was conducted by focusing the PGIE on the river and
searching for barge leaks. If a leak was found, the pilot circled back above the source and
the camera operator recorded the leaking emissions for a period of approximately 2 minutes.
The results of the aerial survey are presented in Report: Leak Detection using LSI Infrared
Gas Imaging, LDEQ Barge Study (27 October 2008) which is included as Appendix A.
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
2.2 Ground-based PGIE Observations
The ground-based PGIE observations at the lock were made by LSI (September 24 and
September 28-30, 2008) using a modified Indigo (FLIR/lndigo Systems Corp., Goleta, CA)
GasfindlR MID camera and by ARCADIS using the LDEQ FLIR camera (September 28 and
October 1-9, 2008). There were no FLIR observations made at the lock on September 25-
27, 2008. LSI also made the observations at the onboard several barges during the LDEQ
bagging study (September 24-28, 2008). The PGIE used to perform these optical imaging
leak surveys was similar to the camera used for the aerial surveys described in Section 2.1.
The lightweight and small size of the PGIE allowed it to be hand-carried for ground
observations of barges. Leaking components on the barge (if present) were identified and
logged. The potential source of the leak was identified (i.e., hatch cover, pressure relief
valve) and the position on the barge (i.e., cargo tank #4) was determined.
The results of the LSI ground survey are presented in Report: Leak Detection using LSI
Infrared Gas Imaging, BEM1 Barge Study; Ground Crew Survey (21 October 2008) which is
included as Appendix C.
Images from the LSI and ARCADIS ground PGIE observations are presented in Appendices
D and E.
2.3 Scanning OP-FTIRs and OTM 10 Protocol
Two scanning open path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectrometers, in combination
with the OTM 10 protocol (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim.html), were used to provide
alkane mixture (AM) emission flux and speciated measurements for nine trace compounds
(methane, methanol, benzene, ethylene, acetylene, propylene, propane, ethane, and carbon
monoxide).
Supporting measurements for this phase of the study included meteorological data and
distance measurements. Testing and measurement protocols included:
• PIC emission measurements with two OP-FTIR instruments
• Meteorological data collection with the R.M. Young heads
• Optical path length determination with a Topcon theodolite
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
• Calculation of AM emission flux using Flux Calc (ARCADIS software employing the
VRPM method).
Figure 2-1 shows an overhead view of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Port Allen lock
study site, with the approximate locations of the project measurement configurations. Two 3-
beam OTM -10 configuration planes were deployed along the southern edge of the lock
(denoted by the red lines, not to scale vertically) using one EPA and one ARCADIS scanning
OP-FTIR. The end of the two planes was defined by one common scissor lift (tower in the
middle), which was used to mount the two elevated mirrors of each OTM 10 configuration.
The lowest mirror in each configuration was deployed on the surface of the lock wall
walkway (0.1 m height) and the elevated mirrors were positioned at heights of approximately
3 m and 6 m above the walkway. The locations of the two scanning OP-FTIR instruments
were near each end of the lock as indicated in the figure. The length of the EPA and
ARCADIS OP-FTIR plane configurations were 169 m and 153 m, respectively. The overall
length of the lock from gate to gate was approximately 360 m and the width of the lock was
25 m. The OTM 10 planes were located approximately 1 m away from the inside lock wall
edge. Additional images illustrating the OTM 10 deployment and barge traffic in the lock are
contained in Figures 2-2 and 2.4.
Two additional optical beam paths were deployed (one from each OP-FTIR instrument)
across the surface of the lock to collect supplemental data on alkane mixture and trace VOC
concentrations. Although the project Quality Assurance Project Plan stated that these data
would be collected with ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectroscopy (UV-DOAS),
the project team determined that the OP-FTIR data could be analyzed for trace VOC
concentrations, so the UV-DOAS instrument was not deployed at the site due to limited
project resources and eye safety concerns for lock personnel.
Originally, it was anticipated that the OTM 10 configuration would be deployed along the
northern edge of the lock. However, at the time of the field campaign, the winds were largely
from the north, and the configuration was deployed on the southern edge of the lock. The
prevailing winds at the site during the measurements are denoted by the wind rose in the
lower left hand corner of Figure 2-1. Note that in order for the OTM 10 configuration to
measure fugitive emission from a particular barge, the wind vector must have a significant
component from the north in order for the emitted plume to traverse the OTM 10
measurement plane.
OP-FTIR data were collected with each configuration from September 24 through October 9,
2008. Data from the barge traffic were recorded including the time of entry and exit from lock,
reported cargo from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers traffic log, and visual inspection of
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
cargo labels on each barge. Emissions flux values were calculated for each event by
summing the flux values measured from each configuration.
Figure 2-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lock Study Site and Measurement
Configurations
9
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 2-2. Images Illustrating OTM 10 Setup and Barges at the Port Allen Lock
2.3.1 OTM 10 and the Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Method
The following is a general description of the ground-based barge measurements at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Port Allen lock. For this phase of the campaign, two OP-FTIR
instruments were placed around the lock area to execute a modified version (3-beam) of
EPA Method OTM 10 to quantify the mass emission flux of and alkane mixture (AM) from the
barges located in the lock.
The project used two 3-beam OTM 10 flux measurement configurations to quantify the
fugitive emissions from the barge. The Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) method is the
analytical part of the OTM 10 flux measurement and generally discussed in EPA OTM 10
Optical remote sensing for emission characterization from non-point sources, which
describes direct measurement of pollutant mass emission flux from area sources using
ground-based optical remote sensing (ORS). The OTM 10 technique utilizes open-path
spectroscopic instrumentation to obtain path-integrated pollutant concentration information
along multiple optical paths. The multi-path pollutant concentration data along with wind
vector information are processed with a plane-integrating VRPM computer algorithm to yield
10
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
a mass emission flux for the source. Figure 2-3 shows a general 5-beam TOM 10 VRPM
measurement configuration. For this project, a 3-beam configuration was used having no
intermediate mirrors with 3 beams extending along the ground (mirror deployed on surface of
top of the lock wall), middle, and top scissor lift positions.
Vertical
Retrorefl ectors
Monostatic ORS
Instrument
Ground
Retrorefl ectors
Figure 2-3. General OTM 10 VRPM Measurement Configuration
The VRPM computer algorithm uses a smooth basis function minimization routine of a
bivariate Gaussian function to generate mass emission flux information from species
concentration and wind data. For this measurement campaign, the VRPM configuration
utilized a three-beam configuration which leads to a reduced form of the bivariate Gaussian
in polar coordinates (r, 6). The standard deviation in the crosswind direction is assumed to
be about four times the length of vertical plane (r-i).
G(A,crz,mz) =
(r •
'
(r-sind-mz}2
"
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Where:
A = normalizing coefficient, adjusts for the peak value of the bivariate surface;
mz = peak location in Cartesian coordinates;
az = vertical standard deviation in Cartesian coordinates;
r-, = length of VRPM plane;
A, mz, and crzare the unknown parameters to be retrieved by the fitting procedure. An error
function (sum of squared errors, SSE) for minimization is defined as:
PAC, - Gfc,*,,)^//;. (2)
Where PAC, is the measured path-averaged concentration (PAC) value for the ;* beam. The
SSE function is minimized using the Simplex method to solve for the three unknown
parameters. This process is for determining the vertical gradient in concentration. It allows an
accurate integration of concentrations across the vertical plane as the long-beam ground
level PAC provides a direct integration of concentration at the lowest level.
Once the parameters of the function are found for a specific run, the VRPM procedure
calculates the concentration values for every square elementary unit in a vertical plane.
Then, the VRPM procedure integrates the values, incorporating wind speed data at each
height level to compute the flux. This enables the direct calculation of the flux in grams per
second (g/s), using wind speed data in meters per second (m/s). Further information on the
VRPM method for fugitive source emission measurements in general can be found in Thoma
2005, U.S. EPA 2007a with specific details of this deployment in U.S. EPA 2007b.
This measurement project has several unique features regarding the use of EPA Method
OTM 10 which is typically used for ground-level area source measurements using a 5-beam
approach. Specifically, this field study utilized a 3-beam approach and the source was not
the typical ground level area source. The 3-beam OTM 10 approach was chosen for this
project since it was much more important to obtain a larger number of measurement cycles
while the mobile source was contained in the lock rather than a fewer number of cycles with
a five beam approach since the horizontal spatial location of the plume was not of primary
importance. In analyzing the PIC data using the 3-beam approach, several assumptions are
required. The peak plume concentration was assumed to be centered along the crosswind
axis of the OTM 10 configuration, and the ay parameter (horizontal dispersion coefficient) of
12
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
the measured plume was assumed to be equal to 1/4 the length of the OTM 10
configurations. It was necessary to make these assumptions because the 3-beam OTM 10
approach does not include two intermediate surface beam paths which are used to obtain
information on the horizontal location and dispersion of the plume. Section 7.3 has contains
a discussion of uncertainty associated with these assumptions.
The lock wall configuration was not a typical area source deployment however it was
assumed that the emission form the barges acted similarly to a close-coupled area source.
The emitted plumes from the barges were assumed to be initially small in spatial extent but
would experience significant dispersion by eddy mixing before exiting the lock and passing
through the OTM 10 plane. This is likely since the barges were significantly below the lock
wall top (approximately 7m to 12 m) and the emitted plumes could experience several
dispersive/mixing mechanisms (such as stagnation, turbulence, channeling) depending on
ambient wind direction and speed so the plumes could evolve more than in a flat wind swept
scenario with similar downwind standoff. This results in a relatively well-developed plume
exiting the lock and being transported by the free-flowing winds to the OTM 10 plane. This is
illustrated in Figure 2.4 and these assumptions are further discussed in Section 7.3. The
distance range below the lock wall (« 7 m to 12 m) reflects the approximate lock operation
water level height change during the study.
OTM 10 Flux Plane
Free-Flowing Winds
<
6m
<-
<-
~7to 12 m
Dispersion of
Plume by
Eddy Mixing
Emission plume
Barge
25m
Lock Wall
Figure 2-4. Representation of Lock Cross Section and Wind Flow
13
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
2.3.2 OTM 10 Fugitive Emission Quantification
The scanning OP-FTIR measurement system and associated OTM 10 planes employed a
default configuration as described above. The default dwell time for each mirror was 30
seconds. In general, the OP-FTIR spectrometer is designed for both fence-line monitoring
applications and real-time, on-site, remediation monitoring and source characterization. The
OP-FTIR instrument consists of an infrared light beam, modulated by a Michelson
interferometer. The infrared beam is transmitted from a single telescope to a retro-reflecting
mirror target, which is usually set up at a range of 100 to 500 m. The returned light signal is
received by the single telescope and directed to a detector. The light is absorbed by the
molecules in the beam path as the light propagates to the retro-reflecting mirror and again as
the light is reflected back to the analyzer. The advantage of OP-FTIR monitoring is that the
concentrations of a multitude of infrared absorbing gaseous chemicals can be detected and
measured simultaneously, with high temporal resolution. Figure 2-5 presents a picture of the
OP-FTIR instrument.
2.3.3 Supporting Measurements for Ground-based ORS
2.3.3.1 Meteorological Data
Meteorological data including wind direction and wind speed were continuously collected
during the measurement campaign with two R.M. Young model 05103 meteorological heads.
The instrument is automated and collects real-time data from its sensors and records time-
stamped data, which are transmitted to a desktop computer via a radio frequency modem R.
M. Young model 32500. The meteorological heads were deployed to collect wind speed and
wind direction data during the study. As part of each VRPM configuration, one head was
deployed on the surface of the lock wall at a height of approximately 3 meters, and the other
head was deployed on top of the scissor lift platform at a height of approximately 6 meters
above the lock wall.
More information on deploying R.M. Young meteorological heads can be found in MOP 6803
"Guidance for Deploying and Using ORS Supplemental Instrumentation" of the Emissions
Characterization and Prevention Branch (ECPB) ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility
Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004).
14
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 2-5. IMACC OP-FTIR Instrument and Scanner
2.3.3.2 OP-FTIR Instrument-Mirror Distance
The physical distance between the ORS instruments and the mirrors was measured using a
Topcon, Inc. model GTS-211D theodolite. More information on setting up and operating the
theodolite can be found in MOP 6822 "Determining the Geographical Locations of the ORS
Measurement Locations" of the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA,
2004).
2.3.4 PIC Emission Measurements with OP-FTIR Instrument
To calculate the mass emission flux using the OTM 10 method, the acquired OP-FTIR data
must be analyzed to produce a PIC value. For this project, OP-FTIR data reduction focused
on the PIC values of a representative alkane mixture (AM) by spectroscopic analysis of the
infrared absorption features in the C-H stretch spectral region around 2950 cm"1. The
analysis focused on an alkane mixture (butane, pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, nonane,
decane) since performing spectral analysis of each individual compound is not possible due
to the similarity in the shapes of the absorption bands. Additionally, the molecular weight of
the target compound is necessary to calculate the mass emission flux using the OTM 10
method. Spectroscopic analysis of the AM also yielded the average molecular weight of AM
for each concentration determination. More information on the method used for
spectroscopic analysis of the AM can be found in Appendix F of this report.
15
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
In addition to the AM quantification, individually quantifiable hydrocarbons species (e.g.,
methane) were analyzed if present at concentrations above the MDL for the OP-FTIR.
The general measurement of the Path Integrated Concentration (PIC) of individually
identifiable analyte gases using the IMACC OP-FTIR instrument is described in MOP 6808
"Multiple-Path Data Collection Using a Scanning IMACC Monostatic OP-FTIR" of the ECPD
Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004). A detailed description of the
procedure used for PIC concentration analysis with IMACCQuant software is contained in
MOP 6827 "Procedures for OP-FTIR Concentration Data Analysis Using IMACCQuant
Software". The estimated minimum detection levels for the target analytes of the OP-FTIR
instrument are presented in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Target Compound List
Compound
Alkane Mixture (AM)
Methane
Methanol
Benzene
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propane
Ethane
OP-FTIR Estimated Detection Limit
for Optical Path Length = 300 m,
1 min. averaging (ppb)
2
2
4
20
1
2
4
10
10
2.3.5 Meteorological Data Collection with the R.M. Young Heads
Meteorological data including wind direction and wind speed were continuously collected
during the sampling/measurement campaign with an R.M. Young Model 05103
meteorological head. The instrument is automated and collects real-time data from its
sensors and records time-stamped data, which are transmitted to a desktop computer via a
transmitter.
For this project, a wind direction and speed-sensing head was used to collect data at heights
of approximately two and six meters above ground. The sensing head for wind direction
incorporates an auto-northing function (automatically adjusts to magnetic north) that
16
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
eliminates the errors associated with subjective field alignment to a compass heading. The
sensing heads incorporate standard cup-type wind speed sensors. Post-collection, a linear
interpolation between the two sets of data is done to estimate wind velocity as a function of
height. More information on deploying and operating the R.M. Young Model 05103
meteorological instrumentation can be found in MOP 6803 of the ECPD Optical Remote
Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004).
2.3.6 Optical Path Length Determination with the Topcon Theodolite
The physical distance between an OP-FTIR instrument and a mirror was determined by
measurement with a Topcon, Inc. model GTS-211D theodolite. The instrument manufacturer
certifies the instrument accuracy and precision to better than 1 cm. Azimuth and elevation
angles can also be determined using the theodolite. The measurement is a manual
operation, with the results recorded by hand, and is followed by transcription to a
spreadsheet for data archiving and calculations.
Due to folding of the optical beam by the mirror, the optical path length is twice the physical
distance between the instrument and mirror. In other words, the optical beam passes
through the physical path twice. More information on deploying and operating the Topcon
theodolite can be found in MOP 6822 of the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual
(U.S. EPA, 2004).
2.3.7 Calculating Emission Flux using the VRPM Method
The calculated emission flux is generated by inputting the measured PIC data into the VRPM
algorithm. The algorithm is performed using Matlab software (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA).
The VRPM method maps the concentrations in the plane of the measurement. The
horizontal dimension of this plane is defined as the distance between the OP-FTIR
instrument and the most distant mirror used in the configuration. The vertical dimension of
this plane is defined as the distance from the surface to the point where the extrapolated
concentration values (extrapolated based on the vertical concentration gradient) approaches
zero. This height is not determined until the data are processed in the VRPM algorithm. By
scanning in a vertical plane downwind from an area source, one can obtain plume
concentration profiles and calculate the plane-integrated concentrations. The flux is
calculated by multiplying the plane-integrated concentration by the wind speed component
perpendicular to the vertical plane. The flux leads directly to a determination of the emission
rate (Hashmonay et al., 1998; Hashmonay and Yost, 1999; Hashmonay et al., 2001; Thoma
et al. 2005). More information on the procedures used to generate the plume maps and the
calculated emission flux can be found in MOP 6842 "Using the vertical Radial Plume
17
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Mapping (VRPM) Configuration with Wind Data to Create Plume Concentration Profiles and
Calculate Emission Fluxes" of the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA,
2004).
2.3.8 Site Deployment Description at the Lock
The prevailing winds during the time of the field campaign were largely from the north, and
the dual OP-FTIR configuration was deployed on the southern edge of the lock. Figure 2-1
shows the VRPM configurations at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lock. Following ORS
instrument setup and Data Quality Indicator (DQI) checks, ORS data acquisition began,
continuously, fora period of several hours each day. During the surveys, measurements
were taken along each optical path length (mirror) sequentially. The averaging time for each
optical path was thirty seconds. Emissions flux values were calculated for each event by
summing the average flux values measured from each configuration.
Data from barge traffic were recorded including time of entry and exit from lock, reported
cargo from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers traffic log, and visual inspection of cargo labels
on each barge. The ground-based PGIE (FLIR camera) measurements were conducted
simultaneously with the ORS measurements for a period of several hours each day, for all
but three days of the sampling campaign. It is noted that Barge traffic through the Port Allen
lock was lighter than usual during the study due to repair activities on the Intracoastal
Waterway Bayou Sorrel Bridge, which was damaged by a tug boat accident just prior to the
start of the field campaign.
2.4 Bagging Tests
The onboard-barge leak bagging tests were performed by SAGE Environmental Consulting
for LDEQ from September 24-28, 2008. Some of the results from this study are presented in
Sections 5 and 6 for comparison purposes with the full LDEQ report reproduced as Appendix
H for reference. For the bagging measurements, SAGE followed the vacuum method
described in the U.S. EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (U.S. EPA,
1995), with some variations. For compositional analysis, samples were collected by LDEQ in
aluminum Summa canisters. A maximum of one canister was filled for each point tested.
One canister was sometimes used for multiple sampling points in the same product service
on the same barge. The LDEQ laboratory did the analysis using EPA PAMS analysis by
GC/FID. Figure 2.6 shows images from the LDEQ leak bagging study.
18
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Small Haldi Leak (
Figure 2-6. Images from LDEQ Leak Bagging Study
19
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
3. Aerial and Ground-based PGIE Results and Discussion
The aerial and ground-based PGIE observations of barges on the Mississippi River and
Intracoastal Waterway are summarized in this section. Representative PGIE snapshots are
presented in Sections 3.1 (aerial) and 3.2 (ground-based). Section 3.3 presents this same
information for the PGIE observations made in the lock on several other days by ARCADIS,
with the LDEQ camera. No PGIE observations were made at the lock on September 25-27,
2008. Note that it is not possible to reproduce the details of a visible leak (as captured with
video footage) using a single representative snap shot as required for this report.
3.1 Aerial PGIE Observations by LSI
The aerial (helicopter) PGIE observations were made by Leak Surveys, Inc. (LSI) from
September 24 through September 30, 2008. The helicopter was airborne for approximately 6
hours each day. The LSI aerial crew dataset contains movies showing leaks from a total of
45 different barges located in Mississippi River and Intracoastal Waterway. Table 3-1 lists
the LSI snapshot identification number, barge number, and a description of the suspected
source of the leak(s). Additional information is contained in Appendices A and B.
Table 3-1. Summary Table of Barge Leaks Identified by LSI Aerial Survey
Filename
LOGO
L001
L002
LOOS
L004
LOOS
L006
L007
LOOS
L009
L010
L011
L012
L013
Date
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
Part Leaking
Two Large Valve Settings Towards Aft Side
Vent Stack at Bow of Barge
Vent Stack at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatches
Top Loading Hatches at Placid Refinery
Top Loading Hatches to the Aft of Barge
Top Loading Hatches at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatches at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatches at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatch at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatches and Vent
Top Loading Hatches at Aft side of Barge at Placid Refinery
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Barge #
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
20
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Filename
L014
L015
L016
L017
L018a
L018b
L018c
L019
L020
L021
L022a
L022b
L023a
L023b
L024
L025
L026
L027
L028
L029
L030
L031a
L031b
L032
L033
Date
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/30/2009
9/30/2009
Part Leaking
Top Hatches and Vent Stack on Barge
Top Hatches and Vent Stack on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Vent Stack on Barge
Repeat of Video 003, Boarded by Bagging Team
Top Loading Hatches at Placid Refinery
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches at TT Barge Cleaning Facility — Refilm
Top Hatches atTT Barge Cleaning Facility
Vent Stack on Barge —Refilm
Vent Stack on Barge
Hatches at Aft Side —in Intracoastal Waterway
Vent at Aft Side -in Intracoastal Waterway
Vent at Aft Side
Vent Stack on Bow of Barge
Center Vent on Barge
Cent Hatch on Barge
Bow Hatch and Deck Hatch on Barge
Two Aft Hatches and one Side Hatch
Top Hatches on Barge -in Intracoastal Waterway
Vent Stack in Center of Barge -in Intracoastal Waterway
Vent Stack on Bow of Barge -Refilm
Vent Stack on Bow of Barge
Vent Stack on Bow of Barge —Refilm
Top Hatches on Barge —Across from Locks
Top Hatches on Bow —Across from Locks
Vent at the Bow of Barge —North of Locks
Forward Bow Hatch on Barge —in Intracoastal Waterway
Barge #
A15
A16
A17
A11
A18
A4
A19
A20
A21
A22
A13
A14
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A29
A30
A31
A32
A33
A34
A1
A35
A36
A37
A31
A23
A38
21
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figures 3-1 through 3-3 show three example snapshots from the LSI Aerial survey illustrating
the type of leaks that were detected: Example #1 shows a vent on the aft side of Barge A27;
Example #2 shows a vent stack in the center of Barge A34 from the Intracoastal Waterway;
and Example #3 shows the top hatches on the bow of Barge A31 across from the lock.
Appendix B contains a larger collection of images providing information on various types of
leaks identified during the helicopter survey.
Note that it is impossible to represent visual acuity of observed leaks with single image
snapshots reproduced in this report. The leaks as viewed in moving video images are
much more pronounced and generally easier to identify, particularly for small leaks.
Figure 3-1. Example #1 from LSI Helicopter Survey - Leak from Vent on Aft Side of Barge A27
22
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 3-2. Example #2 from LSI Helicopter Survey - Leak from Vent Stack in Center of Barge A34
Figure 3-3. Example #3 from LSI Helicopter Survey - Leak from Top Hatches on Bow of
Barge A31
23
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
The LSI aerial surveys provided the following general conclusions about this remote sensing
approach for fugitive emission detection from petrochemical transport barges:
1. The deployed PGIE equipment and airborne platform exhibited sufficient mobility,
operational robustness, and detection sensitivity and are judged to be extremely useful
for airborne remote monitoring of this type. This conclusion agrees with previous similar
studies using this technology.
2. The PGIE technique was able to easily identify apparent large leaks from the air with
smaller leaks somewhat more difficult to identify likely requiring an expert operator.
3. Ground surveys indicated that the leaks seen from the air were many times composed of
numerous individual leaks upon closer inspection.
4. In all studied cases, leaks identified from the air were verified as being VOC leaks of
significant volume upon ground inspection.
5. Aerial observations were easier to execute during mid-day to late afternoon time periods
due to more favorable background imaging conditions (improved background radiance
from hot barge surfaces and lower shadow interference) and because fugitive emissions
were likely more pronounced as the barges became heated by solar radiation and
ambient temperature during the day.
3.2 On board Barge PGIE Observations by LSI
LSI conducted ground-based PGIE observations on board eight barges in conjunction with
the LDEQ bagging studies (September 24-28, 2008). The barges where monitoring occurred
represented a subset of those identified by the aerial survey (Section 3.1) having large
apparent leaks as viewed from the air. The purpose of the onboard PGIE observations was
to provide close-up views of leaks prior to and during the bagging measurements. Table 3-2
lists the LSI filename number, the date of the observation, a description of the leak source,
and the barge number or other descriptor.
24
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 3-2. Summary Table of Barge Leaks Identified by LSI Ground-based Observations
Filename
Date
Part Leaking
Barge # or Other Descriptor
7 9/24/2008 Hatch
8 9/24/2008 Hatch
9 9/24/2008 Hatch
10 9/24/2008 Hatch
11 9/24/2008 Hatch
12 9/24/2008 Hatch
13 9/24/2008 Hatch
14 9/24/2008 Hatch
15 9/25/2008 Ullage Hatch
16 9/25/2008 Cargo Hatch
17 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
18 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
19 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
20 9/25/2008 Alarm Test Rod
21 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
22 9/25/2008 Alarm Test Rod
23 9/25/2008 Cargo Hatch
24 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
25 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
26 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
27 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
28 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
29 9/25/2008 Overview of Leaks
30 9/25/2008 Bagging Process
31 9/25/2008 Vent
32 9/25/2008 Pressure Relief Valve
33 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
34 9/25/2008 Ullage Hatch
35 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
36 9/25/2005 Cargo Hatch Control Valve
37 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
Barge G1
Barge G1
Barge G1
Barge G1
Barge G1
Barge G1
Barge G1
Barge G1
Barge G2 #2 Port Lower
Barge G2 #2 Port
Barge G2 #2 Starboard Middle
Barge G2 #2 Port Middle
Barge G2 #1 Starboard Lower
Barge G2 #2 Starboard
Barge G2 #1 Port Lower
Barge G2 #2 Port
Barge G2 #1 Starboard
Barge G2 #1 Starboard Middle
Barge G2#1 Port Middle
Barge G2 #1 Starboard Upper
Barge G2 #1 Port Upper
Barge G2 #2 Port Lower
Barge G2
Showing Gas Venting Through Dry Gas Meter
Barge G3
Barge G3
Barge G3 #1 Port Forward
Barge G3 #1
Barge G3#1 Port Aft
Barge G3 #1
Barge G3 Starboard Forward
25
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Filename
Date
Part Leaking
Barge # or Other Descriptor
38 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
39 9/25/2008 Cargo Hatch Control Valve
40 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
41 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
42 9/25/2008 Butterworth Hatch
43 9/25/2008 Cargo Hatch Control Valve
44 9/26/2008 Ullage Hatch
45 9/26/2008 Both Hatches & Valve
46 9/26/2008 Both Hatches & Valve
47 9/26/2008 Ullage & Cargo Hatches
48 9/26/2008 Cargo Hatch Control Valve
49 9/26/2008 Alarm Test Rod
50 9/26/2008 Ullage Hatch
51 9/26/2008 Ullage Hatch & Valve
52 9/26/2008 Ullage Hatch
53 9/26/2008 Ullage & Cargo Hatches
54 9/26/2008 Ullage & Cargo Hatches
55 9/26/2008 Ullage Hatch
56 9/26/2008 Alarm Test Rod
57 9/26/2008 Same as Video 045
58 9/26/2008 Same as Video 047
59 9/27/2008 Vent
60 9/27/2008 Cofferdam Hatch
61 9/27/2008 Cargo Hatch
62 9/27/2008 Cargo Hatch
63 9/27/2008 Ullage Hatch
64 9/27/2008 Ullage Hatch
65 9/27/2008 Cargo Hatch
66 9/27/2008 Same as Video 063
67 9/27/2008 Same as Video 063
68 9/27/2008 Same as Video 063
69 9/28/2008 Overview of Leaks
Barge G3 #2 Port Forward
Barge G3 #2
Barge G3 #3 Starboard Forward
Barge G3 #3 Port Forward
Barge G3 #3 Port Aft
Barge G3 #3
Barge G4 #1 Port & #1 Starboard
Barge G4 #2 Port
Barge G4 #2 Starboard
Barge G4 #3 Starboard
Barge G4 #3 Port
Barge G5 #1 Starboard
Barge G5 #1 Starboard
Barge G5 #1 Port
Barge G5 #2 Port
Barge G5 #2 Starboard
Barge G5 #3 Starboard
Barge G5 #3 Port
Barge G5 #3 Starboard
Barge G4 Filmed Again After Repair Attempt
Barge G4 Filmed Again After Repair Attempt
Barge G6
Barge G6 Forward
Barge G6 #3 Port
Barge G6 #3 Starboard
Barge G6 #4 Port
Barge G6 #4 Starboard
Barge G6 #4 Starboard
Barge G6 Filmed Again
Barge G6 Filmed Again After Vent Was Closed
Barge G6 Filmed Again After Vent Was Closed
Barge G7 Overview of #2 & #3 Cargo Hatches
26
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Filename
Date
Part Leaking
Barge # or Other Descriptor
87 9/28/2008 Pressure Relief Valve
88 9/28/2008 Cargo Hatch
89 9/28/2008 Cargo Hatch Control Valve
90 9/28/2008 Control Valve Grease Cert
91 9/28/2008 Hatch & Control Valve
92 9/28/2008 Hatch & Control Valve
93 9/28/2008 Overview of Leaks
94 9/28/2008 Block Valve
95 9/28/2008 Butterworth Hatch
96 9/28/2008 Butterworth Hatch
97 9/28/2008 Slop Tank Vent
98 9/28/2008 Master Suction Valve
99 9/28/2008 Butterworth Hatch
100 9/28/2008 Cargo Hatch
101 9/28/2008 Cargo Hatch Control Valve
102 9/28/2008 Cargo Hatch Control Valve
103 9/28/2008 Slop Tank Hatch
Barge G8
Barge G8 #2 Port
Barge G8 #2 Port
Barge G8 #2 Starboard
Barge G8 #3 Starboard
Barge G8 #3 Port
Barge G8 Overview of Videos 87 thru 92
Barge G8 #3
Barge G8 #3 Port Rear
Barge G8 #3 Starboard Rear
Barge G8
Barge G8
Barge G8 #2 Port Forward
Barge G8 #1 Port
Barge G8 #1 Port
Barge G8 #1 Starboard
Barge G8
Figures 3-4 through 3-14 show snapshots of LSI PGIE observations onboard several barges
acquired in conjunction with the LDEQ bagging. The figure captions also show the emission
rate estimates from the LDEQ bagging survey report (Appendix H) converted to g/s for
comparison purposes.
Note that it is impossible to represent the visual acuity of observed leaks with single image
snapshots reproduced in this report. The leaks as viewed in moving video images are
much more pronounced and generally easier to identify, particularly for small leaks.
27
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
HI
AUTO HIST WH
Figure 3-4. Example from LSI Ground Survey - Sampling During Bagging Test
Figure 3-5. Leak from Cargo Hatch on Barge G2- Mass Leak 1.86 g/s
28
-------
Figure 3-6. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G4- Mass Leak 0.31 g/s
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 3-7. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G4- Mass Leak 0.19 g/s
29
-------
Figure 3-8. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G4- Mass Leak 0.24 g/s
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 3-9. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G5- Mass Leak 0.73 g/s
30
-------
Figure 3-10. Leak from Ullage Hatch on Barge G5- Mass Leak 1.43 g/s
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 3-11. Leak from Vent on Barge G6- Mass Leak 1.45 g/s
31
-------
Figure 3-12. Leak from Cofferdam Hatch on Barge G6- Mass Leak 1.99 g/s
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 3-13. Leak from Cargo Hatch on Barge G7- Mass Leak 3.12 g/s
32
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
FUR
AD TO HIST WH
Figure 3-14. Leak from Pressure Relief Valve on Barge G8- Mass Leak 5.78 g/s
Additional information on LSI ground videos can be found in Appendices C and D. Note that
the screenshots shown in Appendix D do not include all detected leak events, but are only
from events where the leaks are easily apparent in the screenshots taken from the camera
videos.
The LSI ground surveys onboard the barges provided the following general conclusions
about this remote sensing approach for fugitive emission detection from petrochemical
transport barges:
1. The deployed PGIE equipment exhibited sufficient operational robustness and detection
sensitivity and was judged to be extremely useful for type of close range fugitive leak
inspection. This conclusion agrees with previous similar studies using this technology.
2. The PGIE technique was able to easily identify apparent large leaks with smaller leaks
somewhat more difficult to identify, likely requiring an expert operator.
3. Ground surveys on board the barges indicated that the leaks originally seen from the air
were many times composed of numerous individual leaks upon closer inspection.
33
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
4. In all studied cases, leaks identified with the PGIE were verified as being significant by
the LDEQ bagging study
5. Ground observations were easier to execute during mid-day to late afternoon time
periods due to more favorable background imaging conditions (improved background
radiance from hot barge surfaces and lower shadow interference) and because fugitive
emissions were likely more pronounced as the barges became heated by solar radiation
and ambient temperature during the day. Onboard observations were less sensitive to
ambient conditions as compared to aerial observations (Section 3.1) due to the close-in
nature of the inspection.
6. Onboard observations allow identification of much smaller leaks compared to airborne
observations due to the close-in nature of the inspection and the ability to optimize
viewing angles and focus.
7. Onboard PGIE observations are very useful for identification of specific leaking
components and verification of subsequent leak repair activities.
3.3 PGIE Observations From the Lock Wall
Ground-based PGIE observations of fugitive emissions from petrochemical transport barges
were made by LSI, LDEQ, and ARCADIS personnel from the Port Allen lock wall during the
BEM 1 study. The purpose of the lock wall PGIE observations was to provide mid-range
views of leaks from barges that were being measured by the OTM 10 OP-FTIR survey. PGIE
Observations were conducted by LSI using the LSI FLIR camera on September 24 and
September 28-30, 2008 and by LDEQ and ARCADIS using LDEQ FLIR camera on
September 28 and October 1-9, 2008. The dataset contains multiple movies showing various
leaks from several different barges. Table 3-3 lists the LSI observations with representative
images contained in the Figures 3-15 through 3-17. Table 3-4 lists the LDEQ/ARCADIS
PGIE observations from the lock wall with representative images contained in Figures 3-18
through 3-20. The tables contain video filename number, the date of the observation, and the
barge number or other descriptor. Additional information and images are contained in
Appendices C-E.
34
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 3-3.
Filename
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Summary Table of Barge Leaks Identified by LSI Lock Wall Observations
Date
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/30/2008
9/30/2008
Part Leaking
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Same as Video 71
Pressure Relief Valve
Overview of Leaks
Cargo Hatch
Alarm Test Rod
Cargo Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Vent
Ullage Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Hatch & Pressure Valve
Butterworth & Cargo
Butterworth Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Hatch & Pressure Valve
Slop Tank Vent
Barge # or Other Descriptor
Barge L1
Barge L1
Barge L1
Barge L1
Barge L1
Barge L2
Barge L2
Barge L3 #2 Port
Barge L3 #2 Starboard
Barge L3 #3 Starboard
Barge L3 #3 Port
Barge L3 Filmed Again With Bag On
Barge L3
Barge L3 Another Overview of #2 & #3 Cargo Hatches
Barge L4 #3 Starboard
Barge L4 #3 Port
Barge L4 #2 Port
Barge L4 #2 Port
Barge L4 #2 Starboard
Barge L4 #1 Starboard
Barge L4 #1 Port
Barge L4
Barge L4 #1 Port
Barge L4 #1 Starboard
Barge L5 #1 Port
Barge L5 #2 Port & #3 Starboard
Barge L6 #3 Port & Pressure Relief Valve
Barge L6 #2 Starboard Forward & #1 Starboard
Barge L6#1 Starboard Middle
Barge L7 #3 Starboard
Barge L8 Pressure Relief Valve & #2 Starboard
Barge L9
35
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figures 3-15 through 3-17 show three example snapshots from the lock wall observation
illustrating the types of leaks that were detected: Example #1 shows a leaking hatch on
Barge L1; Example #2 shows a leaking valve on Barge L2; and Example #3 shows a
leaking hatch on Barge L6. The OTM 10 measured emission rates from barges in the lock
are discussed in Sections 4 and 5.
Note that it is impossible to represent visual acuity of observed leaks with single image
snapshots reproduced in this report. The leaks as viewed in moving video images are
much more pronounced and generally easier to identify, particularly for small leaks.
Figure 3-15. Example #1 from LSI Ground Survey - Leaking Hatch on Barge L1-Total Mass
Emission from Barge 0.521 g/s
36
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 3-16. Example #2 from LSI Ground Survey - Leaking Valve on Barge L2- Total Mass
Emission from Barge 0.521 g/s
AUTO HIST WM
Figure 3-17. Example #3 from LSI Ground Survey - Leaking Hatch on Barge L6- Total Mass
Emission from Barge 0.415 g/s
37
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 3-4. Summary Table of Barge Leaks Identified by LDEQ/ARCADIS Lock Wall
Observations
Filename
VIDEO_080928_002
VIDEO_080928_002
VIDEO_081001_001
VIDEO_081001_002
VIDEO_081001_003
VIDEO_081001_004
VIDEO_081001_005
VIDEO_081001_006
VIDEO_081001_007
VIDEO_081002_001
VIDEO_081002_002
VIDEO_081002_003
VIDEO_081002_004
VIDEO_081002_005
VIDEO_081002_006
VIDEO_081002_007
VIDEO_081004_001
VIDEO_081004_002
VIDEO_081005_001
VIDEO_081005_002
VIDEO_081005_003
VIDEO_081006_001
VIDEO_081008_001
VIDEO_081008_002
VIDEO_081009_001
VIDEO_081009_002
Date
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
10/1/2008
10/1/2008
10/1/2008
10/1/2008
10/1/2008
10/1/2008
10/1/2008
10/2/2008
10/2/2008
10/2/2008
10/2/2008
10/2/2008
10/2/2008
10/2/2008
10/4/2008
10/4/2008
10/5/2008
10/5/2008
10/5/2008
10/6/2008
10/8/2008
10/8/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
Part Leaking Barge # or Other Descriptor
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Valve
Vent
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Valve
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Vent
Vent
Vent
Vent
L10
L10
L11
L11
L11
L11
L11
L12
L12
L13
L13
L13
L13
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
L18
L19
L20
L21
L22
L22
L23
L23
38
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figures 3-18 through 3-20 are three example snapshots illustrating the types of leaks that
were detected: Example #1 shows a leaking hatch on Barge L10; Example #2 shows a
leaking vent on Barge L23; and Example #3 shows a leaking valve on Barge L18.
Additional example screenshots from the LDEQ camera videos can be found in Appendix E
with discussion on OTM 10 emission flux measurement in Sections 4 and 5.
Figure 3-18. Example #1 from Ground Survey with LDEQ Camera - Leaking Hatch from
Barge L10 (there was no OTM 10 emission flux measurement for this time
period)
39
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 3-19. Example #2 from Ground Survey with LDEQ Camera - Leaking Vent from Barge
L23-Total OTM 10 Mass Emission from Barge 0.490 g/s
Figure 3-20. Example #3 from Ground Survey with LDEQ Camera - Leaking Valve from Barge
L13- Total OTM 10 Mass Emission from Barge 0.106 g/s
40
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
The lock wall PGIE observations provided the following general conclusions about this
remote sensing approach for fugitive emission detection from petrochemical transport
barges:
1. The deployed PGIE equipment exhibited sufficient operational robustness and detection
sensitivity and was judged to be extremely useful for this type of mid-range distance
fugitive leak inspection. This conclusion agrees with previous similar studies using this
technology.
2. The PGIE technique was able to easily identify apparent large leaks with smaller leaks
somewhat more difficult to identify, likely requiring an expert operator.
3. Lock wall mid-range observations were easier to execute during mid-day to late
afternoon time periods due to more favorable background imaging conditions (improved
background radiance from hot barge surfaces and lower shadow interference) and
because fugitive emissions were likely more pronounced as the barges became heated
by solar radiation and ambient temperature during the day. Lock wall observations were
affected by strong shadows present in the deep lock under certain lighting conditions.
4. Mid-range Lock wall PGIE observations allow identification of much smaller leaks
compared to airborne observations but were not as sensitive as close-range inspection
onboard the barges which benefited from shorter range and the ability to optimize
viewing angles.
5. Lock wall PGIE observations are judged to be very useful for routine inspection of
barges passing through the lock.
41
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
4. OTM 10 AM Emission Flux and Trace Compound Speciation Results
The OTM 10 measurement at the Port Allen lock was performed from September 24 through
October 9, 2008 from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day. The OTM 10
measurement attempted to assess emissions from all barge traffic that passed through the
lock during this time period. In addition to OTM 10 measurements, PGIE camera images
were acquired to compare measured flux rates leak appearance (Section 3.3). OTM 10
measurements focused on quantification of an alkane mixture (AM) flux (Appendix F).
Recorded barge traffic data included time of lock entry and exit and visual inspection of
cargo labels on each barge. The reported cargo from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
traffic log was also recorded. Note that the Corps of Engineers lock staff advised that the
lock traffic reports are not necessarily accurate with regard to barge cargo. Of the six highest
emissions events recorded by OTM 10, two occurred during times with barges that coded as
carrying petroleum pitches, two with barges coded as carrying crude petroleum, and two with
barges coded as empty (however the field crew smelled aromatics during one of these
events). All OTM measured events and barge information are contained in Appendix G with
a subset of the most interesting events presented in this section
4.1 Data Graphs and Tables for Select Events
A total of 97 barge sets (one or more barges per tug) passed through the lock during the
OTM 10 observation period. AM fluxes were measured in a total of 62 temporally defined
events. Many of these events exhibited small but measureable AM fluxes (< 0.1 g/s) and
occurred when non-petrochemical transport barges were in the lock indicating that the
measured AM emissions were possibly associated with hydrocarbon emissions from the tug
diesel engines from the tugs idling in the lock. A significant portion of the events exhibited
high AM flux emissions and occurred in conjunction with PGIE leak identification from lock
wall observations. These events are believed to be related to fugitive emissions from the
barge with only a small relative component of AM emissions from tugs.
A subset of OTM 10 measurements is provided below with a complete listing contained in
Appendix G. The summary contains a description of the event, the AM flux values measured
during the event (presented in Tables 4-1 through 4-12), and a screenshot of a leak detected
during the event from the PGIE observations when available (presented in Figures 4-1
through 4-6). The spectral data from each of these events were also screened for trace VOC
compounds. The results of the trace compound analysis (when detected) are presented in
Section 4.1.1. For some of the events, we report "WC" as the AM flux value. In these
instances, AM concentrations were detected by the OP-FTIR instrumentation, but the
42
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
prevailing winds during the time of the measurement did not meet minimum data quality
indicator levels regarding normal wind direction so an AM flux value could not be calculated.
Table 4-1. 912412008 - Event #1
Date Entry Time Exit Time Number of Barges
Description of Commodity
9/24/2008
10:32
11:03
Two
Labeled as benzene. Reported as
empty. Noticeable aromatic smell,
Table 4-2. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/247 2008, Event #1
Time
10:36:59
10:39:37
10:42:17
10:44:56
10:47:35
10:50:13
10:52:53
10:55:33
10:58:12
11:00:15
Average:
AM Flux (g/s)
0.124
0.237
0.321
0.431
0.558
0.637
0.730
0.912
0.956
0.308
0.527
43
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 4-1. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 9/247 2008, Event #1
Table 4-3. 912912008 - Event #2
Date Entry Time Exit Time Number of Barges
Description of Commodity
Three tugs with
9/29/2008 9:23 10:23 barges, one empty
and two manned
Equipment/machinery/other
44
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 4-4. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/297 2008, Event #2
Time
9:39:26
9:42:06
9:44:45
9:47:23
9:50:00
9:52:39
9:55:16
9:57:55
10:00:33
10:03:11
10:05:50
10:08:29
10:11:09
10:13:48
Average:
AM Flux
(9/s)
0.514
0.374
0.305
0.325
0.410
0.457
0.596
0.590
0.463
0.324
0.297
0.389
0.374
0.390
0.475
45
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 4-2. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 912912008, Event #2
Table 4-5. 10/1 / 2008- Event #2
Date Entry Time Exit Time Number of Barges
Description of Commodity
10/1/2008
9:10
9:58
Two
Organic industrial chemicals
46
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 4-6. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/17 2008, Event #2
Time
9:14:56
9:17:33
9:20:12
9:22:51
9:25:30
9:28:09
9:30:52
9:33:30
9:36:09
9:38:54
9:41:31
9:44:12
9:46:48
9:49:23
9:52:01
Average:
AM Flux
(9/s)
we
we
we
we
we
0.019
wsc
0.035
0.046
0.067
0.065
0.058
0.04
we
we
0.047
we = Wind criteria were not met.
wsc = Wind speed criteria not met.
47
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
CFLIR
AUTO I
10/1/08 83746AM
Figure 4-3. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/1/ 2008, Event #2
Table 4-7. 10/2/ 2008 - Event #2
Date Entry Time Exit Time Number of Barges
Description of Commodity
10/2/2008
9:45
10:42
One tug with one barge,
one tug with two barges
Butane, propylene, one empty
48
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 4-8. AM
Time
9:48:36
9:51:16
9:53:53
9:56:31
9:59:09
10:01:46
10:04:24
10:07:02
10:09:41
10:12:18
10:14:57
10:17:35
10:20:11
10:22:48
10:25:28
10:28:05
10:30:41
10:33:21
10:36:00
10:38:38
Average:
we = Wind criteria
Flux Values Measured during 10/2/2008, Event #2
AM Flux
(9/s)
we
we
we
we
0.072
0.141
0.126
0.084
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
0.706
were not met.
49
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
AUTO
HIST WH
Figure 4-4. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/27 2008, Event #3
Table 4-9. 10/5/2008-Event #1
Date
Entry Time Exit Time Number of Barges Description of Commodity
10/5/2008 9:23
10:04
Two
Petroleum
50
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 4-10. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/5/ 2008, Event #1
Time
9:26:53
9:29:31
9:32:09
9:34:48
9:37:25
9:41:21
9:43:59
9:46:40
9:49:18
9:51:56
9:54:35
9:57:13
Average:
AM Flux
(9/s)
2.48
4.07
4.84
4.02
4.03
4.31
3.30
3.00
2.85
2.90
2.33
2.57
3.39
51
-------
10/5/08 8.37.44AM
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Figure 4-5. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/5/ 2008, Event #1
Table 4-11. 10/9/2008- Event #7
Date Entry Time Exit Time Number of Barges Description of Commodity
10/9/2008 14:47
15:25
Two
Petroleum products, Empty
52
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 4-12. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/9/ 2008, Event #7
Time
14:51:46
14:54:24
14:57:02
14:59:40
15:02:17
15:04:55
15:07:32
15:10:11
15:12:49
15:15:28
15:18:05
Average:
AM Flux
(9/s)
0.286
0.331
0.635
0.794
0.819
0.877
0.661
0.432
0.206
0.18
0.174
0.490
10/9/08 : 1.41PM
Figure 4-6. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/97 2008, Event #7
53
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
4.1.1 Summary of the Results of Analysis of Trace VOC Concentrations
As mentioned above, the spectral data from each of the six events described above were
screened for the presence of trace VOC. The data were collected with the EPA OP-FTIR
along an optical beam path that extended along the surface of the lock, from one side of the
lock to the other. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4-13. The table also
includes the measured alkane mixture concentration for each event. The instrument
minimum detection limit for each compound is shown in parentheses. Additional VOC
analysis was performed for all other temporally defined events during the OTM 10
measurements. The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix G of this document.
Table 4-13. Su mmary of VOC Analysis
Event ^."lane A11M°L !U?!f Benzene Toluene m-Xylene Styrene Ethylene 1,3-Butadiene Methane*
Da(e Mixture Alkan^M.xture (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) ^ ^ (ppb) (ppb)
9/24/08
9/29/08
10/1/08
10/2/08
10/5/08
10/9/08
1002
736
184
1954
3826
768
79
61
58
68
62
60
ND(47)
ND(61)
ND(41)
ND(44)
71(66)
ND(55)
ND(77)
ND(96)
ND(51)
73(51)
ND(80)
ND(85)
37(34)
ND(52)
ND(26)
ND(27)
ND(36)
ND(39)
ND(11)
ND(17)
ND(16)
18(12)
ND(21)
ND(13)
ND(7)
ND(9)
8(7)
ND(7)
ND(10)
ND(7)
ND(12)
ND(18)
17(13)
ND(10)
16(15)
ND(18)
115
ND
302
114
172
40
*Methane concentrations reported were measured along the ground-level beam path of the EPA OP- FTIR OTM 10
Configuration
ND = Not detected
4.2 Instances of Emissions Detected with the PGIE but not with ORS Measurements
An analysis of the PGIE observations made by the LSI Ground Crew and ARCADIS
personnel in the lock revealed that there were instances where the PGIE detected barge
leaks, but the events were not detected by the ORS instrumentation deployed on the
southern side of the lock. Table 4-14 presents a summary of six events that were detected
by the PGIE but not the ORS instrumentation. The table includes the date and time of the
events, as well as the average prevailing wind direction during the time the PGIE detected
the leaks.
54
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 4-14. Summary of Leak Events Detected by the PGIE but not ORS Instrumentation
Date
9/28/08
9/29/08
9/30/08
10/2/08
10/2/08
10/2/08
10/8/08
Time
11:30 am
4:32 pm
2:46 pm
10:25 am
1:00 pm
2:35 pm
9:21 am
Barge Number(s)
L10
L7
L8
L18, L19
L14
L15
L22
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees)
120
320
300
140
180
150
320
The orientation of the ORS measurement planes (when looking from the OP-FTIR to the
scissor lift) were 133° and 311° for the EPA and ARCADIS OP-FTIR measurement planes,
respectively. Considering the ORS configurations used in the study, a prevailing wind
direction of approximately 41 ° is ideal for emissions measurements (perpendicular to the
configuration planes). As can be seen in Table 4-14, the prevailing winds during the events
not detected by the ORS instrumentation were close to parallel to the measurement
configurations, or in some cases the winds were not from the direction of the lock (wind
direction greater than 133° or less than 311°). The prevailing winds during the times the
leaks were detected by the PGIE did not carry the winds through the ORS measurement
plane, which explains why the leaks were not detected by the ORS instrumentation.
4.3 Evaluation of AM Emissions from Tugs
In order to evaluate the contribution of exhaust from the tugs to the alkane mixture (AM)
emissions fluxes measured during the project, carbon monoxide concentrations were
analyzed along the ground level beam path of the ARCADIS OP-FTIR VRPM configuration.
Carbon monoxide was chosen for this analysis because it is a byproduct of combustion, and
has relatively low detection limits with the OP-FTIR instrument. For the nine events detected
from barges classified as "empty-no further information", the carbon monoxide and alkane
mixture concentrations measured along the ground level beam path were compared to
investigate any possible correlations between the two compounds. A correlation between the
two compounds would suggest that the source of the total hydrocarbon emissions measured
was the emissions from the tug engines.
Of the nine events analyzed, eight of the events showed no correlation between the
measured carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon concentrations. The analysis did indicate
a strong correlation between the concentrations of the two compounds during the 9/28/08
55
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
9:38 am to 10:11 am event (1^=0.83). However, the alkane mixture concentrations measured
during this event were relatively low and close to the minimum detection limits of the OP-
FTIR instrument. Based on these findings, we conclude that emissions of alkane mixture
from the tug exhaust are negligible. The data from this analysis are presented in Appendix I
of this document.
The OTM 10 lock wall mass flux measurements provided the following general conclusions
about this remote sensing approach for fugitive emission detection and quantification from
petrochemical transport barges:
(1) The deployed OTM 10 equipment exhibited sufficient operational robustness and
detection sensitivity and was judged to be useful for this type of mid-range distance leak
detection/quantification activities where compound speciation is important.
(2) The OTM 10 technique was able to identify and assess emission rates from a range of
leak sizes as long as the prevailing wind brought the emitted plume through the vertical
plane of the EPA OTM-10 measurement configuration.
56
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
5. Bagging Test Emission Estimate Results
As described previously, onboard leak bagging tests were performed by SAGE
Environmental Consulting for LDEQ (Appendix H). The testing was performed directly at the
source of the leak on each barge. During the five day bagging test, 23 leak points from a
total of eight barges were measured to determine approximate THC mass emission rates.
Table 5-1 reproduces the bagging test results contained in the LDEQ report including the
measured total non-methane hydrocarbon emissions with values converted to g/s for
comparison. The table shows that the measured total non-methane hydrocarbon emissions
flux values ranged from 0.07 to 5.77 g/s.
Table 5-1. Summary of LDEQ Bagging Test Results
Test*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Barge#
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G5
G5
G5
G5
G6
G6
G7
G7
G8
G8
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Mass Leak
(g/s)
2.53
0.31
0.57
1.86
0.32
0.89
1.32
0.31
0.18
0.24
0.13
0.07
0.20
2.11
0.73
1.42
0.07
1.45
1.98
3.12
0.66
5.77
0.47
57
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
6. Comparison of OP-FTIR and Bagging Test Emission Flux Results
It is instructive to compare OTM 10 measurements and LDEQ bagging study results to help
draw overall conclusions regarding the study. However, it is important to note that the results
of the bagging method report emissions flux values from each individual leak, while the OTM
10 results report emissions flux values for each barge (possible multiple barges) and could
consist of multiple leaks. Additionally, as mentioned in a previous section of the report, barge
traffic through the Port Allen Lock was much lighter than normal due to repair activities on
the Intracoastal Waterway Bayou Sorrel Bridge. Although study personnel originally planned
to conduct bagging tests on barges immediately upon exiting the lock, this was not possible
due to a lack of barge traffic through the lock during the period that Sage Environmental
personnel were at the site. Instead, the barges selected for monitoring using the bagging
method were chosen because they were identified as having very significant leaks from the
airborne PGIE surveys. Therefore, the barges selected for the bagging experiments may not
represent an average case, whereas the OTM 10 measurements were conducted on barges
moving through the lock with no selection process and may represent a more typical sample
cross-section. Even with these differences, it is useful to compare the results of emissions
flux values determined from each method on different barges.
As discussed, the LDEQ bagging test results report findings for individual leaks on the barge
as compared to the OTM 10 results which can include emissions from multiple leak points on
a given barge or multiple barges. Table 6-1 presents results from the two measurement
methods expressing the results of the LDEQ bagging test as a summation of measured
leaks from a given barge and tabulating this with the most significant OTM 10 flux rate
measurements. Note the measurements are from different barges so they serve as only a
range comparison. The LDEQ bagging test results are labeled (Bag) and show leak rates of
THC whereas the OTM 10 results, labeled (OTM 10), show AM flux rates.
58
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 6-1.
Test
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
OTM10
OTM10
OTM10
OTM10
OTM10
OTM10
Summary of LDEQ Bagging Test Barge Totals and Most Significant OTM 10 Results
Barge Number(s)
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
L1
L5, L6
L11
L13
L18, L19
L23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Gasoline
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Benzene (Empty)
Equipment/Machinery/Other
Organic industrial chemicals
Butane, propylene, one empty
Petroleum
Petroleum products, one empty
Total Mass
Leak Rate
(9/s)
2.53
3.06
2.21
1.13
4.33
3.43
3.78
6.24
0.521
0.415
0.047
0.106
3.39
0.490
The above comparison is for different barges using different measurement techniques each
of which can possess significant uncertainty due to the difficulty of the assessment. The
primary sources of uncertainty are described in Section 7. With the difficulties these
measurements present, the relative agreement between the two techniques may provide
some confidence in the individual measures. From Table 6-1 the range of AM flux values
found with the OTM 10 method was generally lower than the values found using the bagging
method although the maximum flux values measured are comparable (3.39 with the OTM 10
method and 6.24 with the bagging method). The barges selected for the bagging
experiments were identified as having very significant leaks from the airborne survey so they
may not represent an average case whereas the OTM 10 measurements were conducted on
barges moving through the lock with no selection process and therefore represent a more
typical sample cross-section. This fact could help explain the lower values observed by OTM
10. Additionally, we would expect some underestimation of the alkane mixture (AM) flux
measurement by OP-FTIR in comparison to the total non-methane hydrocarbon
measurement produced in the bagging studies since non-alkane compounds can be
somewhat underrepresented in the OP-FTIR AM approximation due to lack of signal in the
spectral analysis region.
59
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Note that these emission estimates presented in this report represent a snapshot in time.
Fugitive emissions from petrochemical barges are believed to vary significantly due to
ambient temperature, thermal load, product mix, load state, and equipment condition.
60
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
7. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The following sections discuss the quality assurance methods used for the OTM 10
measurements. Note that quality assurance methods and procedures for the bagging tests
can be found in Appendix H of this document.
7.1 Instrument Calibration
As stated in the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004), all
equipment is calibrated annually and / or cal-checked at the U.S. EPA facility as part of
standard operating procedures. Certificates of calibration are kept on file. Maintenance
records are kept for any equipment adjustments or repairs in bound project notebooks that
include the data and description of maintenance performed. Instrument calibration
procedures and frequency are listed in Table 7-1 and further described in the text.
Table 7-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description
Instrument
Measurement
Calibration Date
Calibration Detail
IMACC, Inc. OP-FTIR
Analyte PIC
Pre-deployment and
in-field checks
MOP-6802 and 6823 of the ECPB
Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual
R.M. Young Model 05103
Meteorological Head
Wind Speed in
miles/hour
6/21/08
U.S. EPA Wind Tunnel Cal. Records on
file at EPA Metrology Lab
R.M. Young Model 05103
Meteorological Head
Wind direction in
degrees from North
6/21/08
Topcon Model GTS-211D
Theodolite
Angle Measurement
6/17/08
U.S. EPA Wind Tunnel Cal. Records on
file at EPA Metrology Lab
Topcon Model GTS-211D
Theodolite
Distance
Measurement
Calibration of distance measurement.
6/17/08 Actual distance = 42.5 ft
Measured distance = 43.11 ft
Calibration of angle measurement.
Actual angle = 360°
Measured angle = 359°01'08"
7.2 Assessment of DQI Goals
The critical measurements associated with this project and the established data quality
indicator (DQI) goals in terms of accuracy, precision, and completeness are listed in
Table 7-2. More information on the procedures used to assess DQI goals can be found in
Section 10 of the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004).
61
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Table 7-2. Data Quality Indicator Goals for the Project
Measurement
Parameter
Analyte PIC
Ambient Wind
Speed
Ambient Wind
Direction
Distance
Measurement
Gas plume
relative opacity
Analysis Method
OP-FTIR: Nitrous Oxide
Concentrations
R.M. Young Met heads
pre-deployment calibration in
EPA Metrology Lab
R.M. Young Met heads
pre-deployment calibration in
EPA Metrology Lab
Theodolite- Topcon
PGIE: gasoline vapor release
Accuracy
±25%/15%/10%a
± 1 m/s
±10°
± 1m
N/Ab
Precision
± 10%
± 1 m/s
±10°
± 1m
N/Ab
Completeness
90%
90%
90%
100%
100%
(a) The accuracy acceptance criterion of ± 25% is for path lengths of less than 50 m, ± 15% is for path
lengths between 50 and 100 m, and ± 10% is for path lengths greater than 100 m.
(b) The PGIE is not a quantitative device and does not provide a numerical output.
7.2.1 DQI Check for Analyte PIC (OP-FTIR) Measurement
The precision and accuracy of the concentration data may be checked by looking at the
analyzed nitrous oxide concentrations. The known atmospheric background nitrous oxide
concentration is around 315 ppbv (this is an average value, as the value exhibits a slight
seasonal variation). The acceptable range of nitrous oxide concentrations is 315 ppb ± 25%
for path lengths of less than 50 m, 315 ppb ±15% for path lengths between 50 and 100 m,
and 315 ppb ±10% for path lengths greater than 100 m. Verifying this background
concentration provides a good QC check of the data collected. Obviously, this method is not
valid for data collected at a site that is a source of nitrous oxide.
The precision of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by calculating the relative
standard deviation (RSD) from one data subset collected near the surface of the suspected
source. A subset is defined as the data collected along one particular path length during one
particular survey in one survey sub-area.
The accuracy of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by comparing the calculated
nitrous oxide concentrations from one data subset to the background value of 315 ppb. The
number of calculated nitrous oxide concentrations that failed to meet the DQI accuracy
criterion was recorded.
62
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Overall, a total of three datasets were analyzed from three different time periods, one at the
beginning of the project (September 24), one during the middle of the project (September
28), and one at the end of the project (October 9). Based on the DQI criterion set forth for
precision of ±10%, all of the data subsets were found to be acceptable, for a completeness
of 100%. The range of calculated relative standard deviations for the data subsets from this
field campaign was 1.8 to 4.0 ppb, which represents 0.57 to 1.27% RSD.
Each data point (calculated nitrous oxide concentration) in the data subsets was analyzed to
assess whether or not it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±10% (315 ±32 ppb), as the
path lengths used for measurements were greater than 100 meters. A total of 233 data
points were analyzed, and 176 of the points met the DQI criteria for accuracy for a
completeness of 76%.
7.2.2 PGIE Relative Opacity DQI Assessment
The PGIE used in this study are not quantitative instruments and therefore do not provide
calibrated numerical data for images. The performance of the device can be assessed in a
basic way by imaging a known gas release against a stable background, such as a concrete
pad. During the current campaign, the vapors from an opened container of gasoline were
used for the known gas release. Imaging this test release ensured the camera was operating
properly and device firmware was set correctly.
7.2.3 Meteorological Head DQI Assessment
The meteorological head DQIs are checked annually as part of the routine annual calibration
procedure. Before deployment to the field, the user verified the calibration date of the
instrument by referencing the calibration sticker. If the date indicates the instrument is in
need of calibration, it should be returned to the APPCD Metrology Laboratory before
deployment to the field. The precision and accuracy of the heads is assessed by conducting
a calibration in the EPA Metrology Lab using the exhaust from a bench top wind tunnel. This
calibration procedure differs from the procedure used to perform the annual calibration of the
instruments.
Additionally, a couple of reasonableness checks were performed in the field on the
measured wind direction data. While data collection is occurring, the field team leader
compares wind direction measured with the heads to the forecasted wind direction for that
particular day. Another reasonableness check involves manually setting the vane on the
meteorological heads to magnetic north (this is done with a hand held compass). The
observed wind direction during this test should be very close to 360°.
63
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
7.2.4 Topcon Theodolite DQI Assessment
Before field deployment, ensure the battery packs are charged for this equipment. The
following additional checks (which are performed at least annually) were made on June 17,
2008. The calibration of distance measurement was done at the EPA Facility using a tape
measure. The actual distance was 42.5 feet, and the measured distance was 43.11 feet. The
results indicate that instrument accuracy falls well within the DQI goals. The calibration of
angle measurement was also performed. The actual angle was 360°, and the measured
angle was 359°01 '08". The results indicate accuracy falls well within the DQI goals.
Additionally, there are several internal checks in the theodolite software that prevent data
collection from occurring if the instrument is not properly aligned on the object being
measured, or if the instrument has not been balanced correctly. When this occurs, it is
necessary to re-initialize the instrument to collect data.
7.2.5 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance
At the beginning of the project, a series of QC checks were performed on both OP-FTIR
instruments to assess the instrument performance. On September 25, 2008, the Single
Beam Ratio, Baseline Stability, Noise Equivalent Absorbance, ZPD Stability, Saturation,
Random Baseline Noise, and Stray Light diagnostic tests were performed. The results of the
tests indicated that the ARCADIS and EPA OP-FTIR instruments were operating within the
acceptable criteria for each QC check. More information on the diagnostic checks that are
performed as part of a typical ORS field campaign can be found in MOP 6802 and 6823 of
the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004).
In addition to the QC checks performed on the OP-FTIR instruments, the quality of the
instrument signals (interferogram) was checked constantly during the field campaigns by
ensuring that the intensity of the signal was at least 5 times the intensity of the stray light
signal (the stray light signal is collected as background data prior to actual data collection,
and measures internal stray light from the instrument itself). In addition to checking the
strength of the signal, checks were done constantly in the field to ensure that the data were
being collected and stored to the data collection computer. During the campaign, a member
of the field team monitored the data collection computer to make sure these checks were
completed.
64
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
7.3 Estimate of Uncertainty in the OTM 10 Emission Flux Measurements
As mentioned in Section 2, the OTM 10 measurement configurations consisted of three
measurement paths which extended from the OP-FTIR instrument to the scissor lift. The 3-
beam OTM 10 approach was chosen for this project since it was much more important to
obtain a larger number of measurement cycles while the mobile source was contained in the
lock rather than a fewer number of cycles with a five beam approach since the horizontal
spatial location of the plume was not of primary importance. It was generally assumed that
the plumes emitted from the barges would be initially small in spatial extent but would likely
experience significant dispersion before exiting the lock and passing through the OTM 10
plane. It is likely that this assumption is correct since the barges were significantly below the
lock wall top (approximately 7m to 12 m) and the emitted plumes could experience several
dispersive/mixing mechanisms (such as stagnation, turbulence, channeling) depending on
ambient wind direction and speed so the plumes could evolve more than in a flat wind swept
scenario with similar downwind standoff.
In analyzing the PIC data using the 3-beam approach, the peak plume concentration was
assumed to be centered along the crosswind axis of the OTM 10 configuration, and the ay
parameter (horizontal dispersion coefficient) of the measured plume was assumed to be
equal to 1/4the length of the OTM 10 configurations. It was necessary to make these
assumptions because the 3-beam OTM 10 approach does not include two intermediate
surface beam paths which are used to obtain information on the horizontal location and
dispersion of the plume.
In order to estimate the uncertainty associated with assuming a fixed peak plume
concentration location and ay parameter, we used the VRPM Fit Explorer program
(described by Abichou et al., 2009) to run a series of simulations to assess the variability in
flux results from the OTM 10 method as a result of assuming different ayand peak plume
concentration locations. In this simulation program, a downwind concentration field is
generated from an area source using EPA ISC Gaussian dispersion model and then
analyzed using OTM 10 algorithms and optical beam geometries.
Table 7-3 presents the results of a simulation done for three different assumed plume sizes
where the ay parameter was varied, but the plume location was assumed to be fixed in the
center of a 160 meter measurement configuration. The plume dimensions are shown in
Table 7-3 as: width (m) by crosswind distance (m). The results are shown in units of g/s, and
are compared to an OTM 10 calculation of 1.0 g/s for the same plume size assuming a ay
value of 80 meters and a peak plume concentration location at 80 meters (as measured
65
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
along the surface of the OTM 10 configuration plane from the OP-FTIR instrument), which is
approximately equal to the parameters used for data analysis in the current study.
Table 7-3. Results of Flux Values Calculated by the VRPM Fit Explorer Program With a Fixed
Peak Plume Concentration Location and Varying Values of the ay Parameter
ay Value
oy= 8 m
oy = 80 m
oy=800 m
5 m x 40 m
1.002
0.921
0.914
5 m x 80 m
1.030
0.945
0.938
5 m x 120 m
1.068
0.978
0.970
The results of the simulation show that the OTM 10 calculation is insensitive to varying the
value of the ay parameter (the OTM 10-derived flux values from the simulation were within ±
8.6% of control simulated values).
Table 7-4 presents the results of a second simulation done for three different assumed
plume sizes where the plume center location was varied, but the ay parameter was assumed
to be 80 m. The results are shown in units of g/s, and are compared to an OTM 10
calculation of 1.0 g/s for the same plume size assuming a ay value of 80 meters and a peak
plume concentration location at 80 meters.
Table 7-4. Results of Flux Values Calculated by the VRPM Fit Explorer Program with a Fixed ay
Parameter and Varying Peak Plume Concentration Locations
Peak Plume
Concentration Location 5mx40m 5mx80m 5mxl20m
(m)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
3.651
2.066
1.305
0.921
0.700
0.545
0.412
N/A
1.910
1.322
0.945
0.718
0.554
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.300
0.978
0.743
N/A
N/A
N/A- Simulation results not included because plume would not be located within the confines of the OTM
10 configuration plane
66
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
The results of the simulation show that the 3-beam OTM 10 calculation is highly dependent
upon the peak plume concentration location along the OTM 10 configuration plane. When
the simulation was run with the peak concentration location close to the location of the OP-
FTIR instrument (peak concentration location < 40 m), the OTM 10-derived flux values from
the simulation were as much as 265% higher than control simulated values. However, the
OTM 10-derived flux values from the simulation agreed better with control values as the
plume becomes larger and is more centered on the optical configuration. Underestimation is
evident closer to the end of the configuration defined by the location of the scissor lift.
Additional analysis was performed to compare the AM concentrations measured on the
lowest beam path of each OTM 10 configuration during the AM emissions events described
in Section 4.1. The analysis showed the average AM concentration ratio of the lowest OTM
10 beam paths for the two measurement planes for the several measurement periods
presented in the report (in ppb) are: 324/63, 271/59, 244/39, 1563/945, 306/211, with
baseline levels below 10 ppb. This suggests that the peak plume concentration location for
each emissions event was located at a position along the OTM 10 configuration plane closer
to the scissor lift (> 80 m) and/or that the effective plume size was more similar to the 120m
(large plume) case. Based on the above plane to plane ratio analysis, a small plume located
near the vertex of the beams (highly overestimated case) was not likely. Based on the
simulation results and information on OTM 10 measurement accuracy from previous tracer-
release validations studies, it is reasonable to assume that the overall uncertainty in the AM
flux results for this effort are likely within ± 50%.
7.4 Uncertainty in the LDEQ Leak Bagging Estimates
The on-board leak bagging measurements conducted by SAGE Environmental Consultants
for LDEQ is described in Appendix H of this report. Sage identifies several factors which can
impact uncertainty in mass emission estimates including: sampling and analytical variability,
leak capture/containment variability, inter-dependence of multiple leaks, and temperature
effects. Additionally, this measurement campaign represented the first attempt, to our
knowledge, to produce leak emission rate estimates from these source types using the
component bagging technique. As a consequence, there is inherent uncertainty associated
with novel application. To supplement Appendix H, further information on the execution of
the bagging study and potential areas leading to uncertainty can be found in Appendix J
which reproduces comments from the American Waterways Operators on this testing
procedure along with responses from Sage Environmental Consulting.
67
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
7.5 General Data Limitations
One aspect of this report centers on the use of optical remote sensing equipment (especially
PGIE) for identification of significant fugitive leaks from this difficult to measure source
category in real-world scenarios. There are few perceived limitations on the use of the
acquired remote sensing and imagery data in support the conclusion that these tools are
generally useful for this purpose. Questions still remain as to the limits of detection and how
these limits are affected by various field, target, and instrument parameters and these
questions should be the subject of further study.
Another aspect of this report relates to estimates of emissions from this source category.
Both measurement techniques, (EPA OTM 10 from the lock wall and the LDEQ bagging
study) produced results which indicate a potentially significant level of short-term fugitive
VOC emissions can occur. As discussed, measurements from this source category are
difficult, and there is significant uncertainty in the absolute measurement results from both
techniques and this should be considered a limitation of the data. Additionally, a more
significant data limitation centers on the short-duration nature of these measurements which
represent a snap-shot in time. Fugitive emissions from petrochemical barges are believed to
vary significantly due to ambient temperature, thermal load, product mix, load state, and
equipment condition. Since there is little information on the influence of these factors,
extrapolation of these short term emission rate estimates is not recommended.
7.6 Deviations from the QAPP
The Quality Assurance Project Plan indicated that an ultraviolet differential optical absorption
spectroscopy (UV-DOAS) instrument would be deployed to collect supplemental
measurements of the BTEX compounds. The UV-DOAS instrument was not deployed at the
site due to limited project resources and potential eye safety issues at the site. Instead, two
additional OP-FTIR optical beam paths were deployed (one from each OP-FTIR instrument)
across the surface of the lock to collect supplemental data on alkane mixture and trace VOC
concentrations.
Also, it was originally anticipated that the VRPM configuration would be deployed along the
northern edge of the lock. However, at the time of the field campaign, the winds were largely
from the north, and the configuration was deployed on the southern edge of the lock.
68
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
8. Summary
This report describes the BEM 1 field campaign conducted in Baton Rouge, Louisiana from
September 24 to October 9, 2008. BEM 1 investigated VOC emissions from petrochemical
transport barges using portable gas imaging equipment PGIE (infrared cameras), and EPA
Method OTM 10 with Open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectrometers, in
addition to leak bagging tests.
The objectives of the study were:
• To improve knowledge of fugitive VOC emissions from petrochemical transport barges.
• To demonstrate and advance the field application of select ORS techniques (EPA OTM
10 OP-FTIR and PGIE) for identification and quantification of fugitive emissions from
difficult to monitor sources.
• Identify sources of fugitive leaks from multiple barges
To accomplish these goals, the project team conducted several complementary efforts:
1. Aerial PGIE surveys of barges located on the Mississippi River and inter-coastal water
ways to identify barges with significant fugitive emissions.
2. Ground-based PGIE observations of barges from the Port Allen Lock wall and also
onboard several barges to identify and closely observe fugitive leaks.
3. Onboard leak emission bagging measurements conducted by LDEQ on several barges
to quantify leak rates and allow comparison with PGIE images.
4. EPA method OTM 10 with open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy used at
the Port Allen lock to produce hydrocarbon emission measurements from barge traffic
traveling through the lock.
The aerial PGIE camera monitoring performed by LSI, Inc. detected leaks from 45 different
barges located in the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway. The ground-based
monitoring performed by LSI, Inc. detected leaks from 18 different barges in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers lock and in the Mississippi River. Additional infrared camera monitoring
performed by ARCADIS and LDEQ personnel in the lock detected multiple leaks from
69
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
several barges. This report contains a number of leak images that serve to further
understanding of fugitive emissions from various barge components.
The remote sensing surveys provided significant information regarding the use of infrared
cameras for detection of fugitive emissions from petrochemical transport barges. The PGIE
equipment was robust, easy to use, and possessed sufficient detection sensitivity for this
application. The PGIE remote sensing approach is judged to be extremely useful for both
aerial survey and close range fugitive leak inspection of petrochemical transport barges. The
PGIE technique was able to identify a large range of leaks with large leaks detectable from
the air and smaller leaks more easily observed at close range. PGIE observations were
easier to execute during mid-day to late afternoon time periods due to more favorable
background imaging conditions (improved background radiance from hot barge surfaces and
lower shadow interference) and because fugitive emissions were likely more pronounced as
the barges became heated by solar radiation and ambient temperature during the day. PGIE
observations were very useful for identification of specific leaking components and
verification of subsequent leak repair activities.
Based on aerial observations, eight barges with observed large leaks were selected for
onboard leak emission rate measurements as part of the LDEQ on-board bagging survey.
For this effort, a total of 23 leak points from eight barges were bagged to determine mass
emission rates. The measured total non-methane hydrocarbon emissions flux values from
individual leaks during the bagging study ranged from 0.07 g/s to 5.77 g/s. Summing all
measured leaks for each individual barge yielded a barge total leak rate ranging from 1.13 to
6.24 g/s.
OTM 10 Monitoring was conducted at the Port Allen lock wall from September 24 through
October 9. A total of 97 barge sets passed through the lock during the OTM 10 observation
period. Six events showed significant fugitive hydrocarbon emissions as measured by OTM
10 with values ranging from 0.047g/s to 3.39 g/s AM flux rate. The equipment deployed to
apply the OTM 10 approach exhibited sufficient operational robustness and detection
sensitivity and was judged to be useful for mid-range distance leak detection/quantification
activities where compound speciation is important. Additionally, the OTM 10 technique was
able to identify and assess emission rates from a range of leak sizes as long as the
prevailing wind brought the emitted plume through the vertical plane of the OTM-10
measurement configuration.
In comparing the LDEQ bagging measurements with the OTM 10 measurements (different
barges), the range of AM flux values found with the OTM 10 method were generally lower
than the values found using the bagging method although the maximum flux values
70
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
measured are comparable (3.39 g/s with the OTM 10 method and 6.24 g/s with the bagging
method). The barges selected for the bagging experiments were identified as having very
significant leaks from the airborne survey so they may not represent an average case
whereas the OTM 10 measurements were conducted on barges moving through the lock
with no selection process and therefore represent a more typical sample cross-section. This
fact could help explain the lower values observed by OTM 10.
An analysis of the infrared camera observations and ORS measurements made in the lock
revealed that there were seven instances where the camera detected barge leaks, but the
events were not detected by the ORS measurements. However, further analysis showed that
the prevailing winds during the time of these events were parallel to the ORS measurement
plane, or actually contained a southerly component (the lock was located to the north of the
measurement configuration), so the barge emissions were not captured by the ORS
measurement configuration.
A significant output of this project is represented in the image database which provides a
comparison of PGIE images of leaks with measured leak rates which helps improve the
understanding of the qualitative information provided by the infrared cameras for this source
category.
Emission estimates contained in this report represent a snapshot in time. Fugitive emissions
from petrochemical barges are believed to vary significantly due to ambient temperature,
thermal load, product mix, load state, and equipment condition.
71
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
9. References
Abichou, T., J. Clark, S. Tan, J. Chanton, G. Hater, R. Green, D. Goldsmith, M. Barlaz, and
N. Swan, "Uncertainties associated with the use of OTM-10 to estimate surface emissions in
landfill applications." submitted to the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
2009.Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natschke, K.Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L.Thompson, and M.G.
Yost, Field evaluation of a method for estimating gaseous fluxes from area sources using
open-path Fourier transform infrared, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 2309-2313, 2001.
Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, Innovative approach for estimating fugitive gaseous fluxes
using computed tomography and remote optical sensing techniques, J. Air Waste Manage.
Assoc., 49, 966-972, 1999.
Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, D.B. Harris, and E.L. Thompson, Simulation study for gaseous
fluxes from an area source using computed tomography and optical remote sensing,
presented at SPIE Conference on Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technologies,
Boston, MA, Nov., 1998, in SPIE Vol. 3534, 405-410.
Thoma, E.D., R.C. Shores, E.L. Thompson, D.B. Harris, S.A. Thorneloe, R.V. Varma, R.A.
Hashmonay, M.T. Modrak, D.F. Natschke, and H.A. Gamble, Open path tunable diode laser
absorption spectroscopy for acquisition of fugitive emission flux data, J. Air & Waste Manage
Assoc., 55, 658-668 (2005).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Category IV Quality Assurance Project Plan,
Development of OTM 10 for Landfill Applications-Pilot Study, U.S. EPA National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Emissions
Characterization and Prevention Branch, Contract No. EP-C-05-023, Work Assignment 3-13,
November, 2007b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ECPB Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual, U.S.
EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, Emissions Characterization and Prevention Branch, Contract No. EP-C-04-023,
Work Assignment 0-33, April 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Report, Measurement of Total Site Mercury
Emissions from a Chlor-alkali Plant Using Open-Path UV-DOAS; EPA/R-07/077; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Work Assignment
No. 2-052, July, 2007a, available at:
oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p download id=469120
72
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protocol for Equipment Leaks Emission Estimating,
U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division,
Publication No. EPA-453/R-95-017, November, 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Category III Quality Assurance Project Plan,
Measurement of Petroleum Barge Emissions using Optical Remote Sensing, Office of
Research and Development, National Risk Management Laboratory, Emission
Characterization and Prevention Branch, Research Triangle Park, NC. Work Assignment No.
4-47, August 2008.
73
-------
APPENDIX A
LSI Report: Leak Detection using LSI Infrared Gas Imaging, BEM 1
Barge Study; Aerial
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix A
-------
Report:
Leak Detection using
LSI Infrared Gas
Imaging
BEMl Barge Study
David Furry, President, LSI
Date: October 27, 2008
A-l
-------
Executive Summary
Leak Surveys Inc. (Early, TX) was commissioned by Arcadis to conduct an optical
imaging survey on barges located in various waterways within the Mississippi River
Delta as part of the BEM1 Project. The optical imaging survey looked at various
components within these processes. The aerial optical imaging leak (smart LDAR) survey
was conducted from September 24th thru October 1st, 2008. The Hawk Leak Detection
System visualized a total of 40 leaks on the various barges. Carl Hacking, Pilot and
David Varner, camera technician, performed the leak survey.
Standard Operating Procedure
Aerial Pipeline Survey
When performing an aerial pipeline survey, there are some standard operating procedures
that must be followed in order to ensure the variables of the survey are constant and do
not change according to user.
1. Fully charge all batteries and digital video recorders the night before starting the
pipeline survey
2. Surveys will commence at 9:00 am unless unfavorable weather or other factors
are involved.
3. The pilot will perform a preflight briefing prior to each day' s survey.
a. Included in this preflight meeting are the following:
i. Safety issues
ii. Terrain evaluation
iii. Survey Speed/Height
iv. Emergency Procedures
4. Once the preflight briefing has been performed, the passenger door will need to be
removed in preparation for the survey.
5. The camera crew will now check all equipment to make sure batteries are fully
charged and ready to go. Once this has been checked all equipment will remain on
and the survey will commence.
6. The camera operator will hold the camera outside the door focusing on the
pipeline right of way.
7. If any leaks are found during the pipeline survey the following steps will be taken:
a. Pilot will circle back around to approximately !/2 mile before leak on
pipeline for optimum video footage.
b. The camera operator will record the leaking gas emissions for a
predetermined amount of time.
c. Once the leak has been recorded, a digital picture will be taken of the
source where the leak is occurring.
A-2
-------
d. Finally GPS coordinates will be taken to ensure an accurate location of the
leak.
8. At the completion of the pipeline survey, a daily briefing will take place to
discuss any issues encountered during the day. All leak data will be relayed to the
appropriate personnel for immediate remediation.
9. All of these actions must be taken into account each day to ensure the integrity of
the pipeline patrol process.
Background
Leak Surveys Inc. is an international company with 4-1/2 years experience using the Hawk
Leak Detection System (HLDS). LSI developed the HLDS after 12 years of research and
development on optical imaging and has applied for international patents.
LSI and the API committee introduced using optical imaging to conduct surveys in
refinery and chemical plants on a commercial basis to the industry in February of 2004.
Our international smart LDAR crews have performed actual leak surveys in the Asia
Pacific area, Europe and North America for a variety of different customers over the past
3-^ years.
The human eye more readily perceives motion than contrast. Movie or real time images
are used as the basis for leak detection in the data presented here. Image quality is
affected by the temperature and emissivity difference between the gas cloud and the
background.
At this point, no infrared gas imaging cameras are capable of providing quantitative
measurements of gas concentration, however, studies funded by the
American Petroleum Institute that shows the detection limits accomplished by passive
gas imaging systems are within the bounds necessary for equivalent detection of leaks at
less that 10,000 ppm (60 g/hr).
Gas imaging provides the user with a real time achievable record of leaking components
as well as providing specific locations of leaks within a component.
Camera Description
The infrared gas imaging camera used by Leak Surveys, Inc., consists of a modified
Indigo (FLIR/Indigo Systems Corp., Goleta CA) Merlin MID camera with a nominal
spectra range of 1- 5.4 • m. Using a 30 x 30 m InSb detector with a 320 x 240 pixel
array, the camera has capabilities of varying the integration times from 5 • s to 16.5 ms.
The detector is operated at near liquid nitrogen temperatures using an integral Stirling
cooler which provides the system with an NEdT of no more than an 18 mK providing
excellent sensitivity.
A-3
-------
The spectral range was further limited with the use of a notch filter specifically designed
for the detection of hydrocarbon infrared absorptions in the 3 micron region. The narrow
band pass range of the filter is less than the infrared spectral absorption of gas phase
hexane. The filter notch is positioned such that alkane gases have a significant response
within the band pass range.
Various lens including a 25 mm, a 50 mm and a 100 mm lens were used during the
experiments. The 25 mm lens provides a 22 x 16 degrees field of view with an f-number
of 2.3. The 50 mm lens provides an 11 x 8 degrees field of view with an f-number of 2.3.
The use of a narrow band pass filter provides spectral discrimination that allows the
detection of compounds that have a vibration mode in the infrared region of the filter.
Not all hydrocarbons have infrared absorptions within the filter range. Table I (below)
shows the theoretical relative response of various compounds of interest using 1 cm-1
resolution infrared spectra (Infrared Analysis, Inc., Anaheim, CA). Using propane as the
reference spectrum with a relative response of 100, methane's response is approximately
10% of the same concentration of propane and hexane is 1.5 times the response of
propane at the same concentration. The filter is set to the infrared region of the spectrum
that corresponds to the infrared absorption of alkanes, primarily. Other hydrocarbons
exhibit various degrees of absorption of infrared energy in this region as indicated in the
Table.
The infrared video images were recorded on digital tape recorder. A digital camera was
used to document the components being observed with the infrared camera.
Table I - Relative Response of Hydrocarbon with LSI Infrared Imaging
Camera
Compound
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Iso-Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane
Octane
Relative
Response
Propane =100%
9
43
100
118
137
143
155
157
136
Compound
Ethylene
Propylene
Iso Butylene
2 Methyl 2 Butane
1 Pentene
2 Methyl 2 Pentene
Benzene
Toluene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Relative
Response
Propane =100%
O
20
37
4
7
7
4
21
38
23
32
A-4
-------
File Descriptions
Snapshot
LOGO
L001
LOO 2
L003
L004
LOOS
L006
L007
LOOS
L009
L010
LOU
L012
L013
L014
L015
L016
L017
L018a
L018b
L018c
L019
L020
Named
Video 000
Video 001
Video 002
Video 003
Video 004
Video 005
Video 006
Video 007
Video 008
Video 009
Video 010
Video Oil
Video 012
Video 013
Video 014
Video 015
Video 016
Video 017
Video 018a
Video
018b
Video 018c
Video 019
Video 020
Unnamed
NNOOO
NN001
NN002
NN003
NN004
NN005
NN006
NN007
NN008
NN009
NN010
NN011
NN012
NN013
NN014
NN015
NN016
NN017
NNOlSa
NNOlSb
NNOISc
NN019
NN020
Barge #
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
AID
All
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
All
A18
A4
A19
A20
A21
A22
A13
A14
A23
Description
Two Large Valve Settings Towards Aft Side
Vent Stack at Bow of Barge
Vent Stack at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatches
Top Loading Hatches at Placid Refinery
Top Loading Hatches to the Aft of Barge
Top Loading Hatches at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatches at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatches at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatch at Bow of Barge
Top Loading Hatches and Vent
Top Loading Hatches at Aft side of Barge at
Placid Refinery
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches and Vent Stack on Barge
Top Hatches and Vent Stack on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Vent Stack on Barge
Repeat of Video 003, Boarded by Bagging Team
Top Loading Hatches at Placid Refinery
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches on Barge
Top Hatches atTT Barge Cleaning Facility"""
Refilm
Top Hatches atTT Barge Cleaning Facility
Vent Stack on Barge~"Refilm
A-5
-------
File Descriptions
Snapshot
L021
L022a
L022b
L023a
L023b
L024
L025
L026
L027
L028
L029
L030
L031a
L031b
L032
L033
Named
Video 021
Video 022a
Video
022b
Video 023a
Video
023b
Video 024
Video 025
Video 026
Video 027
Video 028
Video 029
Video 030
Video 031a
Video
031b
Video 032
Video 033
Unnamed
NN021
NN022a
NN022b
NN023a
NN023b
NN024
NN025
NN026
NN027
NN028
NN029
NN030
NN031a
NN031b
NN032
NN033
Barge #
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A29
A30
A31
A3 2
A33
A34
Al
A35
A36
A37
A31
A23
A38
Description
Vent Stack on Barge
Hatches at Aft Side~*«m Intercoastal Canal
Vent at Aft Side~*«m Intercoastal Canal
Vent at Aft Side
Vent Stack on Bow of Barge
Center Vent on Barge
Cent Hatch on Barge
Bow Hatch and Deck Hatch on Barge
Two Aft Hatches and one Side Hatch
Top Hatches on Barge~"m Intercoastal Canal
Vent Stack in Center of Barge~"m Intercoastal
Canal
Vent Stack on Bow of Barge~"Refilm
Vent Stack on Bow of Barge
Vent Stack on Bow of Barge~"Refilm
Top Hatches on Barge~"Across from Locks
Top Hactches on Bow~*Aeross from Locks
Vent at the Bow of Barge~"Nwrth of Locks
Forward Bow Hatch on Barge~"m Intercoastal
Canal
A-6
-------
Conclusion
The LSI crew was able to find a total of 40 barges leaking from either hatches or vents
during the survey. It is in LSFs opinion that the major source of emissions for the barges
came from the hatches and vents. These hatch leaks were very common amongst the
various barges we surveyed. Had there been any sizable leaks on the barges, the Hawk
Leak Detection System would have seen them.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing our leak survey crews
to conduct the survey on your pipeline. We would like to have the opportunity to bid on
future jobs whether it is aerial or ground level. We have the most experienced IR crews in
the industry. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
David Furry
President -LSI
P.O. Box 3066
Early, Texas 76803
A-7
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
LSI Aerial PGIE Images
-------
APPENDIX B: LSI Aerial PGIE Images
The following appendix contains a selection of screen shots from the LSI airborne potion
of the BEM 1 study conducted in Baton Rouge LA September 24th through October 1st
2008.
B-1
-------
Figure B-1. Leak from Barge A12
Figure B-2. Leak from Barge A13
B-2
-------
Figure B-3. Leak from Barge A14
Figure B-4. Leak from Barge A15
B-3
-------
Figure B-5. Leak from Barge A18
Figure B-6. Leak from Barge A19
B-4
-------
Figure B-7. Leak from Barge A22
Figure B-8. Leak from Barge A13
B-5
-------
Figure B-9. Leak from Barge A23
Figure B-10. Leak from Barge A25
B-6
-------
Figure B-11. Leak from Barge A27
Figure B-12. Leak from Barge A29
B-7
-------
Figure B-13. Leak from Barge A31
Figure B-14. Leak from Barge A32
B-8
-------
Figure B-15. Leak from Barge A34
Figure B-16. Leak from Barge A1
B-9
-------
Figure B-17. Leak from Barge A36
Figure B-18. Leak from Barge A37
B-10
-------
Figure B-19. Leak from Barge A31
Figure B-20. Leak from Barge A23
B-11
-------
Figure B-21. Leak from Barge A12
B-12
-------
APPENDIX C
LSI Report: Leak Detection using LSI Infrared Gas Imaging, BEM 1
Barge Study; Ground Crew Survey (October 21, 2008)
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix C
-------
Report:
Leak Detection using
LSI Infrared Gas
Imaging
BEMl Barge Study
Ground Crew Survey
David Furry, President, LSI
Date: October 21, 2008
C-l
-------
Executive Summary
Leak Surveys Inc. (Early, TX) was commissioned by ARCADIS to conduct a leak survey
at the Baton Rouge locks and on various barges as part of the BEM1 Project. The optical
imaging survey looked at various components within each of these processes. The optical
imaging leak (smart LDAR) survey was conducted on September 24th-30th, 2008. The
Hawk Leak Detection System visualized numerous hydrocarbon gas leaks on various
components.
Kevin McGinnis, a Leak Surveys' technician, performed the leak survey.
Background
Leak Surveys Inc. is an international company with 4-1/2 years experience using the Hawk
Leak Detection System (HLDS). LSI developed the HLDS after 12 years of research and
development on optical imaging and has applied for international patents.
LSI and the API committee introduced using optical imaging to conduct surveys in
refinery and chemical plants on a commercial basis to the industry in February of 2004.
Our international smart LDAR crews have performed actual leak surveys in the Asia
Pacific area, Europe and North America for a variety of different customers over the past
2-1/2 years.
The human eye more readily perceives motion than contrast. Movie or real time images
are used as the basis for leak detection in the data presented here. Image quality is
affected by the temperature and emissivity difference between the gas cloud and the
background.
At this point, no infrared gas imaging cameras are capable of providing quantitative
measurements of gas concentration, however, studies funded by the
American Petroleum Institute that shows the detection limits accomplished by passive
gas imaging systems are within the bounds necessary for equivalent detection of leaks at
less than 10,000 ppm (60 g/hr). With 2 plus years of leak surveying experience LSI staff
has a library of known gas leak quantifications. We have the ability to compare images
of known leak amounts to images taken in the field and estimate the total gas quantity.
This is only an estimate of the total leak and does not take into consideration any diluted
streams. Again we can only estimate and the volumes are for information purposes only.
Gas imaging provides the user with a real time achievable record of leaking components
as well as providing specific locations of leaks within a component.
C-2
-------
Camera Description
The infrared gas imaging camera used by Leak Surveys, Inc., consists of a modified
Indigo (FLIR/Indigo Systems Corp., Goleta CA) GasfmdlR MID camera with a nominal
spectra range of 1- 5.4 • m. Using a 30 x 30 m InSb detector with a 320 x 240 pixel
array, the camera has capabilities of varying the integration times from 5 • s to 16.5 ms.
The detector is operated at near liquid nitrogen temperatures using an integral Stirling
cooler which provides the system with an NEdT of no more than an 18 mK providing
excellent sensitivity.
The spectral range was further limited with the use of a notch filter specifically designed
for the detection of hydrocarbon infrared absorptions in the 3 micron region. The narrow
band pass range of the filter is less than the infrared spectral absorption of gas phase
hexane. The filter notch is positioned such that alkane gases have a significant response
within the band pass range.
Various lens including a 25 mm, a 50 mm and a 100 mm lens were used during the
experiments. The 25 mm lens provides a 22 x 16 degrees field of view with an f-number
of 2.3. The 50 mm lens provides an 11 x 8 degrees field of view with an f-number of 2.3.
The use of a narrow band pass filter provides spectral discrimination that allows the
detection of compounds that have a vibration mode in the infrared region of the filter.
Not all hydrocarbons have infrared absorptions within the filter range. Table I (below)
shows the theoretical relative response of various compounds of interest using 1 cm-1
resolution infrared spectra (Infrared Analysis, Inc., Anaheim, CA). Using propane as the
reference spectrum with a relative response of 100, methane's response is approximately
10% of the same concentration of propane and hexane is 1.5 times the response of
propane at the same concentration. The filter is set to the infrared region of the spectrum
that corresponds to the infrared absorption of alkanes, primarily. Other hydrocarbons
exhibit various degrees of absorption of infrared energy in this region as indicated in the
Table.
The infrared video images were recorded on digital hard drive. A digital camera was
used to document the components being observed with the infrared camera.
C-3
-------
Table I - Relative Response of Hydrocarbon with LSI Infrared Imaging Camera
Compound
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Iso-Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane
Octane
Relative
Response
Propane =100%
9
43
100
118
137
143
155
157
136
Compound
Ethylene
Propylene
Iso Butylene
2 Methyl 2 Butane
1 Pentene
2 Methyl 2 Pentene
Benzene
Toluene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Relative
Response
Propane =100%
3
20
37
4
7
7
4
21
38
23
32
Areas Examined
Below is a list of the areas surveyed relative to their location and the source of the
leaking emission. All data shown below was taken directly off the field notes of the LSI
technicians.
BEM1 Barge Study
File
000
001
002
003
004
005
006
Date
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
Process
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
Part Leaking
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Barge
#
L1
L1
L1
L1
L1
L1
L1
Description of Leak
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
C-4
-------
File
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
Date
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/24/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
Process
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
Part Leaking
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Alarm Test Rod
Butterworth Hatch
Alarm Test Rod
Cargo Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Barge
#
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
Description of Leak
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
#2 Port Lower
#2 Port
#2 Starboard Middle
#2 Port Middle
#1 Starboard Lower
#2 Starboard
#1 Port Lower
#2 Port
#1 Starboard
#1 Starboard Middle
#1 Port Middle
#1 Starboard Upper
C-5
-------
File
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
043
044
045
046
Date
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2005
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/25/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
Process
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
Part Leaking
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Overview of Leaks
Bagging Process
Vent
Pressure Relief
Valve
Butterworth Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Cargo Hatch Control
Valve
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Cargo Hatch Control
Valve
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Cargo Hatch Control
Valve
Ullage Hatch
Both Hatches &
Valve
Both Hatches &
Valve
Barge
#
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
Description of Leak
#1 Port Upper
#2 Port Lower
N/A
Showing Gas
Venting Through Dry
Gas Meter
N/A
N/A
#1 Port Forward
N/A
#1 Port Aft
N/A
#2 Starboard
Forward
#2 Port Forward
N/A
#3 Starboard
Forward
#3 Port Forward
#3 Port Aft
N/A
#1 Port & #1
Starboard
#2 Port
#2 Starboard
C-6
-------
File
047
048
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
Date
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/26/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
Process
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
Part Leaking
Ullage & Cargo
Hatches
Cargo Hatch Control
Valve
Alarm Test Rod
Ullage Hatch
Ullage Hatch &
Valve
Ullage Hatch
Ullage & Cargo
Hatches
Ullage & Cargo
Hatches
Ullage Hatch
Alarm Test Rod
Same as Video 045
Same as Video 047
Vent
Cofferdam Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Same as Video 063
Barge
#
G4
G4
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G4
G4
G6
G6
G6
G6
G6
G6
G6
G6
Description of Leak
#3 Starboard
#3 Port
#1 Starboard
#1 Starboard
#1 Port
#2 Port
#2 Starboard
#3 Starboard
#3 Port
#3 Starboard
Filmed Again After
Repair Attempt
Filmed Again After
Repair Attempt
N/A
Forward
#3 Port
#3 Starboard
#4 Port
#4 Starboard
#4 Starboard
Filmed Again
C-7
-------
File
067
068
069
070
071
072
073
074
075
076
077
078
079
080
081
082
083
084
085
086
Date
9/27/2008
9/27/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
Process
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
Part Leaking
Same as Video 063
Same as Video 063
Overview of Leaks
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Same as Video 71
Pressure Relief
Valve
Overview of Leaks
Cargo Hatch
Alarm Test Rod
Cargo Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Vent
Ullage Hatch
Ullage Hatch
Barge
#
G6
G6
G7
G7
G7
G7
G7
G7
G7
G7
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
Description of Leak
Filmed Again After
Vent Was Closed
Filmed Again After
Vent Was Closed
Overview of #2
Cargo Hatches
#2 Port
#2 Starboard
#3 Starboard
#3 Port
Filmed Again With
Bag On
N/A
Another Overview of
#2 & #3 Cargo
Hatches
#3 Starboard
#3 Port
#2 Port
#2 Port
#2 Starboard
#1 Starboard
#1 Port
N/A
#1 Port
#1 Starboard
-------
File
087
088
089
090
091
092
093
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Date
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/28/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
Process
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
Part Leaking
Pressure Relief
Valve
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch Control
Valve
Control Valve
Grease Cert
Hatch & Control
Valve
Hatch & Control
Valve
Overview of Leaks
Block Valve
Butterworth Hatch
Butterworth Hatch
Slop Tank Vent
Master Suction
Valve
Butterworth Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch Control
Valve
Cargo Hatch Control
Valve
Slop Tank Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Hatch & Pressure
Valve
Barge
#
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
G8
L5
L5
L6
Description of Leak
N/A
#2 Port
#2 Port
#2 Starboard
#3 Starboard
#3 Port
Overview of Videos
87 thru 92
#3
#3 Port Rear
#3 Starboard Rear
N/A
N/A
#2 Port Forward
#1 Port
#1 Port
#1 Starboard
N/A
#1 Port
#2 Port & #3
Starboard
#3 Port & Pressure
Re lief Valve
C-9
-------
File
107
108
109
110
111
Date
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/29/2008
9/30/2008
9/30/2008
Process
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
BEM1
Barge Study
Part Leaking
Butterworth & Cargo
Butterworth Hatch
Cargo Hatch
Hatch & Pressure
Valve
Slop Tank Vent
Barge
#
L6
L6
L7
L8
L9
Description of Leak
#2 Starboard
Forward & #1
Starboard
#1 Starboard Middle
#3 Starboard
Pressure Relief
Valve & #2
Starboard
N/A
Conclusion
The LSI technician found and recorded a total of 112 videos during the seven-day survey.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing our leak survey crews
to conduct the survey in your facility. If we can be of further assistance please do not
hesitate to contact me.
David Furry
President -LSI
P.O. Box 3066
Early, Texas 76803
C-10
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix D
APPENDIX D
LSI Ground Survey PGIE Images
-------
APPENDIX D: LSI Ground Survey PGIE Images
The following appendix contains a selection of screen shots from the LSI ground survey potion of the BEM 1
study conducted in Baton Rouge LA September 24th through September 30th 2008.
D-1
-------
Figure D-1. Leak from Barge L1 (captured while barge in lock)
Figure D-2. Leak from Barge L1 (captured while barge in lock)
D-2
-------
Figure D-3. Leak from Barge L2 (captured while barge in lock)
Figure D-4. Leak from Barge G1 (captured while onboard barge)
D-3
-------
Figure D-5. Leak from Barge G1 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-6. Leak from Barge G2 (captured while onboard barge)
D-4
-------
Figure D-7. Leak from Barge G2 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-8. Leak from Barge G2 (captured while onboard barge)
D-5
-------
Figure D-9. Leak from Barge G2 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-10. Leak from Barge G2 (captured while onboard barge)
D-6
-------
Figure D-11. Leak from Barge G2 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-12. Leak from Barge G3 (captured while onboard barge)
D-7
-------
AUTO HIST WH
9/79406 1 51 77PM
III >
Figure D-13. Leak from Barge G3 (captured while onboard barge)
n IP
AUTO MIST WM
16432PM
III")
Figure D-14. Leak from Barge G3 (captured while onboard barge)
D-8
-------
9/79«>a 7 17 06PM
Figure D-15. Leak from Barge G3 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-16. Leak from Barge G3 (captured while onboard barge)
D-9
-------
Figure D-17. Leak from Barge G5 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-18. Leak from Barge G5 (captured while onboard barge)
D-10
-------
Figure D-19. Leak from Barge G6 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-20. Leak from Barge G6 (captured while onboard barge)
D-11
-------
Figure D-21. Leak from Barge G6 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-22. Leak from Barge G6 (captured while onboard barge)
D-12
-------
Figure D-23. Leak from Barge G6 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-24. Leak from Barge G7 (captured while onboard barge)
D-13
-------
Figure D-25. Leak from Barge G7 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-26. Leak from Barge G7 (captured while onboard barge)
D-14
-------
Figure D-27. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-28. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
D-15
-------
Figure D-29. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-30. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
D-16
-------
Figure D-31. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-32. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
D-17
-------
Figure D-33. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-34. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
D-18
-------
Figure D-35. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
00006 30t 09PM
Figure D-36. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
D-19
-------
Figure D-37. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
Figure D-38. Leak from Barge G8 (captured while onboard barge)
D-20
-------
AUTO HIST WH
W79JOA 1001 MAM
Figure D-39. Leak from Barge L6 (captured while barge in lock)
Figure D-40. Leak from Barge L6 (captured while barge in lock)
D-21
-------
*A
X. 4t x«
^^u*'
w •* -. *.
Figure D-41. Leak from Barge L8 (captured while barge in lock)
D-22
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix E
APPENDIX E
LDEQ/ARCADIS Lock Wall PGIE Images
-------
APPENDIX E: LDEQ/ARCADIS Lock Wall PGIE Images
The following appendix contains a selection of screen shots from the Port Allen Lock wall survey portion
of the potion of the BEM 1 study conducted in Baton Rouge LA September 24th through October 9th,
2008 using the LDEQ FLIR camera. These images were acquired by LDEQ and ARCADIS.
E'l
-------
Figure E-1. Leak from Hatch 9/28
Figure E-2. Leak from Hatch 9/28
E'2
-------
OFLIR
AUTOL
10/1/08 837.46AM
Figure E-3. Leak from Hatch 10/1
AUTOL
Figure E-4. Leak from Hatch 10/1
E'S
-------
Figure E-5. Leak from Hatch 10/1
Figure E-6. Leak from Hatch 10/1
E«4
-------
Figure E-7. Leak from Hatch 10/2
Figure E-8. Leak from Hatch 10/2
E'5
-------
-------
10/2/08 93946AM
Figure E-11. Leak from Valve 10/2
Figure E-12. Leak from Hatches 10/2
-------
Figure E-13. Leak from Hatches 10/2
10/5/08 83744AM
Figure E-14. Leak from Valves 10/5
E'8
-------
Figure E-15. Leak from Pipes 10/5
AUTOL
WH
Figure E-16. Leak from Pipes 10/8
E«9
-------
10/9/08 : 1.43PM
Figure E-17. Leak from Hatches 10/9
E'10
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix F
APPENDIX F
Alkane Mixture (AM) Measurement by OP-FTIR
-------
APPENDIX F: Alkane Mixture (AM) Measurement by OP-FTIR
Emissions from fugitive or area sources containing fuel-based hydrocarbon mixtures can be estimated using
EPA Method OTM 10 with OP-FITR by quantifying the infrared absorbance of the alkane mixture (AM) in
the C-H stretch infrared vibration region around 2950 cm"1. If some species of hydrocarbons are present at
concentrations above the MDL for the OP-FTIR, they can be quantified individually in separate spectral
regions using standard procedures.
This appendix describes the AM procedure to convert OP-FTIR volume-concentration determinations of
alkane mixtures that originate from fuels to mass concentrations. The use of OTM 10 for the purpose of
determination of emission fluxes and/or emission rates requires the conversion of the volume path-
integrated concentrations (VPIC) to mass path-integrated concentrations (MPICs). The conversion requires
knowledge of the molecular mass of the target gas so the analytical method for determining the mean
molecular mass of alkane mixtures by OP-FTIR is therefore described.
The shapes of the 3.3 urn absorption bands of the individual components of alkane mixtures, butane (C-4)
to decane (C-10) are similar to each other. Figure 1 shows the comparison of the absorption bands of the
straight-chain alkanes C-4 to C-8 (n-butane to n-octane). Starting with C-4, the similarity is greatest between
the components with consecutive carbon numbers (e.g. butane and pentane) and the similarities decrease
for components with greater difference in carbon numbers (e.g. C-4 and C-8, butane and octane). The
similarity in band shapes makes it impossible to include all of the components of the mixture in the classic
least squares (CIS) regression fit of measured absorbance to calibrated reference absorbance spectra to
determine the concentration of the individual compounds.
2900 2950
Wavenumber (crrr1
Figure F-1. Comparison of the Absorption Bands of Straight-chain Alkanes, C-4 (n-butane) to C-8 (n-
octane), Measured with 0.5 cm'1 Resolution
F-1
-------
The AM method provides a direct measurement-based determination of the mean carbon number that is
required in order to convert the VPIC of the mixture to MPIC values. We assume that the vapor emitted from
the alkane mixture is mainly composed of C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8. The alkanes with carbon numbers less
than 4 (methane, ethane and propane) are not expected to be components of the mixture because these
species are gases at standard atmospheric conditions and if present upon manufacture, would have
outgassed from the liquid fuel. Alkanes with higher carbon numbers than C-8 (nonane, decane, etc) have
low vapor pressures and therefore would not be present in the vapor at significant levels for most
applications of the measurement.
Additional information on this analysis and associated QA procedures can be found in SOP that follows.
F-2
-------
SOP TITLE: PROCEDURE TO CONVERT OP-FTIR VOLUME-CONCENTRATION
DETERMINATIONS OF ALKANE MIXTURE THAT ORIGINATE FROM PETROLEUM-
BASE FUELS TO MASS CONCENTRATIONS.
SCOPE: Describes the Optical Remote Sensing (ORS) analytical method for determining the mean
molecular mass of alkane mixtures that are emitted from petroleum-based fuels.
PURPOSE: Quantitative measurements by OP-FTIR of vapors and gases are determined as volume
path-integrated concentrations (VPICs). The use of VRPM for the purpose of determination
of emission fluxes and/or emission rates required the conversion of the VPIC to mass path-
integrated concentrations (MPICs). The conversion requires knowledge of the molecular
mass of the target gas.
DEFINITIONS
Absolute Background
Absolute backgrounds are either zero-path or synthetic backgrounds and will
contain little or no absorption features.
CLS
Classical Least Squares, regression fit of measured absorbance to calibrated
reference absorbance spectra.
"C.
Arbitrated mass path-integrated concentration of alkane mixture, usually with
units of ppb- meter or ppm-meter. usually with units of mg/m2 or g/m2.
HAL
Volume path-integrated concentration of alkane component, x, analyzed in
regions A (A = LAL, HAL or arbitrated), usually with units of ppm- meter or
ppb-meter.
High Alkane Level region of analysis, 2694.0 to 2915.7 cm-1. This region
contains weaker bands of n-butane and n-octane and is the region of choice
when the alkane concentrations are high enough to distort the strong bands.
LAL
Low Alkane Level region of analysis, 2004.2 to 3001.2 cm-1. This region
contains the strong bands n-butane and n-octane bands, and is the region of
choice for low concentration levels.
M mix
Mean molecular mass of the alkane mixture in units of g/mole
Relative Background
Background that was measured over the same path as the sample, single
beams. These background spectra will produce absorbance spectra in which
the atmospheric absorption bands will be wholly or nearly cancelled. In some
cases these backgrounds may contain absorption features of the target
species that may require correction.
F-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
The shapes of the 3.3 |jm absorption bands of the individual components of alkane mixtures, butane (C-4)
to decane (C-10) are similar to each other. Figure 1 shows the comparison of the absorption bands of the
straight-chain alkanes C-4 to C-8 (n-butane to n-octane). Starting with C-4, the similarity is greatest between
the components with consecutive carbon numbers (e.g. butane and pentane) and the similarities decrease
for components with greater difference in carbon numbers (e.g. C-4 and C-8, butane and octane). The
similarity in band shapes makes it impossible to include all of the components of the mixture in the CIS
analysis. The CIS multi-component regression analysis requires that the absorption bands of the co-
analyzed species do not correlate, i.e. the band shapes of the components are not too similar. When the
bands of two or more co-analyzed species correlate, the respective concentration determinations become
unreliable.
For the past twenty years, the analysis of alkane mixtures has been performed using a surrogate to
represent the total volume concentration of the entire mixture. The surrogate species was often n-octane,
but in some cases another alkane was chosen because its band had a better fit to the shape of the mixture
band. However this method results in a volume concentration and to convert to mass concentration, one
had to estimate (or guess) the mean carbon number of the mixture.
The present method provides a direct measurement-based determination of the mean carbon number that
is required in order to convert the VPIC of the mixture to MPIC values. We assume that the vapor emitted
from the alkane mixture is mainly composed of C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8. The alkanes with carbon numbers
less than 4 (methane, ethane and propane) are not expected to be components of the mixture because
these species are gases at standard atmospheric conditions and if present upon manufacture, would have
outgassed from the liquid fuel. Alkanes with higher carbon numbers than C-8 (nonane, decane, etc) have
low vapor pressures and therefore would not be present in the vapor at significant levels.
The fuel-alkane analysis method involves analyzing two of the straight-chain alkanes members of C-4 to C-8
that have the least correlated absorption bands, n-butane and n-octane (C-4 and C-8). The correlation
between these two bands, at 0.5 cm"1 resolution, is low enough to ensure a statistically valid regression fit
(see Figure 2).
F-4
-------
2900 2950
Wavenumber (crrr1
Figure 1. Comparison of the absorption bands of straight-chain alkanes, C-4 (n-butane) to C-8 (n-octane),
measured with 0.5 cm'1 resolution.
2900 2950
Wavenumber (crrr1)
3000
Figure 2. Comparison of the absorption bands of n-butane (red trace) and n-octane (green trace),
measured with 0.5 cm"1 resolution.
F-5
-------
1.0 PROCEDURE
1.1 Set Up Region(s) of Analysis.
The OP-FTIR field measurements should be performed along with the QA/QC procedures described in the
EPA ORS Facility Manual (ECPB 2004). The primary region of analysis is 2004.2 to 3001.2 cm"1. This
region fully encumbers the main bands of the alkane mixture. If the path-average concentrations are
expected to be high enough to distort the band-shapes, a second analysis, high alkane level (HAL) could be
performed in the region from 2694.0 to 2915.7 cm"1. Weaker bands of n-butane and n-octane lie in this
region and they exhibit little correlation. Depending on the requirements of the field measurement, the HAL
analysis could either be performed at the time of the measurements (in real-time) or in a post-measurement
analysis.
1.2 Set Up the Chemical Species for Analysis.
The Two analytes are n-butane and n-Octane. The atmosphere interferences are methane and water vapor.
If other species might be present that have absorption bands in the regions of analysis (e.g. methanol,
formaldehyde, etc), they should be included in the analysis as interferents, providing that their absorption
bands do not correlate with either the n-butane or the n-octane bands.
1.3 Arbitration Rules for Combined LAL and HAL Analysis.
This step only applies if both LAL and HAL analyses on n-butane and n-octane have been performed. The
volume PIC for the alkane mixture, vC^ix , is the sum of the CLS determinations for n-butane and n-octane
in region A, and the standard error of the vC^tix determination is the square root of the sum of the squares
of the respective standard error for the n-butane and n-octane determinations. Using labels to depict the
LAL and HAL analyses, we have four metrics,
v ^ LAL 9 ^s~iLAL 9 ys~iLAL
mix butane octane'
. ^L . .If. ^L \1 . W".
mix V V bu tan e / \
vs^HA
butane
and
//
v ^
. JfAL N2
bu tan e '
F-6
-------
The arbitration between using the LAL or the HAL determinations is made for each measurement in the set,
according to the following logic conditions,
1 |p vf,LAL . ~ ^ LAL ...p. vf,HAL . ~ ^ HAL
'• lr ^- J "'«'-' ^ J
mix mix
AND VCHAL • *CLAL
mixture mixture
-TLJpM v /~< Arbitrated % ^ /^ HAL
^mixture ^mixture
2- IF"C£f-«-£f
AND VC™**C%
-riiphi V s~i Arbitrated % ^ /^ LAL
\ MtlM ^m^ ^mix
3- IF"C.«-
-_.,_.. V s^< Arbitrated _ V/^i
~
4 IF C • *3 - AND
*• lr '- J **'>""
V /~< Arbitrated % ^ /^ LAL
VML ^"L VHAL • '
mix -
5 IF VCML • *2- ^"L AND
°- lr ^ ^ "'^
THEN vCA^traied is below the Detection Limit
Criteria 1 and 2 address the issue of whether the strong band in LAL is saturated due to very high levels of
alkanes. If saturation occurs, then the band intensity will grow at a rate that is less than linear resulting in a
concentration determination that is less than the value that would occur if linearity prevailed. In this case one
would expect that the analysis in the HAL region (where the bands are much weaker and more likely to
maintain linearity) would yield a higher determination than in the saturated LAL region. This leads to the
criterion, if both analysis results are above detection limits one chooses higher value. However, as stated
below in the section on QA/QC, the analyst must validate the results in the HAL region when the
concentration determinations are not much above detection limits.
F-7
-------
1 .4 Determination of the Mean Molecular Mass, A / mix ,
The mean molecular mass of the alkane mixture, M mix , is given as
_ -\f jf /~i Arbitrated % jtr JS /^Arbitrated
M^ bu tan e bu tan e _ octane octane /* \
mix * - ~ - , (, I ;
^/^ Arbitrated
mix
where Mtatane=58.12 g/mole (molecular mass of butane),
Moctane = 114.23 g/mole (molecular mass of octane),
vCbutane'ed anc' "^-octane""1 ape tne butane and octane determinations from the analysis of the arbitration-
chosen region.
1.5 Determination of the Mass Path-Integrated Concentration, mCmix,
The mass path-integrated concentration of the alkane mixture, mCmix , is given as
~ _L(T,P)*Mm
rated
Where L(T) is Loschmidt's Number at temperature, Tand pressure P,
p
L(T) • '2A793XI O25 •=^^- — £-- molecules/m3,
T 1 *iatm
and A is Avogadro's number, 6. 0220X1 023 molecules/mole. The numerical solution is
P ••*,,•**!
(2)
The procedure for converting the volume PICs of alkane vapor mixtures from petroleum-base fuels to mass
PIC is summarized by Equations 1 and 2.
F-8
-------
2.0 QA/QC CHECKS ON THE ANALYSIS
The QA/QC checks on the analysis must be carried out as a post-measurement procedure. If in performing
the QA/QC checks, one finds quality problems that degrade the precision and accuracy analytical results to
levels below those permitted by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) of the field project, the analysis should
be repeated with corrections.
2.1 Check the Background Spectra
The QA/QC procedure on Relative Backgrounds is different than the procedure for Absolute Backgrounds.
The Relative Backgrounds may contain the absorption bands due to the alkane, which would produce a
negative bias on the alkane determinations. Many of the OP-FTIR systems produce single-beam spectra
that have inherent hydrocarbon bands present, due to adsorption of oils on the optical surfaces. These "oil"
bands are cancelled out in zero-path backgrounds, but may be present in the field absorbance spectra that
were created using synthetic backgrounds. Therefore the QA/QC check on the zero-path Background
should follow the same procedure as for Relative Backgrounds.
2.1.1 Relative and Zero-Path Backgrounds
1. Create Synthetic Backgrounds
For each Relative Background create an associated synthetic background, taking care not to place any
points in the region between 2804 and 3002 cm"1.
2. Create Absorbance Spectra
For each Relative Background create a absorbance spectrum using the relative background as the
sample single beam and the synthetic background as the background.
3. Analyze Absorbance Spectra
Analyze each of the absorbance spectra for the alkanes using the same method as used for the field
measurement. Record the results as part of the QA/QC report.
4. Correct Path-Integrated Concentrations (If Necessary)
If the path-integrated concentrations for n-butane and/or n-octane determined in Step 3 are above
detection limits, determine whether the values are significant compared to the values determined on the
field data. If they are, correct the field measurements by adding the background values that are above
detection limits to the corresponding field values for n-butane and n-octane in the respective LAL and
HAL regions. If corrections were made, then repeat the arbitration and mass integrated concentration
determination procedures in Steps 1.3 to 1.5, above.
2.1.2 Synthetic Backgrounds
1. Prepare an Absorbance Spectrum from Alkane-Free Single Beam
Create an absorbance spectrum using any available single-beam spectrum that was measured (in the
time period of the project) in an environment in which no hydrocarbons were present in the atmosphere
F-9
-------
and using the synthetic background as the background. Unless there is expectation that the adsorbed
oils on the OP-FTIR optics will change over the course of the project, only one absorbance spectrum
will be necessary for this check for the entire project.
2. Analyze Absorbance Spectra
Follow Step 3 in Section 2.1.1
3. Correct Path-Integrated Concentrations (If Necessary)
Follow Step 4 in Section 2.1.1
A single-beam spectrum from the project's quality assurance procedures could be used.
2.2 Check for Interfering Absorption Features
Check the LAL spectral region (and HAL region if used) for the presence of overlapping absorption bands
by outlier species. Look for features that deviate from the band shapes of the C-4 to C-8 species shown in
Figure 1. Search the Finger Print Region (723 to 1400 cm"1) for absorption bands or lines due to the
presence of unexpected species. If any are found determine if there are corresponding C-H stretch bands.
Add all the spectral references of any species, which have been found to have overlapping bands in the LAL
region (or HAL region if used), to the CLS analysis as interferents. This procedure needs to be performed
only on measurement sets in which the outlier features are present and cause the data quality to not meet
the project DQO.
2.3 Check for Saturation in the LAL Region
Determine if any of the measured alkane absorption bands in the LAL region exhibit saturation. Generally,
these bands become saturated at path-integrated concentration levels greater than 2000 ppm-m. Saturation
can be recognized by view the peak band features and noting if they have a flattened appearance. This
effect can be seen in Figure 3, which shows a saturated alkane mixture band measured at a refinery
compared to a measured band that is still in the linear regime. The absorbance scales are different for the
two traces. The scale for the green trace is greatly expanded compared to the red trace. If saturation is
detected, then the analysis must be performed in the HAL region and the results must follow the arbitration
procedure listed in Section 1.3.
F-10
-------
2800 2850
Wavenumber (crrr1)
Figure 3.
2950
3000
Comparison of a saturated alkane-mixture band (red trace) to one that is not saturated (green
trace). The two traces are on plotted on the same ordinate scale. Note the difference in noise.
2.4 If Using HAL Region Check Arbitrated HAL Values Close to Detection Limits
Check all arbitrated values close to detection limits are valid. These values should smoothly transition to the
lower values that arbitrate towards LAL. If these results seem to not connect to the HAL arbitrated values
smoothly, then one may consider raising the detection-limit criterion for the HAL values 4-» »or greater.
3.0 REFERENCE
ECPB 2004 ECPB (Emission Characterization Prevention Branch) Optical Remote Sensing Facility
Manual, Prepared for the US EPA NRMRL Revision 1 April 2004
F-11
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix G
APPENDIX G
OTM 10 Data Graphs and Tables
-------
Appendix G: OTM 10 Data Graphs and Tables
This Appendix contains the results of the OTM 10, OP-FTIR monitoring performed from September 24 to
October 9, 2008 at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Port Allen Lock. A total of 97 lockings occurred during
the OTM 10 observation period. Some of the lockings included multiple tugs and barges. There were a total
of 62 defined events in which alkane mixture (AM) fluxes were measured. Many of these flux events
occurred when non-petrochemical transport barges were in the lock indicating that the measured AM flux
was associated with hydrocarbon emissions from the tug diesel engines. This confounding factor is further
discussed at the end of the appendix.
Figure G-1 shows the distribution of barge types for these defined events based on the Corps of Engineers
traffic log information. The six highest emissions events, two occurred during times with barges that were
coded as carrying petroleum pitches, two with barges coded as carrying crude petroleum, and two with
barges coded as empty (however the field crew smelled aromatics during one of these events).
Figure G-1. Distribution of Barge Types for Emission Events According to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Traffic Log
For each of the 62 defined events, a description of the event, the AM flux values measured during the event,
a screenshot of a leak detected during the event from the PGIE observations (when available), and the
results of the trace compound analysis (when detected) are presented. For some of the events, we report
"WC" as the AM flux value. In these instances, AM concentrations were detected by the OP-FTIR
instrumentation, but the prevailing winds during the time of the measurement contained a southerly
component, so a AM flux value could not be calculated. The trace compound concentrations presented
represent the average concentration for the event measured along the ground level beam path of the VRPM
configurations.
Table G-1.
9/24/2008- -Event #1
Date
9/24/2008
Entry Time
10:32
Exit Time
11:03
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Labeled as benzene and smelled like
benzene, but Corps of Engineers report
said it was empty
G-1
-------
Table G-2. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/247 2008, Event #1
Time
10:33:48
10:36:59
10:39:37
10:42:17
10:44:56
10:47:35
10:50:13
10:52:53
10:55:33
10:58:12
11:00:15
11:02:54
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.060
0.124
0.237
0.321
0.431
0.558
0.637
0.730
0.912
0.956
0.308
0.067
0.445
Figure G-2. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 9/247 2008, Event #1
G-2
-------
Table G-3. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912412008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
115
113
Acetylene
11.1
14.5
Propane
92.1
26.6
2-Methylbutane
96.1
24.4
Table G-4.
9/25/2008- -Event #1
Date
9/25/2008
Entry Time
7:40
Exit Time
8:08
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
May be carrying lube oil, per LADEQ,
labeled as empty
Table G-5. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/2512008, Event #1
Time
7:44:17
7:46:59
7:49:39
7:52:21
7:55:00
7:57:43
8:00:23
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.004
0.008
0.022
0.029
0.025
0.004
0.003
0.074
Table G-6. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912512008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
122
Table G-7.
9/25/2008- -Event #2
Date
9/25/2008
Entry Time
8:34
Exit Time
9:15
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Gravel
G-3
-------
Table G-8. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/257 2008, Event #2
Time
8:38:00
8:40:38
8:43:15
8:45:53
8:48:30
8:51:12
8:53:50
8:56:31
8:59:11
9:01:50
9:04:28
9:07:08
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.009
0.006
0.008
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.016
0.009
Table G-9. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 9/25/ 2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
66.7
109
Table G-10. 9/25/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
9/25/2008
Entry Time
9:52
Exit Time
10:36
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Visual as scrap, but Corps of Engineers
report says Sugar/Iron Ore
Table G-11. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/25/ 2008, Event #3
Time
9:56:08
10:14:43
10:17:21
10:20:00
10:22:39
10:25:17
10:27:55
10:30:33
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.010
0.008
0.008
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.009
G-4
-------
Table G-12. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912512008, Event #3
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
17.4
44.4
Table G-13. 912512008 • -Event #4
Date
9/25/2008
Entry Time
11:14
Exit Time
11:51
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
Chemicals, but Corps of Engineers
report says empty
Table G-14. AM Flux Values Measured during 912512008, Event #4
Time
11:19:05
11:21:46
11:24:25
11:27:06
11:29:46
11:32:27
11:35:09
11:37:50
11:40:33
11:43:17
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.013
0.012
0.007
0.009
Table G-15. 912512008 • -Event #5
Date
9/25/2008
Entry Time
15:09
Exit Time
16:00
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Corps of Engineers Report says sand,
gravel, stone
G-5
-------
Table G-16. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/257 2008, Event #5
Time
15:11:53
15:14:30
15:17:08
15:19:45
15:22:24
15:25:01
15:27:40
15:30:18
15:32:54
15:35:34
15:38:11
15:40:49
15:44:44
15:47:21
15:50:00
15:52:37
15:55:14
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.005
Table G-17. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912512008, Event #5
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
45.6
18.5
Table G-18. 912612008 • -Event #1
Date
9/26/2008
Entry Time
9:10
Exit Time
9:52
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Empty, per Corps of Engineers report,
but may have carried benzene
G-6
-------
Table G-19. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/267 2008, Event #1
Time
9:13:45
9:16:19
9:18:54
9:21:29
9:24:40
9:27:15
9:29:50
9:32:25
9:34:59
9:37:34
9:40:45
9:43:21
9:45:56
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.045
0.053
0.060
0.070
0.159
0.105
0.137
0.179
0.113
0.045
0.048
0.064
0.063
0.088
Table G-20. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912612008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
220
ND
2-Methylbutane
23.6
ND
Table G-21. 912712008 • -Event #1
Date
9/27/2008
Entry Time
8:45
Exit Time
9:35
Number of Barges
One tug with no barge, and one tug
with six barges
Description of Commodity
Building cement and
concrete; lime; glass
G-7
-------
Table G-22. AM Flux Values Measured during 912712008, Event #1
Time
8:49:18
8:51:53
8:54:07
8:56:47
8:59:24
9:02:02
9:04:40
9:07:17
9:09:54
9:12:30
9:15:07
9:17:45
9:20:23
9:23:00
9:25:38
9:28:16
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.003
0
0.010
0.007
0.013
0.006
0.007
0.016
0.030
0.006
Table G-23. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912712008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
64.2
459
Methanol
ND
24.3
Benzene
ND
198
2-Methylbutane
34.2
34.8
Ethylene
20.2
ND
Table G-24. 912712008 • -Event #2
Date
9/27/2008
Entry Time
10:06
Exit Time
10:55
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Empty, per Corps of Engineers report
and visual
G-8
-------
Table G-25. AM Flux Values Measured during 912712008, Event #2
Time
10:08:58
10:11:36
10:14:13
10:16:50
10:19:27
10:22:05
10:24:42
10:27:20
10:29:58
10:32:35
10:35:12
10:37:51
10:40:28
10:43:06
10:45:45
10:47:44
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.079
0.057
0.008
0
0.011
0.051
0.060
0.065
0.085
0.112
0.136
0.120
0.108
0.078
0.060
0.040
0.067
Table G-26. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912712008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
100
570
Ethylene
17.4
18.4
Propane
99.7
110
2-Methylbutane
64.4
69.1
Table G-27. 9/27/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
9/27/2008
Entry Time
11:21
Exit Time
11:58
Number of Barges
Three
Description of Commodity
Per Corps of Engineers report and
visual, lube oils or organic chemicals,
possibly phenol
G-9
-------
Table G-28. AM Flux Values Measured during 912712008, Event #3
Time
11:23:43
11:26:19
11:28:55
11:31:32
11:34:10
11:36:47
11:39:26
11:42:03
11:44:42
11:47:19
11:49:56
11:52:33
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.024
0.042
0.027
0.031
0.011
0.007
0.003
0
we
we
we
0.001
0.076
we = Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-29. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912712008, Event #3
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Propane
ND
32.3
2-Methylbutane
15.5
18.4
Table G-30. 9/28/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
9/28/2008
Entry Time
8:44
Exit Time
9:28
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Organic industrial chemicals
G-10
-------
Table G-31. AM Flux Values Measured during 912812008, Event #1
Time
8:46:56
8:49:34
8:52:12
8:54:50
8:57:28
9:00:06
9:02:44
9:05:22
9:08:01
9:10:40
9:13:18
9:15:55
9:18:33
9:21:11
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.195
0.071
0.025
0.07
0.026
Table G-32. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912812008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
861
751
Ethylene
27.7
ND
Acetylene
ND
25.3
Propane
144
143
2-Methylbutane
139
142
Table G-33. 9/28/ 2008 • -Event #2
Date
9/28/2008
Entry Time
9:38
Exit Time
10:11
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
Possibly grain, although Corps of
Engineers report said empty
G-11
-------
Table G-34. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/287 2008, Event #2
Time
9:41:12
9:43:31
9:46:09
9:48:47
9:51:24
9:54:03
9:56:42
9:59:21
10:01:59
10:04:39
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.012
0.007
Table G-35. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 9/28/ 2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
271
182
Ethylene
16.5
ND
2-Methylbutane
44.4
19.9
Table G-36. 9/29/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
9/29/2008
Entry Time
8:24
Exit Time
9:12
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Dry sulfur, iron and steel products
G-12
-------
Table G-37. AM Flux Values Measured during 912912008, Event #1
Time
8:29:20
8:31:58
8:34:36
8:37:14
8:39:54
8:42:32
8:45:11
8:47:49
8:50:27
8:53:06
8:55:44
8:58:23
9:01:01
9:03:39
9:06:16
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.015
0.017
0.02
0.02
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.013
0.014
0.017
0.017
0.075
Table G-38. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 912912008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
148
Table G-39. 912912008 • -Event #2
Date
9/29/2008
Entry Time
9:23
Exit Time
10:23
Number of Barges
Three tugs with barges,
one empty and two
manned
Description of Commodity
Equipment/machinery
G-13
-------
Table G-40. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/297 2008, Event #2
Time
9:14:43
9:17:21
9:20:02
9:27:26
9:30:06
9:34:08
9:36:47
9:39:26
9:42:06
9:44:45
9:47:23
9:50:00
9:52:39
9:55:16
9:57:55
10:00:33
10:03:11
10:05:50
10:08:29
10:11:09
10:13:48
10:16:28
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.011
0.006
0.005
0.014
0.015
0.105
0.279
0.514
0.374
0.305
0.325
0.410
0.457
0.596
0.590
0.463
0.324
0.297
0.389
0.374
0.390
0.252
0.295
G-14
-------
Figure G-3. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 9/297 2008, Event #2
Table G-41. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 9/29/ 2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
92.6
Propane
220
53.1
2-Methy I butane
140
34.1
Table G-42. 9/29/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
9/29/2008
Entry Time
11:01
Exit Time
11:51
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Clay, steel, ore scrap, machinery,
fertilizer
G-15
-------
Table G-43. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/297 2008, Event #3
Time
11:04:35
11:07:17
11:09:57
11:12:38
11:15:19
11:17:59
11:20:07
11:22:45
11:25:23
11:28:01
11:30:39
11:34:34
11:37:13
11:39:51
11:42:30
11:45:09
11:59:44
12:02:22
12:05:01
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.008
0.003
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.002
0
0.002
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.004
0.004
Table G-44. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 9/29/ 2008, Event #3
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
44.4
41.7
Acetylene
15.2
ND
Table G-45. 9/29/ 2008 • -Event #4
Date
9/29/2008
Entry Time
12:15
Exit Time
13:00
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Sand, gravel
G-16
-------
Table G-46. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/297 2008, Event #4
Time
12:19:36
12:22:15
12:24:55
12:27:33
12:30:11
12:32:48
12:35:27
12:38:06
12:40:44
12:43:21
12:46:01
12:48:38
12:51:16
12:53:56
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.008
0.018
0.031
0.017
0.008
0.007
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.009
Table G-47. 9/29/ 2008 • -Event #5
Date
9/29/2008
Entry Time
13:07
Exit Time
14:06
Number of Barges
Three
Description of Commodity
Empty , organic industrial chemicals,
butane, propylene, propane
G-17
-------
Table G-48. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/297 2008, Event #5
Time
13:11:12
13:13:49
13:16:27
13:19:05
13:21:44
13:24:22
13:27:01
13:29:38
13:32:16
13:34:54
13:37:33
13:40:10
13:42:50
13:45:28
13:48:06
13:50:47
13:53:26
13:56:05
13:58:45
14:01:27
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.018
0.021
0.022
0.016
0.016
0.008
0.011
0.009
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.005
0.005
0.077
Table G-49. 9/29/ 2008 • -Event #6
Date
9/29/2008
Entry Time
14:13
Exit Time
14:57
Number of Barges
One tug with no barge, one tug with
two barges
Description of Commodity
Empty per Corps of Engineers
report
G-18
-------
Table G-50. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/297 2008, Event #6
Time
14:17:21
14:20:01
14:22:41
14:25:19
14:28:00
14:30:39
14:33:18
14:36:36
14:38:40
14:41:18
14:43:59
14:47:55
14:50:34
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.011
0.007
0.017
0.013
0.012
0.007
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.009
0.011
0.003
0.002
0.070
Table G-51. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 9/29/ 2008, Event #6
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
2-Methylbutane
10.4
ND
Table G-52. 9/29/ 2008 • -Event #7
Date
9/29/2008
Entry Time
15:10
Exit Time
15:51
Number of Barges
One tug with no barges, one tug with
six barges
Description of Commodity
Overlap, scrap ore and two with
organic industrial chemicals
G-19
-------
Table G-53. AM Flux Values Measured during 912912008, Event #7
Time
15:14:25
15:17:03
15:19:41
15:22:19
15:24:58
15:27:38
15:30:17
15:33:12
15:35:34
15:38:12
15:40:50
15:43:27
15:46:05
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.005
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.006
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-54. 9/30/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
9/30/2008
Entry Time
8:11
Exit Time
9:11
Number of Barges
One tug with no barges, one
tug
with two barges
Description of Commodity
May be chemical barges,
although the Corps of Engineers
report said empty
G-20
-------
Table G-55. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/30/ 2008, Event #1
Time
8:26:54
8:28:53
8:30:12
8:36:54
8:39:33
8:41:32
8:42:34
8:44:12
8:45:19
8:46:51
8:48:04
8:49:31
8:52:10
8:54:50
9:02:00
9:03:20
9:04:40
9:06:06
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.007
0.012
0.021
0.018
0.016
0.017
0
0
0.002
0.003
0.007
0.006
0.007
Table G-56. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 9/30/ 2008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
458
2-Methylbutane
18.2
ND
Table G-57. 9/30/ 2008 • -Event #2
Date
9/30/2008
Entry Time
9:20
Exit Time
9:58
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
May be chemical barge, although the
Corps of Engineers report said empty
G-21
-------
Table G-58. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/30/ 2008, Event #2
Time
9:23:40
9:25:02
9:34:37
9:36:36
9:41:30
9:42:52
9:44:13
9:45:33
9:46:54
9:48:16
9:49:37
9:55:04
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.014
0.021
0.017
0.025
0.021
0.040
0.017
0.013
0.012
0.010
0.002
we
0.077
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-59. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 9/30/ 2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
362
2-Methylbutane
ND
42.7
Table G-60. 9/30/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
9/30/2008
Entry Time
10:16
Exit Time
11:25
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Dry sulfur, clay
G-22
-------
Table G-61. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/30/ 2008, Event #3
Time
10:22:01
10:27:29
10:28:49
10:30:11
10:31:31
10:32:49
10:34:13
10:35:29
10:38:08
10:39:38
10:40:47
10:42:19
10:43:26
10:45:47
10:46:21
10:47:43
10:48:44
10:50:43
10:51:46
10:53:21
10:54:24
10:55:59
10:57:07
10:58:39
10:59:49
11:04:36
11:11:57
11:13:26
11:14:35
11:16:07
11:17:15
11:18:48
11:19:53
11:21:31
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.001
0.018
0.014
we
we
we
we
we
0.005
0.005
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
0.001
0.002
0.014
0.001
0.007
0
0.001
we
we
we
we
we
we
0.006
we Wind criteria was not met.
G-23
-------
Table G-62. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 9/30/ 2008, Event #3
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
133
56.4
2-Methylbutane
20.1
23.0
Table G-63. 9/30/ 2008 • -Event #4
Date
9/30/2008
Entry Time
11:49
Exit Time
12:56
Number of Barges
One tug with one barge,
one tug with six barges
Description of Commodity
One barge lubricating oil, other barges
gravel
Table G-64. AM Flux Values Measured during 9/30/ 2008, Event #4
Time
11:51:51
11:54:01
11:56:39
11:59:17
12:01:58
12:04:36
12:08:33
12:11:10
12:13:49
12:16:27
12:19:05
12:21:44
12:24:23
12:27:02
12:29:40
12:32:20
12:34:58
12:37:37
12:40:15
12:42:55
12:45:33
12:48:11
12:50:50
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
0.005
0.009
0.009
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
we
we
we
0
0.004
0.005
0.002
0
we
0.002
0.015
0.032
0.006
we Wind criteria was not met.
G-24
-------
Table G-65. 10/1/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
10/1/2008
Entry Time
8:00
Exit Time
8:21
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
Iron ore, scrap
Table G-66. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/1/ 2008, Event #1
Time
8:11:19
8:14:53
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.002
0.002
0.002
Table G-67. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/1/ 2008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
220
268
2-Methylbutane
ND
22.0
Table G-68. 10/1/ 2008- -Event #2
Date
10/1/2008
Entry Time
9:10
Exit Time
9:58
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Organic industrial chemicals
Table G-69. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/17 2008, Event #2
Time
9:14:56
9:17:33
9:20:12
9:22:51
9:25:30
9:28:09
9:30:52
9:33:30
9:36:09
9:38:54
9:41:31
9:44:12
9:46:48
9:49:23
AM Flux
(9/s)
0
0
0.01
0.008
0.012
0.019
0
0.035
0.046
0.067
0.065
0.058
0.04
0.022
G-25
-------
Time
9:52:01
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.026
0.027
CFLIR
AUTOL
10/ 1/08 8.37.46AM
Figure G-4. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/1/ 2008, Event #2
Table G-70. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/1/ 2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
302
234
Ethylene
15.4
13.4
Propane
66.1
275
2-Methylbutane
63.6
242
Table G-71. 10/1/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
10/1/2008
Entry Time
10:43
Exit Time
11:43
Number of Barges
One tug with no barges,
one tug with five barges
Description of Commodity
Metal ores, scrap, organic industrial
chemicals
G-26
-------
Table G-72. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/1/2008, Event #3
Time
10:47:09
10:49:47
10:52:25
10:55:03
10:57:39
11:00:18
11:02:56
11:05:34
11:08:12
11:10:53
11:13:32
11:16:10
11:18:51
11:21:29
11:24:09
11:26:48
11:29:26
11:32:08
11:34:46
11:36:54
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.011
0.010
0.027
0.029
0.037
0.022
0.022
0.014
0.019
0.011
0.012
0.008
0.008
0.003
0.006
0.013
0.034
0.034
0.024
0.006
0.078
Table G-73. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/1/ 2008, Event #3
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
68.8
62.5
Propane
ND
24.4
2-Methylbutane
24.9
21.4
Table G-74. 10/1/ 2008 • -Event #4
Date
10/1/2008
Entry Time
12:33
Exit Time
13:29
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Empties and scrap
G-27
-------
Table G-75. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/1/2008, Event #4
Time
12:37:03
12:39:43
12:42:20
12:44:59
12:47:38
12:50:16
12:52:54
12:55:33
12:58:13
13:00:53
13:03:32
13:06:12
13:08:50
13:11:30
13:14:08
13:16:47
13:19:27
13:22:03
13:24:15
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.001
we
we
we
0.003
0.006
0.002
0.002
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-76. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/1/ 2008, Event #4
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
41.3
33.6
Methanol
15.8
15.7
Table G-77. 10/1/ 2008 • -Event #5
Date
10/1/2008
Entry Time
13:40
Exit Time
14:37
Number of Barges
One tug with one barge,
one tug with six barges
Description of Commodity
Empty. Dry sulfur clay, organic industrial
chemicals
G-28
-------
Table G-78. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/1/2008, Event #5
Time
13:44:27
13:47:06
13:49:45
13:52:24
13:55:06
13:57:45
14:00:25
14:03:06
14:05:45
14:08:25
14:11:03
14:13:41
14:16:21
14:18:58
14:21:38
14:24:16
14:26:54
14:29:49
14:32:30
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.009
0.006
0.021
0.008
0.002
we
0.001
0.002
0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.004
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-79. 10/1/ 2008 • -Event #6
Date
10/1/2008
Entry Time
15:04
Exit Time
15:51
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Distillate, lube oils
G-29
-------
Table G-80. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/1/2008, Event #6
Time
15:09:26
15:12:05
15:14:42
15:17:21
15:20:02
15:22:41
15:25:21
15:28:01
15:30:41
15:33:21
15:36:01
15:38:41
15:41:19
15:43:59
15:46:05
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.001
0
we
0
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.004
0.001
we
0
0.002
we Wind criteria was not met.
Figure G-5. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/1/ 2008, Event #6
G-30
-------
Table G-81. 101212008 • -Event #1
Date
10/2/2008
Entry Time
7:45
Exit Time
8:03
Number of Barges
Three
Description of Commodity
Empty. Organic industrial chemicals
Table G-82. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/2/ 2008, Event #1
Time
7:51:45
7:54:21
7:56:57
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.05
0.022
0
0.024
Table G-83. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/2/ 2008, Event #1
Path
EPA OP-FTIR (West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR (East)
Methane
642
No Data
Methanol
18.4
No Data
2-Methylbutane
60.0
No Data
Table G-84. 10/2/ 2008 • -Event #2
Date
10/2/2008
Entry Time
9:45
Exit Time
10:42
Number of Barges
One tug with one barge,
one tug with two barges
Description of Commodity
Butane, propylene, one empty
G-31
-------
Table G-85. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/27 2008, Event #2
Time
9:48:36
9:51:16
9:53:53
9:56:31
9:59:09
10:01:46
10:04:24
10:07:02
10:09:41
10:12:18
10:14:57
10:17:35
10:20:11
10:22:48
10:25:28
10:28:05
10:30:41
10:33:21
10:36:00
10:38:38
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
0
0.072
0.141
0.126
0.084
0.014
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
0.073
we Wind criteria was not met.
G-32
-------
Figure G-6. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/2/ 2008, Event #3
Table G-86. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/2/ 2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
114
216
Propane
266
ND
2-Methylbutane
351
123
Table G-87. 10/3/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
10/3/2008
Entry Time
9:20
Exit Time
10:20
Number of Barges
Five
Description of Commodity
Empties and distillate lube oil
G-33
-------
Table G-88. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/3/ 2008, Event #1
Time
9:23:32
9:26:11
9:28:49
9:31:27
9:34:05
9:36:42
9:39:21
9:42:01
9:44:39
9:47:36
9:50:17
9:52:27
9:54:32
9:57:10
9:59:50
10:02:29
10:05:08
10:07:47
10:10:25
10:13:06
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-89. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/3/ 2008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
117
106
Table G-90. 10/3/ 2008 • -Event #2
Date
10/3/2008
Entry Time
10:31
Exit Time
10:51
Number of Barges
Tug, no barges
Description of Commodity
N/A
G-34
-------
Table G-91. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/3/2008, Event #2
Time
10:34:19
10:36:58
10:39:36
10:42:15
10:44:54
10:47:12
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-92. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/3/ 2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
56.1
ND
Table G-93. 10/3/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
10/3/2008
Entry Time
11:09
Exit Time
11:52
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Empties, lube oil, organic industrial
chemicals
Table G-94. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/3/ 2008, Event #3
Time
11:12:42
11:15:24
11:18:02
11:20:40
11:23:18
11:25:57
11:28:36
11:31:15
11:33:55
11:36:34
11:39:12
11:41:52
11:44:30
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
we
we
0
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
0.000
we Wind criteria was not met.
G-35
-------
Table G-95. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/3/ 2008, Event #3
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
76.6
74.7
Table G-96. 10/3/ 2008 • -Event #4
Date
10/3/2008
Entry Time
12:39
Exit Time
13:17
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Empty
Table G-97. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/3/ 2008, Event #4
Time
12:42:43
12:44:43
12:46:39
12:49:20
12:51:59
12:54:37
12:57:15
12:59:53
13:02:31
13:05:08
13:07:47
13:10:45
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
we
we
we
0
0
0
we
we
we
0.000
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-98. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/3/ 2008, Event #4
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
45.1
57.1
G-36
-------
Table G-99. 10/3/ 2008 • -Event #5
Date
10/3/2008
Entry Time
13:25
Exit Time
14:26
Number of Barges
One tug with one barge,
one tug with two barges
Description of Commodity
Organic industrial chemicals/
butane propellent. One empty
Table G-100. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/3/ 2008, Event #5
Time
13:17:16
13:19:51
13:22:29
13:28:54
13:31:32
13:34:11
13:36:50
13:39:28
13:42:07
13:44:46
13:47:26
13:50:04
13:52:43
13:55:24
13:58:04
14:00:42
14:03:20
14:05:59
14:08:38
14:11:17
14:13:55
14:16:35
14:19:12
14:21:16
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
0
we
we
we
we
we
0
we
we
we
we
0
0.001
0
we
we
we
we
we
0
0
0.000
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-101. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/3/ 2008, Event #5
Path
EPA OP-FTIR (West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR (East)
Methane
45.3
59.7
G-37
-------
Table G-102. 10/4/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
10/4/2008
Entry Time
8:35
Exit Time
9:14
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Sand, gravel
Table G-103. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/4/ 2008, Event #1
Time
8:54:54
8:58:35
9:01:14
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.003
Table G-104. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/4/ 2008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
136
442
Table G-105. 10/4/ 2008 • -Event #2
Date
10/4/2008
Entry Time
9:42
Exit Time
10:20
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Coal, iron ore scrap, empty
Table G-106. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/47 2008, Event #2
Time
9:46:51
9:49:32
9:52:14
9:54:56
9:57:38
10:00:17
10:02:58
10:05:40
10:08:20
10:11:01
10:13:41
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
0
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.002
we Wind criteria was not met.
G-38
-------
Table G-107. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/4/ 2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
248
Table G-108. 10/4/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
10/4/2008
Entry Time
11:01
Exit Time
11:41
Number of Barges
Five
Description of Commodity
Lube oil
Table G-109. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/4/ 2008, Event #3
Time
11:04:32
11:07:11
11:09:48
11:12:26
11:15:03
11:17:42
11:20:21
11:22:59
11:25:40
11:28:20
11:31:01
11:33:39
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.001
0
0
0
0
we
we
we
we
0.002
we Wind criteria was not met.
G-39
-------
Figure G-7. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/47 2008, Event #3
Table G-110. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/4/ 2008, Event #3
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
46.2
41.5
Table G-111. 10/4/ 2008 • -Event #4
Date
10/4/2008
Entry Time
12:23
Exit Time
12:54
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Petroleum, iron ore scrap
G-40
-------
Table G-112. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/4/2008, Event #4
Time
12:28:04
12:30:42
12:33:20
12:35:59
12:38:38
12:41:16
12:43:54
12:46:32
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.003
Table G-113. 10/4/ 2008 • -Event #5
Date
10/4/2008
Entry Time
13:12
Exit Time
13:46
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Empty
Table G-114. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/4/ 2008, Event #5
Time
13:15:41
13:18:19
13:20:59
13:23:38
13:26:17
13:28:57
13:31:36
13:34:15
13:36:56
13:39:35
Average:
AM Flux
(9/s)
0
0
0
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
Table G-115. 10/4/ 2008 • -Event #6
Date
10/4/2008
Entry Time
14:21
Exit Time
14:52
Number of Barges
Three
Description of Commodity
Dry sulfur, clay
G-41
-------
Table G-116. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/4/2008, Event #6
Time
14:25:49
14:28:29
14:31:08
14:33:46
14:36:27
14:39:05
14:41:43
14:44:20
14:46:59
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.012
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.008
Table G-117. Average Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of
the VRPM Configurations during 10/4/ 2008, Event #6
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
70.5
2-Methylbutane
11.9
10.0
Table G-118. 10/4/ 2008 • -Event #7
Date
10/4/2008
Entry Time
15:09
Exit Time
15:44
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Welding barges/machinery
Table G-119. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/4/ 2008, Event #7
Time
15:13:25
15:16:04
15:18:42
15:21:21
15:24:24
15:26:38
15:29:16
15:31:54
15:34:32
15:37:09
Average:
AM Flux
(9/s)
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.012
0.009
0.008
0.01
0
0.012
0
0.008
G-42
-------
Table G-120. 10/4/ 2008 • -Event #8
Date
10/4/2008
Entry Time
15:53
Exit Time
16:15
Number of Barges
Tug with no barges
Description of Commodity
N/A
Table G-121. AM FluxValues Measured during 10/4/2008, Event #8
Time
15:56:57
15:59:35
16:02:13
16:04:53
16:07:31
16:10:10
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0
0
0.009
0.01
0.007
0.002
0.005
Table G-122. 10/5/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
10/5/2008
Entry Time
9:23
Exit Time
10:04
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Petroleum
Table G-123. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/5/ 2008, Event #1
Time
9:26:53
9:29:31
9:32:09
9:34:48
9:37:25
9:41:21
9:43:59
9:46:40
9:49:18
9:51:56
9:54:35
9:57:13
Average:
AM Flux
(9/s)
2.483
4.074
4.840
4.023
4.033
4.305
3.302
3.001
2.854
2.895
2.325
2.566
3.392
G-43
-------
CFLIR
AUTOL
WH
10/5/08 8.3744AM
Figure G-8. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/5/ 2008, Event #1
Table G-124. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/5/2008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
172
367
Propane
1159
757
2-Methy I butane
1157
781
Table G-125. 10/5/ 2008 • -Event #2
Date
10/5/2008
Entry Time
12:04
Exit Time
12:53
Number of Barges
Five
Description of Commodity
Lube oils, organic industrial chemicals
G-44
-------
Table G-126. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/5/ 2008, Event #2
Time
12:08:06
12:10:46
12:13:27
12:16:08
12:18:47
12:21:29
12:24:09
12:26:49
12:29:31
12:32:12
12:34:51
12:37:32
12:40:12
12:42:52
12:45:33
12:48:14
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.005
Figure G-9. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/5/2008, Event #2
G-45
-------
Table G-127. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/5/2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
39.7
43.2
Table G-128. 10/6/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
10/6/2008
Entry Time
9:18
Exit Time
10:03
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Petroleum
Table G-129. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/6/ 2008, Event #1
Time
9:22:14
9:24:51
9:27:30
9:30:07
9:34:03
9:36:42
9:39:19
9:41:57
9:44:36
9:47:15
9:49:53
9:52:31
9:55:09
9:57:47
Average:
AM Flux
(9/s)
0.014
0.018
0.018
0.022
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.075
Table G-130. 10/6/ 2008 • -Event #2
Date
10/6/2008
Entry Time
10:07
Exit Time
10:28
Number of Barges
One tug
Description of Commodity
N/A
G-46
-------
Table G-131. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/6/2008, Event #2
Time
10:11:00
10:13:37
10:16:14
10:18:52
10:21:30
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.006
0.007
0.003
0.014
0.012
0.008
Table G-132. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/6/2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
60.9
Table G-133. 10/6/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
10/6/2008
Entry Time
12:28
Exit Time
13:00
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Empty
Table G-134. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/6/ 2008, Event #3
Time
12:33:11
12:35:49
12:38:27
12:41:06
12:43:43
12:46:22
12:49:00
12:51:38
12:54:18
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0
0.002
0.006
0.003
Table G-135. 10/6/ 2008 • -Event #4
Date
10/6/2008
Entry Time
13:15
Exit Time
13:51
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
Lube oils
G-47
-------
Table G-136. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/67 2008, Event #4
Time
13:18:09
13:20:48
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.004
0.003
0.004
Table G-137. 10/6/ 2008 • -Event #5
Date
10/6/2008
Entry Time
14:29
Exit Time
15:11
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Gravel
Table G-138. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/6/ 2008, Event #5
Time
14:31:47
14:34:26
14:37:06
14:39:47
14:42:27
14:45:06
14:47:48
14:50:29
14:53:07
14:55:49
14:58:29
15:01:08
15:03:49
15:06:29
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
Table G-139. 10/8/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
10/8/2008
Entry Time
10:10
Exit Time
10:42
Number of Barges
Three
Description of Commodity
Iron Ore Scrap
G-48
-------
Table G-140. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/87 2008, Event #1
Time
10:13:59
10:16:36
10:19:18
10:21:56
10:24:34
10:27:15
10:29:53
10:32:33
10:35:12
10:37:50
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-141. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/8/2008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
46.7
Table G-142. 10/8/ 2008 • -Event #2 [Exit time does not match end time]
Date
10/8/2008
Entry Time
11:05
Exit Time
11:40
Number of Barges
Five
Description of Commodity
Empty, corn, organic chemicals. Dry
sulfur, clay. Lube oils.
G-49
-------
Table G-143. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/8/ 2008, Event #2
Time
11:10:18
11:15:42
11:21:06
11:23:48
11:26:30
11:31:51
11:34:33
11:38:34
11:41:17
11:44:02
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.001
0.001
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
we
0.007
we Wind criteria was not met.
Table G-144. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/8/2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
70.5
49.2
Table G-145. 10/8/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
10/8/2008
Entry Time
12:02
Exit Time
12:37
Number of Barges
Six
Description of Commodity
Dry Sulfur, clay
Table G-146. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/8/ 2008, Event #3
Time
12:04:36
12:07:21
12:10:02
12:18:19
12:21:02
12:23:52
12:26:34
12:31:57
12:34:36
12:37:16
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.001
we
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.007
G-50
-------
Table G-147. 10/8/ 2008 • -Event #4
Date
10/8/2008
Entry Time
12:52
Exit Time
13:25
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
Empty
Table G-148. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/8/ 2008, Event #4
Time
12:53:39
12:56:21
12:58:59
13:04:23
13:07:03
13:09:41
13:20:24
13:31:04
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
we
we
we
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
Table G-149. 10/9/ 2008 • -Event #1
Date
10/9/2008
Entry Time
8:07
Exit Time
8:38
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
Empty
Table G-150. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/9/ 2008, Event #1
Time
8:11:33
8:15:14
8:17:56
8:20:35
8:23:18
8:25:59
8:28:41
8:34:05
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
we
we
we
we
0.002
we Wind criteria was not met.
G-51
-------
Table G-151. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/9/2008, Event #1
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
211
346
Table G-152. 10/9/ 2008 • -Event #2
Date
10/9/2008
Entry Time
8:51
Exit Time
9:34
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
Petroleum products
Table G-153. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/9/ 2008, Event #2
Time
8:55:28
8:58:09
9:00:52
9:03:32
9:06:15
9:08:54
9:11:36
9:16:57
9:19:39
9:22:20
9:25:00
9:27:42
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.005
0.006
0.017
0.018
0.014
0.008
Table G-154. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/9/2008, Event #2
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
ND
236
Table G-155. 10/9/ 2008 • -Event #3
Date
10/9/2008
Entry Time
10:05
Exit Time
10:52
Number of Barges
Four
Description of Commodity
Organic industrial chemicals.
G-52
-------
G-53
-------
Table G-156. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/9/ 2008, Event #3
Time
10:08:00
10:10:40
10:13:20
10:16:01
10:18:42
10:21:21
10:23:43
10:26:50
10:29:27
10:32:05
10:34:42
10:37:21
10:39:58
10:42:36
10:45:14
10:48:15
10:50:29
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.013
0.012
0.005
0.006
Table G-157. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/9/2008, Event #3
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
147
183
2-Methylbutane
14.1
16.0
Table G-158. 10/9/ 2008 • -Event #4
Date
10/9/2008
Entry Time
11:36
Exit Time
12:13
Number of Barges
One
Description of Commodity
Petroleum Products
G-54
-------
Table G-159. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/97 2008, Event #4
Time
11:36:32
11:39:10
11:41:48
11:44:27
11:47:05
11:49:43
11:52:21
11:55:01
11:57:37
12:00:15
12:02:52
12:05:30
12:08:08
12:10:45
12:13:22
12:15:59
12:18:37
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.017
0.012
0.007
0.014
0.037
0.051
0.059
0.049
0.033
0.018
0.025
0.029
0.024
0.011
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.024
Table G-160. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/9/2008, Event #4
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
104
72.8
2-Methylbutane
22.5
25.0
Table G-161. 10/9/ 2008 • -Event #5
Date
10/9/2008
Entry Time
12:23
Exit Time
13:45
Number of Barges
One tug two barges,
One tug with four barges
Description of Commodity
Five empty barges, one with
petroleum,
G-55
-------
Table G-162. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/9/ 2008, Event #5
Time
12:23:52
12:26:30
12:29:08
12:31:47
12:34:26
12:37:04
12:39:42
12:42:21
12:45:45
12:47:38
12:50:16
12:54:13
12:56:51
12:59:29
13:02:07
13:04:45
13:07:23
13:10:01
13:12:38
13:15:17
13:17:56
13:20:34
13:23:13
13:25:51
13:28:31
13:31:08
13:33:49
13:36:28
13:39:07
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.011
0.009
0.013
0.011
0.013
0.009
0.014
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.016
0.012
0.022
0.021
0.015
0.017
0.015
0.018
0.017
0.015
0.012
0.014
0.017
0.020
0.017
0.017
0.020
0.018
0.014
0.076
Table G-163. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/9/2008, Event #5
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
71.2
61.0
2-Methylbutane
ND
14.8
G-56
-------
Table G-164. 10/9/ 2008 • -Event #6
Date
10/9/2008
Entry Time
14:05
Exit Time
14:34
Number of Barges
Four
Description of Commodity
Empty
Table G-165. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/9/2008, Event #6
Time
14:08:10
14:10:50
14:13:28
14:16:06
14:20:03
14:22:41
14:25:19
14:28:00
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.016
0.018
0.021
0.024
0.018
0.019
0.02
0.026
0.020
Table G-166. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/9/2008, Event #6
Path
EPA OP-FTIR (West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR (East)
Methane
44.0
39.7
Table G-167. 10/9/ 2008 • -Event #7
Date
10/9/2008
Entry Time
14:47
Exit Time
15:25
Number of Barges
Two
Description of Commodity
Petroleum products, Empty
G-57
-------
Table G-168. AM Flux Values Measured during 10/9/ 2008, Event #7
Time
14:37:13
14:39:52
14:42:32
14:51:46
14:54:24
14:57:02
14:59:40
15:02:17
15:04:55
15:07:32
15:10:11
15:12:49
15:15:28
15:18:05
15:20:44
Average:
AM Flux
(g/s)
0.015
0.053
0.143
0.286
0.331
0.635
0.794
0.819
0.877
0.661
0.432
0.206
0.18
0.174
0.064
0.378
CFLIR
AUTO
HIST WH
10/9/08 141PM
Figure G-10. Screenshot from FLIR Camera Showing Leak from 10/9/ 2008, Event #7
G-58
-------
G-59
-------
Table G-169. Trace Compound Concentrations (ppb) Detected Along the Ground Level Beam Path of the VRPM
Configurations during 10/9/2008, Event #7
Path
EPAOP-FTIR
(West)
ARCADIS OP-FTIR
(East)
Methane
40.3
46.0
Propane
258
160
2-Methylbutane
228
158
Instances of Emissions Detected with the PGIE but not with ORS Measurements
An analysis of the PGIE observations made by the LSI Ground Crew and ARCADIS personnel in the lock
revealed that there were instances where the PGIE detected barge leaks, but the events were not detected
by the ORS instrumentation deployed on the southern side of the lock. Table G-170 presents a summary of
seven events that were detected by the PGIE but not the ORS instrumentation. The table includes the date
and time of the events, as well as the average prevailing wind direction during the time the PGIE detected
the leaks.
Table G-170. Summary of Leak Events Detected by the PGIE but not ORS Instrumentation
Date
9/28
9/29
9/30
10/2
10/2
10/2
10/8
Time
11:30 am
4:32 pm
2:46 pm
10:25 am
1:00 pm
2:35 pm
9:21 am
Barge Number(s)
323, 348
28038
28068, 29030
3001,3003
00217,9977,500,9,230
3027,3116,3168
940B, 1842,5214
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees)
120
320
300
140
180
150
320
The orientation of the ORS measurement planes (when looking from the OP-FTIR to the scissor lift) was
133° and 311 ° for the EPA and ARCADIS OP-FTIR measurement planes, respectively. Considering the
ORS configurations used in the study, a prevailing wind direction of approximately 41° is ideal for emissions
measurements (perpendicular to the configuration planes). As can be seen in Table G-170, the prevailing
winds during the events not detected by the ORS instrumentation were close to parallel to the measurement
configurations, or in some cases the winds were not from the direction of the lock (wind direction greater
than 133° or less than 311°). The prevailing winds during the times the leaks were detected by the PGIE did
not carry the winds through the ORS measurement plane, which explains why the leaks were not detected
by the ORS instrumentation.
G-60
-------
Evaluation of AM Emissions from Tugs
In order to evaluate the contribution of exhaust from the tugs to the Alkane Mixture (AM) hydrocarbon
emissions fluxes measured during the project, carbon monoxide concentrations were analyzed along the
ground level beam path of the ARCADIS OP-FTIR VRPM configuration. Carbon monoxide was chosen for
this analysis because it is a by-product of combustion, and has relatively low detection limits with the OP-
FTIR instrument. For the nine events detected from barges classified as "empty-no further information", the
carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon concentrations measured along the ground level beam path were
compared to investigate any possible correlations between the two compounds. A correlation between the
two compounds would suggest that the source of the total hydrocarbon emissions measured was the
emissions from the tug engines.
Of the nine events analyzed, eight of the events showed no correlation between the measured carbon
monoxide and total hydrocarbon concentrations. The analysis did indicate a strong correlation between the
concentrations of the two compounds during the 9/28/08 9:38 am to 10:11 am event (r2=0.87). However,
the total hydrocarbon concentrations measured during this event were relatively low and close to the
minimum detection limits of the OP-FTIR instrument. Based on these findings, we conclude that emissions
of total hydrocarbons from the tug exhaust are negligible.
G-61
-------
APPENDIX H
LDEQ Onboard Leak Bagging Test Report: Barge Emissions
Measurement Project Final Report; SAGE Environmental Consulting
(December 29, 2008)
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix H
-------
SAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING !
'"Friendly $Krv$c&, No Surprise's!"
BAGGING TEST REPORT:
Barge Emission Measurement Project
Final Report
Prepared for:
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Prepared by:
Graham Harris
Sage Environmental
Austin, Texas
Field Testing September 2008
Report December 2008
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Results 3
3. Bagging Methodology 15
4. Analytical Procedures 15
5. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 16
List of Tables
1 Summary of Total Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Mass Emissions Results 4
2 Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results 5-14
3 Summary of Duplicate/Triplicate Sampling Variability 20
4 Summary of Bagging System Known Leak Rate Tests 21
5 Summary of Dry Gas Meter Calibration Tests 21
Appendices
Appendix A - Bagging Field Data
Appendix B - EPA Protocol Bagging Procedures
Appendix C -Laboratory Results with QC Data
-2-
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of bagging tests performed on low vapor pressure tank barges
in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana area from September 24 to 28, 2008, while under contract to the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. The bagging tests were intended to determine
the mass of hydrocarbon emissions that would add to the VOC emission inventory around Baton
Rouge and could be contributing to excess ozone formation. This report includes sections
describing the results, methodology, and QA/QC related to the bagging tests.
2.0 RESULTS
During the five day bagging program, a total of 23 leak points from a total of 8 barges were
bagged to determine mass emission rates. The total hydrocarbon emission results of the bagging
tests are summarized in Table 1 and individual compound emission rates are presented in Table
2. Two sets of sampling data were collected from each bagged component, along with a single
canister sample for analysis. The reported emission rates represent the average of the two
sampling runs. The bagging field data was recorded electronically, and copies of the data sheets
for each test are included as Appendix A. The laboratory analytical data are presented in
Appendix C, including a list of all chemical compounds for which a specific analysis was
performed (presented in both alpha-numeric and carbon number order).
The emission figures in Tables 1 and 2 are presented in pounds per hour. The leak rates from
these barge tanks are driven by vapor pressure and volume expansion, both of which vary with
temperature. The ambient temperature has both seasonal and diurnal variations, so there is
considerable uncertainty in extrapolating the measured emissions to an annual basis. As a rough
assumption, if the measured rates persist for 12 hours per day (daylight warming time) and 365
days per year, the total emissions for the 23 leak points tested would be around 465 tons per year.
See Section 5 for additional discussion of uncertainties.
-3-
-------
Table 1. Summary of Total Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Mass Emission Results
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Barge #
Gl
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G5
G5
G5
G5
G6
G6
G7
G7
G8
G8
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Canister
Number
1481
1374
1322
1397
1490
1502
1375
1470
1478
1418
1394
None
None
1396
1348
1431
1347
1376
1482
1462
None
1359
1491
Point Tested
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch
PV Bullet Valve
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly valve)
#1 Port Cargo & Ullage Hatch
#2 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch
#3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch
#2 Port Cargo Valve
# Starboard Stripping Valve
#3 Port Cargo Valve
#1 Port Cargo Valve
#1 Port Ullage Hatch
#3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch
Starboard High Level Alarm Test
Vent Stack
Forward Cofferdam Hatch
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
PV Vent
PV Vent
Slop Tank PV Vent
Test
Type1
DGM
DGM
Vacuum
Vacuum
Vacuum
DGM
DGM
DGM
DGM
Vacuum
DGM
DGM
DGM
DGM
Vacuum
Vacuum
Vacuum
DGM
Vacuum
DGM
DGM
DGM
DGM
Totals
Total Non*Methane Hydrocarbon
Volumetric Leak,
scfm
1.93
0.22
0.41
1.95
0.23
0.63
0.94
0.19
0.11
0.14
0.08
0.05
0.13
1.26
0.44
0.85
0.04
1.05
1.51
2.12
0.45
4.32
0.36
19.40
Mass Leak,
Ib/hour
20.12
2.48
4.56
14.77
2.58
7.09
10.50
2.48
1.46
1.89
1.01
0.59
1.62
16.78
5.81
11.32
0.52
11.54
15.77
24.80
5.26
45.92
3.70
212.56
1 DGM means "dry gas meter direct drive test". Vacuum means "vacuum bagging method".
-4-
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
1 2 3"
-L/^-/'J
Trimethylbenzene
8. 85 E -64
7.51E-65
3.59E-65
1.33E-64
5.78E-65
1.25E-64
4.28E-65
4.52E-64
2.98E-64
8.98E-64
3.58E-64
2.11E-64
5.77E-64
2.23E-64
l.OOE'64
4.11E-64
1.45E-65
1.65E-63
1.38E-64
2.62E-63
5.56E-64
2.07E-64
4.30E-65
1.01E-62
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
5.21E-63
4.06E-64
8.92E-64
4.03E-63
1.84E-63
7.57E-64
1.61E-63
5.92E-63
3.14E-63
6.91E-63
1.56E-63
9.16E-64
2.51E-63
2.32E-63
1.39E-63
3.15E-63
9.35E-65
8.47E-63
7.14E-63
2.94E-62
6.23E-63
1.22E-62
1.15E-63
1.07E-61
1 3 5"
j., j, j
Trimethylbenzene
2.10E-63
1.89E-64
4.02E-64
1.59E-63
6.84E-64
3.49E-64
7.01E-64
3.82E-63
2.52E-63
4.71E-63
2.00E'63
1.18E-63
3.23E-63
1.50E'63
7.19E-64
1.82E-63
5.20E-65
3.25E-63
2.44E-63
8.46E-63
1.80E'63
4.94E-63
5.56E-64
4.90E-62
l,3*butadiene
2.03E-63
6.85E-64
1.02E-63
3.26E-63
4.74E-64
1.13E-63
1.47E-63
2.11E-64
1.11E-64
1.59E-64
6.87E-65
4.04E-65
1.11E-64
9.74E-64
O.OOE+00
2.74E-64
2.54E-65
7.34E-64
1.56E-63
5.27E-64
1.12E-64
3.68E-62
3.34E-63
5.51E-62
1'Butene
7.18E-62
2.47E-62
4.00E-62
1.25E-61
2.05E-62
3.74E-62
5.42E-62
1.44E-64
2.63E-64
2.60E-64
6.87E-65
4.04E-65
1.11E-64
4.55E-64
4.30E-64
6.50E'64
1.06E'65
3.50E-62
5.46E-62
2.08E-62
4.43 E'63
9.21E-61
8.55E-62
1.50E+00
1'Hexene
1.36E-62
8.08E'63
1.50E-62
4.91E-62
9.20E-63
1.21E-62
1.73E-62
5.30E-64
2.53E-64
5.39E-64
2.01E-64
1.18E-64
3.24E-64
5.65E-63
9.40E-63
1.26E-62
6.67E-64
2.28E-62
1.50E-62
3.65E-63
7.75E-64
4.29E-62
8.05E-64
2.41E-61
- 5 -
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
1'Pentene
1.47E-61
5.03E-62
9.69E-62
3.11E-61
5.38E-62
1.03E-61
1.52E-61
2.45E-64
1.16E-64
1.27E-64
1.01E-64
5.93E-65
1.62E-64
2.59E-63
1.06E'63
2.16E-63
9.30E-65
1.20E-61
1.65E-61
4.78E-62
1.02E-62
2.14E-61
1.55E-62
1.49E+00
2 2 4"
t-l*-!*
Trimethylpentane
1.21E-61
4.82E-63
8.54E-63
2.92E-62
5.52E-63
8.62E-63
1.27E-62
5.27E-65
4.49E-65
5.05E'65
1.01E-62
5.96E-63
1.63E-62
1.16E-62
3.42E-63
5.60E'63
2.56E-64
1.08E'61
8.64E-62
4.93E-62
1.05E-62
9.97E-62
5.53E-63
6.03E'61
2,2-
Dimethylbutane
4.89E-63
1.23E-63
2.39E-63
7.63E-63
8.09E'63
9.07E-63
1.32E-62
4.88E-63
2.60E'63
3.73E-63
1.90E-63
1.12E-63
3.06E'63
7.96E-61
2.56E-61
5.24E-61
2.23E-62
3.56E-62
4.43E-62
3.09E'61
6.57E-62
2.16E-61
1.40E-62
2.35E+00
2 3 4"
'-i-3 1*
Trimethylpentane
2.75E-62
8.20E-64
9.52E-64
3.38E-63
6.75E-64
1.19E-63
1.80E-63
6.42E-64
6.22E-65
3.61E-64
3.03E-64
1.79E-64
4.89E-64
2.59E-64
1.43E-64
2.05E-64
1.43E-65
2.53E-63
1.66E'63
2.00E'63
4.24E-64
2.61E-62
1.09E-64
7.18E-62
2,3-
Dimethylbutane
1.40E-61
2.68E-62
7.80E-63
2.55E-62
4.63E-63
1.31E-62
1.92E-62
1.32E-62
7.28E-63
1.06E'62
5.23E-63
3.08E'63
8.43 E'63
6.42E-61
9.51E-61
1.80E+00
8.57E-62
2.85E-61
1.28E-62
2.04E-61
4.34E-62
3.74E-61
2.11E-62
4.71E+00
2,3-
Dimethylpentane
3.25E-62
4.04E-63
9.98E-64
3.44E-63
6.32E-64
3.32E-62
4.94E-62
1.44E-62
8.72E-63
1.12E-62
3.84E-63
2.26E-63
6.18E-63
4.28E-61
5.35E-62
9.79E-62
4.59E-63
2.92E-62
1.59E-63
1.46E-62
3.09E'63
9.99E-62
5.06E'63
9.08E'61
-6-
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
2,4"
Dimethylpentane
2.91E-62
2.66E-63
4.70E-63
1.59E-62
2.92E-63
7.02E-62
1.04E-61
6.27E-63
3.72E-63
5.11E-63
2.53E-63
1.49E-63
4.07E-63
1.20E-61
3.77E-62
7.08E-62
3.29E-63
2.22E-62
2.16E-62
1.97E-62
4.19E-63
3.29E-62
1.75E-63
5.87E-61
2*Methylheptane
1.07E-62
2.96E-63
6.90E'64
2.41E-63
1.83E-63
6.26E-64
9.53E-64
2.82E-63
1.85E-63
1.76E-63
1.15E-63
6.79E-64
1.86E-63
5.39E-63
4.20E-64
1.13E-63
3.89E-65
7.59E-63
9.24E-63
1.93E-62
4.10E-63
3.20E-63
l.OOE'63
8.18E-62
2*Methylhexane
6.56E-62
1.28E-62
2.27E-62
7.76E-62
1.47E-62
1.29E-63
1.89E-63
3.20E-62
1.94E-62
2.46E-62
1.27E-62
7.49E-63
2.05E-62
1.99E-63
1.27E-61
2.35E-61
1.08E-62
6.67E-62
5.79E-62
8.07E-62
1.71E-62
1.23E-63
4.02E-65
9.13E-61
2*Methylpentane
2.03E-62
1.04E-61
1.21E-62
3.93E-62
7.43 E'63
2.31E-62
3.35E-62
6.65E-62
3.68E-62
5.43E-62
2.64E-62
1.55E-62
4.25E-62
2.63E+00
6.95E-63
1.29E-62
6.63E-64
1.82E-62
2.06E-62
7.97E-61
1.69E-61
1.27E+00
7.76E-62
5.48E+00
3*Methylheptane
1.09E-62
1.99E-63
1.05E-64
3.74E-64
l.OOE'63
5.84E-65
8.70E-65
1.40E-63
9.19E-64
8.51E-64
5.86E-64
3.45E-64
9.44E-64
3.78E-63
3.30E-64
6.59E-64
2.70E-65
5.05E'63
8.51E-63
4.20E-62
8.92E-63
6.37E-63
8.57E-64
9.61E-62
3*Methylhexane
6.46E-62
1.17E-62
6.73E-64
2.29E-63
4.48E-64
2.82E-62
4.20E-62
3.85E-62
2.34E-62
2.94E-62
1.54E-62
9.06E'63
2.48E-62
4.62E-61
1.37E-61
2.53E-61
1.17E-62
6.52E-62
1.54E-63
9.75E-62
2.07E-62
l.OOE'61
5.07E-63
1.44E+00
-7-
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
3*Methylpentane
2.28E-61
5.37E-62
9.74E-62
3.21E-61
5.87E-62
1.49E-61
2.20E-61
4.81E-62
2.70E-62
3.96E-62
1.93E-62
1.13E-62
3.10E-62
2.03E+00
7.19E-61
1.37E+00
6.47E-62
1.76E-61
1.98E-61
4.38E-61
9.30E-62
6.97E-61
4.08E-62
7.13E+00
Acetylene
O.OOE+00
2.20E-65
9.05E'65
1.40E-64
6.81E-65
4.78E-65
1.33E-64
1.92E-64
1.24E-64
2.02E-64
9.92E-65
5.84E-65
1.60E'64
1.76E-64
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.47E-65
1.47E-64
1.73E-64
5.59E-64
1.19E-64
8.42E-63
7.83E-64
1.17E-62
Benzene
1.41E-61
1.01E-62
1.91E-62
6.47E-62
1.24E-62
2.41E-62
3.58E-62
2.20E-62
1.25E-62
1.77E-62
7.76E-63
4.57E-63
1.25E-62
2.51E+00
8.31E-61
1.64E+00
7.67E-62
1.24E-61
1.18E-61
8.01E-62
1.70E-62
1.06E'61
5.52E-63
5.89E+00
cis*2*Butene
2.60E-61
2.36E-62
4.40E-62
1.40E-61
2.27E-62
9.70E-62
1.42E-61
1.53E-64
O.OOE+00
1.73E-64
6.49E-65
3.82E-65
1.05E-64
8.70E-64
3.22E-64
7.19E-64
2.78E-65
1.80E'61
2.67E-61
1.81E-62
3.85E-63
8.13E-61
6.39E-62
2.08E+00
cis*2*Pentene
1.54E-61
4.76E-62
9.07E-62
2.90E-61
5.15E-62
1.84E-61
2.74E-61
1.92E-64
2.60E-64
1.85E-64
7.02E-65
4.13E-65
1.13E-64
4.77E-63
1.83E-63
3.99E-63
1.61E-64
2.94E-61
1.75E-61
4.35E-62
9.24E-63
2.30E-61
1.60E'62
1.87E+00
Cumene
1.09E-63
8.65E-65
1.61E-64
5.36E-64
1.71E-64
9.80E-65
2.24E-64
3.53E-63
2.29E-63
3.42E-63
1.50E-63
8.84E-64
2.42E-63
7.16E-64
2.62E-64
4.41E-64
2.22E-65
1.40E-63
9.52E-64
7.01E-63
1.49E-63
1.30E'63
1.64E-64
3.02E-62
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
Cyclohexane
1.62E-62
4.92E-63
1.99E-63
6.70E-63
1.08E-63
9.62E-64
1.40E-63
7.85E-62
4.65E-62
6.42E-62
5.09E-65
2.99E-65
8.20E-65
4.42E-63
5.08E-63
7.65E-63
3.86E-64
1.69E-62
2.39E-63
1.32E-61
2.79E-62
1.54E-63
1.72E-63
4.22E-61
Cyclopentane
5.66E-62
1.78E-62
3.31E-62
1.07E-61
1.93E-62
3.46E-62
5.13E-62
1.57E-62
8.53E-63
1.26E-62
6.17E-63
3.63E-63
9.94E-63
1.28E-61
2.79E-61
5.49E-61
2.46E-62
I.OIE'61
4.52E-62
4.04E-61
8.57E-62
3.28E-61
2.04E-62
2.34E+00
Ethane
1.39E-61
4.77E-62
7.53E-62
2.05E-61
2.89E-62
5.12E-62
7.51E-62
3.38E-62
1.86E-62
2.47E-62
1.27E-62
7.45E-63
2.04E-62
3.43E-63
2.30E-63
3.94E-63
3.34E-64
6.52E-62
9.92E-62
8.80E-62
1.87E-62
1.71E-61
2.64E-65
1.19E+00
Ethylbenzene
1.50E-62
6.20E-64
2.75E-63
1.07E-62
2.69E-63
2.52E-63
4.05E-63
1.05E-62
6.33E'63
7.53E-63
3.13E-63
1.84E-63
5.05E'63
3.67E-63
1.44E-63
2.28E-63
1.31E-64
1.90E-62
1.13E-62
1.56E-62
3.31E-63
1.81E-62
1.39E-63
1.49E-61
Ethylene
O.OOE+00
1.73E-63
2.83E-63
7.40E-63
9.41E-64
9.88E-64
1.44E-63
1.92E-64
1.24E-64
2.02E-64
1.15E-64
6.74E-65
1.85E-64
1.12E-64
1.02E-64
1.88E-64
1.15E-65
1.47E-64
1.73E-64
1.28E-63
2.72E-64
1.37E-62
O.OOE+00
3.22E-62
Isobutane
4.46E+00
6.18E-62
9.63E-63
2.86E-62
7.21E-63
1.02E-61
1.46E-61
4.16E-62
1.98E-62
2.67E-62
1.45E-62
8.51E-63
2.33E-62
4.60E-62
1.34E-62
2.92E-62
1.18E-63
1.59E+00
2.47E+00
1.55E+00
3.29E-61
5.62E+00
5.58E-61
1.71E+01
-9-
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
Isopentane
3.35E+00
7.33E-61
1.28E+00
4.18E+00
7.03E-61
2.53E+00
3.74E+00
1.23E-61
6.25E-62
8.95E-62
4.50E-62
2.64E-62
7.25E-62
1.56E+00
5.71E-61
1.18E+00
5.12E-62
1.79E+00
2.49E+00
7.19E+00
1.53E+00
7.56E+00
5.68E-61
4.14E+01
Isoprene
1.21E-62
3.27E-63
6.48E-63
2.09E-62
3.58E-63
3.92E-63
5.49E-63
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.83E-64
1.08E-64
2.95E-64
7.21E-64
1.06E'63
8.35E-64
1.35E-64
9.71E-63
1.30E-62
4.19E-63
8.89E-64
2.13E-62
1.62E-63
I.IOE'61
m/p Xylene
4.46E-62
3.02E-63
9.20E-63
3.47E-62
9.08E-63
1.16E-62
1.44E-62
6.16E-62
3.86E-62
4.78E-62
1.37E-62
8.07E-63
2.21E-62
1.50E-62
3.84E-63
8.50E'63
4.33E-64
6.46E-62
3.92E-62
9.19E-62
1.95E-62
6.71E-62
4.72E-63
6.33E'61
m*Diethylbenzene
1.25E-64
2.06E'65
1.81E-65
1.44E-64
9.41E-65
3.72E-65
5.48E-65
1.65E-64
9.12E-65
3.17E-64
7.63E-65
4.49E-65
1.23E-64
8.62E-65
6.35E-65
1.13E-64
4.58E-66
3.19E-64
2.87E-64
1.25E-63
2.65E-64
4.77E-64
5.98E-65
4.24E-63
Methylcyclohexane
1.29E-62
6.59E-63
1.26E-63
4.31E-63
8.34E-64
4.38E-63
6.62E-63
1.33E-61
8.53E-62
1.02E-61
5.38E-62
3.16E-62
8.67E-62
1.21E-62
2.92E-63
4.00E'63
2.42E-64
6.28E-63
1.56E-63
2.21E-61
4.70E-62
4.28E-62
2.24E-63
8.69E-61
Methyl cyclopentane
I.OIE'61
2.89E-62
5.26E-62
1.74E-61
3.28E-62
6.71E-64
1.01E-63
7.70E-62
4.41E-62
6.38E-62
3.08E-62
1.81E-62
4.96E-62
1.41E-61
4.69E-62
8.83E-62
4.23E-63
9.21E-62
9.51E-62
2.69E-61
5.72E-62
2.70E-61
1.41E-62
1.75E+00
- 10-
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
m'Ethyltoluene
5.03E-63
3.76E-64
7.99E-64
3.18E-63
1.26E-63
7.34E-64
1.34E-63
6.18E-63
3.89E-63
7.04E-63
2.43E-63
1.43E-63
3.92E-63
2.03E-63
9.46E-64
2.07E-63
6.91E-65
7.16E-63
5.14E-63
2.12E-62
4.51E-63
9.67E-63
1.03E'63
9.15E-62
n*Butane
4.40E+00
1.33E-61
2.22E-61
7.03E-61
1.14E-61
1.91E-61
2.78E-61
l.HE'81
5.44E-62
7.47E-62
3.92E-62
2.31E-62
6.33E-62
2.08E-61
7.25E-62
1.55E-61
6.44E-63
2.61E+00
3.96E+00
2.73E+00
5.80E-61
1.48E+01
1.30E+00
3.28E+01
n*Decane
1.16E-64
4.92E-65
1.67E-64
6.66E'64
3.33E-64
8.29E-65
2.77E-64
3.48E-63
2.44E-63
6.04E'63
2.07E-63
1.22E-63
3.33E-63
1.34E-63
6.02E-64
2.02E-63
7.37E-65
4.59E-64
7.63E-64
1.05E-62
2.24E-63
1.31E-63
2.74E-64
3.99E-62
n*Heptane
3.38E-62
1.04E-62
5.07E-63
2.23E-62
4.33E-63
2.34E-63
3.50E'63
7.52E-62
4.64E-62
5.43E-62
2.95E-62
1.74E-62
4.75E-62
1.74E-61
5.06E'62
9.27E-62
4.16E-63
3.55E-62
1.43E-62
1.50E'61
3.17E-62
5.63E-62
2.89E-63
9.64E-61
n*Hexane
1.63E-61
3.52E-62
8.10E-63
2.68E-62
5.05E'63
1.35E-62
1.99E-62
I.OIE'61
5.74E-62
8.33E-62
3.99E-62
2.35E-62
6.43E-62
2.01E+00
6.81E-61
1.29E+00
6.10E-62
1.32E-61
1.68E-62
6.39E'61
1.36E'61
5.14E-61
2.87E-62
6.15E+00
n*Nonane
1.09E-63
4.45 E'64
1.10E-63
4.34E-63
1.14E-63
7.21E-64
1.46E-63
2.53E-62
1.64E-62
2.36E-62
1.05E-62
6.16E-63
1.69E-62
4.45 E'63
1.38E-63
1.73E-63
1.29E-64
1.98E-63
1.75E-63
2.94E-62
6.25E-63
4.36E-63
6.61E-64
1.61E-61
-11 -
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
n*Octane
7.88E-63
3.75E-63
5.34E-64
1.89E-63
9.37E-64
4.61E-64
7.24E-64
7.53E-62
4.82E-62
5.11E-62
1.39E-63
8.16E-64
2.24E-63
6.84E-63
1.45E-63
1.04E-63
1.11E-64
1.38E-63
8.11E-64
9.22E-62
1.96E-62
1.53E-63
1.30E'63
3.21E-61
n*Pentane
8.43E-61
2.60E'61
4.87E-61
1.57E+00
2.76E-61
4.35E-61
6.43E-61
1.34E-61
6.99E-62
I.OIE'61
5.06E-62
2.98E-62
8.16E-62
1.05E+00
4.39E-61
8.81E-61
3.90E-62
5.65E-61
7.58E-61
6.45E+00
1.37E+00
4.64E+00
3.39E-61
2.15E+01
n*Propylbenzene
1.97E-63
1.08E-64
1.94E-64
7.40E-64
3.18E-64
1.75E-64
3.82E-64
2.52E-63
1.58E-63
1.73E-63
5.29E-64
3.11E-64
8.53E-64
9.47E-64
2.96E-64
5.59E-64
1.35E-65
2.59E-63
1.69E-63
1.05E-62
2.23E-63
2.64E-63
3.57E-64
3.32E-62
n*Undecane
O.OOE+00
1.20E-65
2.23E-65
1.34E-64
1.67E-64
1.23E-64
6.33E-65
8.02E-65
4.52E-65
2.52E-64
4.72E-65
2.78E-65
7.61E-65
1.07E-64
5.21E-65
2.18E-64
7.74E-66
1.03E-64
5.40E-64
6.70E-64
1.42E-64
2.09E-64
6.16E-65
3.16E-63
o Xylene
1.74E-62
1.06E'63
3.11E-63
1.22E-62
3.33E-63
2.94E-63
4.91E-63
2.29E-62
1.31E-62
1.42E-62
5.17E-63
3.04E-63
8.33E-63
6.20E'63
1.75E-63
2.70E-63
1.58E-64
2.17E-62
1.30E-62
3.78E-62
8.03E'63
2.08E-62
1.98E-63
2.26E-61
o*Ethyltoluene
1.75E-63
1.23E-64
2.69E-64
9.80E-64
4.21E-64
2.14E-64
4.15E-64
2.25E-63
1.39E-63
2.67E-63
8.26E-64
4.86E-64
1.33E-63
7.66E-64
3.41E-64
9.28E-64
2.62E-65
2.54E-63
1.98E-63
9.23E-63
1.96E-63
3.02E-63
3.40E-64
3.43E-62
- 12-
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
p*Diethylbenzene
1.99E-84
3.01E-85
9.18E-85
3.99E-84
8.05E-85
4.67E-85
3.85E-85
2.61E-84
9.68E-85
1.21E-84
6.11E-85
3.59E-85
9.84E-85
1.63E-84
7.78E-85
1.51E-84
5.24E-86
1.94E-84
2.97E-84
1.18E-83
2.51E-64
3.56E-64
5.46E-65
4.29E-63
p*Ethyltoluene
2.15E-63
1.96E-65
3.88E-65
1.60E'64
6.33E'65
3.07E-65
7.73E-65
1.44E-63
9.22E-64
1.62E-63
6.53E-64
3.84E-64
1.05E'63
3.51E-64
1.11E-64
2.09E-64
1.09E'65
3.02E-64
2.20E-64
2.39E-63
5.08E-64
4.51E-64
7.92E-65
1.32E-62
Propane
1.92E+00
9.79E-62
1.46E-61
4.16E-61
6.60E'62
5.66E-62
8.26E-62
8.94E-62
4.21E-62
5.65E-62
3.20E-62
1.88E-62
5.16E-62
5.58E-63
1.88E-63
3.99E-63
1.98E-64
7.72E-61
1.22E+00
3.75E-61
7.97E-62
5.21E-61
5.30E-62
6.10E+00
Propylene
2.15E-62
2.06E-62
3.00E'62
8.35E-62
1.27E-62
2.24E-62
3.22E-62
2.94E-64
1.66E-64
2.50E-64
9.67E-65
5.69E-65
1.56E-64
1.17E-64
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.25E-63
5.38E-63
1.51E-62
3.20E-63
9.62E-62
9.03E'63
3.56E-61
Styrene
4.95E-64
6.43E-65
3.10E-64
1.31E-63
2.11E-64
1.46E-64
2.83E-64
1.36E-63
8.67E-64
1.12E-63
5.61E-64
3.30E-64
9.04E-64
7.26E-64
1.33E-64
1.37E-64
1.35E-65
5.04E-64
1.86E-64
3.43E-63
7.28E-64
5.35E-64
5.50E'65
1.44E-62
Toluene
1.55E-61
1.16E-62
2.45E-62
9.09E-62
1.92E-62
2.70E-62
4.11E-62
5.20E-62
3.13E-62
3.61E-62
1.72E-62
1.01E-62
2.78E-62
4.67E-61
1.47E-61
3.13E-61
1.42E-62
1.71E-61
1.20E-61
l.HE'81
2.37E-82
1.42E-81
8.17E-83
2.06E+00
- 13-
-------
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Compound Mass Emission Results (Cont'd)
Testtf
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cargo
Unleaded Gasoline
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Trans Mix
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Naphtha but cleaned
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Raffinate
Gasoline
Gasoline
Naphtha
Naphtha
Unleaded Gasoline
Unleaded Gasoline
Totals, pounds per hour
Individual Compound Emissions, pounds per hour
trans*2*Butene
2.71E-61
2.69E-62
4.79E-62
1.52E-61
2.45E-62
1.29E-61
1.89E-61
2.59E-64
2.14E-64
4.18E-64
3.59E-64
2.11E-64
5.78E-64
1.94E-63
5.48E-64
1.12E-63
3.68E-65
1.55E-61
2.36E-61
6.38E-62
1.35E-62
1.16E+00
9.50E-62
2.57E+00
trans*2*Pentene
2.85E-61
8.97E-62
1.71E-61
5.48E-61
9.73E-62
4.56E-61
6.79E-61
2.53E-64
1.11E-64
1.50E-64
1.04E-64
6.11E'65
1.67E-64
9.14E-63
3.32E-63
7.76E-63
2.99E-64
2.43E-61
3.26E-61
8.83E-62
1.87E-62
5.42E-61
3.81E-62
3.61E+00
Unidentified2
2.23E+00
4.83E-61
1.47E+00
4.83E+00
8.65E-61
2.21E+00
3.30E+00
9.31E-61
5.89E-61
7.19E-61
4.79E-61
2.82E-61
7.73E-61
1.26E+00
3.45E-61
6.54E-61
3.04E-62
1.44E+00
2.56E+00
1.65E+00
3.50E-61
4.00E+00
2.84E-61
3.17E+01
Total NMOC
2.01E+01
2.48E+00
4.56E+00
1.48E+01
2.58E+00
7.09E+00
1.05E+01
2.48E+00
1.46E+00
1.89E+00
1.01E+00
5.92E-61
1.62E+00
1.68E+01
5.81E+00
1.13E+01
5.21E-61
1.15E+01
1.58E+01
2.48E+01
5.26E+00
4.59E+01
3.70E+00
2.13E+02
"Unidentified" would include any hydrocarbon peak for which there was no standard. These compounds are quantified but not identified.
- 14-
-------
3.0 BAGGING METHODOLOGY
The bagging technique is used to measure the mass emissions from equipment leaks. It is
documented in the US EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, 1995 (EPA
Protocol, see Appendix B), and those procedures are adopted here by reference. There are two
basic variations in the bagging approach: the vacuum method and the blow-through method.
Both methods have advantages in certain circumstances, however, during this test program the
vacuum method was used exclusively. The only variations from this procedure include:
•• No background bags were taken, since they would have a negligible effect on the
results from high leaking components that are the focus of this work;
•• No analytical tests were performed on any liquid leak materials collected, since the
objective was to only quantify the vapor leaks;
• • A single canister sample was taken for analysis for most of the points tested; and
• • The dry gas meter was driven directly on components leaking at a rate greater than
the pump capacity.
4.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Samples were collected in evacuated aluminum summa canisters provided by LDEQ. A
maximum of one canister was filled for each point tested. One canister was sometimes used for
multiple sampling points in the same product service on the same barge. The LDEQ laboratory
did the analysis using EPA PAMS analysis by GC/FID. The detailed laboratory results are
presented in Appendix C.
Analytical data were compiled for 56 individual chemical compounds, plus an unidentified
hydrocarbon and total non-methane hydrocarbons (TNMHC). Compound concentrations were
reported in parts per billion as carbon (ppbC). The carbon numbers for each chemical compound
were used to calculate the average carbon number for the TNMHC, along with an assumed
carbon number of 4.5 for category of unidentified hydrocarbons, The molecular weight of the
TNMHC was then calculated as the average carbon number times 14 plus 2, which corresponds
to alkane hydrocarbons. This value comes from the generalized alkane formula of CnH2n+2, and
substituting a carbon atomic weight of 12 and hydrogen of 1, the molecular weight can be
expressed as 14n + 2.
- 15-
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
A variety of QA/QC checks were run on both the sampling and analytical portions of this work.
This section presents the results of those QA/QC tests. In general the QC activities consisted of
the following:
• • Duplicate sampling data collection;
•• Analytical QA/QC;
• • Known leak rate testing; and
• • Dry gas meter calibration check.
Duplicate/Triplicate Sampling Data
Each component tested had sampling data collected in duplicate and about half the runs were
tested in triplicate. The duplicate/triplicate data was for flow rate (time elapsed for a given flow
volume), temperature, and pressure at the dry gas meter. The flow rates in liters per minute at
actual conditions were compared across the duplicate or triplicate runs. The bagging procedure
requires that the individual runs agree within ±20%, in which case the runs are averaged as the
final result. These tests showed a variation from -17.3% to +9.8%. The -17.3% result was the
first run on a vacuum bagging train run where the plastic bag was observed to collapse around
the suction line reducing flow. Two other sampling runs were performed with the plastic held
away from the suction line, which showed ±5.8% variation. The first run at -17.3% was
discarded because of the known flaw. With that one sampling run discarded, the range of
variation in flow data were ±9.8%. The duplicate/triplicate sampling data is given in Table 3.
Analytical QA/QC Data
A total of 20 canisters were sent to the laboratory for analysis. Standard cylinder gases were
used to calibrate the instrument and to check for calibration drift 3 to 4 times during each day of
analysis on the barge test canisters. A total of 6 canister blanks were tested. A total of 6
canisters were analyzed in duplicate. Two system blanks were tested. All these QA/QC test
results fell within the ranges allowed for the analytical method. Detailed documentation of the
analytical data can be found in Appendix C.
- 16-
-------
Known Leak Rate Tests
A known leak rate check of the bagging system was performed before and after the sampling
effort. The known leak-rate test involved introducing a known artificial leak rate into a dummy
bag, and then running the bagging test in the normal fashion. The emission rate calculated from
the bagging test was then compared to the known artificial leak rate, with a criterion of • *20%
(80% to 120% recovery) of the known rate to pass the test.
The known artificial leak was generated by connecting a cylinder of calibration gas to the
dummy bag and operating the bagging test using standard procedures. The flow rate into the bag
was measured before and after each leak check using a Dry-Cal flow-measuring device traced to
a primary standard.
In Table 4, we present the results of the known leak rate checks done before and after the set of
barge bagging tests. The known leak rate tests were done at the beginning of the study before
any field samples were collected and again following the completion of the bagging study. The
initial and final vacuum method tests showed good results for methane at both the high and low
concentration levels. However, it should be noted that the high level calibration gas did not
match the concentrations of the large leaks encountered in the barge testing.
Dry Gas Meter Calibration Checks
On 15 out of 23 component tests, the leak rate from the component exceeded the pump rate of
the dry gas meter. For these tests, the dry gas meter was disconnected from the pump and the
component leak rate was routed directly through the dry gas meter (i.e., the leak was driving the
meter with no external driving force). Since this mode of measurement does not use the entire
bagging train, the dry gas meter was sent to Carl Poe Company for a calibration check against a
National Institute of Standards (NIST) traceable prover. In Table 5, we present the results of
testing the dry gas meter at three different flow rates, which cover almost the entire range of flow
rates encountered during the barge testing. The dry gas meter was found to have minimal error
rates of +1% to +1.5% throughout this range. Since the dry gas meter was found to have a bias
toward reading slightly high, the measured flow rates were corrected by a factor of 0.99 (for flow
rates under 30 liters/minute) and by a factor of 0.985 (for flow rates greater than 30
liters/minute).
- 17-
-------
Table 3. Summary of Duplicate/Triplicate Sampling Variability
Test#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Run#l
Liter/min.
66.67
14.75
36.23
127.90
36.79
25.43
37.71
81.30
63.16
114.94
36.52
21.65
59.82
69.77
31.53
68.81
6.43
86.45
127.25
136.99
36.36
123.95
13.93
% Deviation
-3.1%
-0.7%
+0.1%
+1.1%
-2.2%
-0.8%
+3.0%
-1.1%
+2.0%
-0.3%
-0.02%
0.0%
+0.7%
+2.4%
-17.3%3
-4.7%
+9.3%
-1.2%
+1.2%
-3.7%
-1.4%
-8.8%
+0.8%
Run #2
Liter/min.
72.99
14.96
36.17
125.00
38.41
25.84
35.50
83.45
61.16
111.73
36.28
21.65
58.94
66.45
40.35
74.17
5.33
88.89
124.35
142.18
37.57
139.73
13.23
% Deviation
+6.1%
+0.7%
-0.1%
-1.1%
+2.2%
+0.8%
-3.0%
+1.5%
-1.2%
-3.1%
-0.6%
0.0%
-0.7%
-2.4%
+5.8%
+4.7%
-9.3%
+1.5%
-1.2%
-0.1%
+1.9%
+3.6%
-4.3%
Run #3
Liter/min.
66.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81.91
61.44
119.28
36.74
NA
NA
NA
35.93
NA
NA
87.27
NA
147.78
36.71
141.84
14.32
% Deviation
-3.0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-0.4%
-0.8%
+3.4%
+0.6%
NA
NA
NA
-5.8%
NA
NA
-0.3%
NA
+3.8%
-0.5%
+5.2%
+3.5%
Average
68.81
14.85
36.20
126.45
37.60
25.64
36.61
82.22
61.92
115.32
36.51
21.65
59.38
68.11
38.14
71.49
5.88
87.54
125.80
142.32
36.88
134.88
13.83
3 The suction line was observed to be partially blocked by plastic from the enclosure. The plastic was held away in
the next two runs, and a funnel was added inside the bag to minimize this effect in future tests. This run was
discarded and was not used to calculate the average for this test.
- 18-
-------
Table 4. Summary of Bagging System Known Leak Rate Tests
Sample Description
Pre*Test QA Vacuum***
High Range
Pre*Test QA Vacuum***
Low Range
Post*Test QA Vacuum**1
High Range
Post*Test QA Vacuum**1
Low Range
Known Leak, kg/hr
0.000163
0.000017
0.00175
0.000431
Bag Test, kg/hr
0.000151
0.0000148
0.00160
0.000423
Percent Error
-*5%
-1*3.3%
-ft 2%
-fcO%
Table 5. Summary of Dry Gas Meter Calibration Tests
Test#
1
2
3
Flow Rate Tested,
liter/min.
5
20
85
DGM Percent Error
+1%
+1%
+1.5%
DGM Correction Factor
0.99
0.99
0.985
- 19-
-------
Overall Analysis of Uncertainty in Mass Emission Estimates
There are a number of factors which contribute to uncertainty in the measured mass emission
estimates, including:
• • Sampling variability;
• • Analytical variability;
• • Leak capture/containment variability;
• • Inter-dependence of multiple leak sites on a barge; and
•• Temperature effects (both diurnal and seasonal).
In addition to these factors causing uncertainty in the measured emissions, there is additional
uncertainty in an extrapolation of measured emissions to total emissions from barges in the
Baton Rouge area. Each of these uncertainties is discussed below.
Sampling and Analytical Variability
Sampling variability has been addressed quantitatively in the preceding subsections and falls
within the acceptable range for the method. The analytical data provided by the laboratory at the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) in Baton Rouge is documented in
Appendix C. The analytical procedures included testing blank canisters (6 total), duplicate
analyses (6 total), and standard calibration gases (4) with results that fall within the acceptable
ranges for the method. Sampling variability is generally greater than analytical variability, and
the bagging method is expected to have better than ±20% variability overall.
Capture Efficiency
Another part of sampling variability that is outside the quantitative QA/QC tests presented earlier
is variability in the capture efficiency of the bag enclosure. There were cases where the FLIR
camera could detect leakage around the area where the bag was secured to the component by a
combination of duct tape and turnbuckle compression. In most cases, any visible leaks were
corrected before sample data were collected. Some bagged components were not imaged with
the FLIR camera during bagging, so we do not know if there may have been detectable leakage
around the bag on those components. Some other bagged components were imaged, but we
could not completely eliminate detectable leakage. Any of these leaks around the bag enclosure
would not be directed through the dry gas meter on the 15 direct drive tests. This variable
-------
capture efficiency cannot be quantitatively estimated, but it is clear that this factor would cause
the measured emissions to be biased low.
Inter-Dependence of Leaking Components
The next area of uncertainty is the inter-dependence of leaking components on the barges. The
barges have multiple storage compartments that can isolate the stored liquid materials, but we
understand, based on conversations with several barge company representatives, that the vapor
spaces of all the compartments are connected to a common header going to the pressure/vacuum
(P/V) relief valve and the vent stack. The barges tested all operated at low pressures, with P/V
relief valves starting to vent at pressures of 1 psig to 6 psig. The seals on the hatches and valve
packing are designed to minimize leakage at these low pressure differentials. During the testing,
we came to realize that everything we did to one sample point affected the emissions from the
other potential leak points around it. The dry gas meter creates only a few inches of water back
pressure, but we bagged many leaking components that would inflate the bag, but would not
drive the dry gas meter. Presumably this happened because the slight increase in back pressure
from the dry gas meter caused the leak to move from the bagged component to a neighboring
component. Conversely, when we did a vacuum bagging test, there was the potential to pull
hydrocarbons that might have been emitted from another component through the bagged
component. Both of these phenomena were verified by imaging with the FLIR camera. We
believe that if the vacuum bagging test had been run for all the components on a barge, the sum
of the emissions measured could have been greater than the total actual emissions. We did not
perform vacuum bagging on all or even a majority of components on any given barge, however,
and most of the vacuum bagging emission rates were lower than other direct drive dry gas meter
tests on the same barge. Since the majority of the tests were done by direct drive of the dry gas
meter, we believe this factor would result in biasing the calculated emissions on the low side.
Diurnal Temperature Effects
The ambient temperature was observed to have an effect on emission rates from the barges. The
helicopter-based FLIR camera found few, if any, leaks during flights before 10 AM, and
progressively more leaks as the ambient temperature rose in the afternoon. The barge storage
compartments can be likened to atmospheric storage tanks with P/V relief valves that activate at
low pressures to protect the structural integrity of the compartment. When ambient temperatures
are increasing, the vapor pressure of the stored material increases and the volume of the gas
above the stored material expands. This results in higher concentrations of hydrocarbon in the
-------
vapor space and gas escaping through the P/V valve or other imperfectly sealed fittings.
Conversely when ambient temperature is decreasing, vapor pressure of the stock is decreasing
and the gas volume contracts, which should result in negligible emissions. The P/V valve opens
to allow air into the cargo compartment during decreasing temperature operation to protect the
compartment from the destructive effects of vacuum, which likely explains the lower TNMHC
concentrations found in the laboratory analyses. The bagging tests were performed between
about 11:00 AM and 4:00 PM. These times were all during the increasing temperature portion of
the day, but not at the peak temperature for the day during daylight savings time with sunset
around 7:00 PM. The leak rates measured would likely underestimate the peak leak rate. It is
difficult to extrapolate the short-term measured emissions to a daily average basis.
Seasonal Temperature Effects
The barge measurements reported here were performed in late September. The weather during
that week of testing was unseasonably cool, with average daily temperatures ranging from 67.1
°F to 73.2 °F vs. a historical average of about 75 °F for that time period in Baton Rouge. It
would be difficult to extrapolate the short-term measured emissions to an annual basis because of
seasonal temperature variations, but the leak rates measured are undoubtedly well below the
maximum summer emission rates for similarly sealed barges. It is the ozone exceedance times in
the summer that are of primary interest to this study, however, so we can say that the measured
emission rates would underestimate barge emissions during those critical ozone exceedance
days.
Extrapolation to Untested Components and Barges
The 23 leaking components measured in this project represent less than half of the components
on the 8 barges tested for which leaks could be detected by using the Hawk Leak Detection
System from the deck of the barge. The components selected for testing were biased towards the
larger leaks, but some components with large leaks were not tested because of difficulty in
access / making a good seal for the bag and some components with relatively low leak rates were
selected to better characterize the range of imaged leaks.
The Leak Surveys, Inc. helicopter crew flying with the Hawk Leak Detection System mounted
with a Taylor mount onboard their Robinson 44 Raven II helicopter found numerous other
"leaking" barges; however, time did not permit the leak measurement of all the leaking tank
barges found. When the Hawk camera was used from the deck of the selected barges, many more
-------
leaking components could typically be imaged than were imaged from the air. It is likely that
there were leaks on tank barges not imaged from the air that could have been imaged from the
deck of the barge.
In summary, the net emission rate from the 23 components tested was about 212 pounds per
hour. Since most of the recognized sources of uncertainty identified in this study would tend to
bias the sample results low, it is likely that the actual emissions rate was well in excess of the
212 pounds per hour for the 23 points measured. The total emissions from the dozens of imaged
leaks that were not measured, and the hundreds of barges in the Baton Rouge area that were not
tested, would be difficult to estimate, but would likely contribute significant emissions beyond
the tested components.
-------
APPENDIX A
Bagging Field Data Sheets
Notes:
These are the field data recorded, and format and types of data included may vary from one test
to the next.
Temperature was measured by a dial thermometer mounted in the gas flow path, and many
readings exceeded the apparent ambient temperature.
Barometric pressure was measured by a dial barometer mounted to the supports for the dry gas
meter.
A Thermo Environmental TVA-1000B analyzer was used to check for approach to steady-state
conditions and to provide a rough idea of the concentration of the samples to act as a guide for
the laboratory. The TVA proved to be of minimal use for this project, because it flamed out for
almost every test. Flame out occurs when the hydrocarbon concentration in the sample is so high
that oxygen is displaced to the point where the hydrogen flame in the flame ionization detector is
extinguished. An attempt was made to fashion a dilution probe to prevent flame out and get on-
scale TVA readings, but the dilution ratio could not be kept constant, and the vast majority of
tests experienced flame out even with the dilution probe. None of the TVA data were used in
calculation of emission rates.
Abbreviations used on the data sheets include:
Sec seconds
mmHg millimeters of mercury barometric pressure
F ° Farenheit
baro barometric pressure
FO flame out of the TVA
FO w Dil flame out of the TVA when using the dilution probe
Pure HC pure hydrocarbon, an assumption for direct flow through the dry gas meter
-------
DGM Test
Barge Gl
No. 2 Center Ullage
Hatch
10 liter time
10 liter time
20 liter time
temp
baro
canister
104
759
1481
Testl
Unleaded
Gasoline
9
8.22
17.97
F
mm Hg
sec
DGM Test
Barge
10 liter
time
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G2
No. 3 starboard cargo
hatch
Trans Mix
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
96
764
FO w Oil
1374
No. 2
40.68
40.12
F
mm hg
ppm
sec
sec
sec
97
764
-------
Vacuum
Bagging
Test
Barge
10 liter
time
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G2
No. 2 starboard cargo
hatch
Trans Mix
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
94
764
about 400000 ppm
1322
No. 3
14.91
16.56
16.59
F
mm hg
ppm
ppm
sec
sec
94
764
Vacuum
Bagging
Test
Barge
100 liter
time
Temp
Baro press
TVA
Canister
G2
No. 2 port cargo hatch
Trans Mix
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
99
764
FO w Oil
1397
No. 4
46.91
48
F
mm hg
ppm
ppm
sec
sec
96
763
-------
Vacuum
Bagging
Test
Barge
10 liter
time
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G2
Starboard Lower Butterworth
Hatch
Trans Mix
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
93
763
FO w Oil
1490
No. 5
16.31
15.62
F
mm hg
ppm
ppm
sec
sec
93
763
DGM Test
Barge
10 liter
time
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G3
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
92
762
pure HC
1502
No. 6
23.59
23.22
F
mm hg
ppm
sec
sec
sec
94
762
-------
G3
Vent
stack
Trans
Mix
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
92
762
pure HC
1375
No. 7
15.91
16.9
21
F
mm hg
ppm
sec
sec
sec
92
762
DGM Test
Barge
10 liter
time
10
20 liter
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G4
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage
Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
90
762
pure HC
1470
No. 8
7.38
7.19
14.65
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
11
sec
sec
sec
90
762
AM
-------
DGM Test
Barge
10 liter
time
10
20 liter
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G4
No. 2 Starboard Cargo/Ullage
Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
95
763
pure HC
1478
No. 9
9.5
9.81
19.53
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
1120
sec
sec
sec
95
763
AM
Vacuum
Bag
Train
Barge
Liter
Time
10
10
20
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G4
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage
Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
91
763
FO w Oil
1418
No. 10
5.22
5.37
10.06
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
1145
sec
sec
sec
91
763
AM
-------
DGM
Direct
Barge
10 liter
time
10
20 liter
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G4
No. 2 Port Cargo
Valve
Naphtha but
cleaned
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
93
763
pure HC
1394
No. 11
16.43
16.54
32.66
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
12
sec
sec
sec
93
763
PM
DGM
Direct
Barge
10 liter
time
10
20 liter
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G4
No. 2 Starboard Stripping
Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
100
763
pure HC
None
No. 12
27.72
27.72
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
1220
sec
sec
sec
100
763
PM
-------
DGM
Direct
Barge
10 liter
time
10
20 liter
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G4
No. 3 Port Cargo
Valve
Naphtha but
cleaned
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
95
759
pure HC
None
No. 13
10.03
10.18
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
1235
sec
sec
sec
95
759
PM
DGM
Direct
Barge
10 liter
time
10
20 liter
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G5
No. 1 Port Cargo
Valve
Raff in ate
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
95
757
pure HC
1396
No. 14
8.6
9.03
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
1335
sec
sec
sec
95
757
PM
-------
Vacuum
Bagging
Barge
10 liter
time
10
20 liter
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G5
No. 1 Port Ullage
Hatch
Raffinate
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
96
752.5
FO w Oil
1348
No. 15
19.03
14.87
33.4
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
1410
sec
sec
sec
96
752
PM
Vacuum
Bagging
Barge
10 liter
time
10
20 liter
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G5
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage
Hatch
Raffinate
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
98
749
3
1431
No. 16
8.72
8.09
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
1450
sec
sec
sec
98
749
PM
-------
Vacuum
Bagging
Barge
5 liter
time
5
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G5
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm
Tester
8
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
98
758
1347
No. 17
46.65
56.25
F
mm hg
ppm
9/26/2008
1530
sec
sec
sec
98
758
PM
DGM Test
Barge
Liters
Timed
10
10
20
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G6
Vent
stack
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
90
758
pure HC
1376
No. 18
6.94
6.75
13.75
F
mm hg
ppm
9/27/2008
1205
Gasoline
sec
sec
sec
90
758
PM
-------
Vacuum
Bag Test
Barge
Liters
Timed
20
20
20
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G6
Forward
Cofferdam
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
98
762
FO w Oil
1482
No. 19
9.43
9.65
F
mm hg
ppm
9/27/2008
1250
Gasoline
sec
sec
sec
100
762
PM
DGM
Barge
Liters Timed
10
10
20
Temp
Baro press
TVA
Canister
Comments- all hatches and PV connected in
vapor space.
Had to tighten other hatches to get this
one to drive DGM.
G7
No. 2 Starboard
Cargo Hatch
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
99
751.5
Pure HC
1462
No. 20
4.38
4.22
8.12
F
mm hg
ppm
9/28/2008
1140
Naphtha
sec
sec
sec
100
751
PM
-------
DGM
Barge
Liters Timed
10
10
20
Temp
Baro press
TVA
Canister
Comments- all hatches and PV connected in vapor
space.
Had to tighten other hatches to get this one to drive
DGM.
G7
PV Vent
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
90
759
Pure HC
No. 21
16.5
15.97
32.69
F
mm hg
ppm
9/28/2008
Naphtha
sec
sec
sec
90
760
PM
DGM
Barge
Liters
Timed
50
50
50
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G8
PV Vent
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
98
755
Pure HC
1359
No. 22
24.38
21.47
21.15
F
mm hg
ppm
9/28/2008
1450
Unleaded
Gasoline
sec
sec
sec
98
754
PM
-------
DGM
Barge
Liters
Timed
10
10
10
Temp
Baro
press
TVA
Canister
G8
Slop Tank PV
Vent
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
98
754
Pure HC
1491
No. 23
43.06
45.34
41.91
F
mm hg
ppm
9/28/2008
1550
Unleaded
Gasoline
sec
sec
sec
100
755
PM
-------
APPENDIX B
EPA Protocol Bagging Procedures
Extracted from EPA Protocol for Equipment Leaks Emission Estimating, 1995:
4.0 MASS EMISSION SAMPLING
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the procedures for "bagging" equipment to measure mass emissions of
organic compounds. An equipment component is bagged by enclosing the component to collect
leaking vapors. Measured emission rates from bagged equipment coupled with screening values
can be used to develop unit-specific screening value/mass emission rate correlation equations.
Unit-specific correlations can provide precise estimates of mass emissions from equipment leaks
at the process unit. However, it is recommended that unit-specific correlations are only
developed in cases where the existing EPA correlations do not give reasonable mass emission
estimates for the process unit. The focus of the chapter is on bagging equipment containing
organic compounds, but similar procedures can be applied to bag equipment containing
inorganic compounds as long as there are comparable analytical techniques for measuring the
concentration of the inorganic compound.
This chapter is divided into four sections. In section 4.2, the methods for bagging equipment are
discussed. Considerations for bagging each equipment type are discussed in section 4.3. In
section 4.4, techniques used in the laboratory analysis of bagged samples are discussed. Section
4.4 also includes a description of a rigorous calibration procedure for the portable monitoring
device that must be followed. Finally, in section 4.5, quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) guidelines are provided.
4.2 SAMPLING METHODS
The emission rate from an equipment component is measured by bagging the component—that is,
isolating the component from ambient air to collect any leaking compound(s). A tent (i.e., bag)
made of material impermeable to the compound(s) of interest is constructed around the leak
interface of the piece of equipment. A known rate of carrier gas is induced through the bag and a
sample of the gas from the bag is collected and analyzed to determine the concentration (in parts
per million by volume [ppmv]) of leaking material. The concentration is measured using
laboratory instrumentation and procedures. Mass emissions are calculated based on the measured
concentration and the flow rate of carrier gas through the bag. In some cases, it may be necessary
to collect liquid leaking from a bagged equipment piece. Liquid can either be dripping from the
equipment piece prior to bagging, and/or be formed as condensate within the bag. If liquid
accumulates in the bag, then the bag should be configured so that there is a low point to collect
the liquid. The time in which the liquid accumulates should be recorded. The accumulated liquid
should then be taken to the laboratory and transferred to a graduated cylinder to measure the
volume of organic material. Based on the volume of organic material in the cylinder (with the
-------
volume of water or non-organic material subtracted out), the density of the organic material, and
the time in which the liquid accumulated, the organic liquid leak rate can be calculated. Note that
the density can be assumed to be equivalent to the density of organic material in the equipment
piece, or, if sufficient volume is collected, can be measured using a hydrometer. It should be
noted that in some cases condensate may form a light coating on the inside surface of the bag,
but will not accumulate. In these cases, it can be assumed that an equilibrium between
condensate in and evaporation has been reached and that the vapor emissions are
equivalent to total emissions from the source. When bagging an equipment piece, the enclosure
should be kept as small as practical. This has several beneficial effects:
• • The time required to reach equilibrium is kept to a minimum;
• • The time required to construct the enclosure is minimized;
• • A more effective seal results from the reduced seal area; and
• • Condensation of heavy organic compounds inside the enclosure is minimized or
prevented due to reduced residence time and decreased surface area available for heat
transfer.
Two methods are generally employed in sampling source enclosures: the vacuum method and the
blow-through method. Both methods involve enclosing individual equipment pieces with a bag
and setting up a sampling train to collect two samples of leaking vapors to be taken to the
laboratory for analysis. Both methods require that a screening value be obtained from the
equipment piece prior to and after the equipment piece is enclosed. The methods differ in the
ways in which the carrier gas is conveyed through the bag. In the vacuum method, a vacuum
pump is used to pull air through the bag. In the blow-through method, a carrier gas such as
nitrogen (or other inert gas) is blown into the bag.
In general, the blow-through method has advantages over the vacuum method. These advantages
are as follows.
(1) The blow-through method is more conducive to better mixing in the bag.
(2) The blow-through method minimizes ambient air in the bag and thus reduces potential error
associated with background organic compound concentrations. (For this reason the blow-through
method is especially preferable when measuring the leak rate from components with zero or very
low screening values.)
(3) The blow-through method minimizes oxygen concentration in the bag (assuming air is not
used as the carrier gas) and the risk of creating an explosive environment.
(4) In general, less equipment is required to set up the blow-through method sampling train.
However, the blow-through method does require a carrier gas source, and preferably the carrier
gas should be inert and free of any organic compounds and moisture. The vacuum method does
not require a special carrier gas.
Details of the sampling train of each of these bagging methods are discussed in sections 4.2.1
and 4.2.2, respectively. These sections also contain summaries of the steps of the sampling
procedure for each method. For both methods, the approach described above for collecting and
measuring liquid leak rates can be utilized. In addition to the sampling descriptions presented in
-------
the following sections, the quality control and assurance guidelines presented in section 4.5 must
also be followed when bagging equipment.
-------
4.2.1 Vacuum Method
The sampling train used in the vacuum method is depicted in figure 4-1. The train can be
mounted on a portable cart, which can be moved around the process unit from component to
component. The major equipment items in the sampling train are the vacuum pump used to draw
air through the system, and the dry gas meter used to measure the flow rate of gas through the
train. In previous studies that the EPA conducted, a 4.8-cubic feet per minute Teflon® ring
piston-type vacuum pump equipped with a 3/4-horsepower, air-driven motor was used. Other
equipment that may be used in the train includes valves, copper and stainless steel tubing,
Teflon® tubing and tape, thermometer, pressure-reading device, liquid collection device, and air-
driven diaphragm sampling pumps. It also may be necessary to use desiccant preceding the dry
gas meter to remove any moisture.
The bag is connected by means of a bulkhead fitting and Teflon® tubing to the sampling train. A
separate line is connected from the bag to a pressure-reading device to allow continuous
monitoring of the pressure inside the bag. If a significant vacuum exists inside the bag when air
is being pulled through, a hole is made in the opposite side of the bag from the outlet to the
sampling train. This allows air to enter the bag more easily and, thus, reduces the vacuum in the
enclosure. However, it is important to maintain a vacuum in the bag, since VOC could be lost
through the hole if the bag became pressurized.
Trap
Cold Trap in ^ce Bath
{Optional}
Hg Manometer
pie Bag
Two-Way Valve
Figure 4-1. Sampling train for bagging a source using the vacuum method.
-------
In practice, it has been found that only a very slight vacuum (0.1 inches of water) is present in
the bag during most of the sampling, even in the absence of a hole through the bag wall.
Sufficient air enters around the seals to prevent the development of a significant vacuum in the
bag. A small diaphragm sampling pump can be used to collect two samples into sample bags or
canisters, which are then transported to the laboratory for analysis.
The diaphragm pump can also be used to collect a background sample of the ambient air near the
bagged component. The concentration in the background bag is subtracted from the average
concentration in the sample bags when calculating the leak rate. Often this correction is
insignificant (particularly for components with high leak rates or in cases where there is no
detectable volatile organic compound (VOC) concentration measured by the portable monitoring
device), and collection of a background bag is optional. However, in some cases collection of a
background bag is important so that emission rates are not biased high.
Any liquid that accumulates in the bag should be collected using the approach described in
section 4.2. Note that if there is a concern that condensation will occur in equipment downstream
from the bag outlet, a cold trap can be placed as close to the bag outlet as possible to remove
water or heavy organic compounds that may condense downstream. Any organic condensate that
collects in the cold trap must be measured to calculate the total leak rate.
The flow rate through the system can be varied by throttling the flow with a control valve
immediately upstream of the vacuum pump. Typical flow rates are approximately 60 liters per
minute (1/min) or less. A good flow rate to use is one in which a balance can be found between
reaching equilibrium conditions and having a high enough concentration of organic compounds
in the bag outlet to accurately measure the concentration in the laboratory. As the flow rate is
decreased, the concentration of organic compounds increases in the gas flowing through the
sampling system. The flow rate should be adjusted to avoid any operations with an explosive
mixture of organic compounds in air. It may also be possible to increase the flow rate in order to
minimize liquid condensation in the bag.
The flow rate should be set to a constant rate and kept at that rate long enough for the system to
reach equilibrium. To determine if equilibrium conditions have been reached, a portable
monitoring device can be used to indicate if the outlet concentration has stabilized.
It is not recommended that the vacuum method be used to measure the leak rate from equipment
that have low screening values (approximately 10 ppmv or less), because considerable error can
be introduced due to the background organic concentration in the ambient air that is pulled
through the bag.
In summary, the vacuum sampling procedure consists of the following steps.
(1) Determine the composition of material in the designated equipment component, and the
operating conditions of the component.
(2) Obtain and record a screening value with the portable monitoring instrument.
(3) Cut a bag from appropriate material (see section 4.3) that will easily fit over the equipment
component.
-------
(4) Connect the bag to the sampling train.
(5) If a cold trap is used, immerse the trap in an ice bath.
(6) Note the initial reading of the dry gas meter.
(7) Start the vacuum pump and a stopwatch simultaneously. Make sure a vacuum exists within
the bag.
(8) Record the temperature and pressure at the dry gas meter.
(9) Observe the VOC concentration at the vacuum pump exhaust
with the monitoring instrument. Make sure concentration stays below the lower explosive limit.
(10) Record the temperature, pressure, dry gas meter reading, outlet VOC concentration and
elapsed time every 2 to 5 minutes.
(11) Collect 2 gas samples from the discharge of the diaphragm sampling pump when the outlet
concentration stabilizes (i.e., the system is at equilibrium).
(12) Collect a background bag (optional).
(13) Collect any liquid that accumulated in the bag as well as in the cold trap (if used) in a sealed
container.
(14) Take a final set of readings and stop the vacuum pump.
(15) Transport all samples to the laboratory, along with the data sheet.
(16) Remove the bag.
(17) Rescreen the source with the portable monitoring instrument and record.
Based on the data collected in the steps described above, mass emissions are calculated using the
equation presented in Table 4-1.
-------
TABLE 4-1. CALCULATION PROCEDURES FOR LEAK RATE WHEN USING THE
VACUUM METHOD
Leak Rate
(kg/hr)
where:
9.63 x 10-10
= 9.63 x 10-10 (Q)(MW)(GC)(P)
GCb
T
P
vL
16,67
T + 273.15
(P? (VL)
16.67(t)
A conversion factor using the gas constant:
°K x 10^ x kg-mol x min
I
S x hour x mniHg
Flow rate out of bag (I/min);
Molecular weight of organic compound(s) in
the sample bagc or alternatively in the
process stream contained within the equipment
piece being bagged (kg/kg-mol);
Sample bag organic compound concentration
(ppmv) minus background bag organic compound
concentration0 (ppmv);
Absolute pressure at. the dry gas meter
(mmHg) ;
Temperatui-e at the dry gas meter (°C);
Density of organic liquid collected (g/mt);
Volume of liquid collected (ml);
A conversion factor to adjust term to units
of kilograms per hour (g x hr)/(kg x min)
Time in which liquid is collected (min); and
aFor mixtures calculate MW as:
n
I
n
MW± X±
where :
MWj_ = Molecular weight, of organic compound i ;
Xj_ = Mole fraction of organic compound i ; and
n = Number of organic compounds in mixture .
kFor mixtures, the value of GC is the total concentration of all
the organic compounds in the mixture,
GCollection of a background bag is optional. If a background bag
is not collected, assume the background concentration is zero.
-------
4.2.2 Blow-Through Method
The sampling train for the blow-through method is presented in figure 4-2. The temperature and
oxygen concentrations are measured inside the bag with a thermocouple (or thermometer) and an
oxygen/combustible gas monitor. The carrier gas is metered into the bag through one or two
tubes (two tubes provide for better mixing) at a steady rate throughout the sampling period. The
flow rate of the carrier gas is monitored in a gas rotameter calibrated to the gas. Typical flow
rates are approximately 60 /min or less. It is preferable to use an inert gas such as nitrogen for the
blow-through method so as to minimize the risk of creating an explosive environment inside the
bag. Also, the carrier gas should be free of any organic compounds and moisture. The pressure in
the bag should never exceed 1 pound per square inch gauge (psig).
The flow rate through the bag can be varied by adjusting the carrier gas regulator. As mentioned
in section 4.2.1, a good flow rate to use is one in which a balance can be found between reaching
equilibrium conditions and having a high enough concentration of organic compounds in the bag
outlet to accurately measure the concentration in the laboratory. Adjustments to the flow rate
may also help minimize liquid condensation in the bag. Any liquid that does accumulate in the
bag should be collected using the approach described in Sec.4.2.
Swrcfe Pat for Cc KtPc Cats on
-Teriisr-T-re
• Hjdrocdfbcr*
Tape w ConiDrsswd Fol
Figure 4-2. Equipment Required for the Blow-Through Sampling Technique
-------
The carrier gas flow rate should be set to a constant rate and kept at that rate long enough for the
system to reach equilibrium. In addition to the carrier gas flow through the bag, some ambient air
may enter the bag if it is not airtight. The oxygen measurements are used to determine the flow
of ambient air through the bag. The oxygen measurements are also an indication of the quality of
the bagging procedure (the lower the oxygen concentration the better). Once oxygen
concentration falls below 5 percent, the portable monitoring instrument is used to check organic
compound concentrations at several locations within the bag to ensure that the bag contents are
at steady state. Once the bag contents are at steady state, two gas samples are drawn out of the
bag for laboratory analysis using a portable sampling pump. It may also be necessary to collect a
background bag sample, particularly if the source had screened at zero and if there is still a
detectable level of oxygen in the bag. However, collection of a background bag is optional. In
summary, the blow-through method consists of the following steps, which assume nitrogen is
used as the carrier gas.
(1) Determine the composition of the material in the
designated equipment component, and the operating conditions of the component.
(2) Screen the component using the portable monitoring instrument.
(3) Cut a bag that will easily fit over the equipment component.
(4) Connect tubing from the nearest nitrogen source to a rotameter stand.
(5) Run tubing from the rotameter outlet to a " Y" that splits the nitrogen flow into two pieces of
tubing and insert the tubes into openings located on either side of the bag.
(6) Turn on the nitrogen flow and regulate it at the rotameter to a constant rate and record the
time.
(7) After the nitrogen is flowing, wrap aluminum foil around those parts of the component where
air could enter the bag-enclosed volume.
(8) Use duct tape, wire, and/or rope to secure the bag to the component.
(9) Put a third hole in the bag roughly equidistant from the two carrier gas-fed holes.
(10) Measure the oxygen concentration in the bag by inserting the lead from an oxygen meter
into the third hole. Adjust the bag (i.e., modify the seals at potential leak points) until the oxygen
concentration is less than 5 percent.
(11) Measure the temperature in the bag.
(12) Check the organic compound concentration at several points in the bag with the portable
monitoring instrument to ensure that carrier gas and VOC are well mixed throughout the bag.
(13) Collect samples in sample bags or canisters by drawing a sample out of the bag with a
portable sampling pump.
(14) Collect a background bag (optional).
(15) Remove the bag and collect any liquid that accumulated in the bag in a sealed container.
Note the time over which the liquid accumulated.
(16) Rescreen the source.
Table 4-2 gives equations used to calculate mass emission rates when using the blow-through
method. An adjustment is provided for the leak rate equation in table 4-2 to account for the total
flow through the bag. This adjustment is recommended and represents an improvement over
previous versions.
-------
TABLE 4-2. CALCULATION PROCEDURES FOR LEAK RATE
WHEN USING THE BLOW-THROUGH METHOD
Leak Rate _ fl.219 x 1CT5 (Q) (MW) (GC) _ (p) (VL) ] / 106ppmv
(kg/hr) T , 273.15 16.67 (t) in6
10ppmv-GC
where :
1.219 x 10"^ = A conversion factor taking into account the gas
constant and assuming a pressure in the tent of
1 atmosphere :
°K x 106 x kg-mol
= flow rate out of tent (m^/hr);
H2 Flow Rate (l/min) x [0>06 (m3/min)]
1 - [Tent Oxygen Cone, (volume %)/21] (8 /hr)
MWa = Molecular weight of organic compounds in the
sample bag or alternatively in the process
stream contained within the equipment piece
being bagged (kg/kg-mol);
GC*3 = Sample bag organic compound concentration
(ppmv), corrected for background bag organic
compound concentration (ppmv);c
T = Temperature in tent (°C);
p = Density of organic liquid collected (g/mf);
VL = Volume of liquid collected (ml);
16.67 = A conversion factor to adjust term to units of
Kilograms per hour (g x hr)/(kg x min); and
t = Time in which liquid is collected (min).
aFor mixtures calculate MW as:
n n
I M»i X± / I Xi
i=l 1=1
where:
r>Wj_ = Molecular weight of organic compound i;
-------
TABLE 4-2. CALCULATION PROCEDURES FOR LEAK RATE
WHEN USING THE BLOW-THROUGH METHOD
(Continued)
Xj_ = Mole fraction of organic compound i; and
n = Number of organic compounds in mixture.
mixtures, the value of GC is the total concentration of all
the organic compounds in the mixture,
cCollection of a background bag is optional. If a background bag
is not collected, assume the background concentration is zero.
To correct for background concentration, use the following
equation:
GC
(ppmv)
- SB -
TENT
21
x BG
where:
SB
TENT
BG
Sample bag concentration (ppmv);
Tent oxygen concentration (volume %
Background bag concentration (ppmv)
and
-------
4.3 SOURCE ENCLOSURE
In this section, choosing a bagging material and the approach for bagging specific equipment
types are discussed. An important criteria when choosing the bagging material is that it is
impermeable to the specific compounds being emitted from the equipment piece. This criteria is
also applicable for sample gas bags that are used to transport samples to the laboratory. A bag
stability test over time similar to the Flexible Bag Procedure described in section 5.3.2 of the
EPA method 18 is one way to check the suitability of a bagging material. After a bag has been
used, it must be purged. Bags containing residual organic compounds that cannot be purged
should be discarded. Mylar®, Tedlar®, Teflon®, aluminum foil, or aluminized Mylar® are
recommended potential bagging materials. The thickness of the bagging material can range from
1.5 to 15 millimeters (mm), depending on the bagging configuration needed for the type of
equipment being bagged, and the bagging material. Bag construction for individual sources is
discussed in sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.5. For convenience, Mylar® will be used as an example
of bagging material in the following discussions.
4.3.1 Valves
When a valve is bagged, only the leak points on the valve should be enclosed. Do not enclose
surrounding flanges. The most important property of the valve that affects the type of enclosure
selected for use is the metal skin temperature where the bag will be sealed. At skin temperatures
of approximately 200 »C or less, the valve stem and/or stem support can be wrapped with 1.5- to
2.0-mm Mylar® and sealed with duct tape at each end and at the seam. The Mylar® bag must be
constructed to enclose the valve stem seal and the packing gland seal. When skin temperatures
are in excess of 200 »C, a different method of bagging the valve should be utilized. Metal bands,
wires, or foil can be wrapped around all hot points that would be in contact with the Mylar® bag
material. Seals are then made against the insulation using duct tape or adjustable metal bands of
stainless steel. At extremely high temperatures, metal foil can be used as the bagging material
and metal bands used to form seals. At points where the shape of the equipment prevent a
satisfactory seal with metal bands, the foil can be crimped to make a seal.
4.3.2 Pumps and Agitators
As with valves, a property of concern when preparing to sample a pump or agitator is the metal
skin temperature at areas or points that are in contact with the bag material. At skin temperatures
below 200 oC, Mylar® plastic and duct tape are satisfactory materials for constructing a bag
around a pump or agitator seal. If the temperature is too high or the potential points of contact
are too numerous to insulate, an enclosure made of aluminum foil can be constructed. This
enclosure is sealed around the pump and bearing housing using silicone fabric insulating tape,
adjustable metal bands, or wire. The configuration of the bag will depend upon the type of
pump. Most centrifugal pumps have a housing or support that connects the pump drive (or
bearing housing) to the pump itself. The support normally encloses about one-half of the area
between the pump and drive motor, leaving open areas on the sides. The pump can be bagged by
cutting panels to fit these open areas. These panels can be made using thicker bagging material
such as 14-mm Mylar®. In cases where supports are absent or quite narrow, a cylindrical
enclosure around the seal can be made so that it extends from the pump housing to the motor or
-------
bearing support. As with the panels, this enclosure should be made with thicker bagging material
to provide strength and rigidity.
Reciprocating pumps can present a somewhat more difficult bagging problem. If supports are
present, the same type of two-panel Mylar® bag can be constructed as that for centrifugal
pumps. In many instances, however, sufficiently large supports are not provided, or the distance
between pump and driver is relatively long. In these cases, a cylindrical enclosure as discussed
above can be constructed. If it is impractical to extend the enclosure all the way from the pump
seal to the pump driver, a seal can be made around the reciprocating shaft. This can usually be
best completed by using heavy aluminum foil and crimping it to fit closely around the shaft. The
foil is attached to the Mylar® plastic of the enclosure and sealed with the duct tape.
In cases where liquid is leaking from a pump, the outlet from the bag to the sampling train
should be placed at the top of the bag and as far away from spraying leaks as practical. A low
point should be formed in the bag to collect the liquid so that the volume of the liquid can be
measured and converted to a mass rate.
4.3.3 Compressors
In general, the same types of bags that are suitable for pumps can be directly applied to
compressors. However, in some cases, compressor seals are enclosed and vented to the
atmosphere at a high-point vent. If the seals are vented to a high-point vent, this vent line can be
sampled. A Mylar® bag can be constructed and sealed around the outlet of the vent and
connected to the sampling train. If the high-point vents are inaccessible, the vent lines from the
compressor seal enclosures can be disconnected at some convenient point between the
compressor and the normal vent exit. Sampling is then conducted at this intermediate point. In
other cases, enclosed compressor seals are vented by means of induced draft blowers or fans. In
these cases, if the air flow rate is know or can be determined, the outlet from the blower/fan can
be sampled to determine the emission rate.
4.3.4 Connectors
In most cases, the physical configurations of connectors lend themselves well to the
determination of leak rates. The same technique can be used for a connector whether it is a
flanged or a threaded fitting. To bag a connector with a skin temperature below 200 oC, a narrow
section of Mylar® film is constructed to span the distance between the two flange faces or the
threaded fitting of the leaking source. The Mylar® is attached and sealed with duct tape. When
testing connectors with skin temperatures above 200 oC, the outside perimeter of both sides of
the connector are wrapped with heat-resistant insulating tape. Then, a narrow strip of aluminum
foil can be used to span the distance between the connection. This narrow strip of foil can be
sealed against the insulating tape using adjustable bands of stainless steel.
4.3.5 Relief Valves
Relief devices in gas/vapor service generally relieve to the atmosphere through a large-diameter
pipe that is normally located at a high point on the process unit that it serves. The "horns" can be
-------
easily bagged by placing a Mylar® plastic bag over the opening and sealing it to the horn with
duct tape. Because may of these devices are above grade level, accessibility to the sampling train
may be limited or prevented. It is sometimes possible to run a long piece of tubing from the
outlet connection on the bag to the sampling train located at grade level or on a stable platform.
As discussed previously in section 3.0, the purpose of pressure relief devices makes them
inherently dangerous to sample, especially over a long period of time. If these equipment are to
be sampled for mass emissions, special care and precautions should be taken to ensure the safety
of the personnel conducting the field sampling.
4.4 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
The techniques used in the laboratory analysis of the bagged samples will depend on the type of
processes sampled. The following sections describe the analytical instrumentation and
calibration, and analytical techniques for condensate. These are guidelines and are not meant to
be a detailed protocol for the laboratory personnel. Laboratory personnel should be well-versed
in the analysis of organic compound mixtures and should design their specific analyses to the
samples being examined. Also discussed is the calibration protocol for the portable monitoring
instrument. When bagging data are collected, it is critical that the screening value associated with
mass emission rates is accurate. For this reason, a more rigorous calibration of the portable
monitoring instrument is required than if only screening data are being collected.
4.4.1 Analytical Instrumentation
The use of analytical instrumentation in a laboratory is critical to accurately estimate mass
emissions. The analytical instrument of choice depends on the type of sample being processed.
Gas chromatographs (GC's) equipped with a flame ionization detector or electron capture
detector are commonly used to identify individual constituents of a sample. Other considerations
besides instrument choice are the type of column used, and the need for temperature
programming to separate individual constituents in the process stream with sufficient resolution.
For some process streams, total hydrocarbon analyses may be satisfactory.
4.4.2 Calibration of Analytical Instruments
Gas chromatographs should be calibrated with either gas standards generated from calibrated
permeation tubes containing individual VOC components, or bottled standards of common gases.
Standards must be in the range of the concentrations to be measured. If cylinder calibration gas
mixtures are used, they must be analyzed and certified by the manufacturer to be within ± 2
percent accuracy, and a shelf life must be specified. Cylinder standards beyond the shelf life
must either be reanalyzed or replaced.
Field experience indicates that certified accuracies of ± 2 percent are difficult to obtain for very
low-parts per million (ppm) calibration standards (< 10 ppm). Users of low-parts per million
calibration standards should strive to obtain calibration standards that are as accurate as possible.
The accuracy must be documented for each concentration standard. The results of all
calibrations should be recorded on
-------
prepared data sheets. Table 4-3 provides an example of a data collection form for calibrating a
GC. If other analytical instruments are used to detect the organic compounds from liquid
samples, they should be calibrated according to standard calibration procedures for the
instrument.
TABLE 4-3, EXAMPLE GC CALIBRATION DATA SHEET
Plant ID
Instrument ID
Analyst Name
Certified Instrument
Gag Cone. Reading
Date Time (pprnv) (pprav) Comments
-------
4.4.3 Analytical Techniques for Condensate
Any condensate collected should be brought to the laboratory sealed in the cold trap flask. This
material is transferred to a graduated cylinder to measure the volume collected. If there is enough
volume to make it feasible, the organic layer should be separated from the aqueous layer (if
present) and weighed to determine its density. If water-miscible organic compounds are present,
both the aqueous and organic phases should be analyzed by GC to determine the total volume of
organic material.
4.4.4. Calibration Procedures for the Portable Monitoring Instrument
To generate precise screening values, a rigorous calibration of the portable monitoring
instrument is necessary. Calibrations must be performed at the start and end of each working
day, and the instrument reading must be within 10 percent of each of the calibration gas
concentrations. A minimum of five calibration gas standards must be prepared including a zero
gas standard, a standard approaching the maximum readout of the screening instrument, and
three standards between these values. If the monitoring instrument range is from 0 to 10,000
ppmv, the following calibration gases are required:
• • A zero gas (0-0.2 ppm) organic in air standard;
• • A 9.0 ppm (8-10 ppm) organic in air standard;
• • A 90 ppm (80-100 ppm) organic in air standard;
• • A 900 ppm (800-1,000 ppm) organic in air standard; and
• • A 9,000 ppm (8,000-10,000 ppm) organic in air standard.
The same guidelines for the analysis and certification of the calibration gases as described for
calibrating laboratory analytical instruments must be followed for calibrating the portable
monitoring instrument.
4.5 QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES
To ensure that the data collected during the bagging program is of the highest quality, the
following QC/QA procedures must be followed. Quality control requirements include procedures
to be 4-21 followed when performing equipment leak mass emissions sampling. Quality
assurance requirements include accuracy checks of the instrumentation used to perform mass
emissions sampling. Each of these QC/QA requirements are discussed below.
-------
4.5.1 Quality Control Procedures
A standard data collection form must be prepared and used when collecting data in the field.
Tables 4-4 and 4-5 are examples of data collection forms for the blow-through and vacuum
methods of mass emissions sampling, respectively. In addition to completing the data collection
forms, the following guidelines need to be adhered to when performing the
bagging analysis:
• • Background levels near equipment that is selected for bagging must not exceed 10 ppmv,
as measured with the portable monitoring device.
• • Screening values for equipment that is selected for bagging must be readable within the
spanned range of the monitoring instruments. If a screening value exceeds the highest
reading on the meter (i.e., "pegged reading"), a dilution probe should be used, or in the
event that this is not possible, the reading should be identified as pegged.
• • Only one piece of equipment can be enclosed per bag; a separate bag must be constructed
for each equipment component.
• • A separate sample bag must be used for each equipment component that is bagged.
Alternatively, bags should be purged and checked for contamination prior to reuse.
• • A GC must be used to measure the concentrations from gas samples.
• • Gas chromatography analyses of bagged samples must follow the analytical procedures
outlined in the EPA Method 18.
• • To ensure adequate mixing within the bag when using the blow-through method, the
dilution gas must be directed onto the equipment leak interface.
• • To ensure that steady-state conditions exist within the bag, wait at least five time
constants (volume of bag dilution/gas flow rate) before withdrawing a sample for
recording the analysis.
• • The carrier gas used in the blow-through method of bagging should be analyzed by GC
before it is used, and the concentration of organic compounds in the sample should be
documented. For cylinder purge gases, one gas sample should be analyzed. For plant
purge gas systems, gas samples should be analyzed with each bagged sample unless plant
personnel can demonstrate that the plant gas remains stable enough over time to allow a
one-time analysis.
• • The portable monitoring instrument calibration procedure described in section 4.4.4
should be performed at the beginning and end of each day.
-------
TABLE 4-5. EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
BAGGING TEST (VACUUM METHOD)
Equipment Type Component ID
Equipment Category Plant ID
Line Size Date
Stream Phase (G/V, LL, HL) Analysis Team
Barometric Pressure
Ambient Temperature Instrument ID
Stream Temperature Stream Pressure
Stream Composition (Wt %) ,
Time Bagging Test. Measurement Data
Initial Screening (ppmv) Equipment Piece3 Bkgd.
Background Bag Organic Compound Cone, (ppmv)10
Dry Gas Meter Reading (f /tnin)
Sample Bag 1 Organic Compound Cone, (ppmv)
Vacuum Check in Bag (Y/N) (Must be YES to collect sample.)
Dry Gas Meter Temperature0 (°C)
Dry Gas Meter Pressure0 (mmHg)
Dry Gas Meter Reading (f/min)
Sample Bag 2 Organic Compound Cone, (ppmv)
Vacuum Check in Bag (Y/N) (Must be YES to collect sample.)
Dry Gas Meter Temperature0 (°C)
Dry Gas Meter Pressure0 (mmHg)
Condensate Accumulation: Starting Time Final Time
Organic Condensate Collected (mi)
Density of Organic Condensate (g/mfi)
Final Screening (ppmv) Equip. Piecea Bkgd.
aThe vacuum method is not recommended if the screening value is
approximately 10 ppmv or less.
^Collection of a background bag is optional.
GPressure and temperature are measured at the dry gas meter.
-------
4.5.2 Quality Assurance Procedures
Accuracy checks on the laboratory instrumentation and portable monitoring device must be
performed to ensure data quality. These checks include a leak rate check performed in the
laboratory, blind standards to be analyzed by the laboratory instrumentation, and drift checks on
the portable monitoring device.
4.5.2.1 Leak Rate Check
A leak rate check is normally performed in the laboratory by sampling an artificially induced
leak rate of a known gas. This can clarify the magnitude of any bias in the combination of
sampling/test method, and defines the variance in emissions estimation due to the sampling. If
the result is outside the 80 to 120 percent recovery range, the problem must be investigated and
corrected before sampling continues. The problems and associated solutions should be noted in
the test report.
Leak rate checks should be performed at least two times per week during the program. The leak
rate checks should be conducted at two concentrations: (1) within the range of 10 multiplied by
the calculated lower limit of detection for the laboratory analytical instrument; and (2) within 20
percent of the maximum concentration that has been or is expected to be detected in the field
during the bagging program.
To perform a leak rate check, first induce a known flow rate with one of the known gas
concentrations into a sampling bag. For example, this can be done using a gas permeation tube of
a known organic compound constituent. Next, determine the concentration of the gas using a
laboratory analytical instrument and compare the results to the known gas concentration. If the
calculated leak rate is not within ± 20 percent of the induced leak rate, further analysis should be
performed to determine the reason. Areas that can potentially induce accuracy problems include:
• • Condensation,
•• Pluggage,
• • Seal of bag not tight (leakage),
• • Adsorption onto bag, and
•• Permeation of bag.
The results of all accuracy checks should be recorded on prepared data sheets.
4.5.2.2 Blind Standards Preparation and Performance
Blind standards are analyzed by the laboratory instrumentation to ensure that the instrument is
properly calibrated. Blind standards must be prepared and submitted at least two times per week
during the program. The blind standards are prepared by diluting or mixing known gas
concentrations in a prescribed fashion so that the resulting concentrations are known. The
analytical results should be within ± 25 percent of the blind standard gas concentration. If the
results are not within 25 percent of the blind standard concentration, further analyses must be
performed to determine the reason. Use of blind standards not only defines the analytical
-------
variance component and analytical accuracy, but it can serve to point out equipment
malfunctions and/or operator error before questionable data are generated.
4.5.2.3 Drift Checks
Drift checks need to be performed to ensure that the portable monitoring instrument remains
calibrated. At a minimum, drift checks must be performed before and after a small group of
components (i.e., two or three) are bagged. Preferably, drift checks should be performed on the
screening instrument immediately before and after each component is bagged. These checks
should be performed by analyzing one of the calibration gases used to calibrate the portable
monitoring instrument. The choice of calibration gas concentration should reflect the anticipated
screening value of the next component to be monitored. For example, if a component had
previously screened at 1,000 ppmv and been identified for bagging, the calibration standard
should be approximately 900 ppmv. Drift check data must be recorded on data sheets containing
the information shown in the example in table 4-6. If the observed instrument reading is different
from the certified value by greater than ± 20 percent, then a full multipoint calibration must be
performed (see section 3.2.4.1). Also, all those components analyzed since the last drift check
must be retested. Drift checks should also be performed if flameout of the portable monitoring
instrument occurs. Using the lowest calibration gas standard (i.e., approximately 9 ppmv
standard), determine the associated response on the portable monitoring instrument. If the
response is not within ±10 percent of the calibration gas concentration, a full multipoint
calibration is required before testing resumes.
-------
TABLE 4-6, EXAMPLE DRIFT TEST REPORT FORM
Plant ID
Instrument ID
Analyst Name
Standard Measured ID Number of
Gas Cone. Cone. % Component. Bagged
Date (pptnv) Time (ppmv) Errora Since Last Test
a% Error = Certified Cone. - Measured Cone. * 100
Certified Cone.
-------
4.6 REFERENCES
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A. Reference Method 21,
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks. Washington, DC. U.S. Government
Printing Office. Revised June 22, 1990.
-------
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Results with QC Data
-------
Listing of Chemical Compounds Analyzed
Sorted Alpha-Numerically
Sorted by Carbon Number
Compound
1,2,3'Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4'Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5'Trimethylbenzene
l,3*butadiene
l«Butene
1'Hexene
1'Pentene
2,2,4'Trimethylpentane
2,2*Dimethylbutane
2,3,4'Trimethylpentane
2,3*Dimethylbutane
2,3*Dimethylpentane
2,4*Dimethylpentane
2*Methylheptane
2*Methylhexane
2*Methylpentane
3*Methylheptane
3*Methylhexane
3*Methylpentane
Acetylene
Benzene
cis*2*Butene
cis*2*Pentene
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Isobutane
Isopentane
Isoprene
m/p Xylene
m'Diethylbenzene
Methyl cyclohexane
Methyl cyclopentane
m'Ethyltoluene
Carbon #
9
9
9
4
4
6
5
8
6
8
6
7
7
8
7
6
8
7
6
2
6
4
5
9
6
5
2
8
2
4
5
5
8
10
7
6
9
Compound
Acetylene
Ethane
Ethylene
Propane
Propylene
l,3*butadiene
l«Butene
cis*2*Butene
Isobutane
n*Butane
trans*2*Butene
Un*fdentified
1'Pentene
cis*2*Pentene
Cyclopentane
Isopentane
Isoprene
n*Pentane
trans*2*Pentene
1'Hexene
2,2*Dimethylbutane
2,3*Dimethylbutane
2*Methylpentane
3*Methylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
n*Hexane
2,3*Dimethylpentane
2,4*Dimethylpentane
2*Methylhexane
3*Methylhexane
Methylcyclohexane
n*Heptane
Toluene
2,2,4*Trimethylpentane
2,3,4*Trimethylpentane
Carbon #
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
-------
Compound
n*Butane
n*Decane
n*Heptane
n*Hexane
n*Nonane
n*Octane
n*Pentane
n*Propylbenzene
n*Undecane
o Xylene
o*Ethyltoluene
p*Diethylbenzene
p*Ethyltoluene
Propane
Propylene
Styrene
Toluene
Total NMOC
trans*2*Butene
trans*2*Pentene
Un*ldentified
Carbon #
4
10
7
6
9
8
5
9
11
8
9
10
9
3
3
8
7
4
5
4.5
Compound
2*Methylheptane
3*Methylheptane
Ethylbenzene
m/p Xylene
n*Octane
o Xylene
Styrene
l,2,3*Trimethylbenzene
l,2,4*Trimethylbenzene
l,3,5*Trimethylbenzene
Cumene
m*Ethyltoluene
n*Nonane
n*Propylbenzene
o*Ethyltoluene
p*Ethyltoluene
m'Diethylbenzene
n*Decane
p*Diethylbenzene
n*Undecane
Total NMOC
Carbon #
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
-------
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Results with QC Data
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/FID, reported in ppbC
carbon
SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE [TART_HOLl| DURATION i3'Trimethylbenzj,4'Trimethylbenz]
14:55 .02 347518.50 2047337.25
[AL21640 | 9/24/2008 [Test #1
Can ID 1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
Area%ppbC
ppbC*#C
ppbv
0.01%
3127666.5
38613.16667
0.05%
18426035.25
227481.9167
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
COLDATE
LOCCODE [TARTJHOU
9/25/2008 Test #2 12:08
DURATION
.02
3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz
122461.20 661556.70
Can ID 1374
Can ID 1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch Area%ppbC
Trans Mix ppbC*#C
ppbv
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE [TART_HOL)| DURATION
AL21695 9/26/2008 Test #14 13:40.02
Can ID 1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve Area%ppbC
Raffinate ppbC*#C
ppbv
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21703 9/28/2008 Test 23 15:50 .02
Can ID 1491
Slop Tank PV Vent Area%ppbC
Unleaded Gasoline ppbC*#C
ppbv
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21642 9/25/2008 Test 3 12:44 .02
Can ID 1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch Area%ppbC
Trans Mix ppbC*#C
0.01%
1102150.8
13606.8
9
0.03%
5954010.3
73506.3
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
68429.97
0.00%
615869.73
7603.33
9
710368.26
0.02%
6393314.34
78929.80667
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
83609.24
0.00%
752483.16
9289.915556
9
2234646.96
0.06%
20111822.64
248294.1067
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
24738.25
0.00%
222644.25
614498.13
0.04%
5530483.17
ppbv
2748.694444
68277.57
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenz
l,3*butadiene
1'Butene
1'Hexene
AL21640 9/24/2008 Test # 1 824547.00 353562.30| 12533977.80 3559798.20
Can ID 1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch 0.02%
Unleaded Gasoline 7420923
91616.33333
carbon 9
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenz
AL21641 9/25/2008 Test #2 308815.20
Can ID 1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch 0.01%
Trans Mix 2779336.8
34312.8
carbon 9
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenz
AL21695 9/26/2008 Test #14 459458.37
Can ID 1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve 0.01 %
Raffinate 4135125.33
51050.93
carbon 9
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenz
AL21703 9/28/2008 Test 23 1081219.49
Can ID 1491
Slop Tank PV Vent 0.03%
Unleaded Gasoline 9730975.41
120135.4989
carbon 9
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenz
AL21642 9/25/2008 Test 3 277068.40
Can ID 1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch 0.02%
Trans Mix 2493615.6
0.01%
1414249.2
88390.575
4
l,3*butadiene
0.33%
50135911.2
3133494.45
4
l«Butene
0.09%
21358789.2
593299.7
6
1'Hexene
496500.30 17937903.60 8783928.90
0.02%
1986001.2
124125.075
4
l,3*butadiene
132515.18
0.00%
530060.72
33128.795
4
l,3*butadiene
2888319.20
0.08%
11553276.8
722079.8
4
l,3*butadiene
310712.42
0.02%
1242849.68
0.83%
71751614.4
4484475.9
4
1'Butene
61912.83
0.00%
247651.32
15478.2075
4
l«Butene
73847861.23
2.08%
295391444.9
18461965.31
4
1'Butene
12227622.21
0.74%
48910488.84
0.41%
52703573.4
1463988.15
6
1'Hexene
1154619.97
0.03%
6927719.82
192436.6617
6
1'Hexene
1043215.29
0.03%
6259291.74
173869.215
6
1'Hexene
6875254.44
0.42%
41251526.64
30785.37778
77678.105
3056905.553
1145875.74
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/24/2008 Test # 1
1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test #2
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test #14
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test 3
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
ODE 1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*Trimethylpent
32049192.15 42161117.10 1279342.95 9608346.90
0.83% 1.10% 0.03% 0.25%
160245960.8 337288936.8 7676057.7 76866775.2
6409838.43 5270139.638 213223.825 1201043.363
5868
ODE 1'Pentene |,4*Trimethylpent;,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*Trimethylpent
45622121.40 6982950.60 1337755.50 1188672.30
2.11% 0.32% 0.06% 0.05%
228110607 55863604.8 8026533 9509378.4
9124424.28 872868.825 222959.25 148584.0375
5868
ODE 1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*Trimethylpenq
439906.95 3158640.52 162589608.72 70602.35
0.01% 0.10% 4.91% 0.00%
2199534.75 25269124.16 975537652.3 564818.8
87981.39 394830.065 27098268.12 8825.29375
5868
ODE 1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*Trimethylpenq
16714247.16 9554255.88 18169808.02 188120.79
0.47% 0.27% 0.51% 0.01%
83571235.8 76434047.04 109018848.1 1504966.32
3342849.432 1194281.985 3028301.337 23515.09875
5868
ODE 1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*Trimethylpenq
37064825.21 5225707.93 1097388.77 582833.17
2.25% 0.32% 0.07% 0.04%
185324126.1 41805663.44 6584332.62 4662665.36
7412965.042 653213.4913 182898.1283 72854.14625
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
#2 Center
Unleaded (
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
COLD ATE L
OCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptan^
9/24/2008 Test # 1 36714142.35 9915285.60 8900790.60 3744997.50
1481
Jllage Hatch
Baseline
COLD ATE L
9/25/2008 Test
Can ID 1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
COLD ATE L
0.95% 0.26% 0.23% 0.10%
220284854.1 69406999.2 62305534.2 29959980
6119023.725 1416469.371 1271541.514 468124.6875
6778
OCCODE ,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai2«Methylheptan^
#2 29181705.30 5123403.90 3375669.60 4290135.30
1.35% 0.24% 0.16% 0.20%
175090231.8 35863827.3 23629687.2 34321082.4
4863617.55 731914.8429 482238.5143 536266.9125
6778
OCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptan^
AL21695 9/26/2008 Test #14 131167218.21] 101993241.00j_ 28666726.4£J_ 1467442.69
Can ID 1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve 3.96% 3.08% 0.87% 0.04%
Raffmate 787003309.3 713952687 200667085.4 11739541.52
21861203.04 14570463 4095246.64 183430.3363
carbon 6778
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
Slop Tank
Unleaded C
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
COLD ATE L
OCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptan^
9/28/2008 Test 23 27382026.10 7654045.88 2645092.32 1731091.31
1491
3V Vent
jasoline
COLD ATE L
0.77% 0.22% 0.07% 0.05%
164292156.6 53578321.16 18515646.24 13848730.48
4563671.017 1093435.126 377870.3314 216386.4138
6778
OCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptan^
9/25/2008 Test 3 3582098.60 534346.20 2516374.79 422529.31
Can ID 1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
0.22% 0.03% 0.15% 0.03%
21492591.6 3740423.4 17614623.53 3380234.48
597016.4333 76335.17143 359482.1129 52816.16375
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO | COLD ATE | LOCCODE |2'Methylhexane|2'Methylpentan^3»Methylheptane|3'Methylhexane
[AL21640 | 9/24/2008 [Test #1
Can ID 1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
20030232.45 5313147.75 3822919.35 19742936.10
0.52%
140211627.2
2861461.779
0.14%
31878886.5
0.10%
30583354.8
885524.625 477864.9188
0.51%
138200552.7
2820419.443
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
COLD ATE
LOCCODE
9/25/2008 Test #2
2*Methylhexane
2*Methylpentanqr
16278021.90 113178108.60
Can ID 1374
!*Methylheptane|
2881831.50
3*Methylhexane
14793845.40
Can ID
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/26/2008 Test #14
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/25/2008 Test 3
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
0.75%
113946153.3
2325431.7
7
:ODE 2'Methylhexane
474665.03
0.01%
3322655.21
67809.29
7
:ODE 2«Methylhexane
60806.72
0.00%
425647.04
8686.674286
7
:ODE 2'Methylhexane
12135595.92
0.74%
84949171.44
5.23%
679068651 .6
18863018.1
6
2*Methylpentan4
536463810.05
16.20%
3218782860
89410635.01
6
2'Methylpentanq.
100523009.21
2.83%
603138055.3
16753834.87
6
2*Methylpentan4
5570064.37
0.34%
33420386.22
0.13%
23054652
360228.9375
8
3'Methylheptanej
1028621.93
0.03%
8228975.44
128577.7413
8
3'Methylheptanej
1480263.59
0.04%
11842108.72
185032.9488
8
3'Methylheptanej
64319.45
0.00%
514555.6
0.68%
103556917.8
2113406.486
7
3*Methylhexane
110035391.76
3.32%
770247742.3
15719341.68
7
3*Methylhexane
7661646.72
0.22%
53631527.04
1094520.96
7
3*Methylhexane
360188.92
0.02%
2521322.44
1733656.56 928344.0617
8039.93125
51455.56
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21640 9/24/2008 Test # 1 59592083.85
Can ID 1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch 1 .55%
Unleaded Gasoline 357552503.1
9932013.975
carbon 6
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21641 9/25/2008 Test #2 58376721.60
Can ID 1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch 2.70%
Trans Mix 350260329.6
9729453.6
carbon 6
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21695 9/26/2008 Test #14 414326089.31
Can ID 1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve 12.51%
Raffinate 2485956536
69054348.22
carbon 6
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21703 9/28/2008 Test 23 52899946.19
Can ID 1491
Slop Tank PV Vent 1 .49%
Unleaded Gasoline 317399677.1
8816657.698
carbon 6
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21642 9/25/2008 Test 3 44731703.65
Can ID 1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch 2.72%
Trans Mix 268390221 .9
Acetylene
Benzene
cis*2*Butene
0.00 36843220.65 45418509.45
0.00%
0
0
2
Acetylene
0.96%
221059323.9
6140536.775
6
Benzene
1.18%
181674037.8
11354627.36
4
cis*2*Butene
7986.60 11018845.80 17124601.50
0.00%
15973.2
3993.3
2
Acetylene
11948.09
0.00%
23896.18
5974.045
2
Acetylene
338237.38
0.01%
676474.76
169118.69
2
Acetylene
13853.42
0.00%
27706.84
0.51%
66113074.8
1836474.3
6
Benzene
511921347.00
15.46%
3071528082
85320224.5
6
Benzene
7150490.23
0.20%
42902941.38
1191748.372
6
Benzene
8750413.79
0.53%
52502482.74
0.79%
68498406
4281150.375
4
cis*2*Butene
118394.71
0.00%
473578.84
29598.6775
4
cis*2*Butene
55187799.03
1 .55%
220751196.1
13796949.76
4
cis*2*Butene
13466513.77
0.82%
53866055.08
7455283.942
6926.71
1458402.298 3366628.443
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/24/2008 Test # 1
1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/25/2008 Test #2
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/26/2008 Test #14
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/25/2008 Test 3
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
Cumene
Cyclohexane
33656627.10 429757.35 4250302.35
0.87%
168283135.5
6731325.42
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
43131633.30
1 .99%
215658166.5
8626326.66
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
811383.93
0.02%
4056919.65
162276.786
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
17312813.31
0.49%
86564066.55
3462562.662
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
34711722.87
2.11%
173558614.4
0.01%
3867816.15
47750.81667
9
Cumene
0.11%
25501814.1
708383.725
6
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
12358275.90
0.32%
61791379.5
2471655.18
5
Cyclopentane
141096.60 5353684.20 16114296.60
0.01%
1269869.4
15677.4
9
Cumene
219410.38
0.01%
1974693.42
24378.93111
9
Cumene
319235.28
0.01%
2873117.52
35470.58667
9
Cumene
110827.36
0.01%
997446.24
0.25%
32122105.2
892280.7
6
Cyclohexane
901537.70
0.03%
5409226.2
150256.2833
6
Cyclohexane
2225145.91
0.06%
13350875.46
370857.6517
6
Cyclohexane
915315.25
0.06%
5491891.5
0.74%
80571483
3222859.32
5
Cyclopentane
21817212.34
0.66%
109086061.7
4363442.468
5
Cyclopentane
22067138.73
0.62%
110335693.7
4413427.746
5
Cyclopentane
12650151.52
0.77%
63250757.6
6942344.574
12314.15111
152552.5417
2530030.304
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/24/2008 Test # 1
1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test #2
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test #14
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test 3
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
ODE Ethane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Isobutane
12150412.35 5231988.15 0.00 778192564.95
0.32%
24300824.7
6075206.175
2
ODE Ethane
17296313.40
0.80%
34592626.8
8648156.7
2
ODE Ethane
| 233530.85
0.01%
467061.7
116765.425
2
ODE Ethane
| 11401.26
0.00%
22802.52
5700.63
2
ODE Ethane
11519118.73
0.70%
23038237.46
0.14%
41855905.2
653998.5188
8
Ethylbenzene
898492.50
0.04%
7187940
112311.5625
8
Ethylbenzene
998208.61
0.03%
7985668.88
124776.0763
8
Ethylbenzene
2407566.07
0.07%
19260528.56
300945.7588
8
Ethylbenzene
1684180.06
0.10%
13473440.48
0.00%
0
0
2
Ethylene
20.22%
3112770260
194548141.2
4
Isobutane
628279.20 44818137.00
0.03%
1256558.4
314139.6
2
Ethylene
7603.33
0.00%
15206.66
3801.665
2
Ethylene
0.00
0.00%
0
0
2
Ethylene
432424.61
0.03%
864849.22
2.07%
179272548
11204534.25
4
Isobutane
6258626.78
0.19%
25034507.12
1564656.695
4
Isobutane
481809646.76
13.56%
1927238587
120452411.7
4
Isobutane
2946820.34
0.18%
11787281.36
5759559.365 210522.5075
216212.305
736705.085
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
10
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/24/2008 Test # 1
1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test #2
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test #14
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test 3
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
ODE Isopentane
Isoprene
m/p Xylene pi*Diethylbenzen<
730255949.40 2645025.90 15574009.20 54394.20
18.98%
3651279747
146051189.9
5
ODE Isopentane
664075141.20
30.68%
3320375706
132815028.2
5
ODE Isopentane
265133548.05
8.01%
1325667740
53026709.61
5
ODE Isopentane
613049550.62
17.25%
3065247753
122609910.1
5
ODE Isopentane
488623976.82
29.67%
2443119884
0.07%
13225129.5
529005.18
5
Isoprene
2964359.70
0.14%
14821798.5
592871.94
5
Isoprene
122739.47
0.00%
613697.35
24547.894
5
Isoprene
1751993.62
0.05%
8759968.1
350398.724
5
Isoprene
2478772.65
0.15%
12393863.25
0.40% 0.00%
124592073.6 543942
1946751.15 5439.42
8 10
m/p Xylene pi*Diethylbenzen<
4381981.20 37270.80
0.20% 0.00%
35055849.6 372708
547747.65 3727.08
8 10
m/p Xylene prDiethylbenzen^
4097108.68 29327.13
0.12% 0.00%
32776869.44 293271.3
512138.585 2932.713
8 10
m/p Xylene prDiethylbenzen^
8161401.95 129214.28
0.23% 0.00%
65291215.6 1292142.8
1020175.244 12921.428
8 10
m/p Xylene prDiethylbenzen^
5628446.64 13853.42
0.34% 0.00%
45027573.12 138534.2
97724795.36
495754.53
703555.83
1385.342
carbon
10
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
COLD ATE L
OCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
9/24/2008 Test # 1 3954803.70
1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
Can ID
COLDATE L
9/25/2008 Test
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE L
0.10%
27683625.9
564971.9571
7
26352694.80
0.68%
158116168.8
4392115.8
6
OCCODE /lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
tf2 8355314.70
0.39%
58487202.9
1193616.386
7
31391331.30
1 .45%
188347987.8
5231888.55
6
OCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
9/26/2008 Test #14 2881662.07
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE L
0.09%
20171634.49
411666.01
7
28756880.25
0.87%
172541281.5
4792813.375
6
OCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
9/28/2008 Test 23 3384274.01
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE L
0.10%
23689918.07
483467.7157
7
18236315.37
0.51%
109417892.2
3039385.895
6
OCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
9/25/2008 Test 3 672880.40 1
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
0.04%
4710162.8
24161354.01
1 .47%
144968124.1
m*Ethyltoluene
n*Butane
1975243.35 769015270.50
0.05%
17777190.15
219471.4833
9
m*Ethyltoluene
19.98%
3076061082
192253817.6
4
n*Butane
613637.10 96587278.20
0.03%
5522733.9
68181.9
9
m*Ethyltoluene
620214.49
0.02%
5581930.41
68912.72111
9
m*Ethyltoluene
2006621.76
0.06%
18059595.84
222957.9733
9
m*Ethyltoluene
550178.68
0.03%
4951608.12
4.46%
386349112.8
24146819.55
4
n*Butane
28285473.79
0.85%
113141895.2
7071368.448
4
n*Butane
1122176616.34
31 .57%
4488706465
280544154.1
4
n*Butane
67863946.46
4.12%
271455785.8
96125.77143 4026892.335 61130.96444
16965986.62
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/24/2008 Test # 1
1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test #2
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test #14
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test 3
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
10
ODE irDecane
7
n*Heptane
6
n*Hexane
9
n*Nonane
50724.75 10327559.10 42735709.80| 429757.35
0.00%
507247.5
5072.475
10
ODE n*Decane
89183.70
0.00%
891837
8918.37
10
ODE irDecane
456199.80
0.01%
4561998
45619.98
10
ODE irDecane
590965.31
0.02%
5909653.1
59096.531
10
ODE irDecane
127649.37
0.01%
1276493.7
0.27%
72292913.7
1475365.586
7
n*Heptane
1.11%
256414258.8
7122618.3
6
n*Hexane
13191201.00 38299740.30
0.61%
92338407
1884457.286
7
n*Heptane
41485940.86
1 .25%
290401586
5926562.98
7
n*Heptane
4372383.21
0.12%
30606682.47
624626.1729
7
n*Heptane
2713291.26
0.16%
18993038.82
1 .77%
229798441.8
6383290.05
6
n*Hexane
410553751.44
12.40%
2463322509
68425625.24
6
n*Hexane
37192810.33
1 .05%
223156862
6198801.722
6
n*Hexane
3718653.74
0.23%
22311922.44
0.01%
3867816.15
47750.81667
9
n*Nonane
725449.50
0.03%
6529045.5
80605.5
9
n*Nonane
1363168.45
0.04%
12268516.05
151463.1611
9
n*Nonane
1284541.96
0.04%
11560877.64
142726.8844
9
n*Nonane
758969.51
0.05%
6830725.59
12764.937 387613.0371
619775.6233
84329.94556
carbon
10
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
11
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/24/2008 Test # 1
1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test #2
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test #14
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test 3
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
ODE irGctane
n*Pentane
n*Propylbenzene
n*Undecane
2751008.25 183877866.30 775549.05 1 0.00
0.07%
22008066
343876.0313
8
ODE irGctane
4.78%
919389331.5
36775573.26
5
n*Pentane
5436212.40 235455616.80
0.25%
43489699.2
679526.55
8
ODE irGctane
1861729.66
0.06%
14893837.28
232716.2075
8
ODE irGctane
2251748.85
0.06%
18013990.8
281468.6063
8
ODE irGctane
326544.90
0.02%
2612359.2
10.88%
1177278084
47091123.36
5
n*Pentane
178515326.50
5.39%
892576632.5
35703065.3
5
n*Pentane
365566200.22
10.29%
1827831001
73113240.04
5
n*Pentane
186376985.97
1 1 .32%
931884929.9
0.02%
6979941.45
86172.11667
9
n*Propylbenzene
0.00%
0
0
11
n*Undecane
175705.20 23959.80
0.01%
1581346.8
19522.8
9
n*Propylbenzene
290012.73
0.01%
2610114.57
32223.63667
9
n*Propylbenzene
693576.65
0.02%
6242189.85
77064.07222
9
n*Propylbenzene
133586.55
0.01%
1202278.95
0.00%
263557.8
2178.163636
11
n*Undecane
40189.03
0.00%
442079.33
3653.548182
11
n*Undecane
146316.17
0.00%
1609477.87
13301.47
11
n*Undecane
18801.07
0.00%
206811.77
40818.1125
37275397.19
14842.95
1709.188182
carbon
11
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
10
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCC
AL21640 9/24/2008 Test # 1
Can ID 1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCC
AL21641 9/25/2008 Test #2
Can ID 1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCC
AL21695 9/26/2008 Test #14
Can ID 1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCC
AL21703 9/28/2008 Test 23
Can ID 1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCC
AL21642 9/25/2008 Test 3
Can ID 1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
ODE oXylene
o*Ethyltoluene
D'Diethylbenzenq p*Ethyltoluene
6072292.20 686187.15 86771.70| 843973.50
0.16%
48578337.6
759036.525
8
ODE oXylene
0.02%
6175684.35
76243.01667
9
o*Ethyltoluene
1538751.60 200996.10
0.07%
12310012.8
192343.95
8
ODE oXylene
1686853.07
0.05%
13494824.56
210856.6338
8
ODE oXylene
3418477.79
0.10%
27347822.32
427309.7238
8
ODE oXylene
1904845.25
0.12%
15238762
0.01%
1808964.9
22332.9
9
0.00% 0.02%
867717 7595761.5
8677.17 93774.83333
10 9
D'Diethylbenzenq p*Ethyltoluene
54575.10 31946.40
0.00% 0.00%
545751 287517.6
5457.51 3549.6
10 9
o*Ethyltoluene p*Diethylbenzene| p*Ethyltoluene
234617.04
0.01%
2111553.36
26068.56
9
55395.69 107532.81
0.00% 0.00%
553956.9 967795.29
5539.569 11948.09
10 9
o*Ethyltoluene p*Diethylbenzene| p*Ethyltoluene
661273.08
0.02%
5951457.72
73474.78667
9
117813.02| 153917.01
0.00% 0.00%
1178130.2 1385253.09
11781.302 17101.89
10 9
o*Ethyltoluene p*Diethylbenzene| p*Ethyltoluene
185042.11
^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^_
0.01%
1665378.99
70256.63 26717.31
0.00% 0.00%
702566.3 240455.79
238105.6563 20560.23444
7025.663
2968.59
carbon
10
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21640
Can ID
#2 Center
Unleaded (
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21641
COLDATE LOCC
9/24/2008 Test # 1
1481
Jllage Hatch
Baseline
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test #2
Can ID 1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOCC
AL21695 9/26/2008 Test #14
Can ID 1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
Slop Tank
Unleaded C
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
3V Vent
jasoline
COLDATE LOCC
9/25/2008 Test 3
Can ID 1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
ODE Propane
Propylene
Styrene
Toluene
250978508.25 2821591.20 172680.00| 47240067.60
6.52%
752935524.8
83659502.75
3
ODE Propane
0.07%
8464773.6
940530.4
3
Propylene
0.00%
1381440
21585
8
Styrene
1 .23%
330680473.2
6748581.086
7
Toluene
53236013.40 11218510.80 93177.00| 14712648.30
2.46%
159708040.2
17745337.8
3
ODE Propane
569163.56
0.02%
1707490.68
189721.1867
3
ODE Propane
34317792.60
0.97%
102953377.8
11439264.2
3
ODE Propane
33431271.05
1
2.03%
100293813.2
0.52%
33655532.4
3739503.6
3
Propylene
11948.09
0.00%
35844.27
3982.696667
3
Propylene
5848846.38
0.16%
17546539.14
1949615.46
3
Propylene
6894055.51
^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^_
0.42%
20682166.53
0.00%
745416
11647.125
8
Styrene
197686.58
0.01%
1581492.64
24710.8225
8
Styrene
95010.50
0.00%
760084
11876.3125
8
Styrene
189989.76
0.01%
1519918.08
0.68%
102988538.1
2101806.9
7
Toluene
111174805.07
3.36%
778223635.5
15882115.01
7
Toluene
12347564.58
0.35%
86432952.06
1763937.797
7
Toluene
13097419.08
0.80%
91681933.56
11143757.02
2298018.503
23748.72
1871059.869
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE | Total NMOC | trans'g'Butene |trans'g»Pentene|
3848454405.00 47302448.25 62206459.05
[AL21640 | 9/24/2008 [Test #1
Can ID 1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
100.00%
17584987597
1.23%
189209793
878021886.7 11825612.06
1.62%
311032295.3
12441291.81
4.5
unID |
438194926.50
11.39%
1971877169
97376650.33
carbon
Can ID
1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21695
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/26/2008 Test #14
1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21703
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/28/2008 Test 23
1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21642
Can ID
COLDATE LOC(
9/25/2008 Test 3
1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
100.00%
10791861304
448876329.7
:ODE Total NMOC
3311032977.00
100.00%
19475864081
570959543
:ODE Total NMOC
3554152784.00
100.00%
16201327275
799270393.8
:ODE Total NMOC
1646874779.00
100.00%
7977154477
0.90%
78039730.8
4877483.175
4
trans*2*Butene
263944.17
0.01%
1055776.68
65986.0425
4
trans*2*Butene
82030165.49
2.31%
328120662
20507541.37
4
trans*2*Butene
14655928.83
0.89%
58623715.32
3.75%
406238409
16249536.36
5
trans*2*Pentene
1554337.89
0.05%
7771689.45
310867.578
5
trans*2*Pentene
41105342.72
1.16%
205526713.6
8221068.544
5
trans*2*Pentene
65532613.78
3.98%
327663068.9
348536242.9 3663982.208
13106522.76
87451495.2
4.5
unID |
192914947.33
5.83%
868117263
42869988.3
4.5
unID |
276389344.92
7.78%
1243752052
61419854.43
4.5
unID |
505299536.38
30.68%
2273847914
112288785.9
carbon
4.5
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21640 9/24/2008 Test # 1
Can ID 1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
4.569363632 average C
87.80% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21641 9/25/2008 Test #2
Can ID 1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
4.985534375 average C
44.89% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21695 9/26/2008 Test #14
Can ID 1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
5.882111177 average C
57.10% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21703 9/28/2008 Test 23
Can ID 1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
4.558421728 average C
79.93% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21642 9/25/2008 Test 3
Can ID 1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
4.843813615 average C
34.85% by volume
1.77
50.46673
1.812307
119.5598
0.263348
15.80086
0.18961
69.20777
0.390589
11.11206
0.204006
14.6471
0.032262
1.93574
0.023229
8.478539
0.390589
50.62509
1.182204
99.71835
0.219644
13.17864
0.158144
57.72243
0.357524
10.17139
0.332503
21.88462
0.048204
2.892241
0.034707
12.66801
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
carbon
-------
Lab Results: EPA PAMS Analysis via GC/
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE |
AL21640 9/24/2008 Test # 1
Can ID 1481
#2 Center Ullage Hatch
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21641 9/25/2008 Test #2
Can ID 1374
#3 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21695 9/26/2008 Test #14
Can ID 1396
No. 1 Port Cargo Valve
Raff in ate
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21703 9/28/2008 Test 23
Can ID 1491
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21642 9/25/2008 Test 3
Can ID 1322
#2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
-------
SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE [lART_HOU| DURATION |,3'Trimethylbenzj,4'Trimethylbenzj
AL21643 9/25/2008 Test 4
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
I 13:27 .02
38475.00 1167075.00
Area%ppbC
ppbC*#C
ppbv
0.00%
346275
4275
0.05%
10503675
129675
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE
AL21644 9/25/2008
Can ID 1490
LOCCODE
TestS
TARTJHOU)
14:16
DURATION
02
|,3*Trimethylbenz
37769.76
4*Trimethylbenzi
1200538.80
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch Area%ppbC
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLD
ppbC*#C
ppbv
ATE LOCCODE [TART_HOL)| DURATION
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6 14:45|.02
Can ID
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
t SAMPNO COLD
\L21646 9/25/
Can ID
1502
Area%ppbC
ppbC*#C
ppbv
ATE LOCCODE [TART HOUJ DURATION
2008 Test 7 15:05 .02
1375
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly Valve) Area%ppbC
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLD
ppbC*#C
ppbv
ATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21691 9/26/2008 Test 8 10:58 .02
Can ID
1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch Area%ppbC
Naphtha but cleaned ppbC*#C
carbon
SAMPNO COLD
ppbv
ATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21692 9/26/2008 Test 9 11:17|.02
Can ID
1478
0.00%
339927.84
4196.64
9
0.13%
10804849.2
133393.2
9
[3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
119774.70
0.00%
1077972.3
13308.3
9
724297.95
0.02%
6518681.55
80477.55
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
28623.40
0.00%
257610.6
3180.377778
9
1074478.40
0.03%
9670305.6
119386.4889
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
115018.48
0.03%
1035166.32
12779.83111
9
1508261.20
0.40%
13574350.8
167584.5778
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
100853.81
1061564.33
-------
SAMPNO
AL21643
Can ID
COLD ATE
LOCCODE [S'Trimethylbenz
9/25/2008 Test 4 460417.50
1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21644
Can ID
COLD ATE
9/25/2008 Tes1
1490
0.02%
4143757.5
51157.5
9
LOCCODE 5'Trimethylbenz
:5 446942.16
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 0.05%
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21645
Can ID
COLD ATE
4022479.44
49660.24
9
LOCCODE [S'Trimethylbenz
9/25/2008 Test 6 334465.20
1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21646
Can ID
Vent Stack
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21691
Can ID
COLD ATE
9/25/2008 Tes1
1375
0.01%
3010186.8
37162.8
9
LOCCODE [S'Trimethylbenz
: 7 468983.40
(leaking Butterfly Valve) 0.01%
4220850.6
COLD ATE
52109.26667
9
LOCCODE [S'Trimethylbenz
9/26/2008 Test 8 972231.68
1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch 0.26%
Naphtha but cleaned 8750085.12
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21692
COLD ATE
108025.7422
9
LOCCODE [S'Trimethylbenz
9/26/2008 Test 9 851538.87
l,3*butadiene
419377.50
0.02%
1677510
104844.375
4
l,3*butadiene
137589.84
0.02%
550359.36
34397.46
4
l,3*butadiene
479098.80
0.01%
1916395.2
119774.7
4
l,3*butadiene
435956.40
0.01%
1743825.6
108989.1
4
l,3*butadiene
23871.76
0.01%
95487.04
5967.94
4
l,3*butadiene
16635.68
l«Butene
1'Hexene
16022272.50 9461002.50
0.71%
64089090
4005568.125
4
1'Butene
5953233.60
0.66%
23812934.4
1488308.4
4
l«Butene
15892746.75
0.44%
63570987
3973186.688
4
1'Butene
16130386.80
0.43%
64521547.2
4032596.7
4
l«Butene
16276.20
0.00%
65104.8
4069.05
4
1'Butene
39509.74
0.42%
56766015
1576833.75
6
1'Hexene
4006292.40
0.45%
24037754.4
667715.4
6
1'Hexene
7729987.95
0.21%
46379927.7
1288331.325
6
1'Hexene
7711804.50
0.21%
46270827
1285300.75
6
1'Hexene
90061.64
0.02%
540369.84
15010.27333
6
1'Hexene
57185.15
Can ID
1478
-------
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21643 9/25/2008 Test 4
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21644 9/25/2008 Test 5
Can ID 1490
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21646 9/25/2008 Test 7
Can ID 1375
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly Valve)
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21691 9/26/2008 Test 8
Can ID 1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21692 9/26/2008 Test 9
1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
49991850.00 7505190.00 1471027.50 869535.00
2.22% 0.33% 0.07% 0.04%
249959250 60041520 8826165 6956280
9998370 938148.75 245171.25 108691.875
5868
1'Pentene ,4*Trimethylpentj,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
19526965.92 3207731.76 3525177.60 392086.08
2.18% 0.36% 0.39% 0.04%
97634829.6 25661854.08 21151065.6 3136688.64
3905393.184 400966.47 587529.6 49010.76
5868
1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
54767546.55 7329985.65 5786473.95 1011305.25
1.51% 0.20% 0.16% 0.03%
273837732.8 58639885.2 34718843.7 8090442
10953509.31 916248.2063 964412.325 126413.1563
5868
1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
56379290.80 7552174.00 5897521.30 1068973.90
1.50% 0.20% 0.16% 0.03%
281896454 60417392 35385127.8 8551791.2
11275858.16 944021.75 982920.2167 133621.7375
5868
1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
34722.56 11935.88 827916.04 145400.72
0.01% 0.00% 0.22% 0.04%
173612.8 95487.04 4967496.24 1163205.76
6944.512 1491.985 137986.0067 18175.09
5868
1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
21834.33 13516.49 587447.45 18715.14
-------
SAMPNO COLC
)ATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan(3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptan^
AL21643 9/25/2008 Test 4 4924800.00 773347.50
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch 0.22% 0.03%
Trans Mix 29548800 5413432.5
820800 110478.2143
carbon 6 7
SAMPNO COLC
AL21644 9/25/
Can ID
Starboard Lower E
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLC
)ATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«Dimethylpentai
'2008 Test 5 2017085.04 321042.96
1490
Butterworth Hatch 0.22% 0.04%
12102510.24 2247300.72
336180.84 45863.28
6 7
3575610.00 620730.00
0.16% 0.03%
25029270 4965840
510801.4286 77591.25
7 8
4*Dimethylpentai2*Methylheptane
1482013.44 1064747.52
0.17% 0.12%
10374094.08 8517980.16
211716.2057 133093.44
7 8
)ATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan(3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptan^
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6 8339031.00 24714266.40
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve 0.23% 0.68%
Trans Mix 50034186 172999864.8
1389838.5 3530609.486
carbon 6 7
SAMPNO COLC
52263577.35 532206.45
1.44% 0.01%
365845041.5 4257651.6
7466225.336 66525.80625
7 8
)ATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutar^«Dimethylpenta|4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptane|
AL21646 9/25/2008 Test 7 8582616.40 25686198.80
Can ID 1375
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly Valve) 0.23% 0.68%
Trans Mix 51495698.4 179803391.6
1430436.067 3669456.971
carbon 6 7
SAMPNO COLC
54206114.2£]_ 566963.50
1 .44% 0.02%
379442799.4 4535708
7743730.6 70870.4375
7 8
)ATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutar^«Dimethylpenta|4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptane|
AL21691 9/26/2008 Test 8 2240690.20 2853760.40
Can ID 1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch 0.59% 0.76%
Naphtha but cleaned 13444141.2 19976322.8
373448.3667 407680.0571
carbon 6 7
SAMPNO COLC
1242416.60 638027.04
0.33% 0.17%
8696916.2 5104216.32
177488.0857 79753.38
7 8
)ATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutar^«Dimethylpenta|4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptane|
AL21692 9/26/2008 Test 9 1642773.40 2295723.84
979425.66 1 557295.28
-------
SAMPNO
AL21643
Can ID
#2 Port Ca
Trans Mix
COLD ATE
LOCCODE
9/25/2008 Test 4
1397
rgo Hatch
2*Methylhexane
2*Methylpentanqr
17459955.00 7575727.50
0.77%
122219685
0.34%
45454365
i'Methylheptanej
96187.50
0.00%
769500
3*Methylhexane
515565.00
0.02%
3608955
2494279.286
1262621.25
12023.4375 73652.14286
carbon
SAMPNO
COLD ATE
AL21644 9/25/2008
Can ID 1490
LOCCODE
TestS
2*Methylhexane
7489203.84
2*Methylpentane
3234710.16
3'Methylheptanej 3*Methylhexane
583632.72 227517.84
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 0.83%
Trans Mix 52424426.88
1069886.263
carbon 7
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOC
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21646
Can ID
Vent Stack
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21691
COLDATE LOC
9/25/2008 Test 7
:CODE 2'Methylhexane
957067.65
0.03%
6699473.55
136723.95
7
:CODE 2'Methylhexane
982002.80
1375
(leaking Butterfly Valve) 0.03%
6874019.6
140286.1143
7
COLDATE LOC
9/26/2008 Test 8
Can ID 1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21692
Can ID
COLDATE LOC
9/26/2008 Test 9
1478
:CODE 2'Methylhexane
6342292.60
1 .68%
44396048.2
906041.8
7
:CODE 2'Methylhexane
5096756.46
0.36%
19408260.96
539118.36
6
2'Methylpentanq.
14720988.60
0.41%
88325931.6
2453498.1
6
2'Methylpentanq.
14946919.30
0.40%
89681515.8
2491153.217
6
2'Methylpentanq.
11287002.16
2.99%
67722012.96
1881167.027
6
2'Methylpentanq.
8312641.35
0.07%
4669061 .76
72954.09
8
3'Methylheptanej
49717.80
0.00%
397742.4
6214.725
8
3'Methylheptanej
51742.30
0.00%
413938.4
6467.7875
8
0.03%
1592624.88
32502.54857
7
3*Methylhexane
21004640.55
0.58%
147032483.9
3000662.936
7
3*Methylhexane
21855066.80
0.58%
152985467.6
3122152.4
7
3'Methylheptanej 3*Methylhexane
317928.44
0.08%
2543427.52
39741.055
8
3'Methylheptanej
276568.18
7634622.88
2.02%
53442360.16
1090660.411
7
3*Methylhexane
6162479.71
-------
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21643 9/25/2008 Test 4
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21644 9/25/2008 Test 5
Can ID 1490
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21646 9/25/2008 Test 7
Can ID 1375
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly Valve)
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21691 9/26/2008 Test 8
Can ID 1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21692 9/26/2008 Test 9
3'Methylpentanej Acetylene
61999897.50 8977.50
2.75% 0.00%
371999385 17955
10333316.25 4488.75
6 2
3'Methylpentanej Acetylene
25586314.56 9892.08
2.85% 0.00%
153517887.4 19784.16
4264385.76 4946.04
6 2
3'Methylpentanej Acetylene
95159869.20 10169.55
2.62% 0.00%
570959215.2 20339.1
15859978.2 5084.775
6 2
3'Methylpentanej Acetylene
98043952.20 19816.20
2.61% 0.00%
588263713.2 39632.4
16340658.7 9908.1
6 2
3'Methylpentanej Acetylene
8173907.64 10850.80
2.16% 0.00%
49043445.84 21701.6
1362317.94 5425.4
6 2
3'Methylpentanej Acetylene
6085539.69 9357.57
Benzene
12480007.50
0.55%
74880045
2080001.25
6
Benzene
5401974.96
0.60%
32411849.76
900329.16
6
Benzene
15379749.45
0.42%
92278496.7
2563291.575
6
Benzene
15957545.50
0.42%
95745273
2659590.917
6
Benzene
3739185.68
0.99%
22435114.08
623197.6133
6
Benzene
2825986.14
cis*2*Butene
18019125.00
0.80%
72076500
4504781.25
4
cis*2*Butene
6585427.44
0.73%
26341709.76
1646356.86
4
cis*2*Butene
41283853.20
1.14%
165135412.8
10320963.3
4
cis*2*Butene
42112727.70
1.12%
168450910.8
10528181.93
4
cis*2*Butene
17361.28
0.00%
69445.12
4340.32
4
cis*2*Butene
0.00
-------
SAMPNO
AL21643
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 4
1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21644
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 5
1490
CODE cis«2«Pentene
46625287.50
2.07%
233126437.5
9325057.5
5
CODE cis«2«Pentene
18697829.76
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 2.08%
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21645
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 6
1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21646
Can ID
Vent Stack
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21691
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 7
1375
93489148.8
3739565.952
5
CODE cis«2«Pentene
97655928.75
2.69%
488279643.8
19531185.75
5
CODE cis«2«Pentene
101673619.50
(leaking Butterfly Valve) 2.70%
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 8
1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21692
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 9
508368097.5
20334723.9
5
CODE cis«2«Pentene
| 27127.00
0.01%
135635
5425.4
5
CODE cis«2«Pentene
48867.31
Cumene
Cyclohexane
155182.50 1291477.50
0.01%
1396642.5
17242.5
9
Cumene
111510.72
0.01%
1003596.48
12390.08
9
Cumene
93785.85
0.00%
844072.65
10420.65
9
Cumene
149722.40
0.00%
1347501.6
16635.82222
9
Cumene
899531.32
0.24%
8095781.88
99947.92444
9
Cumene
774598.85
0.06%
7748865
215246.25
6
Cyclohexane
471222.72
0.05%
2827336.32
78537.12
6
Cyclohexane
613562.85
0.02%
3681377.1
102260.475
6
Cyclohexane
626412.10
0.02%
3758472.6
104402.0167
6
Cyclohexane
13326952.56
3.53%
79961715.36
2221158.76
6
Cyclohexane
10489835.97
Cyclopentane
17253472.50
0.77%
86267362.5
3450694.5
5
Cyclopentane
7008089.04
0.78%
35040445.2
1401617.808
5
Cyclopentane
18414795.15
0.51%
92073975.75
3682959.03
5
Cyclopentane
19084101.50
0.51%
95420507.5
3816820.3
5
Cyclopentane
2216818.44
0.59%
11084092.2
443363.688
5
Cyclopentane
1604303.39
-------
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21643 9/25/2008 Test 4
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21644 9/25/2008
Can ID 1490
LOCCODE
TestS
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21645 9/25/2008
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21646 9/25/2008
Can ID 1375
LOCCODE
Test 6
LOCCODE
Test?
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly Valve)
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21691 9/26/2008
Can ID 1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21692 9/26/2008
LOCCODE
TestS
Hatch
LOCCODE
Test 9
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
13175122.50 2745832.50
0.58%
26350245
6587561.25
2
Ethane
4201436.16
0.47%
8402872.32
2100718.08
2
Ethane
10891588.05
0.30%
21783176.1
5445794.025
2
Ethane
11167529.60
0.30%
22335059.2
5583764.8
2
Ethane
1911910.96
0.51%
3823821.92
955955.48
2
Ethane
1398436.85
0.12%
21966660
343229.0625
8
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Isobutane
475807.50 3683340.00
0.02%
951615
237903.75
2
Ethylene
1559351.52 136690.56
0.17%
12474812.16
194918.94
8
Ethylbenzene
2148034.95
0.06%
17184279.6
268504.3688
8
Ethylbenzene
2408769.20
0.06%
19270153.6
301096.15
8
Ethylbenzene
2366559.48
0.63%
18932475.84
295819.935
8
Ethylbenzene
1904785.36
0.02%
273381.12
68345.28
2
Ethylene
210170.70
0.01%
420341.4
105085.35
2
Ethylene
214675.50
0.01%
429351
107337.75
2
Ethylene
10850.80
0.00%
21701.6
5425.4
2
Ethylene
9357.57
0.16%
14733360
920835
4
Isobutane
2093523.84
0.23%
8374095.36
523380.96
4
Isobutane
43540363.35
1 .20%
174161453.4
10885090.84
4
Isobutane
43411789.70
1.15%
173647158.8
10852947.43
4
Isobutane
4710332.28
1 .25%
18841329.12
1177583.07
4
Isobutane
2978826.45
-------
SAMPNO
AL21643
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 4
1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21644
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 5
1490
CODE Isopentane
Isoprene
m/p Xylene pi*Diethylbenzen<
672115927.50 3353737.50 8921070.00 46170.00
29.81%
3360579638
134423185.5
5
CODE Isopentane
255035808.00
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 28.41%
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21645
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 6
1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21646
Can ID
Vent Stack
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21691
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 7
1375
1275179040
51007161.6
5
CODE Isopentane
1345633726.05
37.05%
6728168630
269126745.2
5
CODE Isopentane
1388414346.70
(leaking Butterfly Valve) 36.93%
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 8
1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21692
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 9
6942071734
277682869.3
5
CODE Isopentane
17382981.60
4.60%
86914908
3476596.32
5
CODE Isopentane
11746869.54
0.15%
16768687.5
670747.5
5
Isoprene
0.40% 0.00%
71368560 461700
1115133.75 4617
8 10
m/p Xylene pi*Diethylbenzen<
1300358.88 5275176.48 68345.28
0.14%
6501794.4
260071.776
5
Isoprene
2087017.65
0.06%
10435088.25
417403.53
5
Isoprene
2038866.80
0.05%
10194334
407773.36
5
Isoprene
0.00
0.00%
0
0
5
Isoprene
0.00
0.59% 0.01%
42201411.84 683452.8
659397.06 6834.528
8 10
m/p Xylene prDiethylbenzen^
9870113.25 39548.25
0.27% 0.00%
78960906 395482.5
1233764.156 3954.825
8 10
m/p Xylene prDiethylbenzen^
8558396.60 40733.30
0.23% 0.00%
68467172.8 407333
1069799.575 4073.33
8 10
m/p Xylene |n«Diethylbenzen^
13933512.28 46658.44
3.69% 0.01%
111468098.2 466584.4
1741689.035 4665.844
8 10
m/p Xylene prDiethylbenzen^
11621062.21 34311.09
-------
SAMPNO COLC
)ATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
AL21643 9/25/2008 Test 4 970852.50
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch 0.04%
Trans Mix 6795967.5
138693.2143
carbon 7
SAMPNO COLC
AL21644 9/25/
Can ID
Starboard Lower E
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLC
33622020.00
1 .49%
201732120
5603670
6
)ATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
'2008 Test 5 423560.88
1490
Butterworth Hatch 0.05%
2964926.16
60508.69714
7
14272472.88
1 .59%
85634837.28
2378745.48
6
)ATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6 3258775.80
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve 0.09%
Trans Mix 22811430.6
465539.4
carbon 7
t SAMPNO COLC
\L21646 9/25/
Can ID
Vent Stack (leakin
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLC
428251.05
0.01%
2569506.3
71375.175
6
)ATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
'2008 Test 7 3446917.90
1375
g Butterfly Valve) 0.09%
24128425.3
492416.8429
7
452469.90
0.01%
2714819.4
75411.65
6
)ATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
AL21691 9/26/2008 Test 8 26318615.40|
Can ID 1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch 6.97%
Naphtha but cleaned 1 84230307.8
3759802.2
carbon 7
SAMPNO COLC
13069788.60
3.46%
78418731.6
2178298.1
6
)ATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
AL21692 9/26/2008 Test 9 22458168.00 1
9954375.02
m*Ethyltoluene
919552.50
0.04%
8275972.5
102172.5
9
m*Ethyltoluene
825539.04
0.09%
7429851.36
91726.56
9
m*Ethyltoluene
702828.90
0.02%
6325460.1
78092.1
9
m*Ethyltoluene
899435.30
0.02%
8094917.7
99937.25556
9
m*Ethyltoluene
1574451.08
0.42%
14170059.72
174939.0089
9
m*Ethyltoluene
1318377.64
rvButane
90344430.00
4.01%
361377720
22586107.5
4
rvButane
33123180.24
3.69%
132492721
8280795.06
4
rvButane
81124760.25
2.23%
324499041
20281190.06
4
rvButane
82756854.80
2.20%
331027419.2
20689213.7
4
rvButane
12518567.96
3.31%
50074271.84
3129641.99
4
rvButane
8186834.02
-------
SAMPNO
AL21643
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 4
1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21644
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 5
1490
CODE irDecane
n*Heptane
214177.50 5024835.00
0.01%
2141775
21417.75
10
CODE irDecane
241906.32
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 0.03%
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21645
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 6
1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21646
Can ID
Vent Stack
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21691
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 7
1375
2419063.2
24190.632
10
CODE irDecane
88136.10
0.00%
881361
8813.61
10
CODE irDecane
205868.30
(leaking Butterfly Valve) 0.01%
2058683
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 8
1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21692
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 9
20586.83
10
CODE irDecane
985252.64
0.26%
9852526.4
98525.264
10
CODE irDecane
916002.13
0.22%
35173845
717833.5714
7
n*Heptane
2201437.44
0.25%
15410062.08
314491.0629
7
n*Heptane
1740123.00
0.05%
12180861
248589
7
n*Heptane
1820888.60
0.05%
12746220.2
260126.9429
7
n*Heptane
14893808.08
3.94%
104256656.6
2127686.869
7
n*Heptane
12214748.04
n*Hexane
5159497.50
0.23%
30956985
859916.25
6
n*Hexane
n*Nonane
1256850.00
0.06%
11311650
139650
9
n*Nonane
2197840.32 747301.68
0.24%
13187041.92
366306.72
6
n*Hexane
8584230.15
0.24%
51505380.9
1430705.025
6
n*Hexane
8872153.10
0.24%
53232918.6
1478692.183
6
n*Hexane
17220219.60
4.56%
103321317.6
2870036.6
6
n*Hexane
12944638.50
0.08%
6725715.12
83033.52
9
n*Nonane
690399.45
0.02%
6213595.05
76711.05
9
n*Nonane
976498.30
0.03%
8788484.7
108499.8111
9
n*Nonane
6447545.36
1.71%
58027908.24
716393.9289
9
n*Nonane
5544880.09
-------
SAMPNO
AL21643
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 4
1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21644
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 5
1490
CODE irGctane
n*Pentane
n*Propylbenzene
484785.00 252643522.50 214177.50
0.02%
3878280
60598.125
8
CODE irGctane
544064.40
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 0.06%
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21645
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 6
1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21646
Can ID
Vent Stack
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21691
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 7
1375
4352515.2
68008.05
8
CODE irGctane
392092.65
0.01%
3136741.2
49011.58125
8
CODE irGctane
430451.90
(leaking Butterfly Valve) 0.01%
3443615.2
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 8
1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21692
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 9
53806.4875
8
CODE irGctane
17040096.32
4.51%
136320770.6
2130012.04
8
CODE irGctane
14514630.80
1 1 .20%
1263217613
50528704.5
5
n*Pentane
0.01%
1927597.5
23797.5
9
n*Propylbenzene
n*Undecane
47452.50
0.00%
521977.5
4313.863636
11
n*Undecane
100025115.84 207733.68| 133093.44
11.14%
500125579.2
20005023.17
5
n*Pentane
231529014.90
6.38%
1157645075
46305802.98
5
n*Pentane
238889795.50
6.35%
1194448978
47777959.1
5
n*Pentane
18919454.88
5.01%
94597274.4
3783890.976
5
n*Pentane
13141147.47
0.02%
1869603.12
23081.52
9
n*Propylbenzene
167232.60
0.00%
1505093.4
18581.4
9
n*Propylbenzene
255408.80
0.01%
2298679.2
28378.75556
9
n*Propylbenzene
642367.36
0.17%
5781306.24
71374.15111
9
n*Propylbenzene
533381.49
0.01%
1464027.84
12099.40364
11
n*Undecane
143503.65
0.00%
1578540.15
13045.78636
11
n*Undecane
51742.30
0.00%
569165.3
4703.845455
11
n*Undecane
24956.84
0.01%
274525.24
2268.803636
11
n*Undecane
18715.14
-------
SAMPNO COLDATE LOC
AL21643 9/25/2008 Test 4
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOC
AL21644 9/25/2008 Test 5
Can ID 1490
:CODE o Xylene
3149820.00
0.14%
25198560
393727.5
8
:CODE o Xylene
o*Ethyltoluene
283432.50
0.01%
2550892.5
31492.5
9
o*Ethyltoluene
p'Diethylbenzenej
128250.00
0.01%
1282500
12825
10
p*Diethylbenzene|
1935250.56 275179.68 58453.20
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 0.22%
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOC
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOC
AL21646 9/25/2008 Test 7
Can ID 1375
15482004.48
241906.32
8
:CODE o Xylene
2497189.50
0.07%
19977516
312148.6875
8
:CODE o Xylene
2919586.80
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly Valve) 0.08%
Trans Mix 23356694.4
0.03%
2476617.12
30575.52
9
o*Ethyltoluene
204520.95
0.01%
1840688.55
22724.55
9
o*Ethyltoluene
277426.80
0.01%
2496841 .2
0.01%
584532
5845.32
10
p*Diethylbenzene|
49717.80
0.00%
497178
4971.78
10
p«Diethylbenzene|
28623.40
0.00%
286234
p*Ethyltoluene
46170.00
0.00%
415530
5130
9
p*Ethyltoluene
41366.88
0.00%
372301.92
4596.32
9
p*Ethyltoluene
29378.70
0.00%
264408.3
3264.3
9
p*Ethyltoluene
51742.30
0.00%
465680.7
364948.35
30825.2
2862.34
5749.144444
carbon
10
SAMPNO
AL21691
Can ID
COLDATE
LOCCODE
o Xylene
o*Ethyltoluene
9/26/2008 Test 8 5184512.24 572922.24
1470
p«Diethylbenzenej
73785.44
p*Ethyltoluene
365671.96
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
1.37%
41476097.92
648064.03
0.15%
5156300.16
63658.02667
0.02%
737854.4
0.10%
3291047.64
7378.544 40630.21778
carbon
10
SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE | o Xylene | o'Ethyltoluene p'Piethylbenzenej p'Ethyltoluene
AL21692 9/26/2008 Test 9
Can ID 1478
3939536.97
469957.96
36390.55
311919.00
-------
SAMPNO
AL21643
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 4
1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21644
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 5
1490
CODE Propane
Propylene
40129425.00 8055382.50
1 .78%
120388275
13376475
3
CODE Propane
14373192.24
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 1 .60%
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21645
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 6
1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21646
Can ID
Vent Stack
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21691
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 7
1375
43119576.72
4791064.08
3
CODE Propane
18069030.45
0.50%
54207091.35
6023010.15
3
CODE Propane
18422460.60
(leaking Butterfly Valve) 0.49%
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 8
1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21692
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 9
55267381.8
6140820.2
3
CODE Propane
7591219.68
2.01%
22773659.04
2530406.56
3
CODE Propane
4753645.56
0.36%
24166147.5
2685127.5
3
Propylene
2769782.40
0.31%
8309347.2
923260.8
3
Propylene
7145803.80
0.20%
21437411.4
2381934.6
3
Propylene
7186675.20
0.19%
21560025.6
2395558.4
3
Propylene
24956.84
0.01%
74870.52
8318.946667
3
Propylene
18715.14
Styrene
Toluene
336015.00 20450745.00
0.01%
2688120
42001.875
8
Styrene
122302.08
0.01%
978416.64
15287.76
8
Styrene
124294.50
0.00%
994356
15536.8125
8
Styrene
168437.70
0.00%
1347501.6
21054.7125
8
Styrene
308162.72
0.08%
2465301.76
38520.34
8
Styrene
260972.23
0.91%
143155215
2921535
7
Toluene
9776072.88
1 .09%
68432510.16
1396581.84
7
Toluene
20091640.95
0.55%
140641486.7
2870234.421
7
Toluene
21375074.40
0.57%
149625520.8
3053582.057
7
Toluene
10296324.12
2.73%
72074268.84
1470903.446
7
Toluene
8232582.14
-------
SAMPNO
AL21643
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 4
1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21644
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 5
1490
CODE Total NMOC
2254763250.00
100.00%
10969390508
474705970.1
CODE Total NMOC
trans*2*Butene
19552995.00
0.87%
78211980
4888248.75
4
trans*2*Butene
897751224.00 7103412.72
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch 1 00.00%
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21645
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 6
1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21646
Can ID
Vent Stack
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21691
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/25/2008 Test 7
1375
4411936475
187395802.1
CODE Total NMOC
3631546305.00
100.00%
17798670138
753951469.3
CODE Total NMOC
3759463410.00
(leaking Butterfly Valve) 1 00.00%
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 8
1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21692
Can ID
COLDATE LOG
9/26/2008 Test 9
1478
18428357571
780363080.6
CODE Total NMOC
377716348.00
100.00%
2178030085
70055849.14
CODE Total NMOC
299130321.00
0.79%
28413650.88
1775853.18
4
trans*2*Butene
54914440.05
1.51%
219657760.2
13728610.01
4
trans*2*Butene
56204247.70
1 .50%
224816990.8
14051061.93
4
trans*2*Butene
29297.16
0.01%
117188.64
7324.29
4
trans*2*Butene
32231.63
trans*2*Pentene
88144942.50
3.91%
440724712.5
17628988.5
5
trans*2*Pentene
unID
698285340.00
30.97%
3142284030
155174520
4.5
unID
35318322.72 282637409.04
3.93%
176591613.6
7063664.544
5
trans*2*Pentene
242296308.45
6.67%
1211481542
48459261.69
5
31 .48%
1271868341
62808313.12
4.5
unID
1057485176.55
29.12%
4758683294
234996705.9
4.5
trans*2*Pentene| unID
252398939.40
6.71%
1261994697
50479787.88
5
trans*2*Pentene
35807.64
0.01%
179038.2
7161.528
5
trans*2*Pentene
20794.60
1103822889.50
29.36%
4967203003
245293975.4
4.5
unID
118501586.80
31 .37%
533257140.6
26333685.96
4.5
unID
99683074.02
-------
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21643
9/25/2008 Test 4
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
4.864985496 average C
47.47% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21644
Can ID
9/25/2008 Test 5
1490
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch
Trans Mix
4.914431033 average C
18.74% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
4.901127135 average C
75.40% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21646 9/25/2008 Test 7
Can ID 1375
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly Valve)
Trans Mix
4.901858473 average C
78.04% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21691 9/26/2008 Test 8
Can ID 1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
5.766311405 average C
7.01% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21692 9/26/2008 Test 9
Can ID 1478
0.68
19.25197
0.593663
41.92194
0.092339
5.540345
0.066484
24.26671
0.97
27.53988
0.878982
62.07898
0.136738
8.204271
0.098451
35.93471
2.18
62.07941
0.177874
14.71525
0.032412
1.944746
0.023337
8.517989
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
1.630694 scfm
46.39243 liters/min
-------
I SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21643 9/25/2008 Test 4
Can ID 1397
#2 Port Cargo Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21644 9/25/2008 Test 5
Can ID 1490
Starboard Lower Butterworth Hatch
Trans Mix
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21645 9/25/2008 Test 6
Can ID 1502
PV Bullet Valve
Trans Mix
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21646 9/25/2008 Test 7
Can ID 1375
Vent Stack (leaking Butterfly Valve)
Trans Mix
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21691 9/26/2008 Test 8
Can ID 1470
No. 1 Port Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE LOCCODE
AL21692 9/26/2008 Test 9
Can ID 1478
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch Area%ppbC
Naphtha but cleaned ppbC*#C
carbon
SAMPNO COL1
ppbv
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 11:45 .02
Can ID
1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch Area%ppbC
Naphtha but cleaned ppbC*#C
carbon
SAMPNO COL1
ppbv
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11 12:04 .02
Can ID
No. 2 Port Cargo
1394
Valve Area%ppbC
Naphtha but cleaned ppbC*#C
carbon
SAMPNO COL1
ppbv
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21696 9/26/2008 Test 15 14:10 .02
Can ID
No. 1 Port Ullage
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COL1
1348
Hatch Area%ppbC
ppbC*#C
ppbv
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 14:50 .02
Can ID
1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch Area%ppbC
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COL1
ppbC*#C
ppbv
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 15:30 .02
Can ID
1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester Area%ppbC
Raff in ate
ppbC*#C
0.03%
907684.29
11205.97889
9
0.35%
9554078.97
117951.5922
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
161702.80
0.08%
1455325.2
17966.97778
9
1243956.54
0.60%
11195608.86
138217.3933
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
214344.35
0.06%
1929099.15
23816.03889
9
932550.30
0.27%
8392952.7
103616.7
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
55547.36
0.00%
499926.24
6171.928889
9
770088.40
0.04%
6930795.6
85565.37778
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
122804.64
0.01%
1105241.76
13644.96
9
942639.32
0.04%
8483753.88
104737.7022
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
51880.80
0.00%
466927.2
333334.14
0.03%
3000007.26
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 0.28%
Naphtha but cleaned 7663849.83
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
94615.43
9
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 847784.68
Can ID
1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 0.41 %
Naphtha but cleaned 7630062.12
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
94198.29778
9
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11 1199718.85
Can ID
No. 2 Port Cargo
1394
Valve 0.34%
Naphtha but cleaned 1 0797469.65
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
133302.0944
9
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21696 9/26/2008 Test 15 398931.04
Can ID
No. 1 Port Ullage
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
1348
Hatch 0.02%
3590379.36
44325.67111
9
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 544661.32
Can ID
1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.03%
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
4901951.88
60517.92444
9
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 185473.86
Can ID
1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.02%
Raff in ate
1669264.74
0.01%
66542.72
4158.92
4
l,3*butadiene
12705.22
0.01%
50820.88
3176.305
4
l,3*butadiene
18285.30
0.01%
73141.2
4571.325
4
l,3*butadiene
0.00
0.00%
0
0
4
l,3*butadiene
36386.56
0.00%
145546.24
9096.64
4
l,3*butadiene
40207.62
0.00%
160830.48
0.01%
158038.96
9877.435
4
1'Butene
20790.36
0.01%
83161.44
5197.59
4
l«Butene
18285.30
0.01%
73141.2
4571.325
4
1'Butene
106044.96
0.01%
424179.84
26511.24
4
l«Butene
86418.08
0.00%
345672.32
21604.52
4
1'Butene
16861.26
0.00%
67445.04
0.02%
343110.9
9530.858333
6
1'Hexene
64681.12
0.03%
388086
72
10780.18667
6
1'Hexene
80252.15
0.02%
481512.9
13375.35833
6
1'Hexene
3479284.64
0.17%
20875707
84
579880.7733
6
1'Hexene
2508398.48
0.12%
15050390
88
418066.4133
6
1'Hexene
1586255.46
0.13%
9517532
76
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 0.01%
Naphtha but cleaned 1 091 71 .65
4366.866
carbon 5
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
:ODE l«Pentene
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 12705.22
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 0.01 %
Naphtha but cleaned 63526.1
2541 .044
carbon 5
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOOC
:ODE l«Pentene
33523.05
0.01%
167615.25
6704.61
5
:ODE l«Pentene
326971.96
0.02%
1634859.8
65394.392
5
:ODE l«Pentene
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 359317.28
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.02%
Raffinate 1796586.4
71863.456
carbon 5
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
:ODE l«Pentene
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 184176.84
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.02%
Raffinate 920884.2
0.00%
108131.92
1689.56125
8
0.20%
3524684.7
97907.90833
6
0.01%
149721.12
2339.3925
8
|,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
8085.14
0.00%
64681.12
1010.6425
8
448147.76
0.22%
2688886.56
74691.29333
6
57751.00
0.03%
462008
7218.875
8
|,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
5388068.40
1 .55%
43104547.2
673508.55
8
758839.95
0.22%
4553039.7
126473.325
6
161520.15
0.05%
1292161.2
20190.01875
8
|,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
1689144.72
0.08%
13513157.76
211143.09
8
94781470.32
4.59%
568688821.9
15796911.72
6
70696.64
0.00%
565573.12
8837.08
8
|,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
1487300.64
0.07%
11898405.12
185912.58
8
104407822.68
4.83%
626446936.1
17401303.78
6
54579.84
0.00%
436638.72
6822.48
8
|,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
811934.52
0.07%
6495476.16
53080543.50
4.46%
318483261
45395.70
0.00%
363165.6
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 0.55%
Naphtha but cleaned 9856640.4
273795.5667
carbon 6
SAMPNO
COLD ATE
0.77%
16070066.88
327960.5486
7
0.33%
6855979.62
139917.9514
7
0.19%
4458362.24
69661.91
8
LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«MethylheptaneS
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 1268211.96
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 0.62%
Naphtha but cleaned 7609271 .76
211368.66
carbon 6
SAMPNO
COLD ATE
AL21694 9/26/2008
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
COLD ATE
9/26/2008
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLD ATE
1571982.22
0.76%
11003875.54
224568.8886
7
716112.40
0.35%
5012786.8
102301.7714
7
281824.88
0.14%
2254599.04
35228.11
8
LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«MethylheptaneS
Test 11 2086555.90
0.60%
12519335.4
347759.3167
6
1786880.15
0.51%
12508161.05
255268.5929
7
1176354.30
0.34%
8234480.1
168050.6143
7
614589.25
0.18%
4916714
76823.65625
8
LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«MethylheptaneS
Test 15 351900100.24
17.04%
2111400601
58650016.71
6
23076140.76
1.12%
161532985.3
3296591.537
7
16274114.04
0.79%
113918798.3
2324873.434
7
207040.16
0.01%
1656321.28
25880.02
8
LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«MethylheptaneS
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 359589042.12
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 16.64%
Raffinate 2157534253
59931507.02
carbon 6
SAMPNO
COLD ATE
22773438.24
1 .05%
159414067.7
3253348.32
7
16452410.52
0.76%
115166873.6
2350344.36
7
300189.12
0.01%
2401512.96
37523.64
8
LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan|3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«MethylheptaneS
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 203716446.30
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 17.12%
Raffinate 1222298678
12743221.50
1 .07%
89202550.5
9133614.84
0.77%
63935303.88
123216.90
0.01%
985735.2
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 1 .70%
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21693
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 10
1418
35677295.22
728108.0657
7
:ODE 2'Methylhexane
3451199.76
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 1 .68%
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21694
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 11
1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21697
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 16
1431
24158398.32
493028.5371
7
:ODE 2«Methylhexane
5931548.15
1 .70%
41520837.05
847364.0214
7
:ODE 2'Methylhexane
55004510.80
2.66%
385031575.6
7857787.257
7
:ODE 2«Methylhexane
54693548.00
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 2.53%
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21698
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 17
1347
382854836
7813364
7
:ODE 2'Methylhexane
29996181.54
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 2.52%
Raff in ate
209973270.8
2.78%
49875848.1
1385440.225
6
2'Methylpentanej.
6520087.90
3.17%
39120527.4
1086681.317
6
2'Methylpentanej.
10531316.95
3.02%
63187901.7
1755219.492
6
2'Methylpentanej.
2570327.84
0.12%
15421967.04
428387.9733
6
2'Methylpentanej.
2574349.12
0.12%
15446094.72
429058.1867
6
2'Methylpentanej.
1575879.30
0.13%
9455275.8
0.09%
2212545.44
34571.0225
8
3'Methylheptanej
136292.36
0.07%
1090338.88
17036.545
8
3'Methylheptanej
311865.95
0.09%
2494927.6
38983.24375
8
3'Methylheptanej
162854.76
0.01%
1302838.08
20356.845
8
3'Methylheptanej
175110.32
0.01%
1400882.56
21888.79
8
3'Methylheptanej
85603.32
0.01%
684826.56
2.06%
43137357.97
880354.2443
7
3*Methylhexane
4121111.36
2.00%
28847779.52
588730.1943
7
3*Methylhexane
7174948.55
2.06%
50224639.85
1024992.65
7
3*Methylhexane
59218535.52
2.87%
414529748.6
8459790.789
7
3*Methylhexane
58742689.88
2.72%
411198829.2
8391812.84
7
3*Methylhexane
32380104.30
2.72%
226660730.1
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 2.03%
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21693 9/26/2008
Can ID 1418
36513238.14
1014256.615
6
LOCCODE |3«Methylpentane|
Test 10 4756372.36
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 2.31 %
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21694 9/26/2008
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21696 9/26/2008
Can ID 1348
No. 1 Port Ullage Hatch
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21697 9/26/2008
Can ID 1431
28538234.16
792728.7267
6
LOCCODE |3«Methylpentanej
Test 11 7688968.65
2.21%
46133811.9
1281494.775
6
LOCCODE |3«Methylpentanej
Test 15 265914049.40
12.88%
1595484296
44319008.23
6
LOCCODE |3«Methylpentanej
Test 16 272196484.56
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 12.60%
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21698 9/26/2008
Can ID 1347
1633178907
45366080.76
6
LOCCODE |3«Methylpentanej
Test 17 153858997.50
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 12.93%
Raff in ate
923153985
0.00%
18715.14
4678.785
2
Acetylene
8085.14
0.00%
16170.28
4042.57
2
Acetylene
13206.05
0.00%
26412.1
6603.025
2
Acetylene
0.00
0.00%
0
0
2
Acetylene
0.00
0.00%
0
0
2
Acetylene
11673.18
0.00%
23346.36
0.94%
16955916.84
470997.69
6
Benzene
2128701.86
1 .03%
12772211.16
354783.6433
6
Benzene
3098342.50
0.89%
18590055
516390.4167
6
Benzene
307376366.32
14.89%
1844258198
51229394.39
6
Benzene
326294202.64
15.10%
1957765216
54382367.11
6
Benzene
182281893.78
15.32%
1093691363
0.00%
0
0
4
cis*2*Butene
13860.24
0.01%
55440.96
3465.06
4
cis*2*Butene
17269.45
0.00%
69077.8
4317.3625
4
cis*2*Butene
79533.72
0.00%
318134.88
19883.43
4
cis*2*Butene
95514.72
0.00%
382058.88
23878.68
4
cis*2*Butene
44098.68
0.00%
176394.72
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 0.02%
Naphtha but cleaned 244336.55
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9773.462
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 18480.32
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 0.01 %
Naphtha but cleaned 92401 .6
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOOC
3696.064
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
23364.55
0.01%
116822.75
4672.91
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
565573.12
0.03%
2827865.6
113114.624
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 662917.64
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.03%
Raffinate 3314588.2
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
132583.528
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 319066.92
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.03%
Raffinate 1595334.6
0.26%
6971389.65
86066.53889
9
Cumene
616780.68
0.30%
5551026.12
68531.18667
9
Cumene
900043.10
0.26%
8100387.9
100004.7889
9
Cumene
145180.60
0.01%
1306625.4
16131.17778
9
Cumene
131901.28
0.01%
1187111.52
14655.69778
9
Cumene
79118.22
0.01%
712063.98
3.51%
62939015.82
1748305.995
6
Cyclohexane
7702828.38
3.74%
46216970.28
1283804.73
6
Cyclohexane
20317.00
0.01%
121902
3386.166667
6
Cyclohexane
1881035.60
0.09%
11286213.6
313505.9333
6
Cyclohexane
1524824.28
0.07%
9148945.68
254137.38
6
Cyclohexane
918290.16
0.08%
5509740.96
0.54%
8021516.95
320860.678
5
Cyclopentane
1258971.80
0.61%
6294859
251794.36
5
Cyclopentane
2052017.00
0.59%
10260085
410403.4
5
Cyclopentane
86065584.56
4.17%
430327922.8
17213116.91
5
Cyclopentane
91182445.20
4.22%
455912226
18236489.04
5
Cyclopentane
48793892.40
4.10%
243969462
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 0.47%
Naphtha but cleaned 2796873.7
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
699218.425
2
:ODE Ethane
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 989852.14
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 0.48%
Naphtha but cleaned 1 979704.28
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOOC
494926.07
2
:ODE Ethane
1684279.30
0.48%
3368558.6
842139.65
2
:ODE Ethane
284049.00
0.01%
568098
142024.5
2
:ODE Ethane
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 261528.40
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.01 %
Raffinate 523056.8
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
130764.2
2
:ODE Ethane
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 264592.08
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.02%
Raffinate 529184.16
0.64%
15238282.88
238098.17
8
Ethylbenzene
1204685.86
0.59%
9637486.88
150585.7325
8
Ethylbenzene
1667009.85
0.48%
13336078.8
208376.2313
8
Ethylbenzene
709491.28
0.03%
5675930.24
88686.41
8
Ethylbenzene
606063.64
0.03%
4848509.12
75757.955
8
Ethylbenzene
415046.40
0.03%
3320371.2
0.00%
18715.14
4678.785
2
Ethylene
8085.14
0.00%
16170.28
4042.57
2
Ethylene
15237.75
0.00%
30475.5
7618.875
2
Ethylene
12624.40
0.00%
25248.8
6312.2
2
Ethylene
12507.88
0.00%
25015.76
6253.94
2
Ethylene
9079.14
0.00%
18158.28
1 .00%
11915305.8
744706.6125
4
Isobutane
2134476.96
1 .04%
8537907.84
533619.24
4
Isobutane
3850071.50
1.11%
15400286
962517.875
4
Isobutane
3298755.72
0.16%
13195022.88
824688.93
4
Isobutane
3879716.96
0.18%
15518867.84
969929.24
4
Isobutane
1863817.74
0.16%
7455270.96
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 3.93%
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21693
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 10
1418
58734347.7
2349373.908
5
IODE Isopentane
8956025.08
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 4.35%
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21694
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 11
1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21697
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 16
1431
44780125.4
1791205.016
5
:ODE Isopentane
14954327.85
4.29%
74771639.25
2990865.57
5
IODE Isopentane
175974036.48
8.52%
879870182.4
35194807.3
5
:ODE Isopentane
196534044.28
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 9.09%
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21698
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 17
1347
982670221 .4
39306808.86
5
IODE Isopentane
101521646.46
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 8.53%
Raff in ate
507608232.3
0.00%
0
0
5
Isoprene
0.00
0.00%
0
0
5
Isoprene
60951.00
0.02%
304755
12190.2
5
Isoprene
326971.96
0.02%
1634859.8
65394.392
5
Isoprene
138723.76
0.01%
693618.8
27744.752
5
Isoprene
267186.12
0.02%
1335930.6
3.88%
92968497.68
1452632.776
8
m/p Xylene
7649697.46
3.72%
61197579.68
956212.1825
8
m/p Xylene
7302945.65
2.10%
58423565.2
912868.2063
8
m/p Xylene
1892397.56
0.09%
15139180.48
236549.695
8
m/p Xylene
2259377.96
0.10%
18075023.68
282422.245
8
m/p Xylene
1370950.14
0.12%
10967601.12
0.01%
343110.9
3431.109
10
pi*Diethylbenzen<
63526.10
0.03%
635261
6352.61
10
pi*Diethylbenzen<
50792.50
0.01%
507925
5079.25
10
pi*Diethylbenzen<
39135.64
0.00%
391356.4
3913.564
10
pi*Diethylbenzen<
37523.64
0.00%
375236.4
3752.364
10
pi*Diethylbenzen<
18158.28
0.00%
181582.8
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 7.51%
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21693 9/26/2008
Can ID 1418
157207176
3208309.714
7
3.33%
59726250.12
1659062.503
6
LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentaij
Test 10 14217141.18
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 6.91 %
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21694 9/26/2008
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21696 9/26/2008
Can ID 1348
No. 1 Port Ullage Hatch
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21697 9/26/2008
Can ID 1431
99519988.26
2031020.169
7
7654317.54
3.72%
45925905.24
1275719.59
6
LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentaij
Test 11 25051876.85
7.19%
175363138
3578839.55
7
12294832.55
3.53%
73768995.3
2049138.758
6
LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentaij
Test 15 1262440.00
0.06%
8837080
180348.5714
7
17339613.40
0.84%
104037680.4
2889935.567
6
LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentaij
Test 16 928994.36
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.04%
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
AL21698 9/26/2008
Can ID 1347
6502960.52
132713.48
7
17605409.64
0.81%
105632457.8
2934234.94
6
LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentaij
Test 17 670559.34
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.06%
Raff in ate
4693915.38
10055796.06
0.85%
60334776.36
0.44%
11865398.76
146486.4044
9
m*Ethyltoluene
1268211.96
0.62%
11413907.64
140912.44
9
m*Ethyltoluene
1457744.75
0.42%
13119702.75
161971.6389
9
m*Ethyltoluene
525175.04
0.03%
4726575.36
58352.78222
9
m*Ethyltoluene
619708.60
0.03%
5577377.4
68856.51111
9
m*Ethyltoluene
246433.80
0.02%
2217904.2
2.74%
32747336.08
2046708.505
4
n*Butane
5981848.58
2.91%
23927394.32
1495462.145
4
n*Butane
10444969.70
3.00%
41779878.8
2611242.425
4
n*Butane
17879937.72
0.87%
71519750.88
4469984.43
4
n*Butane
20627768.28
0.95%
82511073.12
5156942.07
4
n*Butane
10214032.50
0.86%
40856130
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 0.31%
Naphtha but cleaned 91 60021 .3
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
91600.213
10
:ODE irDecane
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 1209305.94
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 0.59%
Naphtha but cleaned 12093059.4
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOOC
120930.594
10
:ODE irDecane
1374445.05
0.39%
13744450.5
137444.505
10
:ODE irDecane
371157.36
0.02%
3711573.6
37115.736
10
:ODE irDecane
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 670877.20
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.03%
Raffinate 6708772
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
67087.72
10
:ODE irDecane
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 291829.50
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.02%
Raffinate 2918295
4.08%
85503236.28
1744964.006
7
n*Heptane
7600031.60
3.69%
53200221 .2
1085718.8
7
n*Heptane
13734292.00
3.94%
96140044
1962041.714
7
n*Heptane
21840212.00
1 .06%
152881484
3120030.286
7
n*Heptane
21554488.48
1 .00%
150881419.4
3079212.64
7
n*Heptane
11540883.96
0.97%
80786187.72
4.33%
77667831
2157439.75
6
n*Hexane
10001318.18
4.86%
60007909.08
1666886.363
6
n*Hexane
15913290.25
4.57%
95479741.5
2652215.042
6
n*Hexane
251875716.60
12.20%
1511254300
41979286.1
6
n*Hexane
256588924.48
1 1 .87%
1539533547
42764820.75
6
n*Hexane
144961440.30
12.19%
869768641.8
1 .85%
49903920.81
616097.7878
9
n*Nonane
4257403.72
2.07%
38316633.48
473044.8578
9
n*Nonane
6265762.80
1 .80%
56391865.2
696195.8667
9
n*Nonane
763776.20
0.04%
6873985.8
84864.02222
9
n*Nonane
518508.48
0.02%
4666576.32
57612.05333
9
n*Nonane
460442.10
0.04%
4143978.9
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 4.85%
Naphtha but cleaned 11611 7046.4
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
1814328.85
8
:ODE irGctane
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 8179851.64
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 3.97%
Naphtha but cleaned 65438813.12
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOOC
1022481.455
8
:ODE irGctane
738522.95
0.21%
5908183.6
92315.36875
8
:ODE irGctane
715803.48
0.03%
5726427.84
89475.435
8
:ODE irGctane
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 276310.44
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.01 %
Raffinate 2210483.52
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
34538.805
8
:ODE irGctane
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 352789.44
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.03%
Raffinate 2822315.52
4.39%
65705737.35
2628229.494
5
n*Pentane
10151470.78
4.93%
50757353.9
2030294.156
5
n*Pentane
16837713.75
4.83%
84188568.75
3367542.75
5
n*Pentane
135420676.36
6.56%
677103381.8
27084135.27
5
n*Pentane
146285342.00
6.77%
731426710
29257068.4
5
n*Pentane
77328332.40
6.50%
386641662
0.18%
4800433.41
59264.61
9
n*Propylbenzene
311855.40
0.15%
2806698.6
34650.6
9
n*Propylbenzene
316945.20
0.09%
2852506.8
35216.13333
9
n*Propylbenzene
164117.20
0.01%
1477054.8
18235.24444
9
n*Propylbenzene
167150.76
0.01%
1504356.84
18572.30667
9
n*Propylbenzene
47989.74
0.00%
431907.66
0.01%
205866.54
1701.376364
11
n*Undecane
55440.96
0.03%
609850.56
5040.087273
11
n*Undecane
34538.90
0.01%
379927.9
3139.9
11
n*Undecane
35348.32
0.00%
388831.52
3213.483636
11
n*Undecane
79595.60
0.00%
875551.6
7235.963636
11
n*Undecane
33722.52
0.00%
370947.72
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 1 .32%
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21693
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 10
1418
31516295.76
492442.1213
8
:ODE o Xylene
2276544.42
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 1.11%
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21694
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 11
1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21697
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 16
1431
18212355.36
284568.0525
8
:ODE o Xylene
2749905.95
0.79%
21999247.6
343738.2438
8
:ODE o Xylene
860984.08
0.04%
6887872.64
107623.01
8
:ODE o Xylene
718634.56
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.03%
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21698
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/26/2008 Test 17
1347
5749076.48
89829.32
8
:ODE o Xylene
499352.70
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.04%
Raff in ate
3994821.6
0.16% 0.01%
4229621.64 363905.5
52217.55111 3639.055
9 10
o*Ethyltoluene p'Diethylbenzenq
481643.34 24255.42
0.23% 0.01%
4334790.06 242554.2
53515.92667 2425.542
9 10
o*Ethyltoluene p'Diethylbenzenq
494718.95 40634.00
0.14% 0.01%
4452470.55 406340
54968.77222 4063.4
9 10
o*Ethyltoluene p'Diethylbenzenq
189366.00 47972.72
0.01% 0.00%
1704294 479727.2
21040.66667 4797.272
9 10
o*Ethyltoluene p'Diethylbenzenq
277447.52 50031.52
0.01% 0.00%
2497027.68 500315.2
30827.50222 5003.152
9 10
o*Ethyltoluene p*Diethylbenzenq
93385.44 20752.32
0.01% 0.00%
840468.96 207523.2
0.10%
2807271
34657.66667
9
p*Ethyltoluene
292220.06
0.14%
2629980.54
32468.89556
9
p*Ethyltoluene
391102.25
0.11%
3519920.25
43455.80556
9
p*Ethyltoluene
61859.56
0.00%
556736.04
6873.284444
9
p*Ethyltoluene
62539.40
0.00%
562854.6
6948.822222
9
p*Ethyltoluene
38910.60
0.00%
350195.4
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 1 .59%
Naphtha but cleaned 1 4260936.68
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
1584548.52
3
:ODE Propane
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 3389983.70
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 1 .65%
Naphtha but cleaned 10169951.1
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raff in ate
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOOC
1129994.567
3
:ODE Propane
6391728.20
1 .83%
19175184.6
2130576.067
3
:ODE Propane
348433.44
0.02%
1045300.32
116144.48
3
:ODE Propane
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 397978.00
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 0.02%
Raffinate 1193934
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
132659.3333
3
:ODE Propane
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 234760.62
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 0.02%
Raffinate 704281 .86
0.01%
56145.42
6238.38
3
Propylene
15015.26
0.01%
45045.78
5005.086667
3
Propylene
19301.15
0.01%
57903.45
6433.716667
3
Propylene
0.00
0.00%
0
0
3
Propylene
0.00
0.00%
0
0
3
Propylene
0.00
0.00%
0
0.09%
2087777.84
32621.52875
8
Styrene
179028.10
0.09%
1432224.8
22378.5125
8
Styrene
298659.90
0.09%
2389279.2
37332.4875
8
Styrene
65646.88
0.00%
525175.04
8205.86
8
Styrene
36386.56
0.00%
291092.48
4548.32
8
Styrene
42801.66
0.00%
342413.28
2.75%
57628074.98
1176083.163
7
Toluene
5057832.58
2.46%
35404828.06
722547.5114
7
Toluene
8020135.75
2.30%
56140950.25
1145733.679
7
Toluene
63500732.00
3.08%
444505124
9071533.143
7
Toluene
72829974.00
3.37%
509809818
1 0404282
7
Toluene
39489070.92
3.32%
276423496.4
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch 100.00%
Naphtha but cleaned 1 736775389
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
55061185.28
:ODE Total NMOC
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10 205824564.00
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch 1 00.00%
Naphtha but cleaned 1 1 97420784
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21696
Can ID
No. 1 Port
Raffinate
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/26/2008 Test 15
1348
Ullage Hatch
COLDATE LOOC
37841457.04
:ODE Total NMOC
348334965.00
100.00%
1929664978
66930177.85
:ODE Total NMOC
2064846864.00
100.00%
12064660615
358545192.4
:ODE Total NMOC
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16 2161134248.00
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch 1 00.00%
Raffinate 12605114554
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
376002141.9
:ODE Total NMOC
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17 1189626744.00
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester 1 00.00%
Raffinate 6950645874
0.01%
128926.52
8057.9075
4
trans*2*Butene
33495.58
0.02%
133982.32
8373.895
4
trans*2*Butene
95489.90
0.03%
381959.6
23872.475
4
trans*2*Butene
135081.08
0.01%
540324.32
33770.27
4
trans*2*Butene
148957.48
0.01%
595829.92
37239.37
4
trans*2*Butene
58365.90
0.00%
233463.6
0.01%
103973
4158.92
5
trans*2*Pentene
15015.26
0.01%
75076.3
3003.052
5
trans*2*Pentene
34538.90
0.01%
172694.5
6907.78
5
trans*2*Pentene
1025101.28
0.05%
5125506.4
205020.256
5
trans*2*Pentene
1289448.72
0.06%
6447243.6
257889.744
5
trans*2*Pentene
591441.12
0.05%
2957205.6
33.32%
448573833.1
22151794.23
4.5
unID |
64715770.60
31.44%
291220967.7
14381282.36
4.5
unID |
143515224.60
41.20%
645818510.7
31892272.13
4.5
unID |
95761123.76
4.64%
430925056.9
21280249.72
4.5
unID |
97730888.92
4.52%
439789000.1
21717975.32
4.5
unID |
54225812.16
4.56%
244016154.7
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
5.806082725 average C
5.51% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
5.817676768 average C
3.78% by volume
0.104475 moles/min
8.701247 grams/min
0.019166 Ibs/min
1.149944 Ibs/hr
0.013799 tons/day
5.036757 tons/year
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
5.539682123 average C
6.69% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21696 9/26/2008 Test 15
Can ID 1348
No. 1 Port Ullage Hatch
Raff in ate
5.842883957 average C
35.85% by volume
0.965023
27.45442
0.075155
5.978964
0.01317
0.790171
0.009482
3.460951
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch
Raff in ate
5.832638377 average C
37.60% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester
Raff in ate
5.842711513 average C
-------
#2 Starboard Cargo & Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21693 9/26/2008 Test 10
Can ID 1418
No. 3 Starboard Cargo/Ullage Hatch
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21694 9/26/2008 Test 11
Can ID 1394
No. 2 Port Cargo Valve
Naphtha but cleaned
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21696 9/26/2008 Test 15
Can ID 1348
No. 1 Port Ullage Hatch
Raff in ate
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21697 9/26/2008 Test 16
Can ID 1431
No. 3 Starboard Cargo Ullage Hatch
Raff in ate
carbon
| SAMPNO | COLDATE | LOCCODE
AL21698 9/26/2008 Test 17
Can ID 1347
No. 3 Starboard High Level Alarm Tester
Raff in ate
-------
ppbv
5764.533333 37037.12667
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOL)| DURATION
AL21699 9/27/2008 Test 18 12:10 .02
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
1376
Area%ppbC
ppbC*#C
ppbv
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19 12:50 .02
Can ID
1482
Forward Cofferdam Area%ppbC
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
ppbC*#C
ppbv
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20 11:45 .02
Can ID
1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch Area%ppbC
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
ppbC*#C
ppbv
DATE LOCCODE [TART_HOUJ DURATION
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22 14:50 .02
Can ID
1359
Slop Tank PV Vent Area%ppbC
Unleaded Gasoline ppbC*#C
9
9
[3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
470453.96
0.03%
4234085.64
52272.66222
9
2419810.22
0.14%
21778291.98
268867.8022
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
29240.50
0.00%
263164.5
3248.944444
9
1518166.76
0.09%
13663500.84
168685.1956
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
445183.74
0.02%
4006653.66
49464.86
9
4991529.42
0.21%
44923764.78
554614.38
9
|,3*Trimethylbenz|,4*Trimethylbenz|
41264.78
0.00%
371383.02
2421271.65
0.05%
21791444.85
ppbv
4584.975556 269030.1833
-------
20608.20667
10051.905
4215.315
264375.91
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21699 9/27/2008 Test 18 929263.02
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
1376
0.06%
8363367.18
103251.4467
9
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19 518141.66
Can ID
1482
Forward Cofferdam 0.03%
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
4663274.94
57571.29556
9
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20 1438764.21
Can ID
1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch 0.06%
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
12948877.89
159862.69
9
DATE LOCCODE |,5'Trimethylbenzj
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22 984286.37
Can ID
1359
Slop Tank PV Vent 0.02%
Unleaded Gasoline 8858577.33
l,3*butadiene
93159.20
0.01%
372636.8
23289.8
4
l,3*butadiene
147372.12
0.01%
589488.48
36843.03
4
l,3*butadiene
39792.96
0.00%
159171.84
9948.24
4
l,3*butadiene
3256276.61
0.07%
13025106.44
l«Butene
4442529.35
0.26%
17770117.4
1110632.338
4
1'Butene
5156854.58
0.31%
20627418.32
1289213.645
4
l«Butene
1575552.51
0.07%
6302210.04
393888.1275
4
1'Butene
81581683.73
1 .77%
326326734.9
1'Hexene
4345876
68
0.26%
26075260
724312
08
78
6
1'Hexene
2122860
30
0.13%
12737161.8
353810
05
6
1'Hexene
414095
49
0.02%
2484572
94
69015.915
6
1'Hexene
5703035
33
0.12%
34218211
98
109365.1522 814069.1525 20395420.93 950505.8883
-------
36835.368
101491.815
8846757.25
5674.4625
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21700
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 19
1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21701
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/28/2008 Test 20
1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOC(
IODE 1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
19089484.57 27339896.22 6781989.76 641633.99
1.13% 1.62% 0.40% 0.04%
95447422.85 218719169.8 40691938.56 5133071.92
3817896.914 3417487.028 1130331.627 80204.24875
5868
IODE 1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
19497565.40 16312690.14 6276180.92 313458.16
1.19% 1.00% 0.38% 0.02%
97487827 130501521.1 37657085.52 2507665.28
3899513.08 2039086.268 1046030.153 39182.27
5868
IODE 1'Pentene |,4*TrimethylpentJ,2*Dimethylbutan|,4*TrimethylpentJ
4517744.49 7458692.94 35072520.12 302177.79
0.19% 0.32% 1.50% 0.01%
22588722.45 59669543.52 210435120.7 2417422.32
903548.898 932336.6175 5845420.02 37772.22375
5868
IODE 1'Pentene |,4*Trimethylpent],2*DimethylbutarJ4*Trimethylpenti|
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
23741812.54 17660112.17 28641398.33
4621655.36
0.52% 0.38%
118709062.7 141280897.4
0.62% 0.10%
171848390 36973242.88
4748362.508 2207514.021
4773566.388
577706.92
-------
33952741.05
1820460.214
1304802.12
15402.1125
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
6
7
7
8
DATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan(3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptane|
AL21699 9/27/2008 Test 18 54283865.84
Can ID 1376
Vent Stack 3.22%
Gasoline 325703195
9047310.973
carbon 6
SAMPNO COLl
6496689.71
0.38%
45476827.97
928098.53
7
4923463.72
0.29%
34464246.04
703351.96
7
1928395.44
0.11%
15427163.52
241049.43
8
DATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan(3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptane|
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19 1809402.14
Can ID 1482
Forwa rd Cofferda m 0.11%
Gasoline 10856412.84
301567.0233
carbon 6
SAMPNO COLl
261994.88
0.02%
1833964.16
37427.84
7
3570849.86
0.22%
24995949.02
510121.4086
7
1745073.04
0.11%
13960584.32
218134.13
8
DATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan(3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptane|
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20 23178155.67
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch 0.99%
Naphtha 139068934
3863025.945
carbon 6
SAMPNO COLl
1924984.44
0.08%
13474891.08
274997.7771
7
2610169.47
0.11%
18271186.29
372881.3529
7
2922295.50
0.13%
23378364
365286.9375
8
DATE LOCCODE |,3«Dimethylbutan(3«DimethylpentaJ4«Dimethylpentai|2«Methylheptane|
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22 49693718.15
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent 1 .08%
Unleaded Gasoline 298162308.9
15482788.19
0.34%
108379517.3
5101055.01
0.11%
35707385.07
566783.89
0.01%
4534271.12
8282286.358 2211826.884 728722.1443
70847.98625
-------
4285168.791
262646.55
10700.415 4625729.186
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21700
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 19
1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21701
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/28/2008 Test 20
1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21702
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 22
1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
7
:ODE 2«Methylhexane
14827451.17
0.88%
103792158.2
2118207.31
7
:ODE 2'Methylhexane
9573339.70
0.58%
67013377.9
1367619.957
7
:ODE 2«Methylhexane
10669487.40
0.46%
7468641 1 .8
1524212.486
7
:ODE 2«Methylhexane
190546.19
0.00%
1333823.33
6
2'Methylpentanej.
3462028.77
0.21%
20772172.62
577004.795
6
2'Methylpentanq.
2922880.38
0.18%
17537282.28
487146.73
6
2'Methylpentanej.
90323801.55
3.87%
541942809.3
15053966.93
6
2'Methylpentanq.
168283841.19
3.66%
1009703047
8
3'Methylheptanej
1283267.98
0.08%
10266143.84
160408.4975
8
3'Methylheptanej
1608227.50
0.10%
12865820
201028.4375
8
3'Methylheptanej
6350707.71
0.27%
50805661.68
793838.4638
8
3'Methylheptanej
1127499.43
0.02%
9019995.44
7
3*Methylhexane
14495571.52
0.86%
101469000.6
2070795.931
7
3*Methylhexane
254977.16
0.02%
1784840.12
36425.30857
7
3*Methylhexane
12899136.69
0.55%
90293956.83
1842733.813
7
3*Methylhexane
15511916.27
0.34%
108583413.9
27220.88429 28047306.87 140937.4288 2215988.039
-------
25643166.25
5836.59 30380315.63
11024.67
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
DATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21699 9/27/2008 Test 18 33433672.39
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
1376
1.98
%
200602034.3
5572278.732
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
6
DATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19 28073219.24
Can ID
1482
Forward Cofferdam 1.71%
Gasoline
168439315
.4
4678869.873
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
6
DATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20 49682754.09
Can ID
1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch 2.13%
Naphtha 298096524.5
8280459.015
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
6
DATE LOCCODE |3'Methylpentanej
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22 92595738.98
Can ID
1359
Slop Tank PV Vent 2.01%
Unleaded Gasoline 555574433.9
Acetylene
9315.92
0.00%
18631.84
4657.96
2
Acetylene
8187.34
0.00%
16374.68
4093.67
2
Acetylene
21140.01
0.00%
42280.02
10570.005
2
Acetylene
372596.69
0.01%
745193.38
Benzene
23648462.92
1 .40%
141890777.5
3941410.487
6
Benzene
16654219.18
1 .02%
99925315.08
2775703.197
6
Benzene
9076525.47
0.39%
54459152.82
1512754.245
6
Benzene
14088281.36
0.31%
84529688.16
cis*2*Butene
22913669.73
1 .36%
91654678.92
5728417.433
4
cis*2*Butene
25231042.64
1 .54%
100924170.6
6307760.66
4
cis*2*Butene
1369126.53
0.06%
5476506.12
342281 .6325
4
cis*2*Butene
72002186.42
1 .57%
288008745.7
15432623.16
186298.345 2348046.893 18000546.61
-------
63813.384 8790.913333
153048.36
9758778.48
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19
Can ID 1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOCC
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
46698377.98
2.77%
233491889.9
9339675.596
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
20619230.98
1 .26%
103096154.9
4123846.196
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
4111110.18
0.18%
20555550.9
822222.036
5
:ODE cis«2«Pentene
25423959.16
0.55%
127119795.8
Cumene
400584.56
0.02%
3605261 .04
44509.39556
9
Cumene
202344.26
0.01%
1821098.34
22482.69556
9
Cumene
1192545.27
0.05%
10732907.43
132505.03
9
Cumene
259725.38
0.01%
2337528.42
Cyclohexane
3219814.85
0.19%
19318889.1
536635.8083
6
Cyclohexane
339189.80
0.02%
2035138.8
56531.63333
6
Cyclohexane
14924847.06
0.64%
89549082.36
2487474.51
6
Cyclohexane
203896.56
0.00%
1223379.36
Cyclopentane
16002421.58
0.95%
80012107.9
3200484.316
5
Cyclopentane
5341654.54
0.33%
26708272.7
1068330.908
5
Cyclopentane
38147769.81
1 .63%
190738849.1
7629553.962
5
Cyclopentane
36344561.82
0.79%
181722809.1
5084791.832 28858.37556
33982.76 7268912.364
-------
132296.04
51880.8
4539.57
465954.435
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19
Can ID 1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOCC
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
:ODE Ethane
4138597.46
0.25%
8277194.92
2069298.73
2
:ODE Ethane
4684328.10
0.29%
9368656.2
2342164.05
2
:ODE Ethane
3325199.22
0.14%
6650398.44
1662599.61
2
:ODE Ethane
7563591.44
0.16%
15127182.88
Ethylbenzene
4834962.48
0.29%
38679699.84
604370.31
8
Ethylbenzene
2140404.60
0.13%
17123236.8
267550.575
8
Ethylbenzene
2358976.41
0.10%
18871811.28
294872.0513
8
Ethylbenzene
3198020.45
0.07%
25584163.6
Ethylene
9315.92
0.00%
18631.84
4657.96
2
Ethylene
8187.34
0.00%
16374.68
4093.67
2
Ethylene
48497.67
0.00%
96995.34
24248.835
2
Ethylene
608048.67
0.01%
1216097.34
Isobutane
201385736.11
1 1 .93%
805542944.4
50346434.03
4
Isobutane
233354395.06
14.24%
933417580.2
58338598.77
4
Isobutane
117162909.54
5.02%
468651638.2
29290727.39
4
Isobutane
497196906.88
10.81%
1988787628
3781795.72
399752.5563
304024.335
124299226.7
-------
20304329.29
53437.224 171368.7675
1815.828
carbon
10
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21700
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 19
1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21701
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/28/2008 Test 20
1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21702
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 22
1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
:ODE Isopentane
284218238.79
16.84%
1421091194
56843647.76
5
IODE Isopentane
293414382.06
17.90%
1467071910
58682876.41
5
:ODE Isopentane
679161370.68
29.08%
3395806853
135832274.1
5
:ODE Isopentane
837224762.43
18.20%
4186123812
Isoprene
1540620.27
0.09%
7703101.35
308124.054
5
Isoprene
1538050.30
0.09%
7690251.5
307610.06
5
Isoprene
395442.54
0.02%
1977212.7
79088.508
5
Isoprene
2354519.80
0.05%
11772599
m/p Xylene
16411157.57
0.97%
131289260.6
2051394.696
8
m/p Xylene
7411881.94
0.45%
59295055.52
926485.2425
8
m/p Xylene
13884012.45
0.59%
111072099.6
1735501.556
8
m/p Xylene
11889111.32
0.26%
95112890.56
pi*Diethylbenzen<
101310.63
0.01%
1013106.3
10131.063
10
pi*Diethylbenzen<
67837.96
0.00%
678379.6
6783.796
10
pi*Diethylbenzen<
236270.70
0.01%
2362707
23627.07
10
pi*Diethylbenzen<
105589.29
0.00%
1055892.9
167444952.5
470903.96 1486138.915
10558.929
-------
95794.19143
1675966.01
27381.53333 2553508.125
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
DATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
AL21699 9/27/2008 Test 18 1396223.51
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
1376
0.08%
9773564.57
199460.5014
7
17543041.85
1 .04%
105258251.1
2923840.308
6
DATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19 257316.40
Can ID
1482
Forward Cofferdam 0.02%
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
1801214.8
36759.48571
7
13475192.02
0.82%
80851152.12
2245865.337
6
DATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20 29286375.03
Can ID
1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch 1 .25%
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO COLl
205004625.2
4183767.861
7
30534879.15
1.31%
183209274.9
5089146.525
6
DATE LOCCODE |/lethylcyclohexan|lethylcyclopentar]
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22 6626638.20
Can ID
1359
Slop Tank PV Vent 0.14%
Unleaded Gasoline 46386467.4
35817829.04
0.78%
214906974.2
m*Ethyltoluene
2044844.44
0.12%
18403599.96
227204.9378
9
m*Ethyltoluene
1091255.46
0.07%
9821299.14
121250.6067
9
m*Ethyltoluene
3612454.65
0.15%
32512091.85
401383.85
9
m*Ethyltoluene
1927307.96
0.04%
17345771.64
n*Butane
331980960.63
19.67%
1327923843
82995240.16
4
n*Butane
373708795.06
22.80%
1494835180
93427198.77
4
n*Butane
206443389.42
8.84%
825773557.7
51610847.36
4
n*Butane
1308035269.84
28.44%
5232141079
946662.6 5969638.173 214145.3289 327008817.5
-------
carbon
29182.95 1648697.709 24160240.05 51160.23333
10
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19
Can ID 1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOCC
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
:ODE irDecane
145561.25
0.01%
1455612.5
14556.125
10
:ODE irDecane
180121.48
0.01%
1801214.8
18012.148
10
:ODE irDecane
1993378.59
0.09%
19933785.9
199337.859
10
:ODE irDecane
290067.13
0.01%
2900671.3
n*Heptane
7892913.22
0.47%
55250392.54
1127559.031
7
n*Heptane
2355614.68
0.14%
16489302.76
336516.3829
7
n*Heptane
19777101.12
0.85%
138439707.8
2825300.16
7
n*Heptane
8726287.30
0.19%
61084011.1
n*Hexane
25199563.60
1 .49%
151197381.6
4199927.267
6
n*Hexane
2381346.32
0.15%
14288077.92
396891.0533
6
n*Hexane
72479146.05
3.10%
434874876.3
12079857.68
6
n*Hexane
68226459.05
1 .48%
409358754.3
n*Nonane
565942.14
0.03%
5093479.26
62882.46
9
n*Nonane
371939.16
0.02%
3347452.44
41326.57333
9
n*Nonane
5005208.25
0.21%
45046874.25
556134.25
9
n*Nonane
868987.72
0.02%
7820889.48
29006.713 1246612.471
11371076.51
96554.19111
-------
44098.68
15465666.48
5332.193333
3065.683636
carbon
11
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19
Can ID 1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOCC
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
:ODE irGctane
349347.00
0.02%
2794776
43668.375
8
:ODE irGctane
153220.22
0.01%
1225761.76
19152.5275
8
:ODE irGctane
13933753.65
0.60%
111470029.2
1741719.206
8
:ODE irGctane
270648.41
0.01%
2165187.28
n*Pentane
89663401.02
5.31%
448317005.1
17932680.2
5
n*Pentane
89502831.26
5.46%
447514156.3
17900566.25
5
n*Pentane
609388145.91
26.10%
3046940730
121877629.2
5
n*Pentane
514043860.15
11.18%
2570219301
n*Propylbenzene
740615.64
0.04%
6665540.76
82290.62667
9
n*Propylbenzene
359073.34
0.02%
3231660.06
39897.03778
9
n*Propylbenzene
1784465.55
0.08%
16060189.95
198273.95
9
n*Propylbenzene
526732.78
0.01%
4740595.02
n*Undecane
36099.19
0.00%
397091.09
3281 .744545
11
n*Undecane
140354.40
0.01%
1543898.4
12759.49091
11
n*Undecane
139275.36
0.01%
1532028.96
12661.39636
11
n*Undecane
50974.14
0.00%
560715.54
33831.05125
102808772
58525.86444 4634.012727
-------
62419.0875
10376.16
2075.232
4323.4
carbon
10
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21700
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 19
1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21701
Can ID
COLDATE LOOC
9/28/2008 Test 20
1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21702
Can ID
COLDATE LOCC
9/28/2008 Test 22
1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
:ODE o Xylene
5517353.62
0.33%
44138828.96
689669.2025
8
:ODE o Xylene
2451523.52
0.15%
19612188.16
306440.44
8
:ODE o Xylene
5715263.88
0.24%
45722111.04
714407.985
8
:ODE o Xylene
3688343.13
0.08%
29506745.04
o*Ethyltoluene p'Diethylbenzenq
726641.76 61717.97
0.04% 0.00%
6539775.84 617179.7
80737.97333 6171.797
9 10
o*Ethyltoluene p'Diethylbenzenq
419893.58 70177.20
0.03% 0.00%
3779042.22 701772
46654.84222 7017.72
9 10
o*Ethyltoluene p'Diethylbenzenq
1569334.86 223835.40
0.07% 0.01%
14124013.74 2238354
174370.54 22383.54
9 10
o*Ethyltoluene p'Diethylbenzenq
601980.32 78888.55
0.01% 0.00%
5417822.88 788885.5
p*Ethyltoluene
86172.26
0.01%
775550.34
9574.695556
9
p*Ethyltoluene
46784.80
0.00%
421063.2
5198.311111
9
p*Ethyltoluene
406634.31
0.02%
3659708.79
45181.59
9
p*Ethyltoluene
89811.58
0.00%
808304.22
461042.8913 66886.70222
7888.855 9979.064444
-------
78253.54
5350.2075 5641295.846
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19
Can ID 1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21702
COLDATE LOC(
9/28/2008 Test 22
:ODE Propane
73528227.58
4.36%
220584682.7
24509409.19
3
:ODE Propane
86178771.22
5.26%
258536313.7
28726257.07
3
:ODE Propane
21274311.24
0.91%
63822933.72
7091437.08
3
:ODE Propane
34621150.42
Propylene
309754.34
0.02%
929263.02
103251.4467
3
Propylene
381296.12
0.02%
1143888.36
127098.7067
3
Propylene
855548.64
0.04%
2566645.92
285182.88
3
Propylene
6389972.55
Styrene
128093.90
0.01%
1024751.2
16011.7375
8
Styrene
35088.60
0.00%
280708.8
4386.075
8
Styrene
518552.01
0.02%
4148416.08
64819.00125
8
Styrene
94666.26
Toluene
37996144.21
2.25%
265973009.5
5428020.601
7
Toluene
19802836.22
1.21%
138619853.5
2828976.603
7
Toluene
14740804.62
0.63%
103185632.3
2105829.231
7
Toluene
22017187.47
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
0.75% 0.14%
103863451.3 19169917.65
0.00% 0.48%
757330.08 154120312.3
11540383.47
2129990.85
11833.2825 3145312.496
-------
206568106.1
14591.475
118288.224
12050180.48
carbon
SAMPNO
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
COLDATE LOOC
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19
Can ID 1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOOC
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO
COLDATE LOC(
:ODE Total NMOC
1687811806.00
100.00%
8153774118
366343553.1
:ODE Total NMOC
1638871544.00
100.00%
7474667726
372367817.8
:ODE Total NMOC
2335224987.00
100.00%
11984918305
468504665.8
:ODE Total NMOC
4
trans*2*Butene
19721802.64
1.17%
78887210.56
4930450.66
4
trans*2*Butene
22257868.60
1 .36%
89031474.4
5564467.15
4
trans*2*Butene
4818678.75
0.21%
19274715
1204669.688
4
trans*2*Butene
5
trans*2*Pentene
38608665.95
2.29%
193043329.8
7721733.19
5
trans*2*Pentene
38533130.90
2.35%
192665654.5
7706626.18
5
trans*2*Pentene
8337868.65
0.36%
41689343.25
1667573.73
5
trans*2*Pentene
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
4599930667.00 102570892.71
60032972.88
100.00% 2.23% 1.31%
21401691114 410283570.8 300164864.4
4.5
unID |
206347628.00
12.23%
928564326
45855028.44
4.5
unID |
271989282.90
16.60%
1223951773
60442062.87
4.5
unID |
140153292.18
6.00%
630689814.8
31145176.04
4.5
unID |
398291297.57
8.66%
1792310839
1016476766 25642723.18 12006594.58
88509177.24
-------
20.66% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
4.830973506 average C
36.63% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19
Can ID 1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
4.560862475 average C
37.24% by volume
2.311047
65.74815
0.985129
68.59813
0.151097
9.065832
0.10879
39.70834
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
5.132232813 average C
46.85% by volume
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
4.652611673 average C
101.65% by volume
3.660502
104.1395
1.995494
147.3697
0.324603
19.47618
0.233714
85.30565
3.493477
99.38769
4.131913
277.4024
0.611019
36.66112
0.439933
160.5757
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
scfm
liters/min
moles/min
grams/min
Ibs/min
Ibs/hr
tons/day
tons/year
-------
carbon
I SAMPNO I COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21699
Can ID
Vent Stack
Gasoline
9/27/2008 Test 18
1376
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21700 9/27/2008 Test 19
Can ID 1482
Forward Cofferdam
Gasoline
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21701 9/28/2008 Test 20
Can ID 1462
No. 2 Starboard Cargo Hatch
Naphtha
carbon
SAMPNO COLDATE
LOCCODE
AL21702 9/28/2008 Test 22
Can ID 1359
Slop Tank PV Vent
Unleaded Gasoline
-------
Date
Batch #
GC/FID Daily Worksheet
Operator
QC#
Working Gases and Quality Control Standards:
Carrier Gas Helium Pressure ~zzs Pulse Gas Pressure
Combustion Air Pressure ^t> Hydrogen Pressure
Nitrogen Pressure for dewar "ZT2_
ZAB Pressure *u& r Preparation DateS-^-^B
HAS Pressure
LCS: Std ID
; Preparation
: Preparation
Canister ID
PAMS: Std ID
; Preparation
Canister
SRM: Std IDJ2SB3Q
Canister ID
; Preparation
Entech Setup:
Name of Sequence:
Sequence Saved?
Leak Check Performed?
GC/FID Chemstation Setup:
Name of Sequence: •
Sequence Saved?
/
Bakeout.M Loaded at End?
Acquisition Startup:
Do Both Sequences Match?
Entech Sequence Started?
Total Runs in the sequences:
Number of Std:
Number of Blanks:
Number of Samples
Number of Duplicates:
Number of Sys Blanks:
Number of Cert Cans:
Total Runs in the sequences:
Date and Time Sequence Started:
Comments:
Canister ID
Canister ID
Pressure
Pressure 1*7
Pressure
Sequence Printed? _J_
Sequence Printed?
Canister Valves Open?
Chemstation Sequence Started?
-j-
-------
-------
SEQUENCE TABLE•
Sequence Name: C:\Smart\SQ100608.SEQ
Date: 10-06-2008
Time: 11:17:06
Int. Std Volume: 0 cc
Inlet Auto Samp Cal Std
Sample Name # Pos Vol. Vol.
AL21990SI SRM 1
AL21990SI PPFID 1
AL21990SHBPPFID 3
AL21990SL1PPFID 1
AL21990SB PPFID 4
AL21758 SPPFID 1
AL21759 SPPFID 1
AL21 760 SPPFID 1
AL21761 SPPFID 1
AL21 762 SPPFID 1
•-AL21 779 SPPFID 1
AL21 780 SPPFID 1
AL21781 SPPF01 1
AL21782SPPF02 1
AL21783SPPF03 1
AL21784SPPF03 1
AL21785SPPF04 1
AL21786SPPF05 1
AL21758SD PPFID 1
AL21990SC SRM 1
1
1
1
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2
1
0
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
Method
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
-------
Sequence: O:\HPCHEM\1\SEQUENCE\SQ100608.S
Sequence Parameters:
Operator:
Data File Naming:
Signal 1 Prefix:
Counter:
Signal 2 Prefix:
Counter:
Data Directory:
Data Subdirectory:
Part o,f Methods to run:
Barcode Reader:
Shutdown Cmd/Macro:
Sequence Comment:
Running 5 PRI, 8 CAP.
JPC
Prefix/Counter
HJ0608
01
0
0000000
C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\
According to Runtime Checklist
not used
none
Sequence Table (Front Injector) :
Method and Injection Info Part:
Line Location SampleName Method
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Vial 1
Vial 3
Vial 2
Vial 4
Vial 1
Vial 2
Vial 3
Vial 4
Vial 5
Vial 6
Vial 7
Vial 8
Vial 9
Vial 10
Vial 11
Vial 12
Vial 13
Vial 14
Vial 2
Vial 1
Vial 15
Vial 1
AL21990
AL21990
AL21990
AL21990
AL21990
AL21758
AL21759
AL21760
AL21761
AL21762
AL21779
AL21780
AL21781
AL21782
AL21783
AL21784
AL21785
AL21786
AL21758
AL21990
AL21154
BAKEOUT
$1 SRM
$1 PPFID
$HBPPFID
$L1PPFID
$B PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$D PPFID
$C SRM
$PPFID
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
BAKEOUT
Sequence Table (Back Injector):
No entries - empty table!
Inj SampleType InjVolume DataFile
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Calib
Calib
Ctrl Samp
Ctrl Samp
Ctrl Samp
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
S amp1e
Sample
Calib
Sample
Sample
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/6/2008 3:00:15 PM JPC
Page 1 of 1
-------
— Leak Check Report -
10/6/2008 11:38:46 AM
Leak Check for C:\Smart\SQ100608.SEQ
Report File: C:\Smart\SQ100608.LCR
Leak Check Method: Evacuation
Pressurize/Evacuate time(sec) 30
Equilibration time(sec) 10
Maintanance time(sec) 30
Sample
Inlet Autol Auto2 AutoS Start End Rate(psi/min)
1 1 — — 0.5 0.6 0.20
3 1 ... — 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 16 — — 0.4 0.4 0.00
4 16 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 2 — — 0.4 0.4 0.00
1 3 ... — 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 4 ... — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 5 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 6 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 7 - 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 8 — — 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 9 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 10 - 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 11 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 12 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 13 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 14 — — 0.3 0.4 0.20
-------
Data'File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060805.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $B_PPFID
Injection Date
S amp1e Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/6/2008 6:46:13 PM
AL21990 $B_PPFID
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/8/2008 2:20:02 PM by JPC
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
5
Vial 1
1
Manually
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
FID1 A, (HJ060805.D)
mm;
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
10/7/2008 2:28:57 PM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime Ty
[min]
8.832 PBA
8.950
9.152 PBA
11.762
11.965 PBA
15.083
16.427 PB
16.566
16.751
17.433
18.083
20.238
21.232 PP
21.657
21.797
22.050
22.387
23.432
24 .821
pe Area Amt/
[pA*s]
6.73536e-l 1.
-
2.60473 1.
-
1.03681 1.
-
8.12684e-l 1.
-
_
-
-
-
2.36850 1.
-
-
-
_
-
-
Area Amount G
[ppbc]
00000 3.43975e-l
-
00000 1.33024
-
00000 5.29498e-l
-
00000 4.15038e-l
-
-
-
-
-
00000 1.20959
-
-
-
-
-
-
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 2:20:30 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data' File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060805.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $B_PPFID
RetTime Type Area Amt/Area Amount
[min] [pA*s] [ppbc]
Grp Name
24.901
25.385
26.100
26.351
27.004
28.659
28.825
30.256
30.740
31.187
31.320
31.775
32.601
33.282
34.752
36.580
37.101
37.524
38.029
39.666
43.059
43.617
44.781
45.064
45.851
46.921
48.671
49.070
49.350
49.565
50.165
50.999
51.558
52.863
54.045
54.417
56.931
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime Type Area
[min] [pA*s]
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
3.82834
using compound Propane
Amt/Area Amount Grp
[ppbc]
Name
48.298 PB 9.82796e-l
Uncalib. totals :
1.00000 5.01914e-l
5.01914e-l
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 2:20:30 PM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data .File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060803.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $HBPPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/6/2008 4:09:23 PM Seq. Line
AL21990 $HBPPFID Location
JPC Inj
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 Inj Volume
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/8/2008 2:20:02 PM by JPC
Vial 2
1
Manually
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE_ANALYSES_
f """ FID1 A,lHJ060803.D)
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
M: — -j-j-
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
10/7/2008 2:28:57 PM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount G
[ppbc]
rp Name
8.837
8.950
9.150 BBA
11.762
11.968 BBA
15.083
16.411
16.566
16.751
17.433
18.083
20.238
21.060
21.657
21.797
22.050
22.387
23.432
24.821
2.82180
7.72749e-l
1.00000 1.44110
1.00000 3.94643e-l
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 2:20:06 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data.File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060803.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $HBPPFID
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount
[ppbc]
Grp Name
24.901
25.385
26.100
26.351
27.004
28.659
28.825
30.256
30.740
31.187
31.320
31.775
32.601
33.282
34.752
36.580
37.101
37.524
38.029
39.666
43.059
43.617
44 .781
45.064
45.851
46.921
48.671
49.070
49.350
49.565
50.165
50.999
51.558
52.863
54.045
54.417
56.931
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks
1.83574
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 2:20:06 PM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
Date: 10/06/2008
SRM concentration:
SRM range:
SI SRM Result
100.36
$C SRM Result
101.57
SRM concentration:
SRM range (RF):
$1 SRM area
196.52
$C SRM area
198.88
RPD ( 1 vs.C)
Analyst: JPC
"/.RECOVERY
100.00
90.00
Recovery %
100.36
Recovery %
101.57
Batch: 192548
110.00
In Range? (TIP)
TRUE
In Range? (T/F)
TRUE
RESPONSE FACTORS
100.00
0.4594
Response Factor
0.5089
Response Factor
0.5028
1.194
0.5615
In Range? (y/n)
TRUE
In Range? (y/n)
TRUE
LIMS: AL21990
-------
From:
Date:
Re:
Jianzhong Liu /
Environmental Scientist Supervispi/|/
Air Organics, LSD, DEQ / j
May 13, 2008
FID SRM PREPARATION
Stock Standard:
Manufacturer:
Cylinder #:
Certified Concentration:
Expiration Date:
Spectra Gases, Inc.
CC-162783
1.18 ppm
2/25/2009
Working SRM:
Target Concentration: 100.00 ppbC
Flow Rate of the Stock Std: 40 cc/min
Flow Rate of Nitrogen: 1376 cc/min
-------
Spectra Gases, Inc.
3434 Route 22 West, Branchburg, New Jersey 08876 USA
ISO 9001:2000
SHIPPED FROM: 80 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ALPHA, NJ. 08865
SHIPPED TO:
Environmental Quality - LA
Air Organics Lab, LDEQ
1209 Leesville Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
SGI ORDER # : 125072
ITEM#: 1
CERTIFICATION DATE: 02/25/2008
P.O.# : CC - J Liu
BLEND TYPE: CERTIFIED
CERTIFICATE
OF
ANALYSIS
CYLINDERS: CC-162783
CYLINDER PRES: 2000 psig
CYLINDER VALVE: CGA 350
PRODUCT EXPIRATION DATE: 02/25/2009
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: + / - 2%
COMPONENT
REQUESTED GAS
CONG
ANALYSIS
Propane
Nitrogen
1.20 ppm
Balance
1.18 ppm
Balance
NIST TRACEABLE
ANALYST:
Cheryl Patino
DATE:
02/25/2008
Tel: +1 908-252-9300 Fax. +1 908-252-0811
www.spectragases.com
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060801.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $I_SRM
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/6/2008 1:32:38 PM
AL21990 $I_SRM
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/8/2008 11:00:02 AM by JPC
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES_
r
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
1
Vial 1
1
Manually
pA :
60
-
50-
40-
30-
-
20-
FID1 A, (HJ060801.D)
C
CO
D.
p
C
(.
C
C
T
V
a
3
3
^
! & i
w, * IS 15=
1 ! i $
% 1 J "
in ui> c^; fS
; 1111
10
~ 'ji . i\^~~^ ^~
10 20
JL_
30
40
50_ 60 mini
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
10/7/2008 2:28:57 PM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.
RetTime Type
[min]
8.825 PBA
8. 950
9.149 BBA
11.755 PB
11.906 BBA
15.083
16.362 PB
16.566
16.804 PV
17.433
18.083
20.238
21.062 PP
21.569 PB
21.797
22.050
22 . 387
23.432
24.821
Area
[pA*s]
j
7.49608e-l
_
3.69022
9.80980e-l
196.51662
-
8.18215
-
6.76274e-l
_
-
-
1.74923
9.99140e-l
-
-
_
_
-
Amt/Area
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
-
1.00000
-
-
-
1.00000
1.00000
-
-
-
-
-
Amount G
[ppbc]
3.82825e-l
-
1.88459
5.00987e-l
100.36104
-
4 .17862
-
3.45373e-l
-
-
-
8.93330e-l
5.10261e-l
-
-
-
-
-
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 11:29:43 AM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data 'File C': \HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060820 .D
Sample Name: AL21990 $C_SRM
10/7/2008 3:52:46 PM
AL21990 $C_SRM
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/7/2008 11:39:44 AM by JPC
(modified after loading)
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/8/2008 2:20:02 PM by JPC
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES^
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed •
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
20
Vial 1
1
Manually
"FID1 A, "(HJ060820.D)
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
"Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
10/7/2008 2:28:57
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc]
PM
(not used in calc.)
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime
[min]
8.723
8.822
9.144
11.745
11.899
15.083
16.355
16.566
16.808
17.433
18.083
20.238
21.183
21.601
21.797
22.050
22.387
23.432
Type
PB
BBA
PBA
PB
BBA
PB
PP
PB
BB
Area
[pA*s]
3.48399e-l
6.55641e-l
3.15885
1.01210
198.87964
-
7.84820
-
5.05109e-l
-
-
-
2.01423
14.17153
-
-
-
-
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
-
1.00000
-
-
-
1.00000
1.00000
-
-
-
-
Amount
[ppbc]
1.77928e-l
3.34836e-l
1.61322
5.16881e-l
101.56783
-
4.00808
-
2.57959e-l
-
-
-
1.02866
7.23740
-
-
-
-
Grp Name
Acetylene
Ethylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2 , 2-Dimethylbutane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 2:23:09 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Initial Calibration Verification (LCS) FID #2
DATE: 10/6/2008 QC NO: AL21990
COMPONENTS STCMppbe) $l Cppbe} REC%$I
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
3ropylene
Propane
n-Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
49.20
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.00
48.90
48.90
49.90
48.80
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.40
50.70
49.10
49.40
50.30
49.50
49.90
59.60
49.50
49.10
49.50
49.30
49.70
49.10
49.50
49.30
48.50
48.80
48.60
48.80
53.70
49.00
49.60
48.90
49.80
49.10
50.70
48.50
49.70
98.50
49.30
49.00
48.60
49.40
49.00
48.70
48.10
48.70
48.50
49.00
48.90
48.70
48.40
48.40
48.90
53.23
35.37
54.92
44.40
50.28
50.95
50.21
41.06
59.31
51.02
47.95
55.93
54.00
52.82
49.63
52.86
49.00
52.77
51.95
54.71
51.77
52.61
44.52
50.49
51.22
51.50
49.81
52.22
50.08
53.43
51.16
58.66
48.26
52.99
51.59
48.38
51.15
51.91
48.80
48.49
97.62
41.26
50.09
47.11
49.56
46.25
45.97
44.88
48.88
47.51
47.02
45.96
42.56
41.86
34.17
41.34
108.2
72.3
112.3
90.8
102.6
104.2
100.6
84.1
121.3
104.3
98.1
113.2
106.5
107.6
100.5
105.1
99.0
105.7
87.2
110.5
105.4
106.3
90.3
101.6
104.3
104.0
101.0
107.7
102.6
109.9
104.8
109.2
98.5
106.8
105.5
97.1
104.2
102.4
100.6
97.6
99.1
83.7
102.2
96.9
100.3
94.4
94.4
93.3
100.4
98.0
96.0
94.0
87.4
86.5
70.6
84.5
JPG
Prep'd 9/09/08
MATH LCS CONG 052108
-------
--From:- - - -Jianzhong Liu
Environmental Scientist Supervisor
Air Organics, LSD, DEQ
Date: June 3, 2008
Re: Low Recovery of p-Diethylbenzene in PAMS LCS Standard
Stock Standard:
Manufacturer: Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.
Cylinder #: SX39238D
Lot#: 1057610175
Expiration Date: 12/03/2009
From the studies of runs in different GC/FDDs, the recovery of p-diethylbenzene is
constantly low (~ 75%). However, the recovery of this compound in PAMS standard is
normal (-100%). Therefore, 60% (75%*80%) recovery for this compound in LCS is
acceptable.
-------
Concentrations (ppbC) of Different Diluton of Matheson Stock Standard
Cylinder #: SX39238D; Lot#: 1057610175; Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENTS Stock Std 1Q limes 71.425 times 166.6$ times 250 times 500 times
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
n-Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1 ,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2 ,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
)-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
)-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
492.00
489.00
489.00
489.00
490.00
489.00
489.00
499.00
488.00
489.00
489.00
489.00
494.00
507.00
491.00
494.00
503.00
495.00
499.00
596.00
495.00
491.00
495.00
493.00
497.00
491.00
495.00
493.00
485.00
488.00
486.00
488.00
537.00
490.00
496.00
489.00
498.00
491.00
507.00
485.00
497.00
985.00
493.00
490.00
486.00
494.00
490.00
487.00
481.00
487.00
485.00
490.00
489.00
487.00
484.00
484.00
489.00
49.20
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.00
48.90
48.90
49.90
48.80
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.40
50.70
49.10
49.40
50.30
49.50
49.90
59.60
49.50
49.10
49.50
49.30
49.70
49.10
49.50
49.30
48.50
48.80
48.60
48.80
53.70
49.00
49.60
48.90
49.80
49.10
50.70
48.50
49.70
98.50
49.30
49.00
48.60
49.40
49.00
48.70
48.10
48.70
48.50
49.00
48.90
48.70
48.40
48.40
48.90
6.89
6.85
6.85
6.85
6.86
6.85
6.85
6.99
6.83
6.85
6.85
6.85
6.92
7.10
6.87
6.92
7.04
6.93
6.99
8.34
6.93
6.87
6.93
6.90
6.96
6.87
6.93
6.90
6.79
6.83
6.80
6.83
7.52
6.86
6.94
6.85
6.97
6.87
7.10
6.79
6.96
13.79
6.90
6.86
6.80
6.92
6.86
6.82
6.73
6.82
6.79
6.86
6.85
6.82
6.78
6.78
6.85
2.95
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.94
2.93
2.93
2.99
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.96
3.04
2.95
2.96
3.02
2.97
2.99
3.58
2.97
2.95
2.97
2.96
2.98
2.95
2.97
2.96
2.91
2.93
2.92
2.93
3.22
2.94
2.98
2.93
2.99
2.95
3.04
2.91
2.98
5.91
2.96
2.94
2.92
2.96
2.94
2.92
2.89
2.92
2.91
2.94
2.93
2.92
2.90
2.90
2.93
1.97
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
2.00
1.95
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.98
2.03
1.96
1.98
2.01
1.98
2.00
2.38
1.98
1.96
1.98
1.97
1.99
1.96
1.98
1.97
1.94
1.95
1.94
1.95
2.15
1.96
1.98
1.96
1.99
1.96
2.03
1.94
1.99
3.94
1.97
1.96
1.94
1.98
1.96
1.95
1.92
1.95
1.94
1.96
1.96
1.95
1.94
1.94
1.96
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.00
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
1.01
0.98
0.99
1.01
0.99
1.00
1.19
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.98
0.97
0.98
1.07
0.98
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.98
1.01
0.97
0.99
1.97
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
ti.97
0.98
Matheson 500 ppbC PAMS dilutions
-------
o
M ATM E SON
TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770) 968-1268
To:
Phone:
Fax:
Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209LeesvilleRd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
SALES ORDER NUMBER:
P.O. NUMBER:
LOT NUMBER:
427497
3243638
1057610175
BE
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: SX39238D
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
PRESSURE: 1850 psig
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonant!
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Undecane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
r 500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 pobC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
498 ppbC
491 ppbC
507 ppbC
485 ppbC
497 ppbC
490 ppbC
495 ppbC
493 ppbC
L 490 ppbC
486 ppbC
494 ppbC
490 ppbC
489 ppbC
484 ppbC .
484 ppbC
492 ppbC
487 ppbC
485 ppbC
481 ppbC
489 ppbC
487 ppbC
487 ppbC
490 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+.1- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
SPECIAL INFORMATION /ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
"-L:
..
/:/ -•
The product listed above and furnished under the referenced purchase order has been teslea ana round to contain the component concentration listed above. All values
m rrole/moie basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated Matheson Tri-Gas warrants that the above produces) conform at the t,me of shipment to the above
description Matheson Tn-Gas' liability does not exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
12/4/2007
ANALYST
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
o
MATHESON
TRi-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770)968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209Leesville Rd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
Phone:
Fax:
tm^Hmmmf
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: SX39238D
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
PRESSURE: 1850psig
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057610175
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
2-Methylneptane
o-Xylene
n-Nonarie
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Undecane
1 2 3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
500 ppbC
500 ppbC I
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 pobC
500 pobC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
498 ppbC
491 ppbC
507 ppbC
485 ppbC
497 ppbC
~~ 490 ppbC
495 ppbC
493 ppbC
490 ppbC
486 ppbC
494 ppbC
490 ppbC
489 ppbC
484 ppbC
484 ppbC
492 ppbC
487 ppbC
485 ppbC
481 ppbC
489 ppbC
487 ppbC
487 ppbC
490 ppbC
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
SPECIAL INFORMATION / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Tne product .ted above and .urmshed under the ..e renced purchase order has
m rrole/mole basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated Matheson Tn-Gas warrants t
dfcbcription. Matheson Tri-Gas1 liability does not exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
ANALYST
12/4/2007
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data 'File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060804.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $L1PPFID
10/6/2008 5:27:43 PM
AL21990 $L1PPFID
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/8/2008 2:27:02 PM by JPC
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
4
Vial 4
1
Manually
) mig
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
10/8/2008 2:27:00 PM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime
[min]
8.822
9.020
9.150
11.711
11. 919
14.976
16.289
16.482
16.640
17.220
17.876
20.131
20.904
21.420
21.706
21.865
22.264
23.217
24.799
Type
MF
FM
FM
PB
BBA
PB +
PV
VV
VB
PB
PB
BB
PB
VB
BV
VB
PP
BB
BV
Area
[pA*s]
104.22430
69.25359
107.53191
86.94897
98.45387
99.75800
98.32315
80.40062
116.12728
99.90575
93.89185
109.51743
105.74088
103.42786
97.19004
103.50215
95.93831
103.32272
101.73061
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
53.22735
35.36781
54.91655
44.40484
50.28039
50.94641
50.21363
41.06060
59.30620
51.02187
47.95057
55.93055
54.00186
52.82061
49.63495
52.85855
48.99569
52.76691
51.95382
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
- n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 3:09:41 PM JPC
Page 1 of 3
-------
Data 'File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060804.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $L1PPFID
RetTime Type
[min]
24.890 VV
25.148 VB
25.967 PB
26.345 BB
26.983 PB
28.640 BV
28.811 VV
30.239 PB +
30.729 PB
31.166 BV
31.309 VB
31.735 BB
32.584 BB
33.264 PB
34.739 BB
36.565 BB
37.039 BV +
37.510 BB
38.015 BB
39.655 BB
43.039 BB
43.542 MM
44.708 BV
44.991 VB
45.785 BB
46.901 BB
48.652 BB
49.051 PV
49.186 VV
49.487 VB
50.138 VB
50.980 BB
51.540 BB
52.604 VB
53.971 BB
54.340 BB
56.912 BB +
Totals :
Uncalibrated
RetTime Type
[min]
23.556 BB
28.957 VB
35.364 BP
37.229 VB
40.937 BB
41.673 PP
51.219 BB
52.005 PB
52.487 PV
53.367 PB
54 .726 BP
55.845 PP
56.322 PB
61.523 BB
64.885 PB
Area
[pA*s]
107.13717
101.36118
103.01171
87.16730
98.86594
100.29522
. 100.83565
97.53899
102.25732
98.05479
104. 61568
100.18056
114.87085
94.49777
103.76786
101.02585
94.72859
100.16042
101.65383
95.54650
94.95210
191.15706
80.79482
98.08223
92.23728
97.04679
90.55850
90.00822
87.88163
95.70393
93.03803
92.07362
89.99635
83.34243
81.96743
66.90073
80.93950
Peaks :
Area
[pA*s]
1.24691
1.57230
3.84897e-l
2.65673
1.58487
5.33042e-l
1.39878
6.07205e-l
7.31412e-l
5.23272
3.53976e-l
1.01993
1.10409
53.39899
3.42649e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
54 .71495
51.76515
52.60808
44.51634
50.49083
51.22077
51.49677
49.81316
52.22282
50.07658
53.42723
51.16221
58.66454
48.26001
52.99425
51.59390
48.37789
51.15192
51.91461
48.79560
48.49204
97.62391
41.26192
50.09059
47.10558
49.56180
46.24823
45.96720
44.88115
48.87600
47.51452
47.02200
45.96114
42.56298
41.86077
34.16620
41.33580
2803 .45860
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methyl eye lopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2, 2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
'1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o- Ethyl toluene
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
6.36796e-l
8.02974e-l
1.96567e-l
1.35679
8.09393e-l
2.72224e-l
7.14358e-l
3.10099e-l
3.73532e-l
2.67235
1.80775e-l
5.20876e-l
5. 63859e-l
27.27087
1.74991e-l
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
7
Uncalib. totals :
36 . 85645
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
1 Warnings or Errors :
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 3:09:41 PM JPC
Page 2 of 3
-------
Data'File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060804.D Sample Name: AL21990 $L1PPFID
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 3:09:41 PM JPC Page 3 of 3
-------
PAMS RETENTION TIME STD FID #2 lot #1057410185
DATE: 10/6/2008
QCNO: AL21990
BATCH NO: 192548
COMPONENTS ST&tepbe) $l Cppbe) REC%$I
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
n-Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2 ,2 ,4-Trimethy Ipentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
21.00
42.00
26.00
26.00
40.00
43.00
25.00
32.00
32.00
43.00
26.00
38.00
40.00
25.00
26.00
42.00
25.00
34.00
40.00
21.00
51.00
21.00
41.00
61.00
30.00
26.00
40.00
31.00
42.00
25.00
54.00
26.00
31.00
26.00
31.00
25.00
40.00
25.00
25.00
31.00
25.00
42.00
41.00
26.00
25.00
40.00
30.00
25.00
43.00
26.00
27.00
39.00
30.00
25.00
40.00
27.00
41.00
22.94
11.16
27.84
19.11
40.26
26.05
30.48
23.30
46.18
24.66
35.48
42.05
24.17
24.95
35.83
25.78
32.29
42.64
19.84
54.99
21.84
41.57
57.10
30.03
26.16
40.34
28.75
42.30
24.48
52.95
25.09
31.52
24.10
31.03
24.86
36.01
24.24
24.82
28.01
22.21
35.72
31.12
23.90
22.68
37.05
26.45
22.79
36.53
22.69
31.10
35.81
26.87
23.31
35.58
22.03
24.55
109.2
26.6
107.1
73.5
100.6
104.2
95.2
72.8
107.4
94.8
93.4
105.1
96.7
96.0
85.3
103.1
95.0
106.6
94.5
107.8
104.0
101.4
93.6
100.1
100.6
100.8
92.7
100.7
97.9
98.0
96.5
101.7
92.7
100.1
99.4
90.0
97.0
99.3
90.4
88.8
85.0
75.9
91.9
90.7
92.6
88.2
91.2
84.9
87.3
115.2
91.8
89.6
93.3
88.9
81.6
59.9
PAMS 2008 100608
-------
o
MATHESON
TRI'GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax:(770)968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209 Leesville Rd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone:
Fax:
TC AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057410185
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: CC-250',12
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
PRESSURE: 1850psig
FiilDate: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butcne
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
Cyclopentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2 3-Dimethylpentane
2-Methyihexane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
20 ppDC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC.
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
7fi r-v,h :
35 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
35 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
50 ppbC
60 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
50 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
21 ppbC
26 ppbC
42 ppbC
26 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
32 ppbC
32 ppbC
43 ppbC
;>H j'pHc:
38 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
42 ppbC
25 ppbC
34 ppbC
21 ppbC
40 ppbC
21 ppbC
41 ppbC
51 ppbC
61 ppbC
30 ppbC
26 ppbC
40 ppbC
31 ppbC
^2 ppbC
54 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
26 ppbC
31 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
r .'- V •:-
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
'V ( • >• i\ i~> <
I ' k'-(_c,'.'.' ' '• I ,, / \ - - I
TRACEABLE TO REFERENCE STANDARD SOURCE/NUMBER:
TRACEABLE TO NIST TRACEABLE WEIGHT CERTIFICATE:
Page 1 of 2
-------
o
MATHESON
TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax:(770)968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209LeesvilleRd
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
Phone:
Fax:
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057410185
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: CC-250112
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 liters
PRESSURE: 1850 psig
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
G-Xyiene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Undecane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
20 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
TC ......U -*
t-*i pH^'J
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
21 ppbC
21 ppbC
41 ppbC
«•••• ^ i- •>-
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
27 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
27 ppbC
43 ppbC
41 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
39 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
SPECIAL INFORMATION / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The product rsted above and furnished under the referenced purchase order has been teuad and found to contain the component concentration listed above. All values
in mole/mole basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated. Matheson Tn-Gas warrants that the above product(s) conform at the time of shipment to the above
description. Matheson Tri-Gas' liability does net exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
ANALYST
12/4/2007
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060802.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $I_PPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/6/2008 2:50:58 PM Seq. Line
AL21990 $I_PPFID Location
JPC Inj
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 Inj Volume
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/8/2008 2:18:27 PM by JPC
2
Vial 3
1
Manually
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
FID1 A, (HJ060802.D)
PA J
CO
Q.
2
i £ Q
35~ a? ,
1- 0
c<
O
30 - c^
J
25-
20:-
15 -:
10-1
> p
I
! I
! Q
) i
i ,.
1 ^
i
10
c
CO
o
TD
c
Z)
cn
CD
CO
CN
uo
20
30
40
50
60
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
10/7/2008 2:28:57 PM
0 .5107
1. 0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime
[min]
8.822
9.021
9.148
11.724
11.921
15.002
16.306
16.500
16. 649
17.248
17.881
20.141
20.932
21.439
21.719
21.885
22.275
23.221
24.808
Type
BBA
BB
BBA
PB
BBA
PB +
PV
VV
VV
PB
PB
PB
BV
VB
BV
VB
PB
PB
BV
Area
[pA*s]
44 .92053
21.85233
54.52073
37.41565
78.83289
51.00570
59.67336
45.61602
90.43373
48.28507
69.47704
82.33052
47.33178
48.85149
70.16476
50.48055
63.22242
83.49139
38.84512
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
22. 94091
11.15999
27.84374
19.10817
40.25996
26.04861
30.47518
23.29610
46.18451
24 . 65918
35.48192
42.04620
24 .17234
24 .94846
35.83315
25.78042
32.28769
42.63905
19.83820
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 2:18:30 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data 'File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ060802.D
Sample Name: AL21990 $1 PPFID
RetTime
[min]
24.887
25.164
25.967
26.339
26.992
28.647
28.814
30.245
30.729
31.174
31.310
31.743
32.592
33.274
34.743
36.572
37.043
37.517
38.022
39.660
43.048
43.552
44.712
44.996
45.789
46.903
48.656
49.054
49.187
49.491
50.139
50.981
51.541
52.607
53.970
54.342
56. 912
Totals
Type
VV
VB
PB
PB
BB
PV
VB
BB +
PB
BV
VB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
PB +
BB
BB
BB
BB
MM
BV
VB
BB
BB
BB
BV
VP
VB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
PB
BB +
Area
[pA*s]
107.66957
42.76157
81.40124
111.81145
58.80105
51.22998
78. 98666
56.29302
82.83351
47.93708
103.67268
49.13598
61.71513
47.18862
60.76443
48.67302
70.50365
47.46110
48.59916
54.85380
43.48153
69.94241
60.93937
46.80718
44 .40535
72.55196
51.79570
44.63218
71.52545
44 .43419
60.89012
70.12561
52.62347
45. 64962
69.66376
43.14646
48.08060
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime
[min]
39.469
61.523
Type
PP
BB
Area
[pA*s]
3.90622
42.26542
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
54.98685
21.83834
41.57161
57.10211
30.02970
26.16315
40.33849
28.74885
42.30307
24.48147
52.94564
25.09375
31.51791
24.09923
31.03239
24.85731
36.00622
24.23838
24.81959
28.01383
22.20602
35.71959
31.12174
23.90443
22.67781
37.05229
26.45206
22.79365
36.52805
22.69254
31.09658
35.81315
26.87481
23.31326
35.57728
22.03490
24 .55476
1705.60458
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2, 2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m- Ethyl toluene
p- Ethyl toluene
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
1.99490
21.58495
?
?
Uncalib. totals
23 .57986
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
1 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/8/2008 2:18:30 PM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
Date 06f/
Batch #
GC/FID Daily Worksheet
Operator
QC#
Working Gases and Quality Control Standards:
Carrier Gas Helium Pressure Pulse Gas Pressure
Combustion Air Pressure
Nitrogen Pressure for dewar
ZAB Pressure »*1.£""
Hydrogen Pressure
Preparation Date
HAB Pressure *Y,Q : Preparation date/l-0-
LCS: Std ID/o57i^>/7.rPreparation Date
Canister ID
; Canister ID
; Canister iD
Pressure
PAMS: Std IDC<:75
-------
if/Lff%lM*
5M
J-l.
^5.
71
"2 572-7
3/ &j s "~y
IHl t
7/5
7'4 5'
763
A- «.
-------
• Leak Check Report
10/9/2008 8:41:22 AM
Leak Check for C:\Smart\SQ100908.SEQ
Report File: C:\Smart\SQ100908.LCR
Leak Check Method: Evacuation
Pressurize/Evacuate time(sec) 30
Equilibration time(sec) 10
Maintenance time(sec) 30
Sample
Inlet Autol Auto2 AutoS Start End Rate(psi/min)
1 1 — — 0.5 0.6 0.20
3 1 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 16 — — 0.4 0.5 0.20
4 16 — — 0.2 0.3 0.20
1 2 - 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 3 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 4 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 5 — — 0.2 0.3 0.20
1 6 — — 0.2 0.3 0.20
1 7 0.2 0.3 0.20
1 8 — — 0.2 0.3 0.20
1 9 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 10 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 11 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 12 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 13 — — 0.3 0.3 0.00
1 14 0.3 0.3 0.00
-------
SEQUENCE TABLE
Sequence Name: C:\Smart\SQ100908.SEQ
Date: 10-11-2008
Time: 08:02:23
Int. Std Volume: 0 cc
Inlet Auto Samp Cal Std
Sample Name # Pos Vol. Vol.
Method
Time
AL22195$I SRM 1
AL22195$I PPFID 1
AL22195$HBPPFID
AL221 95 $L1 PPFID '
1
1
3 1
I 16
AL22195$B PPFID 4 1
AL21711 $PPFID 1
AL21712$PPFID 1
AL21713$PPFID 1
AL21743$PPFID 1
AL21744$PPFID 1
AL21763$PPFID 1
AL21764$PPFID 1
AL21765$PPFID 1
AL21839$PPFID 1
AL21840$PPFID 1
AL21850$PPFID 1
AL21862$PPFID 1
AL21864$PPFID 1
AL21897$PPFID 1
AL21743$D PPFID 1
AL22195$C SRM 1
AL22411 $PPFID 1
AL22413$PPFID 1
AL21703$PPFID 1
AL21695$PPFID 1
AL21641 $PPFID 1
CLEANUP $HBPPFID
AL22195$C SRM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
5
1
2
3
6
7
8
3 1
1
0
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0
200
200
40
40
40
200
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
-------
.S
Sequence Parameters:
Operator:
Data File Naming:
Signal 1 Prefix:
Counter:
Signal- 2 Prefix:
Counter:
Data Directory:
Data Subdirectory:
Part of Methods to run:
Barcode Reader:
Shutdown Cmd/Macro:
Sequence Comment:
11 SINGLES!
JPC
Prefix/Counter
HJ0908
01
0
0000000
C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\
According to Runtime Checklist
not used
none
Sequence Table (Front Injector):
Method and Injection Info Part:
Line
mj Volume DataFile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Vial 1
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
3
2
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
5
1
2
3
6
7
8
2
1
1
AL22195
AL22195
AL22195
AL22195
AL22195
AL21711
AL21712
AL21713
AL21743
AL21744
AL21763
AL21764
AL21765
AL21839
AL21840
AL21850
AL21862
AL21864
AL21897
AL21743
AL22195
AL22411
AL22413
AL21703
AL21695
AL21641
CLEANUP
AL22195
BAKEOUT
$I_SRM
PAMS
$1 PPFID PAMS
$HBPPFID
$L1PPFID
$B_PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$D PPFID
$C_SRM
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$HBPPFID
$C_SRM
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
BAKEOUT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Calib
Calib
Ctrl Samp
Ctrl Samp
Ctrl Samp
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Calib
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Ctrl Samp
Ca] i h
\^d _L _L LJ
Sample
Sequence Table (Back Injector) :
No entries - empty table!
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/11/2008 8:03:43 AM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090803.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $HBPPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/9/2008 11:43:01 AM
AL22195 $HBPPFID
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/9/2008 12:15:17 PM by JPC
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
Vial 2
1
Manually
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
T " FID1 A, (HJ090803.D)
8.8-
f /
10
, , | I , , . ! r , . , |
20 30 40
50
60
min
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime
[min]
8.829
9.034
9.148
11.766
11.964
15.142
16.515
16.613
16.827
17.473
18.034
20.256
21.072
21.643
21.803
22.075
22.434
23.425
24.890
Type
MM
MM
PBA
MM
PBA
MM +
MM
BB
MM
MM
MM T
MM T
MM T
3
2
2
6
3
8
3
2
2
2
2
Area
[pA*s]
.31415e-l
.02538e-l
2.93498
.89868e-l
1.20321
.02422e-l
.55221e-l
-
.54704e-l
-
.20500e-l
-
-
.95415e-l
-
.78926e-l
.43773e-l
-
.30574e-l
Amt/Area
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
-
.00000
-
.00000
-
-
.00000
-
.00000
.00000
-
.00000
1
1
1
6
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
.69254e-l
.03436e-l
1.49889
.48036e-l
.14482e-l
.07657e-l
.81412e-l
-
.36497e-l
-
.63679e-l
-
-
.50868e-l
-
.42447e-l
.24495e-l
-
.17754e-l
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 12:57:43 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090803.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $HBPPFID
RetTime
[min]
25.049
25.305
26.104
26.481
27.118
28.721
28. 926
30.312
30.790
31.270
31.402
31.816
32.690
33.345
34.810
36.642
37.101
37.589
38.069
39.719
43.110
43.602
44 .781
45.038
45.841
46.953
48.706
49.109
49.237
49.532
50.176
51.018
51.571
52.643
53.998
54.365
56.930
Totals
Type
MM T
MM T
MM T
MM T
MM T
MM T
MM T
MM T +
MM T
MF T
FM T
MM T
MM T
MM T
MM
MM
MM +
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
BB
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM +
Area
[pA*s]
4 .43899e-l
4.30941e-l
5.30541e-l
3.89091e-l
3.02891e-l
4.37898e-l
3.70501e-l
3.97231e-l
3.41066e-l
2. 96194e-l
5.82521e-l
3.33544e-l
3.88084e-l
2.83173e-l
3.25258e-l
2.78899e-l
5.69956e-l
2.80437e-l
2.95289e-l
3.65512e-l
3.57776e-l
4 .97730e-l
-
2.52238e-l
2.75839e-l
4.53212e-l
1.88630e-l
1.90640e-l
2.80481e-l
3.27042e-l
3.16197e-l
5.35016e-l
2.81873e-l
2.07772e-l
3.18841e-l
2.28255e-l
2.74190e-l
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime
[min]
22.660
40.958
51.223
61.536
Type
MM T
PP
MM
PB
Area
[pA*s]
2.98993e-l
7.15209e-l
2.43213e-l
5.76165e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
9
9
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
[ppbc]
.26699e-l
.20081e-l
.70947e-l
.98709e-l
.54686e-l
.23635e-l
.89215e-l
.02866e-l
.74182e-l
.51266e-l
.97493e-l
.70341e-l
.98195e-l
.44617e-l
.66109e-l
.42434e-l
.91077e-l
.43219e-l
.50804e-l
.86667e-l
.82716e-l
.54191e-l
-
.28818e-l
.40871e-l
.31455e-l
.63335e-2
.73597e-2
.43242e-l
.67021e-l
.61482e-l
.73233e-l
.43953e-l
.06109e-l
.62832e-l
.16570e-l
.40029e-l
10.60837
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o -Ethyl toluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
1
3
1
2
[ppbc]
.52696e-l
. 65257e-l
.24209e-l
.94248e-l
7
7
7
7
Uncalib. totals
9.36409e-l
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Calibrated compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 12:57:43 PM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090803.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $HBPPFID
Injection Date 10/9/2
Sample Name AL2219
Acq. Operator JPC
Acq. Instrument HP_FID:
Acq. Method C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
Last changed 8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
Analysis Method C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
Last changed 10/9/2008 12:15:17 PM by JPC
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
11 :43 : 01 AM
HBPPFID
OP 1026
Seq. Line
Location :
Inj :
Inj Volume :
: 3
: Vial 2
: 1
: Manually
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount G
[ppbc]
rp Name
8.837
8.950
9.148 PBA
11.762
11.964 PBA
15.083
16.411
16.566
16.827 BB
17.433
18.083
20.238
21.060
21.657
21.797
22.050
22.420
23.432
24.903
2.93498 1.00000 1.49889
1.20321 1.00000 6.14482e-l
,54704e-l 1.00000 4.36497e-l
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 12:54:28 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090803.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $HBPPFID
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount
[ppbc]
Grp
Name
25.101
25.385
26.200
26.576
27.237
28.764
28.914
30.373
31.008
31.404 BP
31.584
32.010
32.869
33.543
35.039
36.868
37.101
37.806
38.313
39.949
43.059
43.617
44.781
45.064
45.851
46.921
48.671
49.070
49.350
49.565
50.165
51.018 BB
51.558
52.863
54 .045
54.417
56.931
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks
5.13805e-l
1.00000 2.62400e-l
5.35016e-l
1.00000 2.73233e-l
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
3.08551
using compound Propane
RetTime
[min]
40.958
61.536
Type
PP
PB
Area
[pA*s]
7.15209e-l
5.76165e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
3. 65257e-l
2. 94248e-l
rp Name
9
9
Uncalib. totals
6.59505e-l
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 12:54:28 PM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090805.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $B PPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/9/2008 2:22:03 PM
AL22195 $B_PPFID
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/9/2008 2:20:47 PM by JPC
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
5
Vial 1
1
Manually
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
10/9/2008 2:20:52
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc]
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
PM
(not used in calc.
RetTime
[min]
8.833
Q 001
-7 . U U -L
9.151
11.800
11.965
15 . 083
16. 386
16.489
16.816
17.419
18.036
20 .207
21.139
21. 639
21.764
22. 072
22.456
23.396
24.884
Type
BBA
BBA
MM
PBA
MM
BB
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
Area
[pA*s]
3.01725e-l
~
3.08258
2. 97495e-l
1.18665
—
-
2.88620e-l
6.86147e-l
2.66165e-l
4.06980e-l
2.57018e-l
4.219746-1
-
2.283826-1
3.02366e-l
4.00460e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
_
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
1.54091e-l
—
1.57427
1.519316-1
6.06020e-l
-
-
1.47398e-l
3.50415e-l
1.35931e-l
2.07844e-l
1.31259e-l
2.15502e-l
-
1.16635e-l
1.54418e-l
2.04515e-l
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/10/2008 6:52:52 AM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090805.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $B_PPFID
RetTime
[min]
25.063
25.325
26. 114
26.506
27.116
28.716
28.949
30.327
30.789
31.268
31.417
31.826
32.672
33.359
34.806
36.889
37.125
37.580
38.089
39.722
43.107
43.615
44.793
45.052
45.819
46.945
48.677
49.081
49.355
49.526
50.179
51.022
51.561
52.632
54.002
54.357
56.924
Totals
Type
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM -f
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM +
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
FM
MM +
Area
[pA*s]
-
4.17015e-l
4. 98762e-l
4.72182e-l
4.62742e-l
4.82213e-l
4.78183e-l
4.73474e-l
3.97342e-l
1.99819e-l
3.13386e-l
3.02259e-l
3.92144e-l
4.08548e-l
4.57174e-l
-
3.55736e-l
3.25628e-l
3.36579e-l
4.81901e-l
2.89530e-l
5.85595e-l
-
2.75184e-l
2.44443e-l
3.83871e-l
-
2.97822e-l
-
5.43489e-l
4.02830e-l
3.19298e-l
1.85928e-l
3.11337e-l
2.35900e-l
3.24764e-l
3.10986e-l
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime
[min]
36.635
40.962
42.330
48.320
51.224
53.597
54.269
Type
MM
MM
MM
PB
MM
MM
MF
Area
[pA*s]
4.18587e-l
2.53161e-l
3.06336e-l
9.16084e-l
2.39115e-l
2.36982e-l
5.58590e-l
Amt/Area
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
9
1
1
1
1
[ppbc]
-
. 12970e-l
.54718e-l
.41143e-l
.36323e-l
.46266e-l
.44208e-l
.41803e-l
.02923e-l
.02048e-l
. 60046e-l
.54364e-l
.00268e-l
.08646e-l
.33479e-l
-
.81675e-l
.66298e-l
.71891e-l
.46107e-l
.47863e-l
.99063e-l
-
.40537e-l
.24837e-l
.96043e-l
-
.52098e-l
-
.77560e-l
.05725e-l
.63066e-l
.49537e-2
.59000e-l
.20474e-l
.65857e-l
.58820e-l
10.26130
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2 -Methyl heptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Curaene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p- Ethyl toluene
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
[ppbc]
.13772e-l
.29290e-l
.56446e-l
.67844e-l
.22116e-l
.21027e-l
.85272e-l
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Uncalib. totals
1.49577
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
-** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/10/2008 6:52:52 AM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090805.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $B_PPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/9/2008 2:22:03 PM
AL22195 $B_PPFID
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/9/2008 2:20:47 PM by JPC
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
: 5
: Vial 1
: 1
: Manually
(modified after loading)
PANS SAMPLE ANALYSES
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
10/9/2008 2:20:52
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc]
PM
(not used in calc.)
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime Type Area Amt/Area Amount Grp Name
[min] [pA*s] [ppbc]
8.833 BBA 3.0172
9.015
5e-l 1.00000 1.54091e-l
_
9.151 BBA 3.08258 1.00000 1.57427
11.762
-
11.965 PBA 1.18665 1.00000 6.06020e-l
15.083
16.411
16.566
-
-
-
16.816 BB 6.86147e-l 1.00000 3.50415e-l
17.433
18.083
20.238
21.060
21.657
21.797
22.050
22.420
23.432
24.903
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/10/2008 6:51:09 AM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090805.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $B PPFID
RetTime
tmin]
Type
Area
tpA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount
[ppbc]
Grp Name
25.101
25.385
26.200
26.576
27.237
28.764
28.914
30.373
31.008
31.348
31.584
32.010
32.869
33.543
35.039
36.868
37.101
37.806
38.313
39.949
43.059
43.617
44.781
45.064
45.851
46.921
48.671
49.070
49.350
49.565
50.165
50.999
51.558
52.863
54
54
045
417
56.931
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks
Type
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methyleyelopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
RetTime
[min]
Area
[pA*s]
2.68480
using compound Propane
Amt/Area Amount Grp
[ppbc]
Name
48.320 PB
9.16084e-l
Uncalib. totals
1.00000 4.67844e-l
4.67844e-l
Results obtained with enhanced'integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/10/2008 6:51:09 AM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
Date: 10/09/2008
SRM concentration
SRM range:
$I_SRM Result
99.3'
$C_SRM Result
101.02
SRM concentration:
SRM range (RF):
$I_SRM area
194.52
$C SRM area
197.80
RPD ( 1 vs.C)
Analyst: JAK
%RECOVERY
100. OC
90. OC
Recovery %
99.34
Recovery %
101.02
Batch: 192687
110.0
In Range? (T/F)
TRUE
n Range? (T/F)
TRUE
RESPONSE FACTORS
100.0C
0.4594
Response Factor
0.5141
Response Factor
0.5056
1.674
0.5615
In Range? (y/n)
TRUE
In Range? (y/n)
TRUE
LIMS: AL22195
-------
From: Jianzhong Liu /
Environmental Scientist Supervispi/\/
Air Organics, LSD, DEQ / j
Date: May 13, 2008
Re: FID SRM PREPARATION
Stock Standard:
Manufacturer:
Cylinder #:
Certified Concentration:
Expiration Date:
Spectra Gases, Inc.
CC-162783
1.18 ppm
2/25/2009
Working SRM:
Target Concentration: 100.00 ppbC
Flow Rate of the Stock Std: 40 cc/min
Flow Rate of Nitrogen: 1376 cc/min
-------
I y Spectra Gases, Inc.
3434 Route 22 West, Branchburg, New Jersey 08876 USA
ISO 9001:2000
SHIPPED FROM: 80 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ALPHA, NJ. 08865
SHIPPED TO:
Environmental Quality - LA
AirOrganics Lab, LDEQ
1209 Leesville Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
CERTIFICATE
OF
ANALYSIS
SGI ORDER #: 125072
ITEM#: 1
CERTIFICATION DATE: 02/25/2008
P.O.# : CC-JLiu
BLEND TYPE: CERTIFIED
CYLINDER # : CC-162783
CYLINDER PRES: 2000 psig
CYLINDER VALVE: CGA 350
PRODUCT EXPIRATION DATE: 02/25/2009
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: + / - 2%
COMPONENT
REQUESTED GAS
CONC
ANALYSIS
Propane
Nitrogen
1.20 ppm
Balance
1.18 ppm
Balance
NIST TRACEABLE
ANALYST:
Cheryl Patino
DATE:
02/25/2008
Tel: +1 908-252-9300 Fax. +1 908-252-0811
www.spectragases.com
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090801.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $1 SRM
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/9/2008 9:04:16 AM
AL22195 $I_SRM
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/9/2008 9:17:54 AM by JPC
(modified after loading)
pAMSSAMPLE ANALYSES
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
1
Vial 1
1
Manually
50 60 mm;
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
1 0:57:02 AM
"0.5107
__^J „, .-.TTT" •-»"
-.0000
1.00000
[ppbc]
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
(not used in calc.)
RetTime Type
[min]
8.823 BBA
8 . 897
9.142 PBA
11.693
11.899 PBA <^"
14.995 PB +
16.317 PV
16.355 VB
16.624 PB
17.297 PB
17.937 PP
20.090 PB
20.946 BB
21.421 VB
21.791 PV
21.914 VP
22.304 PV
23.297 VB
24.830 VV
Area
[pA*s]
2. 61487e-l
—
2. 93590
,^«— ~^s^^ ==* ™
__!9-i:j3jL.5-7_Q~~
Amt/Area
1.00000
-
1.00000
— - ^_
• — ~~± . 0 0 0 0 Qf
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
1.33541e-l
-
1.49936
^ .
X99/3T517_
"""57711752 1.00000V~-9«T3S585
2.59695
2.90993
201.51773
14.00146
18.09837
442.96112
19.75955
150.20596
1.96637
29.56368
18.83040
7.87133
8.01592
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1. 00000
1.00000
1. 00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.32626
1.48610
102.91511
7.15054
9.24284
226.22024
10.09120
76.71019
1.00423
15.09817
9.61668
4.01989
4.09373
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
_£ropylene
-^Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 10:19:55 AM JPC
Page 1 of
-------
uac.a File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090801.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $1 SRM
RetTime Type
[min]
24.917 VV
25.169 VB
26.000 BB
26.366 PB
27.197 BB
28. 673 VB
28.872 BB
30.283 BB +
30.765 BB
31.217 BV
31 . 595 BP
31.775 BB
32.604 VB
33.334 PP
34.780 BB
36 . 927 BV
37 . 086 VV +
37.791
38.298
39 . 933
43.042
43.594 PB
44.763
45.037 PP
45. 833
46.902
48.652
49 . 051
49. 330
49.545
50.145
51.221 BP
51.538
52.666 BB
54 .024
54.395
56 . 931
Area
[pA*s]
28.82772
57.93069
35.87003
1. 65476
8.01157e-l
11.00994
6.39602
6.25712
1.86090
4.17835
4. 61146e-l
4.96585
43.81662
5.83060e-l
2.05122
5.04707
4.28318
-
—
-
-
1.48484
—
6.97252e-l
-
-
-
—
—
—
—
2.91077
_
1.69162
—
—
—
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
• 1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
-
-
-
1.00000
-
1.00000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.00000
—
1.00000 !
—
-
-
Amount Gr]
[ppbc]
14.72232
29.58520
18.31883
8.45087e-l
4.09151e-l
5.62278
3.26645
3.19551
9.50359e-l
2.13388
2.35507e-l
2.53606
22.37715
2. 97769e-l
1.04756
2.57754
2.18742
-
-
-
-
7.58308e-l
-
3.56086e-l
—
-
-
_
1.48653
i
3.63911e-l
i
I
i
D Name
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methyl cyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
•n-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
D-Ethyltoluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
i-Decane
L, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
n-Diethylbenzene
3-Diethylbenzene
i-Undecane
Totals
Uncalibrated Peaks
714 . 08050
using compound Propane
RetTime Type
[min]
19.420 PB
21.255 PV
22.541 VP
23.174 PV
24.262 PB
24.577 PV
27.033 PB
27.370 BV
27.497 VV
27.686 VV
27 .929 VB
28.292 BB
28.502 BV
30.115 PB
30.473 BP
31.358 VB
32.256 PP
32.439 BV
35.370 PP
35.517 VB
Area
[pA*s]
9.45925
23. 64181
36.31593
3.03796
3.61210
5.55780
13.81527
1.16094
2.56494
1.97282
1.08036
9.77552e-l
2.25036
5.48365e-l
2.08192
6.41636
9.34638e-l
1.83783
7.36042e-l
2.49518
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount
[ppbc]
4.83084
12.07387
18.54655
1.55149
1.84470
2.83837
7.05546
5.92892e-l
1.30991
1.00752
5.51740e-l
4.99236e-l
1.14926
2.80050e-l
1.06324
3.27683
4.77320e-l
9.38580e-l
3.75897e-l
1.27429
Grp Name
i
1
9
7
7
7
9
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 10:19:55 AM JPC
Page 2 of 3
-------
rue U:\HJHUHKM\1\DATA\HJ090801.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $1 SRM
RetTime
[min]
36.014
36.601
37.249
40. 945
59. 640
Type
BB
PB
VB
PP
BB
Area
[pA*s]
5.08486e-l
6.00512
1.36379
1.65974
6. 65468e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
2.
6.
8.
3.
Amount G
[ppbc]
59684e-l
3.06681
96490e-l
47630e-l
39854e-l
rp
•p
•p
9
7
9
Name
Uncalib. totals
66.74851
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
End of Report ***
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 10:19:55 AM JPC
Page 3 of 3
-------
uaca File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090821.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $C SRM
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/10/2008 11:49:34 AM
AL22195 $C SRM
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C : \HPCHEM\ 1 \METHODS \PAMS . M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C : \HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS .M
10/10/2008 11:50:57 AM by JPC
Seq. Line : 21
Location : Vial 1
Inj : i
Inj Volume : Manually
(modified after loading) , /
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES /— 1 /'Z-^/
| FID1 A, (HJ090821.D) ~ ~ ~ "~~ - - - ^^- " ? - '..—.. ___
pA -j »
\
60-
50-
1
-
40-
30-
20-,
-J
1
ioiu_
i , , ,..
•i
i.
>
C )
C )
-2
JD 03
•^ c
£ £P £ 03
v Jj £- CD £
1 "? Si™. >• s
111 C OCN O CQ
C7> tn COO ^3" (n
•<}• T- •tco o §<
T- | CO -<3;CN CD fsj
Cjj I CD CNCO ^t o
,
10 20 s'n
(0
C
CD 03 03
S £ £
"o -S- X*
H E CD
§ I Is
co ^ co in
i ( _ — ^
40
0) 0)
C C
* >*
.c ^:
ft ^
1 -^
H H
• 1.00000
~
~
1.00000
~
~
~~
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
~
1.26969
^97.58446 j
— — _ -^
—
3.22447e-l
—
—
~~
—
•~
~
1.27579
1.79715
2.01143
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/10/2008 1:00:40 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2.
-------
File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090821.D
'RetTime Type
[min]
Sample Name: AL22195 $C SRM
Area
Amt/Area Amount
[ppbc]
Grp Name
24.937
25. 126
26.134
26.509
26.932
28.691
28.841
30.296 PB
30.937
31.280
31.518
31.948
32.815
33.300
35.004
36.850
37.085 PB
37.790
38.297
39.932
43.041
43.588 PB
44.762
45.041 PP
45.831
46.901
48.650
49.049
49.329
49.544
50.144
51.225 PP
51.536
52.654 PB
54.022
54.394
56.931
Totals :
1.34777
1.00000 6.88305e-l
3.61052
1.00328
.15547e-l
1.00000 1.84389
1.00000 5.12374e-l
1.00000 2.63290e-l
2.27219
2.96308
1.00000 1.16041
1.00000 1.51324
110 .24248
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
uncansrated Peaks : using compound Propane
RetTime
[min]
40. 946
Uncalib .
Type
BB
Area
[pA*s]
2.52436
Amt/Area
1.00000
totals :
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
1.28919
1.28919
7
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning
Warning
Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Time reference compound(s) not found
End of Report ***
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/10/2008 1:00:40 PM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
uar.a j?'ij.e C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090828.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $C SRM
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acg. Operator
Acg. Instrument
Acg. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/10/2008 9:01:56 PM
AL22195 $C SRM
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C : \HPCHEM\ 1\METHODS\PAMS . M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/10/2008 11:50:57 AM by JPC
(modified after loadinq)
Seg. Line : 28
Location : Vial 1
Inj : l
Inj Volume : Manually
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES l-f}\?^
i FID1 A, (HJ090828.D) -— ' —
i PA "i
! |
| 60 --I
!
I J
! 50 J
|
i
40
]
-
30 :
-l
20 -
m--
0
c
(3
O
C.
C )
1 )
1 )
^ I
0
c:
£
O 0
•^ c
0 £-!= B
0 ~ 0 0 CI QJ
LLJ C J5 OCN O m
1 > 1 ,111 ,
co !J r-- CN fpjN r-- to
T- ! CO CO TpN tD CN
o> co o CNFO ^f o
i ^ — CNJ l^r^l CN CO
1
0
0 00
0 g 0
;f -s- x
h E 6
S % m in
° s s g
fe °_JtlL_
i . i
c
0)
lr
E
CO
CM"
S S
CN CD
*- CN
m m
', t, _____
L
10
20
30
40
50
60
mm
External Standard Report
Signal
/2.008 11:51:05 AM
Sorted By :
Calib. Data Modified :
Multiplier :
Dilution :
Sample Amount : 1.00000 [ppbc]
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
(not used in calc.)
RetTime Type
[min]
8.688
8 927
*-* • -J £* 1
9.153 PBA
nf\7 0
. u / u
11.903 PEA.-""""
TC; n n n ^*— —,
1 0 . U U U
16. 369
1 fi S 9 4
-L w . -J £*L1
16.817 BB
1*7 "^ ft Q
-L / • J O _?
1 Q n "3 ^
-L U . U O /
20.352 PB
91 nn 7
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090828.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $C_SRM
RetTime Type Area Amt/Area Amount Grp Name
[min] [pA*s] [ppbc]
i
24.937
25.126
26.134
26.509
26.932
28.691
28.841
30.296 PB + 1.39032
30.937
31.280
31.518
31.947
32.814
33.299
35.003
36.848
37.083 PP + 3.84051
37.788
38.294
39.929
43.038
43.588 PB 9.46518e-l
44.759
45.035 PP 5.59634e-l
45.829
46.898
48.647
49.046
49.326
49.541
50.141
50.974
51.533
1
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
1.00000 7.10035e-l Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2, 2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
1.00000 1.96135 Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
1.00000 4.83387e-l m/p-Xylene
Styrene
1.00000 2.85805e-l o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
52.670 PB 2.11982 1.00000 1.08259 1, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
54.019
54.391
56.931
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
Totals
Uncalibrated Peaks
112.82457
using compound Propane
RetTime
[min]
22.642
40. 942
51.226
Type
VB
BB
VB
Area
[pA*s]
5.43828e-l
2.93792
2.29285
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
tppbc]
2.77733e-l
1.50040
1.17096
rp
9
9
9
Name
Uncalib. totals
2.94909
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/13/2008 6:31:49 AM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
Initial Calibration Verification (LCS) FID #2
DATE: 10/9/2008 QC NO: AL22195 BATCH NO: 192687
COMPONENTS STDfopbc) $l fppfoc) REC%SI
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
n-Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1 ,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
)-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
49.20
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.00
48.90
48.90
49.90
48.80
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.40
50.70
49.10
49.40
50.30
49.50
49.90
59.60
49.50
49.10
49.50
49.30
49.70
49.10
49.50
49.30
48.50
48.80
48.60
48.80
53.70
49.00
49.60
48.90
49.80
49.10
50.70
48.50
49.70
98.50
49.30
49.00
48.60
49.40
49.00
48.70
48.10
48.70
48.50
49.00
48.90
48.70
48.40
48.40
48.90
51.25
54.47
47.51
45.53
52.67
57.67
51.54
42.06
55.64
51.92
49.17
50.23
55.19
56.57
50.08
55.14
51.52
54.43
53.33
56.07
53.56
54.18
45.50
51.90
51.99
51.90
51.29
53.10
51.21
54.28
52.09
60.06
49.36
53.90
52.38
48.79
51.86
52.61
49.44
48.62
95.39
41.39
50.22
47.85
49.47
46.04
45.85
44.84
48.69
46.99
46.72
46.14
41.96
41.29
33.79
41.65
104.2
111.4
97.2
93.1
107.5
117.9
103.3
86.2
113.8
106.2
100.6
101.7
108.9
115.2
101.4
109.6
104.1
109.1
89.5
113.3
109.1
109.4
92.3
104.4
105.9
104.9
104.0
109.5
104.9
111.7
106.7
111.8
100.7
108.7
107.1
98.0
105.6
103.8
101.9
97.8
96.8
83.9
102.5
98.5
100.1
94.0
94.2
93.2
100.0
96.9
95.3
94.4
86.2
85.3
69.8
85.2
JPC
t
»•
f
MATH LCS CONC 100908
-------
--From:- - - Jianzhong Liu
Environmental Scientist Supervisor
Air Organics, LSD, DEQ
Date: June 3, 2008
Re: Low Recovery of p-Diethylbenzene in PAMS LCS Standard
Stock Standard:
Manufacturer: Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.
Cylinder #: SX39238D
Lot#: 1057610175
Expiration Date: 12/03/2009
From the studies of runs in different GC/FIDs, the recovery of p-diethylbenzene is
constantly low (~ 75%). However, the recovery of this compound in PAMS standard is
normal (-100%). Therefore, 60% (75%*80%) recovery for this compound in LCS is
acceptable.
-------
Concentrations (ppbC) of Different Diluton of Matheson Stock Standard
COMPONENTS
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
n-Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-DimethyIpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-MethyIheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
Stock Stcf 10 limes 7I.42S times 166.6& times 250tli»es SO&fimes
492.00
489.00
489.00
489.00
490.00
489.00
489.00
499.00
488.00
489.00
489.00
489.00
494.00
507.00
491.00
494.00
503.00
495.00
499.00
596.00
495.00
491.00
495.00
493.00
497.00
491.00
495.00
493.00
485.00
488.00
486.00
488.00
537.00
490.00
496.00
489.00
498.00
491.00
507.00
485.00
497.00
985.00
493.00
490.00
486.00
494.00
490.00
487.00
481.00
487.00
485.00
490.00
489.00
487.00
484.00
484.00
489.00
49.20
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.00
48.90
48.90
49.90
48.80
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.40
50.70
49.10
49.40
50.30
49.50
49.90
59.60
49.50
49.10
49.50
49.30
49.70
49.10
49.50
49.30
48.50
48.80
48.60
48.80
53.70
49.00
49.60
48.90
49.80
49.10
50.70
48.50
49.70
98.50
49.30
49.00
48.60
49.40
49.00
48.70
48.10
48.70
48.50
49.00
48.90
48.70
48.40
48.40
48.90
6.89
6.85
6.85
6.85
6.86
6.85
6.85
6.99
6.83
6.85
6.85
6.85
6.92
7.10
6.87
6.92
7.04
6.93
6.99
8.34
6.93
6.87
6.93
6.90
6.96
6.87
6.93
6.90
6.79
6.83
6.80
6.83
7.52
6.86
6.94
6.85
6.97
6.87
7.10
6.79
6.96
13.79
6.90
6.86
6.80
6.92
6.86
6.82
6.73
6.82
6.79
6.86
6.85
6.82
6.78
6.78
6.85
2.95
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.94
2.93
2.93
2.99
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.96
3.04
2.95
2.96
3.02
2.97
2.99
3.58
2.97
2.95
2.97
2.96
2.98
2.95
2.97
2.96
2.91
2.93
2.92
2.93
3.22
2.94
2.98
2.93
2.99
2.95
3.04
2.91
2.98
5.91
2.96
2.94
2.92
2.96
2.94
2.92
2.89
2.92
2.91
2.94
2.93
2.92
2.90
2.90
2.93
1.97
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
2.00
1.95
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.98
2.03
1.96
1.98
2.01
1.98
2.00
2.38
1.98
1.96
1.98
1.97
1.99
1.96
1.98
1.97
1.94
1.95
1.94
1.95
2.15
1.96
1.98
1.96
1.99
1.96
2.03
1.94
1.99
3.94
1.97
1.96
1.94
1.98
1.96
1.95
1.92
1.95
1.94
1.96
1.96
1.95
1.94
1.94
1.96
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.00
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
1.01
0.98
0.99
1.01
0.99
1.00
1.19
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.98
0.97
0.98
1.07
0.98
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.98
1.01
0.97
0.99
1.97
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.98
Matheson 500 ppbC PAMS dilutions
-------
/\ MATHESON
*J TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770) 968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209LeesvilleRd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
Phone:
Fax:
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057610175
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: SX39238D
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
PRESSURE: 1850 psig
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
ii-Nunane
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Undecane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 pobC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
498 ppbC
491 ppbC
507 ppbC
485 ppbC
497 ppbC
490 ppbC
495 ppbC
493 ppbC
490 ppbC
486 ppbC
494 ppbC
490 ppbC
489 ppbC
484 ppbC .
484 ppbC
492 ppbC
487 ppbC
485 ppbC
481 ppbC
489 ppbC
487 ppbC
487 ppbC
490 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+.'- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
SPECIAL INFORMATION / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
I he product listed above and furnished under the referenced purchase order has been tested and found to contain the component concentration listed above. All values
in mole/mole basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated. Matheson Tri-Gas warrants that the above product(s) conform at the time of shipment to the above
description. Matheson Tri-Gas' liability does not exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
12/4/2007
ANALYST
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
4\ MATHESON
*9 TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770)968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209LeesvilleRd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
Phone:
Fax:
MHMBMMM
PRODUCT:
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057610175
CYLINDER NUMBER: SX39238D
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
SPECIAL INFORMATION / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
COMPONENT
oluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
-thylbenzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
i-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Undecane
1 2 3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 pobC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
498 ppbC
491 ppbC
507 ppbC
485 ppbC
497 ppbC
490 ppbC
495 ppbC
493 ppbC
490 ppbC
486 ppbC
494 ppbC
490 ppbC
489 ppbC
484 ppbC
484 ppbC
492 ppbC
487 ppbC
485 ppbC
481 ppbC
489 ppbC
487 ppbC
487 ppbC
490 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+.'- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5 /o
+/- 5%
in mole/mole basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated Matheson Tri-
description. Matheson Tn-Gas1 liability does not exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
ANALYST
12/4/2007
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090804.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $L1PPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/9/2008 1:02:00 PM
AL22195 $L1PPFID
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/9/2008 2:20:47 PM by JPC
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
FID1 A, (HJ090804.D)
pA-j
50 -
35-1
25-
20
i 1
j i
1 :
j
i
j
i
& 1
M
f ^
G
> r
Vial 4
1
Manually
m r:
era
0C
— r
'
0 0
0 QMJ
N t-C
0 OKI
j
5
^
TT
10
20
30
40
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
10/9/2008 2:20:52 PM
0 .5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime Type
[min]
8.816 FM
9.015 MF
9.146 FM
11.704 PB
11.913 BBA
14.967 PB +
16.284 PV
16.477 VV
16.634 MF
17.216 PB
17.874 PB
20.127 MF
20.905 PB
21.422 VV
21.709 VV
21.868 VB
22.267 BV
23.221 BB
24.802 BV
Area
[pA*s]
100.34872
93.03070
106.65022
89.15047
103.12894
112.93295
100.92325
82.35313
108.95028
101.66692
96.28265
98.35686
108.06710
110.76101
98.06431
107.97594
100.88352
106.57977
104.42488
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
'1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
51.24809
47.51078
54.46627
45.52915
52.66795
57.67486
51.54150
42.05774
55.64091
51.92130
49.17155
50.23085
55.18987
56.56565
50.08144
55.14331
51.52121
54.43029
53.32979
rp Name
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 2:33:55 PM JPC
Page 1 of 3
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090804.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $L1PPFID
RetTime Type
[min]
24.893 VV
25. 150 VB
25.968 PB
26.347 PB
26.985 PB
28.642 PV
28.813 VB
30.242 PB +
30.731 PB
31.168 BV
31.311 VB
31.736 PB
32 . 586 VB
33.265 PB
34.740 BB
36.566 BB
37.040 BV +
37.510 BB
38.015 BB
39.655 BB
43.038 BB
43.542 MM
44.707 BV
44. 990 VB
45.784 BB
46.901 BB
48.650 BB
49.050 BV
49.185 VV
49.486 VB
50.137 VB
50. 979 BB
51.538 BB
52.603 VB
53.969 BB
54 . 339 BB
56.911 BB +
Totals :
Area
[pA*s]
109.78324
104.88356
106.08242
89.08646
101.61629
101.79911
101. 62882
100.42205
103.97024
100.26856
106.27980
101.99803
117.60405
96.64803
105.54245
102.55840
95.53142
101.54941
103.01980
96.80012
95.20465
186.78299
81.03667
98.32851
93.69817
96.85818
90.14754
89.78224
87.80960
95.34503
92.00356
91.48391
90.34567
82.16355
80.84151
66.15607
81.54855
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime Type
[min]
16.701 FM
17.684 PB
20.192 FM
21.277 PP
22.560 VB
35.366 PP
37.228 VB
40.937 PB
41.673 BB
51.221 BB
Area
[pA*s]
24 . 10120
3.09042e-l
26.20266
4.50500e-l
2.07857
3.92693e-l
2.81350
1.71027
5.29109e-l
3.36630
52.005 PP 4.53053e-l
52.484 PV
53.365 BB
8.35210e-l
5.12836
54.722 PB 3.95335e-l
55.841 PB
56.320 PB
3. 10484e-l
3.49413e-l
59.644 BP 5.23619e-l
61.523 BB
53.80622
64.023 PP 5.51542e-l
64.879 PP 5.57680e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
56.06630
53.56403
54.17629
45.49645
51.89544
51.98881
51.90184
51.28554
53.09760
51.20715
54.27709
52.09039
60.06039
49.35815
53.90053
52.37657
48.78790
51.86128
52.61221
49.43582
48.62102
95.39007
41.38543
50.21637
47.85166
49.46547
46.03835
45.85179
44.84436
48.69271
46.98622
46.72083
46.13954
41.96093
41.28576
33.78591
41.64685
2848 .24554
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
»
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1,00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
12.30848
1.57828e-l
13.38170
2.30070e-l
1.06153
2.00548e-l
1.43685
8.73434e-l
2.70216e-l
1.71917
2.31374e-l
4.26542e-l
2.61905
2.01898e-l
4.13914e-l
4.33795e-l
1.00000 2.67412e-l
1.00000
27.47884
1.00000 2.81672e-l
1.00000 2.84807e-l
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 2:33:55 PM JPC
Page 2 of 3
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090804.D Sample Name: AL22195 $L1PPFID
RetTime Type Area Amt/Area Amount Grp Name
[min] [pA*s] [ppbc]
Uncalib. totals : 64.27913
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Elution order of calibrated compounds may have changed
*** End of Report ***
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 2:33:55 PM JPC Page 3 of 3
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090804.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $L1PPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/9/2008 1:02:00 PM
AL22195 $L1PPFID
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/9/2008 12:15:17 PM by JPC
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
4
Vial 4
1
Manually
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
8.816
9.015
9.146
11.704
11.913
14.967
16.284
16.477
16.634
17.216
17.874
20.127
20.905
21.422
21.709
21.868
22.267
23.221
24 . 802
Type
BBA
PB
BBA
PB
BBA
PB +
PV
VV
VB
PB
PB
PB
PB
VV
VV
VB
BV
BB
BV
Area
[pA*s]
103.10838
89.34997
100.08290
89.15047
103.12894
112. 93295
100. 92325
82.35313
133.08276
101.66692
96.28265
124.55920
108.06710
110.76101
98.06431
107.97594
100.88352
106.57977
104 .42488
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
52.65745
45.63103
51.11234
45.52915
52.66795
57.67486
51.54150
42.05774
67.96537
51.92130
49.17155
63.61238
55.18987
56.56565
50.08144
55.14331
51.52121
54.43029
53.32979
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 2:19:53 PM JPC
Page 1 of 3
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090804.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $L1PPFID
RetTime Type
[min]
24.893 VV
25.150 VB
25.968 PB
26.347 PB
26.985 PB
28.642 PV
28.813 VB
30.242 PB +
30.731 PB
31.168 BV
31.311 VB
31.736 PB
32.586 VB
33.265 PB
34.740 BB
36.566 BB
37.040 BV +
37.510 BB
38.015 BB
39.655 BB
43.038 BB
43.542 PV
44.707 BV
44 .990 VB
45.784 BB
46.901 BB
48.650 BB
49.050 BV
49.185 VV
49.486 VB
50.137 VB
50.979 BB
51.538 BB
52.603 VB
53.969 BB
54.339 BB
56.911 BB +
Area
[pA*s]
109.78324
104.88356
106.08242
89.08646
101.61629
101.79911
101.62882
100.42205
103. 97024
100.26856
106.27980
101.99803
117.60405
96.64803
105.54245
102.55840
95.53142
101.54941
103.01980
96.80012
95.20465
88.68321
81.03667
98.32851
93.69817
96.85818
90.14754
89.78224
87.80960
95.34503
92.00356
91.48391
90.34567
82.16355
80.84151
66. 15607
81.54855
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
56.06630
53.56403
54.17629
45.49645
51.89544
51.98881
51. 90184
51.28554
53.09760
51.20715
54.27709
52.09039
60.06039
49.35815
53.90053
52.37657
48.78790
51.86128
52. 61221
49.43582
48.62102
45.29052
41.38543
50.21637
47.85166
49.46547
46.03835
45.85179
44.84436
48.69271
46.98622
46.72083
46.13954
41.96093
41.28576
33.78591
41.64685
rp Name
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2 -Methyl hex ane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2 -Methyl heptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o- Ethyl toluene
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks
2820.02765
using compound Propane
RetTime
[min]
17.684
21.277
22.560
35.366
37.228
40. 937
41. 673
43. 610
51.221
52.005
52.484
53.365
54 .722
55.841
56.320
59.644
61.523
64.023
64.879
Type
PB
PP
VB
PP
VB
PB
BB
VB
BB
PP
PV
BB
PB
PB
PB
BP
BB
PP
PP
Area
[pA*s]
3.09042e-l
4.50500e-l
2.07857
3.92693e-l
2.81350
1.71027
5.29109e-l
101.86528
3.36630
4 .53053e-l
8.35210e-l
5. 12836
3. 95335e-l
8.10484e-l
8.49413e-l
5.23619e-l
53.80622
5.51542e-l
5.57680e-l
Amt
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/Area
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
1.
2.
2.
8.
2.
2.
4.
2.
4.
4.
2.
2.
2.
Amount G
[ppbc]
57828e-l
30070e-l
1.06153
00548e-l
1.43685
73434e-l
70216e-l
52.02260
1.71917
31374e-l
26542e-l
2.61905
01898e-l
13914e-l
33795e-l
67412e-l
27.47884
81672e-l
84807e-l
rp Name
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
?
?
?
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 2:19:53 PM JPC
Page 2 of 3
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090804.D Sample Name: AL22195 $L1PPFID
Uncalib. totals : 90.61155
f
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
1 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 2:19:53 PM JPC Pa9e 3 of 3
-------
PAMS RETENTION TIME STD FID #2 lot #1057410185
DATE: 10/9/2008 QC NO: AL22195
COMPONENTS STB&pbc) $l fppbc) REC%$I
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
3ropylene
Propane
n-Butane
sobutane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
sopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
soprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
21.00
42.00
26.00
26.00
40.00
43.00
25.00
32.00
32.00
43.00
26.00
38.00
40.00
25.00
26.00
42.00
25.00
34.00
40.00
21.00
51.00
21.00
41.00
61.00
30.00
26.00
40.00
31.00
42.00
25.00
54.00
26.00
31.00
26.00
31.00
25.00
40.00
25.00
25.00
31.00
25.00
42.00
41.00
26.00
25.00
40.00
30.00
25.00
43.00
26.00
27.00
39.00
30.00
25.00
40.00
27.00
41.00
23.96
18.87
30.93
21.11
44.55
27.35
31.41
24.35
50.43
25.38
37.65
44.07
25.23
26.90
38.29
28.21
33.94
43.77
20.28
56.71
22.58
42.93
59.88
31.31
27.05
42.56
31.28
43.52
25.99
55.69
26.78
32.15
26.29
32.69
26.33
38.76
25.60
26.20
29.76
24.13
38.96
34.05
25.62
24.36
40.68
29.05
25.00
40.64
25.65
30.75
39.32
29.29
25.70
39.31
24.15
27.53
114.1
44.9
119.0
81.2
111.4
109.4
98.1
76.1
117.3
97.6
99.1
110.2
100.9
103.5
91.2
112.8
99.8
109.4
96.5
111.2
107.5
104.7
98.2
104.4
104.0
106.4
100.9
103.6
104.0
103.1
103.0
103.7
101.1
105.5
105.3
96.9
102.4
104.8
96.0
96.5
92.8
83.1
98.5
97.4
101.7
96.8
100.0
94.5
98.7
113.9
100.8
97.6
102.8
98.3
89.4
67.2
<^L
PAMS 2008 100908
-------
o
MATHESON
TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone:(770)961-7891
Fax:(770)968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209 Leesville Rd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone:
Fax:
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057410185
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: CC-250112
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
PRESSURE: 1850psig
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propylene
Propane
sobutane
1-Butene
1 ,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butone
! sopentane
1-Pentene
In-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
Cyclopentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2.3-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane
3-Metnylhexane
n-Heptane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Methylcyclohexane
2 3,4-Trimethylpentane
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
20 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC;
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbl-
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
?? ;vvr:
35 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
35 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
50 ppbC
60 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 pobC
40 ppbC
50 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
21 ppbC
26 ppbC
42 opbC
26 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
32 ppbC
32 ppbC
43 ppbC
?H fpHC:
38 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
42 ppbC
25 ppbC
34 ppbC
21 ppbC
40 ppbC
21 ppbC
41 ppbC
51 ppbC
61 ppbC
30 ppbC
26 ppbC
40 ppbC
31 ppbC
<<2 ppbC
54 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
26 ppbC
31 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
1 •'- '••'•:-
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5"/o
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
TRACEABLE TO REFERENCE STANDARD SOURCE/NUMBER:
TRACEABLE TO NIST TRACEABLE WEIGHT CERTIFICATE:
Dage 1 of 2
-------
o
MATHESON
TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770) 968-1268
To:
Phone:
Fax:
Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209 Leesvilie Rd
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
BE
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057410185
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: CC-250112
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 liters
PRESSURE: 1850 psig
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xyiene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Undecane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
20 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
2£T .--.I- -*
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
21 ppbC
21 ppbC
41 ppbC
26 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
27 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
27 ppbC
43 ppbC
41 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
39 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
! /- 5'!<,
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
SPECIAL INFORMATION / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The product listed above and furnished under the referenced purchase order has been teaad and found to contain the component concentration listed above. All values
in mole/mole basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated. Matheson Tri-Gas warrants that the above product(s) conform at the time of shipment to the above
description. Matheson Tri-Gas' liability does not exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
ANALYST
12/4/2007
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090802.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $I_PPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/9/2008 10:23:44 AM Seq. Line
AL22195 $I_PPFID Location
'JPC Inj
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 Inj Volume
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/9/2008 12:15:17 PM by JPC
2
Vial 3
1
Manually
(modified after loading)
PAMS_ SAMPLED ANALYSES
[ ~ " FID1 A, (HJ090802.D)
pA -
40-
35
30 :
25-
20 -
15-'
g i
CO CD CX
£j L_<3
o
^ iC
T-
c
^1
^
If.' 0
c
^ °
^
T-
sj
M'
i ir
10
20
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0.5107
1 . 0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime
[min]
8.820
9.018
9.147
11.719
11.917
14.999
16.304
16.498
16.646
17.246
17.885
20.146
20.938
21.445
21.726
21.892
22.283
23.230
24.818
Type
FM
MF
FM
MF
MF
PB +
BV
VV
VB
MF
MF
PB
MF
VV
FM
VB
PP
PB
BV
Area
[pA*s]
46.90773
36.94192
60.56993
41.33355
87.22768
53.55767
61.49738
47.68173
98.74651
49.69148
73.71873
86.29390
49.39668
52.67418-
74 . 97482
55.23119
66.45922
85.71204
39.70129
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
23. 95578
18.86624
30.93306
21.10904
44.54718
27.35190
31.40671
24.35106
50.42984
25.37744
37.64815
44.07029
25.22688
26.90070
38.28964
28.20657
33. 94072
43.77314
20.27545
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 12:19:07 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090802.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $I_PPFID
RetTime
[min]
24.897
25.175
25.977
26.348
27.001
28.655
28.821
30.252
30.736
31.180
31.316
31.749
32.597
33.278
34.748
36.575
37.045
37.520
38.025
39.662
43.047
43.553
44.712
44.996
45.789
46.903
48.655
49.054
49.187
49.490
50.140
50.981
51.541
52.606
53.970
54 .342
56.911
Totals
Type
VV
VB
BB
BB
BB
MF
MF
BB +
PB
BV
VB
BB
BB
MF
BB
BB
MF +
BB
BB
VB
MF
MF
PV
VB
BB
BB
BB
BV
VV
VB
VB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
MM +
:
Area
[pA*s]
111.04067
44.21571
84.06284
117.24971
61.30326
52.96046
83.33839
61.24808
85.21915
50.89335
109.04791
52.42933
62.96000
51.47957
64.01354
51.54708
75.89687
50.13625
51.29396
58.27401
47.24795
76.28214
66.67661
50.16097
47.69715
79. 66508
56.87860
48.94999
79.58132
50.22721
60.22029
77.00002
57.35054
50.31715
76.97448
47.28868
53.91354
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime
[min]
12.062
17.130
18.123
21.140
21.300
28. 975
37.218
39.468
43.197
43.782
61.523
Type
FM
MF
FM
FM
PP
FM
FM
BV
FM
FM
BB
Area
[pA*s]
2.54810
8.10755e-l
1.91107
9.34498e-l
4.08646e-l
1.81397
1.28785
5.73210
1.50430
1.92512
47.62742
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount
[ppbc]
56.70847
22.58096
42.93089
59.87943
31.30758
27.04691
42.56091
31.27939
43.52142
25.99123
55.69077
26.77566
32.15367
26.29062
32.69172
26.32509
38.76053
25.60458
26.19582
29.76053
24.12953
38.95729
34.05174
25.61721
24.35894
40.68495
29.04790
24.99876
40.64218
25.65103
30.75450
39.32391
29.28892
25.69697
39.31087
24.15033
27.53365
1824 .91467
Grp Name
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2 -Methyl heptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount
[ppbc]
1.30131
4 .14053e-l
9.75981e-l
4.77248e-l
2.08696e-l
9.26393e-l
6.57706e-l
2.92738
7.68244e-l
9.83159e-l
24.32332
Grp Name
7
7
7
7
7
9
7
9
•?
7
7
Uncalib. totals :
33 .96350
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
1 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 12:19:07 PM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090802.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $I_PPFID
10/9/2008 10:23:44 AM
AL22195 $I_PPFID
JPC
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/9/2008 12:15:17 PM by JPC
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
2
Vial 3
1
Manually
miri
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.
RetTime
[min]
8.820
9.018
9.147
11.719
11.917
14 .999
16.304
16.498
16. 646
17.246
17.885
20.146
20.938
21.445
21.726
21.892
22.283
23.230
24.818
Type
BBA
PB
BBA
PB
BBA
PB +
BV
VV
VB
BB
PB
PB
PB
VV
VV
VB
PP
PB
BV
Area
[pA*s]
47.14820
34.26736
56.03752
37.91744
82. 64924
53.55767
61.49738
47.68173
98.74651
50.79647
72.19682
86.29390
48.09455
52.67418
75.91888
55.23119
66.45922
85.71204
39.70129
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
24.07859
17.50034
28.61836
19.36444
42.20897
27.35190
31.40671
24.35106
50.42984
25.94176
36.87092
44.07029
24.56189
26.90070
38.77177
28.20657
33.94072
43.77314
20.27545
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 12:15:45 PM JPC
Page 1 of 2.
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ090802.D
Sample Name: AL22195 $I_PPFID
RetTime Type
[min]
24.897 VV
25.175 VB
25.977 BB
26.348 BB
27.001 BB
28.655 PV
28.822 VB
30.252 BB +
30.736 PB
31.180 BV
31.316 VB
31.749 BB
32.597 BB
33.278 PB
34.748 BB
36.575 BB
37.045 BB +
37.520 BB
38.025 BB
39.662 VB
43.048 PB
43.553 PV
44.712 PV
44 .996 VB
45.789 BB
46.903 BB
48.655 BB
49.054 BV
49.187 VV
49.490 VB
50.140 VB
50.981 BB
51.541 BB
52.606 BB
53.970 BB
54.342 BB
56.912 BB +
Totals :
Uncalibrated
RetTime Type
[min]
21.300 PP
39.468 BV
43.621 VB
61.523 BB
Area
[pA*s]
111.04067
44.21571
84.06284
117.24971
61.30326
52.26686
80.18160
61.24808
85.21915
50.89335
109.04791
52.42933
62.96000
50.60601
64.01354
51.54708
77.18384
50.13625
51.29396
58.27401
46.80545
34.56858
66.67661
50.16097
47.69715
79.66508
56.87860
48.94999
79.58132
50.22721
60.22029
77.00002
57.35054
50.31715
76. 97448
47.28868
53.52686
Peaks :
Area
[pA*s]
4.08646e-l
5.73210
41.12904
47.62742
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount
[ppbc]
56.70847
22.58096
42.93089
59.87943
31.30758
26.69269
40.94874
31.27939
43.52142
25. 99123
55.69077
26.77566
32.15367
25.84449
32.69172
26.32509
39.41779
25.60458
26.19582
29.76053
23.90354
17.65417
34.05174
25.61721
24.35894
40.68495
29.04790
24.99876
40.64218
25.65103
30.75450
39.32391
29.28892
25.69697
39.31087
24 .15033
27.33617
1793.39645
Grp Name
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2 -Methyl heptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m- Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount
[ppbc]
2.08696e-l
2.92738
21.00460
24.32332
Grp Name
•p
•p
p
p
Uncalib. totals
48 .46401
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
1 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/9/2008 12:15:45 PM JPC
Page 2 of 2
-------
If GC/FID Daily Worksheet FIDf?
Date £M/ O/&S>V Operator
Batch # H3*>3V(ft^ QC #
Working Gases and Quality Control Standards:
Carrier Gas Helium Pressure j^f^A^Pulse Gas Pressure
Combustion Air Pressure ffiz<3 Hydrogen Pressure
Nitrogen Pressure for dewar
PAMS: Std ID ^c^//ZPreparation Date lO'l'0tf: Pressure
Canister IDJ
SRM: Std IDCC l(/2'7tf2 Preparation Date JO^^ ; Pressure
Canister ID
Entech Setup:
Name of Sequence; f^j^O o
GC/FID Chemstation Setup: .
Name of Sequence: 10*1^0 9
Sequence Saved? V Sequence Printed?
~
ZAB Pressure &C,O ' Preparation Date /6-1^ Canister ID
HAS PressureaD,<" ; Preparation date lo~(r-o& : Canister ID O£/£ 2V
LCS: Std IDj^J^MJf^eparation Date t&S}-^ Pressure #6,
- Canister ID
Sequence Saved? y Sequence Printed? _j/
'
Bakeout.M Loaded at EnjS? V r
Acquisition Startup: '
Do Both Sequences Match? y Canister Valves Open?
Entech Sequence Started? y Chemstation Sequence Started?
/
Total Runs in the sequences: /
Number of Std: 5
Number of Blanks: 2-
Number of Samples /7
Number of Duplicates: ^
Number of Sys Blanks: J£
Number of Cert Cans: _^
Total Runs in the sequences:
Date and Time Sequence Started.
-------
3" (c'^ „*£
,^ 5 r f ^
-------
— Leak Check Report
10/15/2008 7:59:09 AM
Leak Check for C:\Smart\SQ101508.SEQ
Report File: C:\Smart\SQ101508.LCR
Leak Check Method: Evacuation
Pressurize/Evacuate time(sec) 30
Equilibration time(sec) 10
Maintanance time(sec) 30
Sample
Inlet Autol Auto2 Auto3 Start End Rate(psi/min)
1 1 0.6 0.6 0.00
3 1 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 16 — — 0.5 0.6 0.20
4 16 — — 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 2 0.4 0.5 0.20
1 3 ... — 0.4 0.4 0.00
1 4 — — 0.4 0.4 0.00
1 5 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 6 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 7 — — 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 8 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 9 - 0.3 0.4 0.20
1 10 - 0.4 0.4 0.00
1 11 - 0.4 0.4 0.00
1 12 — — 0.4 0.4 0.00
1 13 — — 0.4 0.5 0.20
1 14 0.4 0.4 0.00
1 15 0.4 0.4 0.00
-------
SEQUENCE TABLE -
Sequence Name: C:\Smart\SQ101508.SEQ
Date: 10-17-2008
.Time: 12:05:16
Int. Std Volume: 0 cc
Inlet Auto Samp Cal Std
Sample Name # Pos Vol. Vol.
AL22735 $I_SRM 1
AL22735$I_PPFID
AL22735$HBPPFID 3
AL22735$L1PPFID 1
AL22735 $B_PPFID 4
AL22014 $PPFID 1
AL21642$PPFID 1
AL21643$PPFID 1
AL21644$PPFID 1
AL21645$PPFID 1
AL21646$PPFID 1
AL21691 $PPFID 1
AL21692$PPFID 1
AL21693$PPFID 1
AL22735 $SYSBLNK 1
AL22014$D_PPFID 1
AL22735 $C_SRM 1
AL21694$PPFID 1
AL21696$PPFID 1
AL21697$PPFID 1
AL21698$PPFID 1
AL21699$PPFID 1
AL21700$PPFID 1
AL21701 $PPFID 1
AL21702$PPFID 1
AL22735 $SYSBLNK 1
AL22735 $C_SRM 1
AL22735SL1PPFID 3
AL22735$SYSBLNK 1
BOBSTD $PPFID 1
BOBSTD$PPFID 1
AL21702$PPFID 1
AL21693$PPFID 1
AL22735$C SRM 1
Method
Time
1
1
D 3
I 1
) 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
K 1
) 1
I 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
K 1
I 1
i 3
K 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
1
11
12
13
14
15
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
10
1
0
200
200
200
200
200
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
0
200
0
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
0
0
200
0
200
200
40
40
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
C:\Smart\PAMS.MPT 12:00
-------
Sequence: C:\HPCHEM\1\SEQUENCE\SQ101508.S
• Sequence Parameters:
Operator:
Data File Naming:
Signal 1 Prefix:
Counter:
Signal 2 Prefix:
Counter:
Data Directory:
Data Subdirectory:
Part of Methods to run:
Barcode Reader:
Shutdown Cmd/Macro:
Sequence Comment:
PAL & 16 BARGE GRAB SAMPLES.
JAK
Prefix/Counter
HJ1508
01
0
0000000
C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\
According to Runtime Checklist
not used
none
Sequence Table (Front Injector):
Method and Injection Info Part:
Line Location SampleName Method
Inj SampleType InjVolume DataFile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
Vial
1
3
2
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
2
1
11
12
13
14
15
2
3
4
0
1
1
AL22735
AL22735
AL22735
AL22735
AL22735
AL22014
AL21642
AL21643
AL21644
AL21645
AL21646
AL21691
AL21692
AL21693
AL22525
AL22014
AL22735
AL21694
AL21696
AL21697
AL21698
AL21699
AL21700
AL21701
AL21702
AL22735
AL22735
BAKEOUT
$1 SRM
$1 PPFID
$HBPPFID
$L1PPFID
$B PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$SYSBLNK
$D PPFID
$C_SRM
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$PPFID
$SYSBLNK
$C_SRM
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
PAMS
BAKEOUT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Calib
Calib
Ctrl Samp
Ctrl Samp
Ctrl Samp
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Calib
Sample
Calib
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Calib
Calib
Sample
Sequence Table (Back Injector) :
No entries - empty table!
11
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 7:41:58 AM JAK
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150803.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $HBPPFID
10/15/2008 10:56:16 AM
AL22735 $HBPPFID
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/15/2008 6:38:05 AM by JAK
(modified after loading)
PANS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
"Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
Vial 2
1
Manually
r
FID1 A, (HJ150803.D)
mm
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
8.820
8. 929
9.142
11.763
11. 958
15.083
16.372
16.527
16.828
17.392
18.031
20.190
21.184
21.632
21.745
22.058
22.452
23.376
24.880
Type
MM
BBA
MM
BBA
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
Area
[pA*s]
2.39904e-l
3.47531
1.61462e-l
1.21404
-
6.15155e-l
-
1.56845e-l
1. 64445e-l
2.12765e-l
1.81990e-l
1.78859e-l
1.10830e-l
Amt/Area
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
-
.00000
-
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
1.
8.
6.
3.
8.
8.
1.
9.
9.
5.
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
22519e-l
1.77484
24585e-2
20009e-l
-
14160e-l
-
01010e-2
39820e-2
08659e-l
29422e-2
13431e-2
66008e-2
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 12:12:01 PM JAK
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150803.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $HBPPFID
RetTime
[min]
25.043
*' 25.301
26.100
26.479
27.102
28.705
28.932
30.301
30.781
31.277
31.401
31.815
32.674
33.353
34 .799
36.654
37.095
37.575
38.075
39.709
43.103
43.615
44.773
45.056
45.843
46.968
48.663
49.154
49.241
49.547
50.171
51.009
51.576
52.712
53.997
54.380
56.931
Type
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM. + '
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM +
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
FM
MM
MM
Area
[pA*s]
2.05822e-l
2.79095e-l
2.17946e-l
1.88211e-l
2.43689e-l
3.58964e-l
2.96450e-l
2.15221e-l
2.26902e-l
2.24192e-l
3.15928e-l
2.43635e-l
2.42697e-l
1.96827e-l
1.82351e-l
1.96062e-l
4 .30215e-l
2.17294e-l
1.535286-1
2.01457e-l
1.66262e-l
1.79592e-l
-
-
-
1.74152e-l
-
1.61363e-l
1.58781e-l
2.17294e-l
2.247936-1
2. 93789e-l
3.48122e-l
4.03063e-l
1.71149e-l
2.49369e-l
-
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
-
-
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
2
1
7
1
8
9
8
8
8
1
1
1
1
2
8
1
Amount G
[ppbc]
.05113e-l
.42534e-l
.11305e-l
.61193e-2
.24452e-l
.83323e-l
.51397e-l
.09914e-l
.15879e-l
.14495e-l
.61344e-l
.24424e-l
.23945e-l
.00520e-l
.31268e-2
.00129e-l
.19711e-l
.10972e-l
.84070e-2
.02884e-l
.49100e-2
.171746-2
-
-
-
.89396e-2
-
.24079e-2
.108946-2
.10972e-l
.14802e-l
.50038e-l
.77786e-l
.05844e-l
.74056e-2
.27353e-l
-
rp Name
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks
7.30087
using compound Propane
RetTime
[min]
21.482
22. 660
40.950
51.241
52.636
56.425
Type
MM
MM
BB
MM
MF
MM
Area
[pA*s]
1.95602e-l
2.82934e-l
8.20845e-l
3.26076e-l
1.32318e-l
2.13699e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
9
1
4
1
6
1
Amount G
[ppbc]
.98937e-2
.44495e-l
.19206e-l
.66527e-l
.75746e-2
.09136e-l
rp
9
9
7
7
9
9
Name
Uncalib. totals
1.00683
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 12:12:01 PM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150803.D
i
Sample Name: AL22735 $HBPPFID
10/15/2008 10:56:16 AM
AL22735 $HBPPFID
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/15/2008 6:38:05 AM by JAK
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
"Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
sAcq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
3
Vial 2
1
Manually
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount G
[ppbc]
rp Name
1.837
8.950
9.142 BBA
11.762
11.958 BBA
15.083
16.411
16.566
16.751
17.433
18.083
20.238
21.060
21.657
21.797
22.050
22.420
23.432
24.903
3.47531 1.00000 1.77484
1.21404 1.00000 6.20009e-l
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 12:10:04 PM JAK
Page 1 of 2,
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150803.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $HBPPFID
RetTime Type Area Amt/Area Amount
1 [min] [pA*s] [ppbc]
Grp
Name
25.101
25.385
26.200
26.576
21:237
28.764
28.914
30.373
31.008
31.348
31.584
32.010
32.869
33.543
35.039
36.868
37.101
37.806
38.313
39.949
43.059
43.617
44.781
45.064
45.851
46.921
48.671
49.070
49.350
49.565
50.165.
50.999
51.558
52.863
54.045
54.417
56.931
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime Type Area
[min] [pA*s]
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
2 .39485
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
Amount
[ppbc]
Grp
Name
40.950 BB 8.20845e-l
Uncalib. totals :
1.00000 4.19206e-l
4.19206e-l
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 12:10:04 PM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150805.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $B_PPFID
""Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
'•a Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/15/2008 1:35:11 PM
AL22735 $B_PPFID
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/15/2008 3:00:39 PM by JAK
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
5
Vial 1
1
Manually
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
10/15/2008 3:00:43 PM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
8.821
9.037
9.140
11.777
11.957
15.083
16.385
16.540
16.725
17.411
18.018
20.206
21.027
21.633
21.763
22.015
22.454
23.395
24 .876
Type
BBA
MM
BBA
MM
PBA
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
Area
[pA*s]
2.74667e-l
1.32306e-l
3.42998
2.44321e-l
1.10603
-
__
2.30825e-l
2.49799e-l
_
2.56406e-l
_
1. 69077e-l
2.26800e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
__
1.00000
1.00000
_
1.00000
_
1.00000
1.00000
Amount
[ppbc]
1.40272e-l
6.75686e-2
1.75169
1.24775e-l
5.64852e-l
-
—
1.17882e-l
1.27572e-l
_
1.30946e-l
:
8.63477e-2
1.15827e-l
Grp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1— Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 3:26:59 PM JAK
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150805.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $B_PPFID
RetTime Type
[min]
25.079 MM
25.328 MM
26.092 MM
26.536 MM
27.127 MM
28.719 MM
28.929 MM
30.325 MM +
30.784 MM
31.286 MF
31.419 FM
31.849 MM
32. 695 MM
33.332 MM
34.795 MM
36. 630 MM
37.113 MM +
37.577 MM
38.085 MM
39.715 MM
43.105 MM
43.621 MM
44.781
45.035 MM
45.844 MM
46.954 MM
48.703 MM
49.084 MM
49.242 MM
49.558
50.166 MM
51.021 MM
51.566 MM
52.851
54.032
54.403
56. 913 MM +
Area
[pA*s]
1.33649e-l
3.08738e-l
2.64055e-l
2.56096e-l
2.60703e-l
2.79695e-l
3.07743e-l
2.98989e-l
2.66905e-l
2.86962e-l
3.55854e-l
2.77696e-l
3.07802e-l
2.28044e-l
2.55697e-l
2.07814e-l
1.65466e-l
2.12952e-l
2.48407e-l
2.22236e-l
2.01601e-l
4.46436e-l
-
2.55836e-l
3.80986e-l
2.41228e-l
2.05942e-l
2.18883e-l
1.75993e-l
-
2.257416-1
3.48542e-l
2.90407e-l
-
-
-
2.078356-1
Amt/Area Amount G
[ppbc]
1.00000 6.82545e-2
1.00000 1.57672e-l
1.00000 1.34853e-l
1.00000 1.30788e-l
1.00000 1.33141e-l
1.00000 1.42840e-l
1.00000 1.57164e-l
1.00000 1.52694e-l
1.00000 1.36308e-l
1.00000 1.46552e-l
1.00000 1.81735e-l
1.00000 1.41819e-l
1.00000 1.57194e-l
1.00000 1.16462e-l
1.00000 1.30584e-l
1.00000 1.06130e-l
1.00000 8.45036e-2
1.00000 1.08754e-l
1.00000 1.26862e-l
1.00000 1.13496e-l
1.00000 1.02958e-l
1.00000 2.27995e-l
_
1.00000 1.30655e-l
1.00000 1.94569e-l
1.00000 1.23195e-l
1.00000 1.05174e-l
1.00000 1.11783e-l
1.00000 8.98797e-2
-
1.00000 1.15286e-l
1.00000 1.78001e-l
1.00000 1.48311e-l
_
_
- .
1.00000 1.06141e-l
rp Name
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks
7 .48949
using compound Propane
RetTime
[min]
40.954
51.222
53.585
Type
MM
MM
MM
Area
[pA*s]
5.02507e-l
2.52296e-l
1.29124e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
2.56630e-l
1.28847e-l
6.59434e-2
rp
9
9
9
Name
Uncalib. totals
4.51421e-l
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 3:26:59 PM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150805.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $B_PPFID
alnjection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
^Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/15/2008 1:35:11 PM
AL22735 $B_PPFID
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/15/2008 3:00:39 PM by JAK
Seq. Line :
Location :
Inj ;
Inj Volume
: 5
: Vial 1
: 1
: Manually
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
10/15/2008 3:00:43 PM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount G
[ppbc]
rp Name
1.00000 1.40272e-l
1.00000 1.75169
1.00000 5.64852e-l
8.821 BBA 2.74667e-l
9.000
9.140 BBA 3.42998
11.762
11.957 PBA 1.10603
15.083
16.411
16.566
16.751
17.433
18.083
20.238
21.060
21.657
21.797
22.050
22.420
23.432
24.903
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 3:07:07 PM JAK
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150805.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $B_PPFID
RetTime
' [min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount
[ppbc]
Grp Name
' 25.101
« 25.385
26.200
26.576
27.237
28.764
28.914
30.373
31.008
31.348
31.584
32.010
32.869
33.543
35.039
36.868
37.101
37.806
38.313
39.949
43.059
43.617
44.781
45.064
45.851
46.921
48.671
49.070
49.350
49.565
50.165
50.999
51.558
52.863
54.045
54.417
56.931
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks
2 .45681
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
P_FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 3:07:07 PM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
Date: 10/15/2008
SRM concentration:
SRM range:
$l SRM Result
101.44
$C SRM Result
101.63
SRM concentration:
SRM range (RF):
$l SRM area
198.63
$C SRM area
198.99
RPD ( I vs.C)
Analyst: JAK
"/.RECOVERY
100.00
90.00
Recovery %
101.44
Recovery %
101.63
Batch: 193024
110.00
In Range? (T/F)
TRUE
In Range? (T/F)
TRUE
RESPONSE FACTORS
100.00
0.4594
Response Factor
0.5035
Response Factor
0.5025
0.183
0.5615
In Range? (y/n)
TRUE
In Range? (y/n)
TRUE
LIMS: AL22735
-------
From:
Date:
Re:
Jianzhong Liu /
Environmental Scientist Supervispi/|/
Air Organics, LSD, DEQ / I
May 13, 2008
FID SRM PREPARATION
Stock Standard:
Manufacturer:
Cylinder #:
Certified Concentration:
Expiration Date:
Spectra Gases, Inc.
CC-162783
1.18 ppm
2/25/2009
Working SRM:
Target Concentration: 100.00 ppbC
Flow Rate of the Stock Std: 40 cc/min
Flow Rate of Nitrogen: 1376 cc/min
-------
-
Spectra
I ./ Spectra Gases, Inc.
3434 Route 22 West, Branchburg, New Jersey 08876 USA
ISO 9001:2000
SHIPPED FROM: 80 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ALPHA, NJ. 08865
SHIPPED TO:
Environmental Quality - LA
Air Organics Lab, LDEQ
1209 Leesville Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
CERTIFICATE
OF
ANALYSIS
SGI ORDER #: 125072
ITEM#: 1
CERTIFICATION DATE: 02/25/2008
P.O.#: CC-JLiu
BLEND TYPE: CERTIFIED
CYLINDERS: CC-162783
CYLINDER PRES: 2000 psig
CYLINDER VALVE: CGA 350
PRODUCT EXPIRATION DATE: 02/25/2009
COMPONENT
ANALYTICAL ACCURACY: + / - 2%
REQUESTED GAS
CONG
ANALYSIS
Propane
Nitrogen
1.20 ppm
Balance
1.18 ppm
Balance
€V
NIST TRACEABLE
ANALYST:
Cheryl Patino
DATE:
02/25/2008
Tel: +1 908-252-9300 Fax: +1 908-252-0811
www.spectragases.com
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150801.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $I_SRM
Injection Date 10/15/2008 8:17:16 AM
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
AL22735 $1 SRM
JAK
HP FID2 SOP 1026
C : \HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS . M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C : \HPCHEM\ 1 \METHODS \PAMS . M
10/15/2008 6:38:05 AM by JAK
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
: 1
: Vial 1
: 1
: Manually
jl ^ if
(C- // ^7
FID1 A, (HJ150801.D)
PA -
60 H c
Cl
c;
so-1 :
\
j
40 -|
j
30 -1
i ">
1 5
20 H m
: s
1»J 7
j"
10
D
J
L
)
)
)
CD
C
B
m
c
1
s
CO
CD
'
QJ
C
S « 1 «
™ -Hie "S "•
£ c^£ M§.(u •§" "" i
— HtJ^CNJ fc^JCO C 2lT CSLtNJ CNJ
° XSI0'' S&'* Is- <2» C3iajo in
CO lf^3rcN4 l^MO O Cffl CiKO CD
U "'TvJv'J "- »
0 =§ CD %
op c -^
>, .& 0) CD .2
">• 45 -51 CD ?"
-C •« '> 1=L t
t3 E
s ^ s i § i
S ^v^ . co 10 oj
* i j i i i i • t
40 50
QJ QJ
C C
CD 0)
N N
a s
^ ^
'CD "CD
I 1
•4_ co
CNJ" CNJ"
CNJ CO .r.
^S 3
?? ?
I ! •; -r _—__,__
60
min
External Standard Report
Sorted By : Signal
Calib. Data Modified :
Multiplier :
Dilution :
Sample Amount : 1.00000 [ppbc]
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
10:57:02 AM
(not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
Type
i
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount G
[ppbc]
rp Name
8.813
8.926
9.137 PBA
11.730
11.896 PBA
15.083
16.367
16.521
16.804 PB
17.386
18.034
20.300 BB
21.003
21.584 PB
21.738
22.023 PB
22.415 PP
23.235 PB
24.846 BV
3.93938
191.62938
•—""•""""
1.38990
3.09414
3.94511
5.66477e-l
3.15199
3.38502
9.21160e-l
1.00000
2.01184
1.00000 7.09822e-l
1.00000 1.58018
1.00000 2.01477
1.00000 2.89300e-l
1.00000 1.60972
1.00000 1.72873
1.00000 4.70436e-l
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 9:25:37 AM JAK
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150801.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $1 SRM
1'etTime
hnin]
i
24.956
25.225
26.044
26.504
27.075
28.692
28.894
30.291
30.768
31.386
31.513
31.943
32.656
33.491
34.789
36.627
37.083
37.787
38.294
39.929
43.038
43.592
44.759
45.035
45.828
46.898
48.647
49.106
49.326
49.540
50.140
51.222
51.533
52.613
54 .018
54.390
56.931
Type
VB
BB
PB
BB
PB
PP
PB +
BB
BB
PP
BB
PB
PB +
PB
PB
BP
PB
PB
Area
[pA*s]
1.01160
1.25152
9.83369e-l
-
4.34532e-l
8.22332e-l
6.03021e-l
1.32527
1.33293
8.08716e-l
-
-
1.28984
-
9.86934e-l
5.23825e-l
3.95224
-
-
-
-
1.18093
-
5.46907e-l
-
-
-
5.85634e-l
-
-
-
3.93070
-
5.65562
-
-
-
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
-
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
"1.00000
-
-
-
-
1.00000
-
1.00000
-
-
-
1.00000
-
-
-
1.00000
-
1.00000
-
-
-
5
6
5
2
4
3
6
6
4
6
5
2
6
2
2
Amount G
[ppbc]
.16624e-l
.39153e-l
.02207e-l
-
.21915e-l
.19965e-l
.07963e-l
.76814e-l
.80726e-l
.13011e-l
-
-
.58723e-l
-
.04027e-l
.67517e-l
2.01841
-
-
-
-
.03100e-l
-
.79306e-l
-
-
-
.99083e-l
-
-
-
2.00741
-
2.88832
-
-
-
rp Name
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2, 2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks
125.75910
using compound Propane
RetTime
[min]
24.594
40.930
59.645
Type
PB
BB
PP
Area
[pA*s]
4.34410
11.18780
8.48758e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
2.21853
5.71361
4.33461e-l
rp
9
9
9
Name
Uncalib. totals
8.36561
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 9:25:37 AM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
3ata File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150817.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $C_SRM
"injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
-Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/16/2008 5:13:51 AM
AL22735 $C_SRM
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/15/2008 3:00:39 PM by JAK
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
17
Vial 1
1
Manually
(modified after loading)
PANS SAMPLE ANALYSES
r
FID1 A, (HJ150817.D)
pA :
60 : c
u
c
50- ;
1
40-
]
j
30 j g
j s
•20 J iff
,_
O*;
10 -: ^
"1 -} :
10
D
L
5
,
)
3
CD
C
CO
•3
o CD
^1-2
c s| § g
1 Ipt 1
i ^^o S
o om oo in
CN ^CD O) o>
oq ^;CN m CN
CD CNCO ^ o
.?- CNCN CN m
' ' '
1 i • i i 1 i
20 30
CD
CD
N
CD
r-
CD ?
c E
CD j) 0) '^
S x^ ^ «
o Q- X N!
!- E 6 ^
S 1 Si S§ i
? T ? ? ? ? ?
1 ' ' ' '
j > ~ | i t . i j i i , •• | i i
40 50 60 min
External Standard Report
Sorted By : Signal
C'alib. Data Modified : 10/11^2,008 3:00:43 PM
Multiplier : ^0^5107^
Dilution : C_J_~ 0-OtfO
Sample Amount : 1.00000 tppbc]
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
(not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount
[ppbc]
Grj
i
D Name
8.822 BBA
8.977
9.141 BBA
11.732
11.895 PBA
15.083
16.369
16.524
16.820 PB
17.388
18.037
20.186
21.006
21.602
21.741
21.994
22.440 PB
23.265 PB
24.598 PB
2.24036e-l 1.00000 1.14415e-l
3-54r&6-9-x 1.00000 1.79598
196.7371>/ 1.000'QO 100.4736:
7.32985e-l
1.00000 3.74336e-l
2.46730
3.51717
3.72463
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.26005
1.79622
1.90217
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/16/2008 6:23:21 AM JAK
Page 1 of 2^
-^
-------
IJata File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150817.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $C_SRM
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount
[ppbc]
Grp
Name
25.037
- 25.320
26.133
26.508
27.167
28.691
28.840
30.295 PB + 1.38403
30.936
31.279
31.517
31.947
32.814
33.494
35.003
36.848
37.083 PB + 3.85212
37.788
38.295
39.929
43.038
43.591 PB 1.04057
44.760
45.031 PB 5.37611e-l
45.829
46.899
48.648
49.046
49.326
49.541
50.141
50.975
51.533
52.629 PB 4.39412
54.019
54.391
56.931
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks :
1.00000 7.06826e-l
1.00000 1.96728
1.00000 5.31420e-l
1.00000 2.74558e-l
1.00000 2.24408
113.44099
using compound Propane
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
RetTime
[min]
40. 935
51.225
59. 643
Type
PB
BP
PP
Area
[pA*s]
5.96588
2.34146
7.09156e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
3.04678
1.19578
3.62166e-l
rp
7
9
7
Name
Uncalib. totals
4.60472
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026'10/16/2008 6:23:21 AM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150827.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $C_SRM
10/16/2008 7:06:42 PM
AL22735 $C_SRM
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/16/2008 2:49:51 PM by JAK
(modified after loading)
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/17/2008 6:32:13 AM by JAK
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
•Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
10
Vial 1
1
Manually
FID1 A, (HJ150827.D)
pA ]
60 H
50 -
40
30-
20-
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
mi
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
8/
10:57:02 AM
: 1.0000
: 1.00000 [ppbc]
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
(not used in calc.)
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime
[min]
8.823
9.021
9.142
11.752
11.897
-1C n Q T
lo . (Jo o
16.368
16.522
16.797
17.387
18.009
20.337
21.099
21.599
21.871
22.024
22.423
23.256
Type
BBA
BB
BBA
PB
BBA ^
BB
PP
PB
PB
BV
VV
VB
PP
BB
Area
[pA*s]
7.93821e-l
4.76038e-l
4.11750
5^:L3J_6.e=i=
192.80481
*°~— ™-™^.^.™~~-~"~— *~~~-
_
-
1.50979
-
7.29622e-l
1.71260
7.59638e-l
1.43838
2.59908
1.61021
3.35658
4.74432
Amt/Area
1
1
1
^ 1
^) 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
_
-
.00000
-
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
4
2
2
^-'
7
3
8
3
7
8
Amount
[ppbc]
05404e-l
43112e-l
2.10281
76J-6-g&=4-
9-erT4~6542_
_
-
71048e-l
-
72618e-l
74625e-l
87947e-l
34581e-l
1.32735
22332e-l
1.71421
2.42293
Grp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
— .-, Propylene
—• -"^ Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 6:33:06 AM JAK
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150827.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $C_SRM
RetTime
[min]
24.854
24.964
25.237
26.052
26.452
27.077
28.697
28.905
30.293
30.773
31.245
31.386
31.805
32.661
33.327
34.785
36.618
37.081
37.566
38.063
39.698
43.085
43.583
44.767
45.026
45.816
46.939
48.686
49.087
49.223
49.514
50.167
51.009
51.563
52.613
53.993
54.361
56.927
Totals
Type
BV
VB
PB
PB
BB
BB
BB
BP
PB +
PB
BV
VP
BB
PB
PB
BP
BB
PB +
PB
PB
BP
PB
BV
PB "
PP
PP
PP
BV
VB
BP
PB
BB
PB
PB
BP
BP
PB +
Area
[pA*s]
1.34449
1.36218
1.21187
1.01165
7.80066e-l
1.23685
1.18669
1.03437
2.28682
1.13142
1.11731
1.12893
1.18118
1.38191
1.10115
1.24123
1.62238
4.87525
1.09294
1.09079
1.19115
1.26408
1.65149
-
1.51419
9.76644e-l
1.06222
8.63902e-l
1.16538
8.06003e-l
1.05815
9.00950e-l
1.14839
9.20273e-l
6.87596
7.07392e-l
4.57058e-l
5.28609e-l
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime
[min]
24.596
40.935
43.654
51.223
59.643
Type
PB
PB
VB
BB
PB
Area
[pA*s]
4.79303
7.02902
1.49541
2.42487
7.50064e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
6.86631e-l
6.95667e-l
6.18904e-l
5.16648e-l
3.98380e-l
6.31661e-l
6.06043e-l
5.28253e-l
1.16788
5.77817e-l
5.70609e-l
5.76543e-l
6.03231e-l
7.05743e-l
5.62356e-l
6.33897e-l
8.28551e-l
2.48979
5.58162e-l
5.57064e-l
6.08319e-l
6.45568e-l
8.43414e-l
-
7.73295e-l
4.98772e-l
5.42474e-l
4.41195e-l
5.95161e-l
4.11626e-l
5.40399e-l
4.60115e-l
5.86481e-l
4.69984e-l
3.51155
3.61265e-l
2.33419e-l
2.69961e-l
137 .22767
Cyclopentane
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methyl cyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
2.44780
3.58972
7.63704e-l
1.23838
3.83058e-l
7
7
7
7
7
Uncalib. totals
8.42266
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 6:33:06 AM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150834.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $C_PPFID
Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/17/2008 1:00:
AL22735 $C PPFID
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
50 PM Seq. Line : 4
Location : Vial 0
Inj : 1
Inj Volume : Manually
C : \HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS . M
10/17/2008 8:23:
46 AM by JAK
C : \HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS . M
10/17/2008 12:56
(modified after
:59 PM by JAK
loading) /- , , . /
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES (rT / / £/ "1
1 FID1 A, (HJ150834.D)
PA:
1
„
_
60-
-
40-
,
1
1
20 -
10-
0)
c
1
!
C
{
C
0
t
1
C C
0) 0)
» S g
JS .Q -Q
I- s 1 It
a)? ro S,, SJ , jjj o .^- X 41 'S. CN-
OCN" f CQ l~ uE ci E ^~ ^~
cnio JJ co Scor«)CT)Tri ScnasocooS^^ •*
•*CN "" CM R Q OO O T- ^ "H (D
^7 ^ ^T^^??? ?
1 . , , 1
^n /in en en — :~
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Signal
10_/JL2Z2P08 12:57:01 PM
: 1.0000
: 1.00000 [ppbc]
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
(not used in calc.)
Signal 1: FID1 A,
RetTime
[min]
8.783
8.989
9.127
11.711
11.886
14 . 960
16.257
16.447
16.801
17.387
18.036
20.185
21.005
21.600
21.740
21.992
22.439
23.255
24.574
Type
BBA
BBA
BBA
BBA
PBA (
PP
PP
PB
PB
Area
[pA*s]
4.08677
5.02441
9.39811
3 cUMrtFTe"- 1
""198.99361,
*^ ~~ —
-
-
9.22642e-l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.58524
3.56825
6.42842
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
~~~^ 1.00000
-"""^ i . oooscro""
—
-
-
1.00000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
2.08711
2.56597
4.79962
2 •Q407<5fa— T-~
101.62603^
—
-
-
4.71193e-l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.32028
1.82230
3.28300
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 2:14:13 PM JAK
Page 1 of
7M.
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150834.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $C_PPFID
RetTime
[min]
Type
Area
[pA*s]
Amt/Area
Amount
[ppbc]
Grp
Name
24.885
- 25.134
26.131
26.271
26.929
28.689
28.838
30.293 BP + 1.38236
30.656
31.078
31.330
31.734
32.531
33.493
34.706
36.848
37.083 PB + 4.41837
37.492
37.982
39.641
43.082 PB 4.93319e-l
43.588 PB 1.20612
44.760
45.039 PP 7.91625e-l
45.829
46.899
48.648
49.104 BB 4.93205e-l
49.326
49.541
50.141
51.223 PP 3.31232
51.533
52.617 BB 5.25361
54.019
54.391
56.931
Totals :
Uncalibrated Peaks :
1.00000 7.05971e-l
1.00000 2.25646
1.00000 2.51938e-l
1.00000 6.15967e-l
1.00000 4.04283e-l
1.00000 2.51880e-l
1.00000 1.69160
1.00000 2.68302
127.04071
using compound Propane
2,3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-MethyIneptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Curaene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
RetTime
[min]
8.675
14.069
40.936
59.643
Type
PB
PB
BB
PB
Area
[pA*s]
8.95369e-l
3.58859e-l
7.44692
1.10320
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
4
1
5
Amount G
[ppbc]
.57265e-l
.83269e-l
3.80314
. 63404e-l
rp
7
7
7
7
Name
Uncalib. totals
5.00708
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
2 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
Warning : Time reference compound(s) not found
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 2:14:13 PM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
Initial Calibration Verification (LCS) FID #2
DATE: 10/15/2008 QC NO: AL22735
COMPONENTS STDfcpbc) $l (ppbc> REC%$I
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
n-Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1 ,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
49.20
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.00
48.90
48.90
49.90
48.80
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.40
50.70
49.10
49.40
50.30
49.50
49.90
59.60
49.50
49.10
49.50
49.30
49.70
49.10
49.50
49.30
48.50
48.80
48.60
48.80
53.70
49.00
49.60
48.90
49.80
49.10
50.70
48.50
49.70
98.50
49.30
49.00
48.60
49.40
49.00
48.70
48.10
48.70
48.50
49.00
48.90
48.70
48.40
48.40
48.90
55.61
45.59
57.12
47.77
55.47
50.09
49.54
41.28
57.29
49.65
48.40
54.58
53.85
52.15
49.17
54.13
50.58
51.49
50.92
53.52
51.20
51.91
45.31
50.71
50.67
51.52
50.60
51.51
50.95
53.37
51.55
59.30
50.21
53.23
52.43
49.65
52.33
52.96
50.09
50.25
101.86
43.87
51.82
49.18
51.57
48.73
48.79
47.71
51.92
49.77
49.95
48.32
45.53
44.96
37.38
45.36
113.0
93.2
116.8
97.7
113.2
102.4
99.3
84.6
117.2
101.5
99.0
110.5
106.2
106.2
99.5
107.6
102.2
103.2
85.4
108.1
104.3
104.9
91.9
102.0
103.2
104.1
102.6
106.2
104.4
109.8
105.6
110.4
102.5
107.3
107.2
99.7
106.6
104.5
103.3
101.1
103.4
89.0
105.8
101.2
104.4
99.5
100.2
99.2
106.6
102.6
101.9
98.8
93.5
92.9
77.2
92.8
BATCH NO: 193024
JPC
'S
f
/
MATH LCS CONG 10 15 08
-------
-From:- - - Jianzhong Liu -
Environmental Scientist Supervisor
Air Organics, LSD, DEQ
Date: June 3, 2008
Re: Low Recovery of p-Diethylbenzene in PAMS LCS Standard
Stock Standard:
Manufacturer: Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.
Cylinder #: SX39238D
Lot#: 1057610175
Expiration Date: 12/03/2009
From the studies of runs in different GC/FIDs, the recovery of p-diethylbenzene is
constantly low (~ 75%). However, the recovery of this compound in PAMS standard is
normal (-100%). Therefore, 60% (75%*80%) recovery for this compound in LCS is
acceptable.
-------
Concentrations (ppbC) of Different Diluton of Matheson Stock Standard
Cylinder #: SX39238D; Lot#: 1057610175; Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENTS
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
n-Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-MethyIhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
)-EthyItoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
)-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
StoekStd 10 limes 71 .425 times 166.6S times 2SO times 500 times
492.00
489.00
489.00
489.00
490.00
489.00
489.00
499.00
488.00
489.00
489.00
489.00
494.00
507.00
491.00
494.00
503.00
495.00
499.00
596.00
495.00
491.00
495.00
493.00
497.00
491.00
495.00
493.00
485.00
488.00
486.00
488.00
537.00
490.00
496.00
489.00
498.00
491.00
507.00
485.00
497.00
985.00
493.00
490.00
486.00
494.00
490.00
487.00
481.00
487.00
485.00
490.00
489.00
487.00
484.00
484.00
489.00
49.20
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.00
48.90
48.90
49.90
48.80
48.90
48.90
48.90
49.40
50.70
49.10
49.40
50.30
49.50
49.90
59.60
49.50
49.10
49.50
49.30
49.70
49.10
49.50
49.30
48.50
48.80
48.60
48.80
53.70
49.00
49.60
48.90
49.80
49.10
50.70
48.50
49.70
98.50
49.30
49.00
48.60
49.40
49.00
48.70
48.10
48.70
48.50
49.00
48.90
48.70
48.40
48.40
48.90
6.89
6.85
6.85
6.85
6.86
6.85
6.85
6.99
6.83
6.85
6.85
6.85
6.92
7.10
6.87
6.92
7.04
6.93
6.99
8.34
6.93
6.87
6.93
6.90
6.96
6.87
6.93
6.90
6.79
6.83
6.80
6.83
7.52
6.86
6.94
6.85
6.97
6.87
7.10
6.79
6.96
13.79
6.90
6.86
6.80
6.92
6.86
6.82
6.73
6.82
6.79
6.86
6.85
6.82
6.78
6.78
6.85
2.95
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.94
2.93
2.93
2.99
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.96
3.04
2.95
2.96
3.02
2.97
2.99
3.58
2.97
2.95
2.97
2.96
2.98
2.95
2.97
2.96
2.91
2.93
2.92
2.93
3.22
2.94
2.98
2.93
2.99
2.95
3.04
2.91
2.98
5.91
2.96
2.94
2.92
2.96
2.94
2.92
2.89
2.92
2.91
2.94
2.93
2.92
2.90
2.90
2.93
1.97
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
2.00
1.95
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.98
2.03
1.96
1.98
2.01
1.98
2.00
2.38
1.98
1.96
1.98
1.97
1.99
1.96
1.98
1.97
1.94
1.95
1.94
1.95
2.15
1.96
1.98
1.96
1.99
1.96
2.03
1.94
1.99
3.94
1.97
1.96
1.94
1.98
1.96
1.95
1.92
1.95
1.94
1.96
1.96
1.95
1.94
1.94
1.96
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.00
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
1.01
0.98
0.99
1.01
0.99
1.00
1.19
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.98
0.97
0.98
1.07
0.98
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.98
1.01
0.97
0.99
1.97
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.98
Matheson 500 ppbC PAMS dilutions
-------
/\ MATHESON
*Ji TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770)968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209 Leesville Rd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
Phone:
Fax:
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057610175
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: SX39238D
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
PRESSURE: 1850 psig
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
M-Nunane
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-E'thyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Undecane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 pobC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
498 ppbC
491 ppbC
507 ppbC
485 ppbC
497 ppbC
490 ppbC
495 ppbC
493 ppbC
490 ppbC
486 ppbC
494 ppbC
490 ppbC
489 ppbC
484 ppbC .
484 ppbC
492 ppbC
487 ppbC
485 ppbC
481 ppbC
489 ppbC
487 ppbC
487 ppbC
490 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+.'- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
SPECIAL INFORMATION /ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The product listed above and furnished under the referenced purchase order has been tested and found to contain the component concentration listed above. All values
in mole/mole basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated Matheson Tri-Gas warrants that the above product(s) conform at the time of shipment to the above
description. Matheson Tri-Gas' liability does not exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
12/4/2007
ANALYST
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
MATHESON
TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770) 968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209 Leesville Rd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone:
Fax:
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057610175
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: SX39238D
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
PRESSURE: 1850 psig
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-EthyltoIuene
n-Undecane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
500 pobC
500 ppbC
500 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
498 ppbC
491 ppbC
507 ppbC
485 ppbC
497 ppbC
490 ppbC
495 ppbC
493 ppbC
490 ppbC
486 ppbC
494 ppbC
490 ppbC
489 ppbC
484 ppbC
484 ppbC
492 ppbC
487 ppbC
485 ppbC
481 ppbC
489 ppbC
487 ppbC
487 ppbC
490 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+.'- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
SPECIAL INFORMATION / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
i ne product listed aoove and turnisned under the referenced purchase order has been tesled and found to contain the component concentration listed above. All values
in mole/mole basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated. Matheson Tri-Gas warrants that She above product(s) conform at the time of shipment to the above
description, Matheson Tri-Gas' liability does not exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
ANALYST
12/4/2007
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150828.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $L1PPFID
Injection Date 10/16/2008 8:28:13 PM Seq. Line : 11
Sample Name AL22735 $L1PPFID
Acq. Operator JAK
Acq. Instrument HP FID2 SOP
1026
Location : Vial 31
Inj : 1
Inj Volume : Manually
Acq. Method C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
Last changed 10/16/2008 2:49:51 PM by JAK
(modified after loading)
Analysis Method C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
Last changed . 10/17/2008 6:32:13 AM by JAK
(modified after loading) C"^?/ H 'S £—-
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
FID1 A, (HJ150828.D)
• A
§ -
=
/^
J .if
a) a> au 0 OD caM) 0 (U a> (W>
%
U-HP I
^'1 ^
r s 4^
$ ^jpf
'
N^
c-*'
^
^
•^- E
u
0
^
T-
i
10
ii i
r
ij
||
1 j[i
C
*J
qi
D t~ n~ r; n~ mr c~t» r: r nr <-r-
= ra 0001 (D
1 Bl I 1 t (m
ojouoj ax> a> a)^ «
)
S^S c ^ TO
nS(\O GXJ m aW o
' $P ^
MCN <
SJ c
K\
ftt ,^
FlfeR
^ lib .:cj t; cfs" " ^
4C< 15 (jcj ,;c>c5) ^
Q i • OD rl C3 p
S5 AS f! " >•>
1 CJ C3
C5 C)
^'
o^ 1 lo If -t~i^
i V I 'S !£ "*CD
0? |r> if i OXD
BP 1 ^ if Or-:
I ll IP it I i * llil T^ III .
30 40
iS*?- ^§ S^" si
' ' S1
15 O C4 U5f
u r- c> f>
g CcsijO g^i
fO r^^TcoMl*' c®1^
i 'O ir^H'.y^T^' Lfoo
Un? pMOTpf li^f1 ^P
50
&
60
^
••?
min
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0.5107
1.0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
8.810
9.004
9.135
11.694
11.904
14.964
16.280
16.473
16.634
17.210
17.869
20.128
20.900
21.418
21.704
21.862
22.261
23.216
Type
MM
MF
FM
MF
FM
PB +
PV
VV
VB
MF
PB
BB
MF
VV
VV
VB
BB
PV
Area
[pA*s]
108.89320
89.27295
111.83705
93.53393
108.60664
98.08557
96.99831
80.82842
112.18735
97.21261
94.78104
106.86475
105.44742
102.11597
96.28439
105.98328
99.03815
100.81549
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
55.61176
45.59170
57.11518
47.76778
55.46541
50.09230
49.53704
41.27908
57.29408
49.64648
48.40468
54.57583
53.85200
52.15063
49.17244
54.12566
50.57878
51.48647
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 6:36:59 AM JAK
Page 1 of 3
-------
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150828.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $L1PPFID
RetTime
[min]
61.521
64.876
Type
BB
PP
Area
[pA*s]
70.57325
5.35105e-l
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
36.04176
2.73278e-l
rp Name
?
9
Uncalib. totals
49.78753
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
1 Warnings or .Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 6:36:59 AM JAK
Page 3 of 3
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150828.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $L1PPFID
10/16/2008 8:28:13 PM
AL22735 $L1PPFID
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/16/2008 2:49:51 PM by JAK
(modified after loading)
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/17/2008 6:32:13 AM by JAK
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
"injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150828.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $L1PPFID
RetTime
[min]
24.797
24.888
25.146
25.963
26.341
26.979
28.637
28.808
30.237
30.727
31.163
31.307
31.732
32.582
33.261
34.737
36.563
37.037
37.508
38.013
39.652
43.036
43.540
44 .704
44 . 988
45.782
46.899
48. 649
49.048
49.184
49.485
50.136
50.978
51.537
52.602
53.968
54.338
56.909
Totals
Type
BV
VV
VB
BB
PB
PB
BV
VV
PB +
PB
PV
VB
BB
BB
PB
BB
BB
BV +
BB
BB
BB
PB
PV
BV
VB
BB
BB
BB
BV
VV
VB
VB
BB
BB
VB
BB
BB
BB +
Area
[pA*s]
99.70258
104.79393
100.25581
101. 64356
88.71393
99.29967
99.22535
100.87298
99.08167
100.85815
99.76077
104.50134
100.93217
116.11399
96.57597
104.23523
102.65385
97.22409
102.46342
103.69798
98.07506
98.39761
92.93414
85.90063
101.47527
96.29155
100.98366
95.42062
95.52940
93.41511
101.65474
97.44906
97.81036
94.62080
88.41506
88.04417
73.19059
88.71956
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
[ppbc]
50.91811
53.51826
51.20064
51.90937
45.30620
50.71234
50.67439
51.51583
50.60101
51.50826
50.94782
53.36883
51.54606
59.29942
49.32135
53.23293
52.42532
49. 65234
52.32807
52.95856
50.08693
50.25166
47.46146
43.86945
51.82342
49.17609
51.57235
48.73131
48.78687
47.70710
51.91508
49.76723
49.95175
48.32284
45.15357
44.96416
37.37843
45.30908
Cyclopentane
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methyl cyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2, 2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methyl cyclohexane
2, 3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
2777 .45156
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime
[min]
22.544
24.578
28.959
35.360
37.225
40.941
41.667
43.608
50.001
51.220
52.006
52.483
53.363
54.723
55.837
56.312
61.521
64.876
Type
BB
PB
VB
BB
VB
PB
PB
VB
PP
BB
PB
PV
BB
PB
PB
PB
BB
PP
Area
[pA*s]
1.17554
1.26304
1.64351
3.91656e-l
2.82216
1.10559
6.27572e-l
105.08286
3.40748e-l
1.26381
5.54539e-l
8.54311e-l
5.73396
4.31328e-l
6.35686e-l
8.24003e-l
70.57325
5.35105e-l
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp Name
6
6
8
2
5
3
1
6
2
4
2
3
4
2
[ppbc]
.00349e-l
.45037e-l
.39343e-l
.00019e-l
1.44128
. 64624e-l
.20501e-l
53.66581
.74020e-l
.45429e-l
.83203e-l
.36297e-l
2.92833
.20279e-l
.24645e-l
.20818e-l
36.04176
.73278e-l
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
HP_FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 6:32:32 AM JAK
Page 2 of 3
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150828.D Sample Name: AL22735 $L1PPFID
Uncalib. totals : 100.02502
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
1 Warnings or Errors :
f
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 6:32:32 AM JAK Page 3 of 3
-------
Print of window 38: Current Chromatogram(s)
Injection Date 10/16/2008 8:28:13 PM
Sample Name
Acg. Operator
Acg. Instrument
Acq^ Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
AL22735 $L1PPFID
JAK
HP FID2 SOP 1026
C : \HPCHEM\ 1 \METHODS \ PAMS . M
10/16/2008 2:49:51 PM by JAK
(modified after loading)
C : \HPCHEM\ 1 \METHODS \ PAMS . M
10/17/2008 6:32:13 AM by JAK
.(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
Seg. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
: 11
: Vial 31
: 1
: Manually
Current^ Chromatogram (s)
| "FIDTXTHJ150828.D)
I PA
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/17/2008 6:37:43 AM JAK
Page 1 of 1 f
-------
PAMS RETENTION TIME STD FID #2 lot #1057410185
DATE: 10/15/2008
QC NO: AL22735
BATCH NO: 193024
COMPONENTS STDfrpbc) $1 (ppbe) REC%$I
Ethylene
Actetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
n-Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
t2-butene
c2-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
1-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Etnylbenzne
m/p-Xylene
Styrene
o Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethyibenzene
o-Ethyltouene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
21.00
42.00
26.00
26.00
40.00
43.00
25.00
32.00
32.00
43.00
26.00
38.00
40.00
25.00
26.00
42.00
25.00
34.00
40.00
21.00
51.00
21.00
41.00
61.00
30.00
26.00
40.00
31.00
42.00
25.00
54.00
26.00
31.00
26.00
31.00
25.00
40.00
25.00
25.00
31.00
25.00
42.00
41.00
26.00
25.00
40.00
30.00
25.00
43.00
26.00
27.00
39.00
30.00
25.00
40.00
27.00
41.00
18.60
18.70
30.32
20.99
44.26
26.01
30.24
24.34
49.04
25.24
35.74
41.39
25.38
25.75
37.32
27.65
33.45
42.30
19.51
55.18
21.98
42.00
59.56
30.90
26.54
41.76
29.94
42.73
25.71
54.89
26.39
31.68
25.67
32.15
26.08
37.60
25.74
26.37
30.10
23.59
37.92
33.75
25.16
24.62
39.60
28.33
24.39
39.57
24.83
29.88
38.24
29.34
25.73
38.37
23.68
28.30
88.6
44.5
116.6
80.7
110.7
104.0
94.5
76.1
114.0
97.1
94.1
103.5
101.5
99.1
88.9
110.6
98.4
105.8
92.9
108.2
104.7
102.4
97.6
103.0
102.1
104.4
96.6
101.7
102.9
101.6
101.5
102.2
98.7
103.7
104.3
94.0
103.0
105.5
97.1
94.4
90.3
82.3
96.8
98.5
99.0
94.4
97.6
92.0
95.5
110.7
98.0
97.8
102.9
95.9
87.7
69.0
PAMS 2008 101508
-------
o
MATHESON
TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770)968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209 Leesville Rd
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone:
Fax:
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057410185
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: CC-250112
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 cu. ft.
PRESSURE: 1850psig
Fiil Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-B'jtene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
-cis-2-Pentene
Cyclopentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
20 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbO
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
•?£ ,-VVT'.
35 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
35 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
50 ppbC
60 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
50 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
21 ppbC
26 ppbC
42 ppbC
26 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
32 ppbC
32 ppbC
43 ppbC
?H ••p'-.c
38 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
42 ppbC
25 ppbC
34 ppbC
21 ppbC
40 ppbC
21 ppbC
41 ppbC
51 ppbC
61 ppbC
30 ppbC
26 ppbC
40 ppbC
31 ppbC
^2 ppbC
54 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
26 ppbC
31 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
;•/- >y<-
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
TRACEABLE TO REFERENCE STANDARD SOURCE/NUMBER:
TRACEABLE TO NIST TRACEABLE WEIGHT CERTIFICATE:
Page 1 of 2
-------
o
MATHESON
TRI-GAS
Certified Mixture Grade
Matheson Tri-Gas
6874 S Main Street
Morrow, GA 30260
Phone: (770) 961-7891
Fax: (770)968-1268
To: Environmental Quality
DEQ Laboratory Sevices
Central Receiving
1209 LeesvilleRd
TO AVOID BACKFILL, CYLINDER PRESSURE MUST BE
GREATER THAN PROCESS PRESSURE.
Phone:
Fax:
SALES ORDER NUMBER: 427497
P.O. NUMBER: 3243638
LOT NUMBER: 1057410185
PRODUCT:
CYLINDER NUMBER: CC-250112
SIZE: 11
CGA/DISS OUTLET: 350
CONTENT: 131 liters
PRESSURE: 1850 psig
Fill Date: 12/3/2007
Certification Date: 12/3/2007
Expiration Date: 12/3/2008
COMPONENT
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xyiene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
n-Decane
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Dodecane
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Undecane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Nitrogen, Balance
REQUESTED
CONCENTRATION
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
20 ppbC
20 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbO
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppfaC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
25 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
CERTIFIED
CONCENTRATION
40 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
21 ppbC
21 ppbC
41 ppbC
25 ppbC
25 ppbC
40 ppbC
30 ppbC
30 ppbC
40 ppbC
27 ppbC
31 ppbC
25 ppbC
27 ppbC
43 ppbC
41 ppbC
25 ppbC
26 ppbC
39 ppbC
CERTIFICATION
ACCURACY
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
!/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
SPECIAL INFORMATION / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The prcduct listed above and furnished under the referenced purchase order has been teued and found to contain the component concentration listed above. All values
in mole/mole basis gas phase unless otherwise indicated. Matheson Tri-Gas warrants that the above product(s) conform at the time of shipment to the above
description. Matheson Tri-Gas' liability does not exceed the value of the product purchased.
Derek Stuck
ANALYST
12/4/2007
DATE SIGNED
Page 2 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150802.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $I_PPFID
10/15/2008 9:36:44 AM
AL22735 $I_PPFID
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS.M
10/15/2008 6:38:05 AM by JAK
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
"Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
-Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
2
Vial 3
1
Manually
FID1 A, (HJ150802.D)
pA 1
35
qn
-------
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150802.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $I_PPFID
"Injection Date
Sample Name
Acq. Operator
•Acq. Instrument
Acq. Method
Last changed
Analysis Method
Last changed
10/15/2008 9:36:44 AM
AL22735 $I_PPFID
JAK
HP_FID2 SOP 1026
C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS .M
8/4/2008 1:18:53 PM by JPC
C : \HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PAMS . M
10/15/2008 6:38:05 AM by JAK
Seq. Line
Location
Inj
Inj Volume
2
Vial 3
1
Manually
(modified after loading)
PAMS SAMPLE ANALYSES
External Standard Report
Sorted By
Calib. Data Modified
Multiplier
Dilution
Sample Amount
Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs
Signal 1: FID1 A,
Signal
8/4/2008 10:57:02 AM
0 .5107
1. 0000
1.00000 [ppbc] (not used in calc.)
RetTime
[min]
8.810
9.009
9.138
11.713
11.912
14. 997
16.302
16.495
16.644
17.243
17.883
20. 142
20.932
21.439
21.719
21.885
22.276
23.223
24.810
Type
BBA
PB
BBA
PB
BBA
PB +
BV
VV
VB
BB
PB •
PB
PB
VB
BV
VB
PB
BB
BV
Area
[pA*s]
35.39693
34.71106
55.52883
38.56823
82.35966
50.92107
59.12079
46.62464
93.29193
49.41847
69.98669
81.05223
47.55657
50.42939
73.07383
54.14959
65.50764
82.83418
38.20219
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
18.07721
17.72694
28.35857
19.69679
42.06108
26.00539
30.19299
23.81120
47.64419
25.23801
35.74220
41.39337
24.28714
25.75429
37.31880
27.65420
33.45475
42.30341
19.50986
rp Name
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
1-Butene
1, 3-butadiene
n-Butane
t2-Butene
c2-Butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
t2-Pentene
c2-Pentene
2, 2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 10:59:54 AM JAK
Page 1 of 2
-------
Data File C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\HJ150802.D
Sample Name: AL22735 $I_PPFID
RetTime
[min]
24.890
25.167
25.970
26.340
26.994
28.650
28.815
30.247
30.732
31.176
31.312
31.745
32.594
33.274
34.745
36.573
37.043
37.517
38.022
39.660
43.047
43.552
44.711
44.996
45.789
46.903
48.656
49.054
49.187
49.491
50.141
50.981
51.541
52.607
53.971
54.342
56.913
Type
VV
VB
BB
BB
PB
PV
VB
BB + '
BB
BV
VB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
PB +
BB
BB
BB
BB
BV
BV
VB
BB
BB
BB
BV
VV
VB
VB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB +
Area
[pA*s]
108.04584
43.03400
82.23936
116.62192
60.49696
51.14455
79.06260
58.62331
83.66541
50.34966
107.47405
51.67727
62.03165
50.27158
62.95742
51.06190
74.92414
50.40670
51.63241
58.93094
46.18818
34.00242
66.07603
49.26915
48.20452
77.54693
55.46711
47.76506
77.47455
48.61859
58.51747
74.87322
57.45391
50.38995
75.13081
46.36736
55.06075
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount G
[ppbc]
55.17901
21.97746
41.99964
59.55881
30.89580
26.11952
40.37727
29.93892
42.72792
25.71357
54 .88700
26.39158
31.67956
25.67369
32.15235
26.07731
38.26376
25.74270
26.36867
30.09603
23.58830
17.36504
33.74503
25.16175
24.61805
39.60322
28.32705
24.39362
39.56625
24 .82951
29.88487
38.23775
29.34171
25.73415
38.36930
23.67981
28.11952
rp Name
2, 3-dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
1-Hexene
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2, 4-dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,3, 4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
' Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Nonane
Cumene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyl toluene
p-Ethyl toluene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyl toluene
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Decane
1,2, 3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
Totals :
1752.61597
Uncalibrated Peaks :
RetTime
[min]
21.294
39.466
43.620
61.522
Type
PP
PB
VB
BB
Area
[pA*s]
4.32705e-l
5.65023
39.99233
59.42428
using compound Propane
Amt/Area
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Amount Grp
[ppbc]
2.20982e-l
2.88557
20.42408
30.34798
Name
7
9
7
7
Uncalib. totals
53.87862
Results obtained with enhanced integrator!
1 Warnings or Errors :
Warning : Calibration warnings (see calibration table listing)
*** End of Report ***
HP FID2 SOP 1026 10/15/2008 10:59:54 AM JAK
Page 2 of 2
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix I
APPENDIX I
Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations
for 9 Barge Emissions Events to Investigate the Contribution of
Emissions from Tugs
-------
Appendix I: Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations for 9 Barge
Emissions Events to Investigate the Contribution of Emissions from Tugs
This appendix presents the results of a comparison of carbon monoxide and alkane mixture
concentrations analyzed along the ground level beam path of the ARCADIS OP-FTIR VRPM
configuration during nine emissions events from barges classified as empty. The analysis was performed
to evaluate the contribution of exhaust from the tugs to the Alkane Mixture (AM) emissions fluxes
measured during the project.
Table 1-1. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 9/28/2009 9:38 to
10:11 Event
Time
9/28/2008 9:40
9/28/2008 9:43
9/28/2008 9:45
9/28/2008 9:48
9/28/2008 9:51
9/28/2008 9:53
9/28/2008 9:56
9/28/2008 9:59
9/28/2008 10:01
9/28/2008 10:04
9/28/2008 10:07
9/28/2008 10:09
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
33.4
38.4
31.0
34.5
21.9
18.6
18.3
17.7
29.3
5.93
7.12
7.27
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
240
404
252
228
136
103
93.0
92.3
95.4
82.1
72.4
73.0
Table I-2. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 9/29/2009 14:13 to
14:57 Event
Time
9/29/2008 14:14
9/29/200814:17
9/29/2008 14:20
9/29/2008 14:22
9/29/2008 14:25
9/29/2008 14:28
9/29/2008 14:31
9/29/2008 14:33
9/29/2008 14:36
9/29/2008 14:39
9/29/2008 14:41
9/29/2008 14:44
9/29/2008 14:47
9/29/2008 14:49
9/29/2008 14:52
9/29/2008 14:55
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
11.5
ND
6.46
7.18
13.7
13.0
10.7
13.4
18.7
26.0
26.9
25.6
20.7
20.1
26.5
27.7
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
22.1
16.3
ND
20.9
29.8
30.6
29.5
19.3
22.4
20.1
28.1
18.4
31.1
41.2
45.1
136
ND= not detected
-------
Table 1-3. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 10/2/2009 8:32 to
9:23 Event
Time
10/2/20088:33
10/2/20088:36
10/2/20088:39
10/2/20088:41
10/2/20088:44
10/2/20088:47
10/2/20088:49
10/2/20088:52
10/2/20088:55
10/2/20088:57
10/2/20089:00
10/2/20089:02
10/2/20089:05
10/2/20089:08
10/2/20089:10
10/2/20089:13
10/2/20089:16
10/2/20089:18
10/2/20089:21
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
12.8
36.5
47.8
27.2
34.3
12.7
30.4
22.3
37.1
55.4
54.7
53.1
44.3
39.1
25.8
28.0
25.1
48.2
24.2
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
347
376
419
350
333
315
336
325
328
331
368
344
354
346
310
306
299
404
304
Table I-4. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 10/4/2009 13:12 to
13:46 Event
Time
10/4/200813:13
10/4/200813:15
10/4/200813:18
10/4/200813:21
10/4/200813:23
10/4/200813:26
10/4/200813:29
10/4/200813:31
10/4/200813:34
10/4/200813:37
10/4/200813:39
10/4/200813:42
10/4/200813:45
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.00
ND
5.18
ND
ND
ND
4.63
ND
4.37
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
19.6
27.2
58.2
151
26.6
27.2
23.9
22.7
31.3
32.6
32.8
27.6
30.3
ND= not detected
I-2
-------
Table 1-5. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 10/6/2009 12:28 to
13:00 Event
Time
10/6/2008 12:29
10/6/2008 12:32
10/6/2008 12:35
10/6/2008 12:37
10/6/2008 12:40
10/6/2008 12:43
10/6/2008 12:45
10/6/2008 12:48
10/6/2008 12:51
10/6/2008 12:53
10/6/2008 12:56
10/6/2008 12:59
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
ND
ND
ND
6.56
7.89
ND
10.8
ND
ND
ND
12.5
6.44
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.4
ND
9.93
ND= not detected
Table I-6. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 10/8/2009 12:53 to
13:25 Event
Time
10/8/200812:53
10/8/2008 12:56
10/8/200812:58
10/8/200813:01
10/8/2008 13:04
10/8/200813:06
10/8/2008 13:09
10/8/200813:12
10/8/2008 13:14
10/8/2008 13:17
10/8/200813:20
10/8/2008 13:22
10/8/200813:25
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
5.80
ND
ND
ND
ND
36.5
28.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.71
8.49
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
32.2
43.7
44.7
66.1
58.7
59.1
51.7
80.0
32.8
32.6
59.5
74.3
53.1
ND= not detected
-------
Table 1-7. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 10/9/2009 8:07 to
8:38 Event
Time
10/9/20088:07
10/9/20088:12
10/9/20088:15
10/9/20088:17
10/9/20088:20
10/9/20088:23
10/9/20088:25
10/9/20088:28
10/9/20088:31
10/9/20088:33
10/9/20088:36
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
ND
12.0
ND
21.9
32.7
45.1
ND
ND
7.11
28.1
21.8
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
128
118
140
119
110
146
134
159
140
143
122
ND= not detected
I-4
-------
Table 1-8. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 10/9/2009 12:23 to
13:45 Event
Time
10/9/2008 12:23
10/9/2008 12:26
10/9/2008 12:29
10/9/2008 12:31
10/9/2008 12:34
10/9/2008 12:37
10/9/2008 12:40
10/9/2008 12:42
10/9/2008 12:45
10/9/2008 12:48
10/9/2008 12:50
10/9/2008 12:53
10/9/2008 12:56
10/9/2008 12:58
10/9/2008 13:01
10/9/2008 13:04
10/9/2008 13:06
10/9/2008 13:09
10/9/2008 13:12
10/9/2008 13:14
10/9/2008 13:17
10/9/2008 13:20
10/9/2008 13:22
10/9/2008 13:25
10/9/2008 13:28
10/9/2008 13:30
10/9/2008 13:33
10/9/2008 13:36
10/9/2008 13:38
10/9/2008 13:41
10/9/2008 13:44
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
18.5
22.9
18.9
31.8
41.6
31.8
23.3
24.4
22.0
16.2
17.9
16.5
22.5
23.0
32.3
26.9
25.6
23.1
31.0
26.1
26.7
33.0
27.1
11.3
13.0
30.2
28.7
26.3
28.1
20.7
11.4
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
33.6
34.4
47.2
23.7
45.0
29.0
35.2
39.8
30.5
22.6
13.5
18.7
30.7
46.6
59.5
36.2
39.1
42.3
33.9
40.0
30.1
47.8
31.6
23.2
ND
54.1
34.8
59.4
36.1
31.6
19.6
ND= not detected
I-5
-------
Table 1-9. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide and Alkane Mixture Concentrations from the 10/9/2009 14:05 to
14:34 Event
Time
10/9/2008 14:05
10/9/2008 14:08
10/9/2008 14:11
10/9/2008 14:13
10/9/2008 14:16
10/9/2008 14:19
10/9/2008 14:21
10/9/2008 14:24
10/9/2008 14:27
10/9/2008 14:30
10/9/2008 14:32
Alkane Mixture
Concentration (ppb)
7.55
5.05
7.76
22.3
19.4
13.5
20.1
24.1
26.4
26.1
23.1
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration (ppb)
ND
ND
ND
34.8
28.4
ND
30.7
ND
ND
ND
31.9
ND= not detected
I-6
-------
Investigation of Fugitive Emissions
from Petrochemical Transport Barges
Using Optical Remote Sensing
September 2009
Appendix J
APPENDIX J
Comments from The American Waterways Operators and Response
to Comments by Sage Environmental.
-------
The American Waterways Operators
w\wv anief icar
-------
Dr. Eben Thoma
Page 2
It is in the same spirit of proactive environmental stewardship that the Working Group reached
out to EPA in March 2009 to request the opportunity for a peer review of the EPA Report. That
review was granted on June 24, and representatives from the Working Group were invited to
participate. On behalf of the Working Group, I would like to express our concerns with the LDEQ
report prepared by Sage Environmental entitled, "Bagging Test Report: Barge Emission
Measurement Project Final Report" (Bagging Test Report), included as Appendix H of the EPA
Report. We believe that: 1) It is improper to extrapolate quantitative conclusions about tank
barge emissions from such a small sample set, as was done on page 3 of the Bagging Test
Report; and, 2) The methodologies employed to assess the emissions from the sample set
cannot be accurately replicated. The Working Group suggests the following revisions.
Bagging Test Report
The Bagging Test Report states that "US EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates
1995" (Appendix B of the LDEQ Bagging Test Report) was employed to measure the samples'
mass emissions. It also noted that the vacuum method was to be used exclusively. However, in
reviewing the Bagging Test Report, the Working Group has come to the conclusion that the
vacuum method was not used exclusively and, in fact, was not even employed properly. The
Working Group has made the following observations regarding the Bagging Test Report:
•• The vacuum method was only used for 8 of the 23 pieces of equipment sampled; 15
samples were not taken using the cited vacuum method and should therefore be
considered invalid, as use of the sampling apparatus without the vacuum pump does not
adhere to the prescribed method.
•• In Appendix A of the Bagging Test Report it states that samples and/or pieces of
equipment were tightened and/or manipulated in certain areas of the barge to increase the
flow through other sample locations (i.e. hatches). This directly manipulated the piece of
equipment prior to sampling and undoubtedly skewed the results.
•• The aluminum summa canisters cited in the Bagging Test Report were used for multiple
sample points so as to speciate emissions. Canisters should not have been used for
multiple sample points across the barge, as this risks tainting the results of each sample
analysis. To attain actual, valid results, one to three canisters should have been taken per
sample point. We have concerns as to the type of bags employed and the way in which
they were used during the study. The brand and type of bag is not referenced in the
methods section of the report. The EPA Protocol suggests that impermeable material such
as Mylar®, Tedlar®, Teflon®, aluminum foil, or aluminized Mylar® with a thickness
ranging from 1.5 to 15 millimeters (mm) be used for the vacuum method. We are
concerned that the samples may have reacted with the bagging material if the preceding
materials were not used. Additionally, it is known that barge company personnel were
asked to provide trash bags for sampling efforts and that these bags did not meet the
minimum requirements of the EPA method as referenced above.
Also, we do not believe a correlation can be made between EPA's Other Test Method (OTM 10)
study, "Optical Remote Sensing for Emission Characterization from Non-Point Sources," and the
-------
Dr. Eben Thoma
PageS
LDEQ's bagging study for the following reasons: 1) Different barges/samples were used for the
studies; 2) Meteorological conditions were not equivalent during the two studies; 3) The method
of sample selection greatly differed between the two studies; and, 4) The EPA's OTM 10 study did
not focus upon individual pieces of equipment like that of the LDEQ's bagging study.
The Working Group has significant concerns as to the lack of adherence to the cited method used
to generate the data, the validity of the reported concentrations and the manner in which
concentrations and observations were described. On behalf of the Working Group, / ask that the
Bagging Test Report, Appendix H of the EPA Report, be removed and that all reference to the
Bagging Test Report also be removed.
Barge Identification/Company Identification
Additionally, AWO believes that it is inappropriate to single out a particular company by
specifically referring to the company or unique barge number. These identification numbers are
company specific and can be recognized. We ask that the barge identification numbers in Table
1 of the Bagging Test Report be removed. The identification numbers can simply be replaced
with a sample number. We also request that any reference to specific company names be
removed from the body of the main EPA Report, tables, and appendices. When the Working
Group first reached out to EPA to request an opportunity to peer review this report, it was in the
spirit of collaboration; and it is in that same spirit that I submit the suggested revisions on the
Working Group's behalf. It is not in the best interests of either EPA or the tank barge industry to
release a report with misleading or otherwise inappropriate data, and for this reason it is
imperative that the concerns of the Working Group be reflected in the final EPA Report.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments to the EPA on this draft.
If you have any questions or would like further assistance in this matter please do not hesitate to
contact me or any member of the Working Group.
Sincerely,
Lynn M. Muench
-------
Sage Responses to the American Waterways Operators (AWO) Comments
AWO Comment: We believe that: 1) It is improper to extrapolate quantitative conclusions about
tank barge emissions from such a small sample set, as was done on page 3 of the Bagging Test
Report; and, 2) The methodologies employed to assess the emissions from the sample set cannot
be accurately replicated.
Response to 1: Sage stated in our report that there is uncertainty in extrapolating emissions from
the barge measurements. We did not assume that the measured emissions would continue at the
same rate for 24 hours per day and 365 days per year. We assumed that the measured emissions
would only take place during the daylight warming times of the day, which we assumed would
be an annual average of 12 hours per day (longer in the summer and shorter in the winter). The
testing took place in late September, but the weather was unseasonably cool for that time period.
As a result, the measured emission rates would have been less than a summer measurement and
more than a winter measurement. As a rough estimate (which we called it in the report), the
emissions as measured were considered to be close to an annual average rate. We extrapolated
these emission rates for 12 hours per day and 365 days per year to arrive at the 465 tons per year
estimate. There are obviously a number of uncertainties in this estimate, which is why it was
called a rough estimate, but it does help to put the potential emission rates of the barges
measured into terms that allow comparison to stationary facilities. There are uncertainties in
every measurement and estimate. It is not improper to make an estimate that includes
uncertainty if those uncertainties are noted as they were in the Sage report.
Response to 2: Sage personnel have tremendous experience and credibility in performing
emission measurements, including personnel on the barge test project that were personally
involved in the development of the bagging methodology during the middle 1970s. The barge
emission points are quite different than components in stationary facilities, so some of the
materials and methods had to be adapted to this new type of measurement. All of the methods
used during the barge testing have been used in prior EPA testing, such as in the natural gas plant
work. These methods provide technically sound measurements that could be replicated with
reasonable accuracy.
12325 Hymeadow Dr, Bldg. 4, Suite 2OO •• Austin, Texas •• 7875O •• 51 2/258-85OO •• Fax 51 2/258-7522
-------
AWO Comment: The Bagging Test Report states that "US EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak
Emission Estimates 1995" (Appendix B of the LDEQ Bagging Test Report) was employed to
measure the samples' mass emissions. It also noted that the vacuum method was to be used
exclusively. However, in reviewing the Bagging Test Report, the Working Group has come to
the conclusion that the vacuum method was not used exclusively and, in fact, was not even
employed properly.
Response: Sage and LDEQ had never intended to use the vacuum bagging method exclusively.
The commenter may be confusing a statement that, when performing the bagging test, we would
only use the vacuum method and not the blow-through method. The blow-through method is
best suited for measuring default zero components, where the background VOC in ambient air
would interfere with the low level measurements using the vacuum test. Sage and LDEQ had
originally planned to use a number of measurement approaches, including the Hi-Flow
Sampler™, the vacuum bagging method, direct dry gas meter (DGM) method, and a
chimney/pitot tube method. A subcontractor, Heath Consultants, Inc, was to perform the Hi-
Flow Sampler measurements, but they were unable to participate when the barge test was
delayed because of Hurricane Ike. In hind sight, the Hi-Flow Sampler would not have been a
good measurement tool for the barge emissions, since its high flow rate would have had the
potential to over-estimate emissions by pulling emission from other points through the current
test point. The chimney/pitot tube method was prepared for the field, but was not used because
the vacuum bagging method and the direct DGM methods were able to accommodate the
emissions encountered. The tests conducted were done using the vacuum bagging test and the
direct DGM methods, both of which were conducted properly, with minor adjustments for the
large sample points like hatches and stacks.
Comment: The vacuum method was only used for 8 of the 23 pieces of equipment sampled; 15
samples were not taken using the cited vacuum method and should therefore be considered
invalid, as use of the sampling apparatus without the vacuum pump does not adhere to the
prescribed method.
Response: The direct DGM method has been used in approved EPA testing for industries with
large leaks, such as natural gas plants and compressor stations. Sage performed the direct DGM
method using all the same equipment as the vacuum bagging test except for the pump. The
direct DGM method was applied only where the bagged component was emitting at a rate faster
than the pump could keep up with. The same component containment was used, the same flow
measurement was used, the same temperature measurement was used, and the same pressure
measurement was used for the direct DGM method as for the other components tested with the
vacuum bagging method. The only difference is the component leak provided all the motive
force for the flow measurement, which put the bag under positive pressure rather than the
negative pressure of the vacuum bagging method. Having the bag under positive pressure would
result in the leakage of gas around the bag seals, as well as displacement of leaks from the
component being tested to other nearby leaking components. All factors that are different for the
direct DGM test would cause a potential under-estimation, as was noted in the uncertainty
discussion. The direct DGM method has not been written up as an EPA method, because it is
12325 Hymeadow Dr, Bldg. 4, Suite 2OO •• Austin, Texas •• 7875O •• 51 2/258-85OO •• Fax 51 2/258-7522
-------
based on fundamental physics: contain the leak, route it through a flow measurement device,
measure temperature/pressure to allow conversion to standard conditions, convert to moles, and
apply the concentration and molecular weight of each compound to calculate the emissions.
There is no reason to discount the 15 samples done by the direct DGM method so long as it is
understood that this measurement could be biased low and represents the lower bound of the
actual emission rate.
Comment: In Appendix A of the Bagging Test Report it states that samples and/or pieces of
equipment were tightened and/or manipulated in certain areas of the barge to increase the
flow through other sample locations (i.e. hatches). This directly manipulated the piece of
equipment prior to sampling and undoubtedly skewed the results.
Response: The barge operators made some attempts to stop or reduce leakage from points where
our measurements were complete. This was done to try to fix the leaks, as well as to see to what
degree leaks visible to the FLIR camera could be eliminated. Some of these actions were noted
to increase leak rates from nearby components, which was noted by seeing an increase in visible
leak plumes using the FLIR camera. Most repair attempts were done after we had moved to
other areas or left the barge entirely. While these repair attempts add another layer of
uncertainty to the measurements, they were few enough in number that they are likely to only
partially offset the under-estimating inherent in the direct DGM bagging (as described in the
previous response).
Comment: The aluminum summa canisters cited in the Bagging Test Report were used for
multiple sample points so as to speciate emissions. Canisters should not have been used for
multiple sample points across the barge, as this risks tainting the results of each sample analysis.
To attain actual, valid results, one to three canisters should have been taken per sample point.
Response: LDEQ handled the sample collection in summa canisters and their analyses, but Sage
can comment briefly on this. No canister was filled for more than one sample point on a barge.
Based on the assumption that the vapor spaces of the compartments, the relief header, and the
stack were all connected, the LDEQ personnel began to only take one summa canister sample for
every few components tested on the same barge. Some of the early barges tested had a sample
taken for component bagged, and these showed that concentrations were very close to the same
from point to point on the same barge (see results for tests 3, 4, and 5 for example). While it is
possible that the barge vapor space is not perfectly mixed, the uncertainty associated with this
assumption should not prevent attaining valid results.
12325 Hymeadow Dr, Bldg. 4, Suite 2OO •• Austin, Texas •• 7875O •• 51 2/258-85OO •• Fax 51 2/258-7522
-------
Comment: We have concerns as to the type of bags employed and the way in which they were
used during the study. The brand and type of bag is not referenced in the methods section of the
report. The EPA Protocol suggests that impermeable material such as Mylar®, Tedlar®,
Teflon®, aluminum foil, or aluminized Mylar® with a thickness ranging from 1.5 to 15
millimeters (mm) be used for the vacuum method. We are concerned that the samples may have
reacted with the bagging material if the preceding materials were not used. Additionally, it is
known that barge company personnel were asked to provide trash bags for sampling efforts and
that these bags did not meet the minimum requirements of the EPA method as referenced above.
Response: The EPA Protocol is based on the work done over several decades at fixed facilities,
and the materials recommended were based on what was reasonable for component sizes in
stationary facilities. Materials such as Mylar, Tedlar, and Teflon were specified to minimize
adsorption on the surface of the bag and diffusion through the bag. Sage brought supplies of
Mylar to the test that had been sufficient for many previous tests at stationary facilities, but none
were in sizes that would fit the large hatches and other large irregularly shaped components we
faced on the barges. We shifted to use of heavy duty garbage bags to try to minimize the use of
taped seams and poor conformance to irregular shapes that was noted for the heavier Mylar
sheet. It is possible that surface adsorption occurred on the bag material, as it does to some
extent regardless of the type of material. The components were bagged and allowed to fill the
bag and emit for a period of time which allowed for a steady-state coating of bag surfaces to
occur, which should minimize the effect of adsorption on the results. It is likely that more
diffusion of hydrocarbons through the bag occurred with the polyethylene bags than would have
happened with Mylar, but not necessarily more than through Mylar with multiple panels taped
together and through crimped seals around the base of the hatches. The adaptation of large
polyethylene bags was the best overall approach to bagging the extremely large components
found on the barges. The flow rates through the bags (as measured with the dry gas meter) were
high enough that reaction with the bag material should not have been a significant issue. If there
were any reaction, it would have been as a solvent action reducing the thickness of the bag and
allowing more diffusion. Again the measured results should be considered as a valid lower
bound for actual emissions.
Response Summary: This was a first attempt to make measurements of vapor emissions from
barges. We would likely approach the measurements somewhat differently based on the
experience of that first test. Components in stationary facilities show very little difference in
emission rate as a factor of pressure on the outside of the seal and the emission rates from one
component are not affected by changes around a nearby component on the same line. Barge
components, on the other hand, are very much affected by conditions on nearby components.
The barges are mostly rated for 1 psi and will start to leak at the pressure relief valve even if all
other potential leak points are sealed. The most valid way to make field measurements of total
barge emissions would be to perfectly seal all emission points except the pressure relief valve,
and then to measure the emission rate at the pressure relief valve. Unfortunately, it is not really
possible to achieve perfect seals on all potential leak areas or to simultaneously measure all
potential leak areas. An alternate approach in the future might be to use the TANKS software to
model emissions from a barge as if it were an atmospheric storage tank(s).
12325 Hymeadow Dr, Bldg. 4, Suite 2OO •• Austin, Texas •• 7875O •• 51 2/258-85OO •• Fax 51 2/258-7522
-------
As might be expected in making the first set of measurements for a source category, there were a
number of difficulties encountered, a number of adaptations to the Protocol methods, and many
uncertainties. Taken as a whole, there are more uncertainties that indicate the emissions were
under-estimated than that indicate over-estimation. The tests done should be considered a valid
first attempt to measure a new source category and be interpreted roughly as a lower bound of
the actual emissions.
Principal Engineer
Sage Environmental Consulting L.P.
19 August 2009
12325 Hymeadow Dr, Bldg. 4, Suite 2OO •• Austin, Texas •• 7875O •• 51 2/258-85OO •• Fax 51 2/258-7522
------- |