Air & Waste

ISSN: 1073-161X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm19

Modeling VOC Emissions and Air Concentrations

from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Steven R. Hanna & Peter J. Drivas

To cite this article: Steven R. Hanna & Peter J. Drivas (1993) Modeling VOC Emissions and
Air Concentrations from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Air & Waste, 43:3, 298-309, DOI:
10.1080/1073161X.1993.10467134

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1073161X.1993.10467134

Published online: 05 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 654

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
 TECHNICAL PAPER
ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 43:298-309

Modeling VOC Emissions and

Air Concentrations from the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Steven R. Hanna Peter J. Drivas
Sigma Research Corporation Gradient Corporation
Concord, Massachusetts Cambridge, Massachusetts

During the two-week period following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989 The primary objective of this study
in Prince William Sound, Alaska, toxic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) evapo- was to track the emission and atmos-
rated from the surface of the oil spill and were transported and dispersed throughout pheric transport and dispersion of VOCs
the region. To estimate the air concentrations of these VOCs, emissions and dis- in the atmosphere during the two week
persion modeling was conducted for each hour during the first two weeks of the period following the spill. Estimates of
spill. hourly VOC air concentrations were
A multicomponent evaporative emissions model was developed and applied to made for 15 compounds (benzene,
the oil spill; the model considered the evaporation of 15 specific compounds, in- ethylbenzene, toluene, o-xylene, m&p-
cluding benzene and toluene. Both mass transfer from the surface of the spill and xylenes, n-hexane, n-heptane, n-oc-
diffusion through the oil layer were considered in the emissions model. Maximum tane, n-nonane, n-decane, n-unde-
emissions of toluene were calculated to equal about 20000 kg/hr, or about 5 g/m2 cane, n-dodecane, n-tridecane, n-
hr, at a time of eight hours after the initial oil spill. Meteorological data were acquired tetradecane, and n-pentadecane).
from several sources and used to estimate hourly-averaged wind velocity over the
spill. Air concentrations of specific components were calculated using the ATDL
area source diffusion model and the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion (OCD) model. Data Collection Methods and Results
Maximum hourly-averaged concentrations were predicted not to exceed 10 ppmv In order to calculate VOC concen-
for any compound. trations in the air downwind of the oil
spill, several types of data are useful,
as outlined in the following two sec-
tions.
A ten million gallon oil spill oc- documented.1 There are many ongoing
curred during a five-hour period on research projects sponsored by govern-
March 24, 1989, when the T/V Exxon ment agencies and by the oil industries Emissions Data
Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in involving the environmental effects of Emissions data were required for the
Alaska's Prince William Sound. Most the liquid oil.2'3 However, the envi- 15 VOCs that were expected to evap-
of this oil was never recovered, and ronmental impacts of volatile organic orate relatively quickly from the oil
was spread by wind and ocean currents compounds (VOCs) that evaporated into spill. It would be useful to know the
over an area of hundreds and, ulti- the air during the first two weeks after liquid concentrations of the 15 com-
mately, thousands of square kilome- the spill are more subtle and have been pounds in the initial Exxon Valdez oil
ters. Figure 1 shows the Prince William less well-documented. It is generally spill (i.e., in the tanker) and, if pos-
Sound area, including the location of recognized that as much as 25 percent sible, at time increments during the two
the oil spill and the locations of several of the oil may evaporate during this weeks after the spill. Although thou-
meteorological stations. period,1 and all of the lighter VOCs, sands of samples were collected from
The direct impact of the liquid oil such as benzene, will evaporate within the Exxon Valdez oil spill, many of
on animals and plants has been well- a few hours after the spill. the samples suffered from QA/QC
problems, and these data were not being
distributed. We had to rely on gener-
alized historical data on the composi-
tion of Prudhoe Bay crude oil and the
Implications
weathering of crude oil.4-6 Some of the
The purpose of the research reported in this paper was data in the Payne et al. report6 refer to
to reconstruct the time and space variation of air con-
centrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) re- the Exxon Valdez oil spill, but the em-
sulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill on March 24, phasis of that report is on the heavier
1989, in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The predicted hydrocarbons and insufficient infor-
maximum concentrations of VOCs did not exceed 10 mation is given on the 15 compounds
ppmv for any compounds. It is emphasized that this of interest.
exercise would have been unnecessary if networks of Maps of observations of the position
VOC monitors had been installed in the area of the ac-
cident within 12 hours after the initial spill. and size of the oil spill were obtained
Copyright 1993 — Air Waste Management Association

298 • March 1993 • Vol. 43 • AIR & WASTE


sland
PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND
25 50
SCALE IN KILOMETERS
Figure 1. Location of the oil spill, meteorological stations and some geographic features in the Prince William Sound
region. Dots with circles represent National Weather Service stations. Dots with circles represent National Weather
Service stations. Dots without circles represent a special meteorological network set up about ten days after spill.
from Marshall Kendziorek of the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conser-
vation (ADEC) and Gerald Gait of
NOAA's Hazardous Materials Re-
sponse Branch. These maps were
available at approximately daily inter-
vals. The ADEC maps were based
mainly on aircraft observations and the
NOAA maps were based on a combi-
nation of aircraft observations and the
predictions of their On-Scene Spill
Model (OSSM). We interpolated these
maps to produce hourly estimates of
the center and the total area of the spill.
Meteorological Data
The weather in the Gulf of Alaska
and Prince William Sound is domi-
nated by two major influences:
1. Low pressure systems move into
the Gulf of Alaska from the west,
where they typically are dissi-
pated and wander about with no
major direction. Since these lows
are to the south of Prince Wil-
TECHNICAL PAPER
GULF OF ALASKA
Middleton
Island
liam Sound, the dominant wind
direction is from the northeast.
2. Strong drainage winds flow out
of the narrow fiords, generated
by the high, glacier-covered
mountains that ring Prince Wil-
liam Sound. It is important to
recognize that these mountains
are very steep and rise to ele-
vations of about 3000 m.
These two major influences can ex-
plain the wind flows observed during
the two weeks following the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. An overall northeas-
terly flow persisted in the Sound
throughout the period, while coastal
stations often recorded wind flows in
the direction of the outlet of the local
fiord. General weather patterns were
studied using synoptic maps from the
National Weather Service at intervals
of three hours.
Surface wind data were obtained
from the stations indicated in Figure 1.
Data from the so-called first-order sta-
AIR & WASTE • Vol. 43 • March 1993 • 299
tions (Valdez, Cordova, and Middle-
ton Island) are continuously recorded
and are archived at the National Cli-
matic Data Center (NDC). The Potato
Point station operates continuously, but
the data are available only from the
Valdez NWS office or the Alaska State
Climatologist. Surface wind data were
also available from a special mesos-
cale monitoring network installed by
the NOAA Hazardous Materials Re-
sponse Branch about ten days after the
spill. These stations (Dutch Group,
Johnstone Point, Sawmill Bay, and
Danger Island) are shown as dots with-
out circles on Figure 1.
In addition to the fixed stations, air-
craft and ships provided reports of ap-
proximate winds. These data were
spotty in time and space, but were used,
together with the data from the fixed
stations, in NOAA's OSSM code to
calculate the movement of the oil spill.
All available wind data were used to
make an estimate of the representative
wind velocity over the spill. Data from
the ship (received from NCDC) also
included air and water temperatures.
These data provided justification for the
assumptions that the air and water tem-
peratures were equal and that they did
not vary significantly from 3.3°C (38°F)
during the two week period.
Radiosonde data from Anchorage,
which is the nearest NWS upper air
station, were obtained from NCDC, and
were used to estimate mixing depths
for each hour of the two-week period.
Emission Model Development and
Application
The evaporation rate from a liquid
spill can be controlled by either mass-
transfer from the surface of the spill or
diffusion through the thickness of the
liquid layer. For highly volatile com-
pounds such as benzene and toluene,
diffusion is usually the rate-limiting
mechanism. Also, the rate-limiting
mechanism can change as a function
of time. For example, in the initial
stages of an oil spill, diffusion may
limit the evaporation of a relatively thick
oil layer; as the oil spill spreads, mass
transfer to the air may then become the
limiting factor for evaporation. A
comparison must then be made to de-
termine the limiting mechanism for
evaporation, whether mass transfer to
the air or diffusion through the liquid
layer.
Mass-Transfer-Limited Evaporation
The mass-transfer approach as-
sumes that the evaporation rate is gov-
erned by an atmospheric mass transfer

coefficient, with a Raoult's law liquid-
gas equilibrium at the liquid surface.
This approach has been used in nu-
merous oil spill and6 1liquid pool evap-
oration m o d e l s . 2 The primary
assumption is that the liquid layer is
well-mixed, and evaporation is thus
controlled by mass-transfer from the
liquid surface to the air. The basic
evaporation equation is:
f decrease in an exponential manner.
where: kg = mass transfer coefficient
(gmoles/m2-atm-hr)
A = spill area (m2)
Pi = pure component vapor
pressure (atm)
x . = liquid mole fraction of
compound i
nj = gmoles of compound i
remaining
nT = total gmoles of oil re-
maining
t = time (hr)
The emission rate in terms of mass is
simply:
_dnii
(1)
\ remaining in hour j . Equation 6 is the
where: mj = mass of compound i re-
maining (g)
Because wind and temperature data
are typically recorded hourly and the
spill area and total number of moles do
not change significantly over a one-
hour time period, the term (kgApi/nT)
remains approximately constant during
each hour. Therefore, Equation 1 can
be integrated hour-by-hour to obtain the
solution:
(2)
where j is the indicator for the number
of hours since the spill. The mass-
transfer coefficient, kg, in the above
equations is usually based on the work
of Mackay and Matsugu.13
For each hour, the quantities u, A,
and T are known, and the total number
of moles, nT, does not vary signi-
cantly. The average evaporative emis-
sion rate for each hour, in terms of g/
m 2 -hr, can be calculated by using
Equation 2 and time-averaging over a
one-hour period. The integrated solu-
tion is imply:
m;: i
300 • March 1993 • Vol. 43 • AIR & WASTE
TECHNICAL PAPER
To accurately calculate the total
number of moles, nT, Equation 2 would
have to be applied to each of the
hundreds of compounds in crude oil,
and then the individual losses of each
compound would have to be summed
to obtain the total number of moles
evaporated. To simplify the calcula-
tion of the total number of moles re-
maining, the assumption is made that
the total molar evaporation rate will
These estimates are consistent with
Equation 2 and with the experimental
measurements of Payne et al.5 Thus,
the assumption is made that nTj/nT>0 =
e"kt, where nT>j and nT>0 are the total of
moles at hour j and hour 0, respec-
tively. Because the total number of
moles usually changes very slowly, the
exact time dependence assumed for to-
tal evaporation loss does not affect the
results significantly.
In summary, to calculate the mass-
transfer-limited evaporation loss, hourly
values of wind speed (u), temperature
(T), and spill area (A) are used to cal-
culate the mass remaining in Equation
2 for each hour. The evaporation cal-
culations are then done sequentially,
with the calculated value of mass re-
maining of compound i at the end of
hour j , nijj, being used as the initial
mass for the following hour. The av-
erage emission rate of compound i for
each hour, E{>j, is then calculated using
Equation 3. '
Diffusion-Limited Evaporation
For high-volatility compounds such
as benzene and toluene, diffusion in
the liquid layer may limit the evapo-
ration rate. For these compounds, the
evaporation rate is so rapid that the
surface concentration becomes de-
pleted, and the limit to the evaporation
rate is how fast the compound can dif-
fuse vertically through the thickness of
the liquid layer to the liquid surface.
Payne et al.5 discuss the importance of
diffusion for the evaporation of lighter
hydrocarbons, but do not include any
diffusion-limited effects in their oil spill
model.
To calculate the effects of diffusion
through the oil, consider the standard
one-dimensional 14 mass-flux equation in
the liquid phase:
^ = /M\!Ei (A)
dt \ V / dz {V
where: D; = molecular diffusivity of
liquid compound i (m2/
hr)
V — spill volume (m3)
z = vertical distance in the
liquid layer (m)
To simplify the analysis, the rate of
change of mass with vertical distance,
dm/dz, in Equation 4 can be estimated
by the approximate solution to the
transient diffusion equation for a semi-
infinite solid (Carslaw and Jaeger):15
m0 m0
m, =
e 2.718
when Az =
Equation 4 can thus be approxi-
mated by:
~± = -0.632^) (5)
For any given hour of the spill, the
ratio (A/V) will be approximately con-
stant. Equation 5 can thus be easily
integrated over each one-hour time pe-
riod to yield the mass loss with time
for a diffusion-limited evaporation sit-
uation:
j - , exp (-1.264(-j VDlfVtJ -
where niy is the mass of compound i
diffusion-limited evaporation rate
expression analogous to the mass-
transfer-limited expression in Equation
2. The average hourly emission rate,
Eifj, is again simply expressed by
Equation 3.
The liquid molecular diffusion coef-
ficient, Dj, can be calculated by the
following correlation for organic/or-
ganic liquid diffusivity (Perry)16:
6,
where: D{ = liquid diffusion coeffi-
cient of compound i
(m2/hr)
(x = viscosity of liquid (cen-
tipoise)
M{ = molecular weight of
compound i (g/gmole)
Pi = liquid density3 of com-
pound i (g/cm )
Similar to the mass-transfer-limited
case, the diffusion-limited evaporation
calculations using Equations 6 and 7
are done sequentially, with the calcu-
lated value of mass remaining of com-
pound i at the end of hour j , m,Jf being
used as the initial mass for the'follow-
ing hour. The average emission rate of
compound i for each hour, Ey, is then
calculated using Equation 3.
 Determination of the Rate Limiting
Step for Evaporation
To determine whether the evapora-
tion rate is limited by mass-transfer or
by diffusion, a comparision must be
made of the mass lost each hour cal-
culated by Equations 2 and 6. This is
most easily done by comparing the ex-
ponential terms in Equations 2 and 6.
In order for mass-transfer to limit
evaporation, the following must be true:
This comparison, using Equation 8,
must be done every hour for every
compound, because the rate-limiting
step can change from diffusion-limited
in the initial stages of a liquid spill
(e.g., when the ratio (A/V) is rela-
tively small) to mass-transfer limited
in the later stages of liquid evapora-
tion. Thus, the determination of the rate-
limiting step is very straightforward:
• If the inequality in Equation 8 is
true, the evaporation rate is mass-
transfer controlled, and Equation
2 should be used in the calcula-
tions;
• If the inequality in Equation 8 is
false, the evaporation rate is dif-
fusion-limited, and Equation 6
should be used in the calcula-
tions.
In general, for compounds with a
relatively high vapor pressure (e.g.,
benzene and toluene), the inequality is
false, and the evaporation rate is thus
diffusion-limited. For the heavier oil
components with relatively low vapor
pressures (e.g., decane and heavier
hydrocarbons), the inequality in Equa-
tion 8 will generally be true, and the
evaporation rate will be mass-transfer
controlled. It should be noted that al-
most all liquid spill models use only
the mass-transfer approach to calculate
evaporation, and that this approach may
overestimate the evaporation rates of
volatile air toxics such as benzene and
toluene.
Comparision of Evaporation Model
with Experimental Data
To compare the validity of the evap-
oration model with experimental data,
controlled liquid evaporation experi-
ments must be made that combine ac-
curate measurements of individual
hydrocarbon components with time in
addition to measurements of wind speed
and temperature. The most relevant
experiments are those by Payne et ah, 5
which used crude oil. Other measure-
ments of oil or liquid evaporation (e.g.,
Riley et al.) 17 either have neglected
meteorological measurements or did not
measure the decrease of individual
components with time.
Payne et al.5 performed two types
of controlled evaporation experiments.
One was a small laboratory experi-
ment, using a layer of crude oil on
water, that measured the evaporation
rate with time of the more volatile
compounds (e.g., benzene and tol-
uene). These compounds typically
evaporate within the first 10 hours of
a spill. The other evaporation experi-
ment involved a series of larger out-
door tanks with mechanical wave
agitation, again using crude oil, and
component decreases over time were
monitored for the heavier, less volatile
hydrocarbons (octane and higher car-
bon-number alkanes).
In general, the experimental data of
Payne et al., 5 from both the laboratory
and outdoor tank experiments, show
the expected exponential decrease with
time, as predicted by Equations 2 and
6. To compare with the laboratory ex-
periments, the parameters of wind speed
and temperature used in the laboratory
were input into the evaporation equa-
tions presented earlier, and calcula-
tions were made for the evaporation
rates of benzene, toluene, ethylben-
zene, n-hexane, and n-octane. The
molecular diffusivity of these com-
pounds in oil was calculated using
Equation 7. The predicted evaporation
rate for one of the compounds, hex-
ane, is compared with experimental
laboratory data in Figure 2.
As shown in the figure, the diffu-
sion-limited evaporation theory com-
pares reasonably well with the
experimental data. One observation that
supports the diffusion-limited evapo-
ration conclusion is that all five com-
pounds evaporated in approximately the
same amount of time, although their
vapor pressures differ significantly. As
shown in Figure 2, the mass-transfer
approach, in which vapor pressure plays
a significant role in the evaporation rate,
would be inappropriate for this situa-
tion.
At the laboratory experimental tem-
perature of 19°C, each of these volatile
compounds evaporated almost com-
pletely within the same approximate
time, 4 to 6 hours. The diffusion-lim-
ited approach, using Equations 6 and
7, can predict this phenomenon, be-
cause the liquid molecular diffusion
AIR & WASTE • Vol. 43 • March 1993 • 301
coefficients of the individual com-
pounds do not vary significantly.
However, because of relatively high
vapor pressures at 19°C, the mass-
transfer approach would predict com-
plete evaporation of these volatile
compounds within about 15 minutes,
which is much faster than observed.
The evaporation model was also
compared with the less volatile com-
ponents measured in the outdoor wave-
tank experiments of Payne et al.5 Be-
cause of colder temperatures (typically
0°C), evaporation rates were much
slower, and mass-transfer tended to
control the evaporation rate. Calcula-
tions were made with the general evap-
oration model for the decrease with time
of n-octane, n-nonane, n-decane, and
n-undecane. The predicted evapora-
tion rates for one of the compounds,
n-octane, is compared with the exper-
imental outdoor wave-tank data in Fig-
ure 3.
The evaporation rate was essentially
mass-transfer-limited in these experi-
ments for all compounds except for oc-
tane. In the case of octane, diffusion
control was indicated; however, an in-
itial comparison using the molecular
diffusion coefficient in equation 7
showed slower evaporation times pre-
dicted for octane than were measured.
Although molecular diffusion was ap-
propriate in quiescent laboratory ex-
periments, an effective liquid diffusivity
was necessary in an outdoor wave tank
to account for the increased mechani-
cal agitation caused by waves. An ef-
fective diffusivity was empirically
chosen for use in Equation 6 that was
ten times the molecular diffusivity, to
account for the increased diffusion due
to wave motion. The calculated evap-
oration results for octane, as shown in
Figure 3, compared favorably with the
experimental data.
Application to Exxon Valdez
Emissions
The initial composition of the oil is
critical to the evaporation calculations,
because the emission rate is directly
proportional to the amount of the in-
dividual compound in the oil. Because
no experimental measurements of the
actual oil concentrations from the Exxon
Valdez were available at the time that
our research study was carried out, the
initial oil composition of the com-
pounds of interest—benzene, ethyl-
benzene, toluene, xylenes, and the C6
through C15 straight-chain alkanes—
were estimated by averaging reported
literature measurements of Prudhoe Bay
crude oil.5-17'18 Table I presents the

Evaporation Comparison for Hexane
Figure 2. Evaporation theory comparison with laboratory oil spill data for hexane.
Evaporation Comparison for n—Octane
1.0
10
Figure 3. Evaporation theory comparison with outdoor tank oil spill data for n-octane.
measured concentrations for Prudhoe
Bay crude oil taken from these three
literature references and the calculated
average oil concentrations (in mg/gram
of oil).
The average oil concentrations for
Prudhoe Bay crude oil presented in Ta-
ble I were assumed to be representa-
tive of the initial composition of the
Exxon Valdez oil. Based on these av-
erage concentrations, Table I also shows
the estimated initial mass (in kg) of
each compound released during the
Exxon Valdez spilL
To calculate the Exxon Valdez
evaporative emission rates, the area of
302 • March 1993 • Vol. 43 • AIR & WASTE
TECHNICAL PAPER
. Th«ory, Diffusion Limited
ooooo Experimental Air Concentration -
Theory, Moss—Transfer Umited
3 4
Tlmt (Hours)
Theory, Offf. 4c Mass l i m i t e d
• • • • • Experimental Tanks 1—3
" • • • Experimental Tank 4
Theory, Mass Transfer Limited
Theory, Diffusion limited
20 30 40 SO 60 70
Time (Hours)
the spill must be known on an hour-
by-hour basis. The effective oil spill
area was assumed to increase approx-
imately linearly with time from ten
hours to 336 hours (two weeks) after
the spill, based primarily on daily maps
of the observed oil spill sent to us by
Dr. Gerald Gait of NOAA's Hazard-
ous Materials Response Branch and
generated by NOAA's On-Scene Spill
Model.9 For the first ten hours of the
spill, we assumed that the spill area
increased approximately as the square
of the time. The following formulas
are used to fit the observed values of
oil spill radius R;:
R = 443-hour for hour s 12 (9)
R = 1485-(hour)1/2 for hour > 12 (10)
It was assumed that the Exxon Valdez
oil spill of 11,000,000 gallons oc-
curred over a time period of five hours,
with one-fifth of the total oil spilling
in each hour. Thus, for the first few
hours, it was necessary to compute
emissions from five separate oil spill
areas, because each hourly spill area
had a different time history (i.e., at
hour 5, the oil spilled during hour 5
was fresh, while the oil spilled during
hour 1 had been evaporating for four
hours).
Hourly emission rates were calcu-
lated using the general model de-
scribed above for the 15 compounds of
interest during the first two weeks of
the spill.
For the emission calculations, hourly
wind speeds were estimated by inter-
polating wind station measurements in
Prince William Sound. These wind es-
timates are discussed in the next sec-
tion. The air and water temperatures
were assumed to be constant at 3°C.
Based on the total model validation re-
sults from the outdoor wave-tank ex-
periments of Payne et al.,5 the effective
liquid diffusivities were empirically
chosen as ten times the molecular dif-
fusivities to account for the increased
diffusion caused by wave motion on
the open sea. The average concentra-
tions for Prudhoe Bay crude oil in Ta-
ble I were used as the assumed initial
oil composition of the Exxon Valdez.
The calculated hourly evaporative
emission results for each compound
during the first two weeks are given by
Hanna et al.19 Figure 4 compares the
predicted evaporative emission rates for
some of the more volatile compounds.
As shown, benzene, toluene, and n-
hexane evaporate completely within
about twelve hours of the spill, and the
evaporation is primarily diffusion-lim-
ited. Although relatively large hourly
evaporative emission rates were cal-
culated (up to 20,000 kg/hr for tol-
uene), these emissions were released
over a large spill area. The less volatile
compounds (e.g., n-pentadecane)
evaporated at a much slower, more
constant rate over the first two weeks,
and their evaporation was controlled
primarily by mass-transfer to the air.
Possible Uncertainties due to Oil Spill
Temperatures Higher than Ambient
Temperatures
The temperature of the oil in the
tanker was known to be about 40°C.
After the oil was spilled on the ocean
 Table I. Concentrations of selected compounds in Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil. emission rates for each compound, the
PRUDHOE BAY OIL CONCENTRATIONS
air quality modeling results would not
(mg/gram of oil) change substantially, even if a worst-
case assumption of a 40°C oil spill were
Payne et al.5 Riley et al.17 Clark and Brown 1 8 SPILL used. Only the predicted time of the
COMPOUND 198 1980 1977 AVERAGE M0(kg) maximum concentrations would shift,
benzene 0.2 3.0 1.6 59494 to about two hours earlier. It should be
ethylbenzene 1.0 0.6 0.8 29747 noted that this assumption of a con-
toluene 3.0 0.8 6.0 3.3 122707 stant 40°C temperature over the first
m + p-xylene — 2.1 2.1 78086 20 hours of the spill is a highly un-
o-xylene _ 0.8 0.8 29747 likely situation; once the oil spreads to
n-hexane 0.5 0.5 18592 a thickness of 2 cm or less, it would
n-heptane 2.0 2.0 74368 cool to 3°C in about 30 minutes.
n-octane 2.5 4.2 3.4 126426
n-nonane 4.2 4.4 4.3 159891 Transport and Dispersion Modeling
n-decane 4.4 4.4 4.4 163610
n-undecane 4.5 4.7 1.2 3.5 130144 The hourly source emissions esti-
n-dodecane 4.4 4.6 2.5 3.8 141299 mates made in the previous section were
n-tridecane 5.2 4.5 4.2 4.6 171046 used as input to an atmospheric trans-
n-tetradecane 3.9 4.2 5.0 4.4 163610 port and dispersion model in order to
n-pentadecane 3.8 4.0 4.4 4.1 152454 produce hourly predictions of air con-
centrations of the 15 VOC compounds
* Estimated from gas-phase concentrations of interest. This section describes the
analysis of the wind fields used as in-
put to the model, provides an overview
SPILL EVAPORATION RATES of the transport and dispersion model,
MOST VOLATILE COMPOUNDS and presents the predicted VOC air
concentrations.
25000-
Toluene Analysis of Large Scale Wind Fields
20000- -s- The wind fields are the most impor-
Benzene tant input parameters for the transport
and dispersion model, since they de-
&* 15000- / \ Hexane termine the locations of the regions that
will be impacted by the plume and the
EMISSIONS

amount of dilution that will take place.

In order to understand the general
8
o

weather setting for the two week pe-

riod following the oil spill, the surface
weather maps and the weather obser-
g

vations from first-order National

o

Weather Service (NWS) stations were

) 2 4 6
TIME (hours)
Figure 4. Calculated evaporation rates for toluene, benzene, and hexane, as a function of time since the initial oil
spill.
surface, the oil cooled towards the am-
bient temperature of about 3°C Our
calculations of evaporation assumed that
rapid cooling occurred, and that the oil
spill temperature remained constant at
3°C. This assumption was based on a
mass-balance calculation, using the
observed spill area, which led to the
conclusion that the oil spill thickness
was less than 2 cm.
In order to investigate the possibility
that increased evaporation may have
occurred due to higher oil-spill tem-
peratures, two analyses were carried
out: (1) a theoretical heat-transfer
analysis of the time variation of the
L period conformed with weather pat-
8 10 12 14
oil-spill temperature, and (2) a revised
calculation of the maximum evapora-
tive emissions assuming a constant oil
spill temperature of 40°C.
The primary result of the higher oil
temperature is to shift the evaporation
curves in Figure 4 earlier by about two
hours. Although the evaporation oc-
curs faster, the assumed area of the
spill is smaller at earlier times, and thus
the maximum emission rates (kg/hr) at
3°C and 40°C are very similar (i.e.,
although the hotter oil evaporates faster,
there is less area available for evapo-
ration). Because the air quality mod-
eling was based on the maximum
studied. Weather conditions during this
terns expected in the region.20 Two low
pressure systems moved from the
Aleutian Islands to the Gulf of Alaska
where they stagnated, retrograded and
dissipated. On March 28 a cold front
that was oriented from west-to-east
moved out of interior Alaska over Prince
William Sound, where it was absorbed
by a dissipating low. On April 5 and
6 another weak front moved through
the region from the northwest. It should
be mentioned that these fronts were not
clear-cut and sometimes disappeared
and reappeared on the maps, depend-
ing on the subjective opinions of the
meteorologist drawing the map.
Superimposed on the northeasterly
wind patterns associated with the semi-
permanent low were local wind pat-
terns generated by the steep terrain and
the cold inland regions. The physical
presence of the terrain tends to channel
the wind flow into directions parallel

AIR & WASTE • Vol. 43 • March 1993 • 303

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Table II. Overview of Synoptic Situation in Prince William Sound during the Period Because of the limitations of the first
March 24,1989 through April 6,1989 based on NWS Surface Weather Maps and Valdez order NWS stations, it was desirable
Weather Observations. to find wind data from sites closer to
Day Valdez Weather Synoptic Situation the oil spill, in more representative lo-
cations. The four special temporary
March 24 Cloudy Low off Aleutians, Easterly flow over region stations mentioned above were set up
March 25 Mostly Cloudy Low off Aleutians, Front in western Gulf of Alaska, by NOAA for the purpose of providing
Dashed front 100 mi inland, E flow supporting data after the oil spill, but
March 26 Clear in pm, 40° Low off Western Alaska, another in SE Gulf of they were not installed until the last
Alaska, weak front 50 mi inland, E flow two or three days of the two week pe-
March 27 Clear, 25° Low South of Juneau, Cold front over Valdez, riod of interest. Consequently, during
Low forming over Middleton Island the first 11 or 12 days out of the 14-
March 28 Part Cloudy, 27° Low just East of Middleton Island, North winds day period, only the first-order NWS
over area station data were available. In order to
March 29 Part Cloudy, 32° Low still over Middleton Island, North winds, derive better relations among the NWS
front near Middleton Island station data and the special station data,
March 30 Part Cloudy, 30° Low SE of Middleton Island filling, N-NE winds the concurrent wind data during the
over region period April 4 to 15, 1989, were ana-
lyzed (i.e., days 12 through 23 after
March 31 Part Cloudy, Low 200 miles south of Middleton Island, E flow-
the oil spill). As a result of this analy-
34°, Light Snow troughs, weak fronts in area
sis, it was decided that the winds prior
April 1 Clear, 40° Low approaching south of Aleutians, E flow, to April 4 could be interpolated using
possible front south of area the observed winds at Potato Point and
April 2 Clear, 42° Low over Gulf of Alaska, possible inverted trough Middleton Island, and the observed
just west of region movement of the oil slick. The infor-
April 3 Part Cloudy, 40° Big low S-SE of region, E flow mation on the oil slick is available
April 4 Cloudy, 36°, Big low S-SE coming closer, inverted trough to through a series of maps produced by
Light rain W of region ADEC and by NOAA. The NOAA
April 5 Part Cloudy, 40° Big low just to SE, E flow, weak front nearing maps are based on a combination of
northwestern edge of region observations of the oil slick and pre-
April 6 Clear, 45° Low to SE & E, weak front passes through from dictions by their OSSM model. Time
NWtoSE series of figures containing the esti-
mated noontime position of the oil slick
were analyzed. During the entire two-
week period, the oil slick moved in the
same general direction, from NE to SW.
to local mountain ranges. For exam- Island, some brief wind direction shifts The fastest movement occurred on about
ple, the wind flow between Knight and were detected at that station. March 27 and 28, when a cold front
Montague Islands in Prince William passed over the spill area, bringing
Sound is usually from the NNE be- Wind Fields Interpolated for Modeling strong N to NE winds.
cause that is the direction along which As discussed previously, surface
Hourly wind vectors from Potato
the 1000 m mountain ranges on the wind data were acquired for two first-
Point and Middleton Island were drawn
Islands are oriented. The steep terrain order NWS stations (Valdez and Mid-
on a map of Prince William Sound,
also generates katabatic winds, which dleton Island), four routinely operated
and wind vectors over the location of
are gravity flows caused by the cooling stations whose data are archived by the
the spill during that hour were inter-
of air over glacier-covered coastal NWS (Cordova, Seward, Whittier, and
polated by eye. Time series of result-
mountains. These katabatic winds al- Potato Point), and four temporary sta-
ing hourly wind speeds and directions
ways flow away from the coastal tions (Johnstone Point, Dutch Group,
are given in Figures 5 and 6 for the
mountains and are channeled by steep Danger Island, and Sawmill Bay). Fig-
spill area, for Middleton Island, and
and narrow fiords. The effects of these ure 1 shows the locations of these sta-
for Potato Point. The persistent NE flow
local winds usually die off within about tions. Of the routine stations, Seward
over the spill can be seen in Figure 6.
10 km from the shorelines. and Whittier were not included in the
The weather maps and the hourly final analysis, since the winds at those
records of weather conditions at Val- sites reflect local drainage flows and Dispersion Models
dez were used to construct Table II, channeling. The Valdez and Cordova Two dispersion models were ap-
which provides an overview of the data have similar local influences, but plied to assess the air quality impacts
synoptic situation during the period. are retained because these stations are from VOC emissions associated with
This information leads to an under- not far from the location of the spill. the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The At-
standing of why the strong winds over The Potato Point station is the closest mospheric Turbulence and Diffusion
the oil spill area in the northern part to the oil spill, but that station nearly Laboratory (ATDL) area source dif-
of Prince William Sound on March 29 always shows a NE wind direction due fusion model21 was used to assess the
did not reach Middleton Island. The to the orientation of the fiord. The air quality directly over the spill. The
cold front stalled after it passed Valdez Middleton Island station is in the Gulf Offshore and Coastal Dispersion (OCD)
and was dissipated in a low pressure of Alaska and is the least subject to model22 was used for receptors at the
system that formed over Middleton Is- local influences of any of the stations, edge of the spill and over land. Ap-
land. As the low pressure system wan- but is unfortunately about 100 km south plication of a more complex mesoscale
dered back and forth over Middleton of the oil spill. wind field and dispersion model was

304 • March 1993 • Vol. 43 • AIR & WASTE

 considered, but it was decided that in-
Wind Speed Over Spill sufficient wind data were available. In
fourteen Day Modeling Period
4Q addition, it appeared that the wind over
the oil spill was very persistent, blow-
35- ing out of the northeast during the en-
tire two week period of interest. Brief
30- discussions of the ATDL and OCD
models and the required input param-
eters are given below.

The ATDL Area Source Model

The simple ATDL diffusion formula
suggested by Hanna21 is used to cal-
culate concentrations over an area
source.
C = (2/TT) 1 / 2 (AX/U)(Q/O (11)

where C is the pollutant concentration

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 288 312 336 (g/m3), Ax is the distance (m) from the
Consecutive Hour receptor to the upwind edge of the spill,
u is the wind speed (m/s), Q is the area
Wind Speed At Middleton Island source emission rate (g/m2s) and az is
40
Fourteen Pay Modeling Period the vertical diffusion parameter (m).
The overbar represents an average from
x = 0 to x = Ax. The distance Ax
35- is assumed to be the radius of the cir-
cular area source; i.e., the receptor is
30- assumed to be located at the center of
the area source. This formula has been
e 25- satisfactorily validated in many field
studies involving distributed ground-
level area sources.2'3
The vertical diffusion parameter <JZ
is approximated as the following power
law formula:
(TZ = axb (12)
Assuming that Q is constant, then
Equation 11 becomes
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 288 312 336 C = (2/ir) 1/2 Ax 1 - b (a(l
Consecutive Hour
-b))-^ (13)
Wind Speed At Potato Point Because stability conditions over the
Fourteen Pay Modeling Period oil spill were assumed to be neutral for
40 the entire period, it is assumed that
a = 0.15 and b = 0.75. The radius,
Ax, of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, in
units of meters, can be approximated
by the empirical Equations 9 and 10.
These equations can be substituted into
Equation 13 to yield analytical solu-
tions for the predicted concentrations
at the center of the oil spill.

The Offshore and Coastal Dispersion

Model
The Offshore and Coastal Disper-
sion (OCD) model is a steady-state
Gaussian model developed to simulate
plume dispersion and transport from
0 24 48 72 96 120 M 4 168 192 216 240 ?M ?M 31? .536
offshore point, area, or line sources to
Consecutive Hour receptors on land or water.23-24 Most
of the OCD model applications have
Figure 5. Time series of interpolated hourly wind speeds for the spill area, and observed hourly wind speeds involved calculating the shoreline im-
for Middleton Island and Potato Point. pact of pollutants released from off-

AIR & WASTE • Vol. 43 • March 1993 • 305

 TECHNICAL PAPER

shore oil and gas platforms. It is used

Wind Direction Over Spill here to calculate the concentrations at
Fourteen 3oy Modeting Period the nearest shoreline to the oil spill.
In Version 4 of the OCD model, an
area source region is approximated by
a series of one to five circular areas.
This aspect of the model makes it use-
~s ful for modeling the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, which has been represented as a
series of circular areas. The OCD/4
model estimates lateral dispersion from
the area sources by means of a virtual
source procedure. The virtual source
distance, which is a function of stabil-
ity class, is calculated as the distance
required for a plume from a point source
to reach the dimension of the circular
area source.
In order to simulate the transition
between marine and land-based envi-
0 24 -18 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 288 312 33fi ronments, the OCD/4 model must be
Consecutive Hour
given detailed knowledge of the posi-
Wind Direction At Middleton Island tion of the shoreline. In Prince Wil-
Fourteen Qoy Modeling Period liam Sound this procedure is
complicated by the fact that multiple
sources must be considered, and there
are many islands, bays, inlets and pen-
§" insulas. The user's guide for the OCD/
4 model recommends that a grid be set
up over the area of interest, and the
presence of land or water specified for
each grid rectangle. An 85 km by 120
km grid with grid rectangles of 1 km
by 1 km was used in the Prince Wil-
liam Sound modeling analysis. Due to
the position of the oil spill and the gen-
eral northeasterly direction of the winds,
it was necessary to provide detailed
land/water interface information only
for Naked, Smith, Green, Knight, Ev-
ans, Latouche, Ellington, Bainbridge
0 24 <18 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 288 312 336 Islands and portions of Montague Is-
Consecutive Hour land.
For any OCD/4 model application to
Wind Direction At Potato Point area sources, the following source in-
Fourteen Ooy Modeling Period put parameters are required:
Q = Pollutant emission rate for
the entire circular area
source (g/s)
X,Y = x and y coordinates of the
center of the area source (m)
h = Area source height (m)
(must be greater than zero)
Vs = Stack gas exit velocity (m/
s)
d = Diameter (m) of the effec-
tive circle representing the
area source
T = Stack gas temperature (°K)

To interpolate the size and position of

the one or two circular area sources
0 24 18 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 288 312 that were assumed for each hour, we
Consecutive Hour used the positions of the oil spill re-
Figure 6. Time series of interpolated hourly wind directions for the spill area, and observed hourly wind ported by NOAA. The first four days
directions for Middleton Island and Potato Point. of the oil spill (March 24 to 27, 1989

306 • March 1993 • Vol. 43 • AIR & WASTE

 or hours 1 to 96) were modeled with
the area source represented by one cir-
cle for each hour. During the remain-
ing days of the two-week modeling
period (March 28 to April 6, 1989 or
hours 97 to 336) the spill area became
distorted, and the area source was rep-
resented by two circles for each hour.
The area source height is arbitrarily
set to 0.1 m (a finite height must be
input since the model "blows up" if a
height of 0.0 is input). The exit veloc-
ity is set to zero since the evaporative
emissions are relatively low. The area
source emission temperature is set to
the ambient temperature of 3.30°C
(276.45°K) since the air and water
temperatures remained nearly constant
over the duration of the spill, repsec-
tively.
The interpolated hourly wind direc-
tion and wind speed data used in the
modeling analysis were discussed ear-
lier and are presented in Figures 5 and
6. The remaining meteorological data
required as input to the OCD/4 model
are fixed for all modeled hours. The
values used in the modeling analysis
are:
Mixing height = 500 m
Air temperature = 276.45°K
Relative humidity = 60%
Vertical wind direction shear =
07m
Vertical potential temperature gra-
dient = 0.0°K/m
Air minus sea surface temperature
= 0,0°C
Stability class = Neutral (P-G Class
D)
The vertical potential temperature
gradient (d8/dz) and the atmospheric
stability class were set to neutral be-
cause the available data from the ships
suggested that the air and sea surface
temperatures were fairly constant and
nearly equal to each other, and there
was relatively low solar insolation at
these latitudes in late March. The air
temperature was set to an average 3.3°C
or 276.4°K. Mixing heights were cal-
culated using radiosonde observations
from Yakutat and Anchorage, which
are the two closest upper air stations.
The morning mixing height values were
consistently close to 0 m and the after-
noon values ranged from 0 m to
1500 m. It was assumed that the low
morning mixing heights would not ap-
ply over water, due to the absence of
a ground-based inversion. An average
value of 500 m, typical of daytime
mixing heights at Anchorage and equal
to the value often observed over
oceans22 was used in the modeling
analysis. An average relative humidity
value of 60% was used based on the day. The concentrations of the heavi-
ship observations, but it should be noted est compound in the table (pentade-
that the OCD/4 model is relatively in- cane) remain fairly constant throughout
sensitive to relative humidity. the period, but at a low level, on the
order of 10~3 ppmv.
Results of Dispersion Model
Recommendations
Applications
The ATDL model was used to cal- The results and conclusions of the
culate hourly concentrations over the various technical analyses have been
center of the spill and the OCD/4 model presented. It is important to recognize
was used to calculate hourly concen- that these results are based on a string
trations over the nearest downwind of assumptions, extrapolations, and
shoreline. The meteorological input approximations at all stages of the
data, the source emission rates, the co- analyses. We recommend that the fol-
ordinates of the three receptor posi- lowing points be considered in order
tions, and the resulting concentrations to improve the accuracy of the calcu-
for 1-hour, 4-hour, 8-hour, and one- lations of the effects of the Exxon Val-
week averages for each of the 15 com- dez and of future oil spills:
pounds are given in the project re-
port.19 Table III presents maximum one • If spatial distributions of ob-
hour calculated concentrations for each
served air concentrations of in-
compound. The hour at which this dividual VOC components had
maximum occurred is also listed. The
been available, this emissions and
more volatile compounds tend to have air quality modeling exercise
maximum concentrations during the first
would have been unnecessary.
three hours, with the exact value de- The emissions model is based
pendent on the wind speed. The less-
mostly on a theoretical deriva-
volatile compounds (tetradecane and tion that has been calibrated with
pentadecane) do not yield maximum laboratory data, and has not been
concentrations until the second day, adequately tested with full scale
when the wind speed reached a low field data. The air quality model
value of 5 m/s (see Figure 5). is based on theoretical deriva-
The time variation of the hourly tions and field data for point
maximum concentrations over the cen- source releases near the shore-
ter of the spill for each compound can line, and has not been tested for
be seen in Table IV. Concentrations area source emissions from the
are listed for every six hours on the ocean surface far from land.
first day, for every 24 hours during the • Evaporative emissions estimates
next three days, and then for every 48 for VOC's could be improved if
hours during the next two days. It is (1) the chemical composition of
very evident in this table that the lighter- the oil and added natural gas liq-
weight compounds (through nonane) uids (NGLs) in the Exxon Valdez
are predicted to completely evaporate tanker was known, and (2) the
by the end of the first day. No con- chemical composition of the
centrations over 1 ppmv occur in the spilled oil was known at different
Table HI. Maximum Calculated Hourly-Average Concentra-
tions over the Oil Spill for 15 Compounds.
Compound Hour Concentration (ppmv)
Benzene 1 4.86
Ethylbenzene 2 0.831
Toluene 1 8.24
o-Xylene 3 0.652
m&p-Xylenes 3 2.00
Hexane 1 1.29
Heptane 1 4.36
Octane 1 4.04
Nonane 3 2.01
Decane 3 0.452
Undecane 3 0.140
Dodecane 3 0.0448
Tridecane 3 0.0296
Tetradecane 29 0.00628
Pentadecane 29 0.00186
AIR & WASTE • Vol. 43 • March 1993 • 307
 TECHNICAL PAPER

Table IV. Maximum hourly averaged concentration (ppmv) calculated over the center of the oil spill, at selected time periods, for each
compound. A dash indicates a concentration less than E-4 ppmv.
Time
March 26 Mar. 27 Mar. 28 Mar. 29 Mar. 31
Compound 01 06 12 18 12 12 12 12 Apr. 2
Benzene 4.9 .92 1.5E-2 _ __ _
Ethylbenzene .70 .33 2.3E-2 — — — — _ _
Toluene 8.2 1.6 3.2E-2 — _ — _ — —
o-xylene .45 .29 3.6E-2 _ _ — _ — —
m&p-xylenes 1.5 .83 7.7E-2 — — — _ — —
Hexane 1.3 .24 6.4E-3 — _ — _ _ _
Heptane 4.4 .82 2.5E-3 — — _ — — —
Octane 4.0 1.2 .05 _ _ — — — —
Nonane 1.4 1.0 .24 .01 — — _ _ _
Decane .42 .36 .25 .10 1.6E-3 — _ _ _
Undecane 9.2E-2 8.3E-2 8.8E-2 6.7E-2 1.7E-2 _ _ _ _
Dodecane 2.9E-2 2.7E-2 3.24E-2 3.0E-2 1.7E-2 7.4E-3 _ — _
Tridecane 1.9E-2 1.8E-2 2.2E-2 2.1E-2 1.4E-2 9.3E-3 2.2E-2 _ _
Tetradecane 3.6E-3 3.3E-3 4.2E-3 4.3E-3 3.4E-3 3.6E-3 2.6E-3 1.3E-3 3.8E-4
Pentadecane 1.0E-3 9.6E-4 1.2E-3 1.3E-3 1.0E-3 1.2E-3 1.0E-3 9.0E-4 6.4E-4

time intervals during the first two
weeks of the spill.
• The accuracy of the wind field
estimates would have been im-
proved if the mesoscale wind
network had been installed in
Prince William Sound immedi-
ately after the spill, since the
maximum air concentrations of
VOCs are expected to occur dur-
ing the first few hours. Fortu-
nately, during the March 24,1989
through April 6, 1989 period the
wind directions affecting the spill
were nearly continuously from the
NE direction and the wind speeds
could be easily interpolated from
available NWS data.
The accuracy of atmospheric sta-
bility and vertical mixing esti-
mates near the spill would have
been improved if instruments were
immediately installed that pro-
vide measurements of air-water
temperature difference and mix-
ing depth. The current analysis
used meager ship reports and dis-
tant NWS radiosonde stations to
obtain these data.
To better understand wind flows
in the region, prognostic mesos-
cale wind field models should be
applied to Prince William Sound.
The effects of the drainage winds
from the surrounding mountains
and of channeling by the islands
could be studied using these
models.
The sensitivity of the estimates
of emissions and air concentra-
tions to variations in input data
and model parameters should be
investigated.
These calculations should be
compared against similar calcu-
lations by other groups (e.g., oil
companies) once they become
available.
As improved input data are pub-
lished (e.g., concentrations of in-
dividual compounds in the
tanker), the models could be eas-
ily rerun to produce revised es-
timates.
Acknowledgments
This research has been sponsored by
the Department of Environmental
Conservation of the State of Alaska
(ADEC) under Contract Number 18-
4018-90. The authors appreciate the
guidance of the project monitor, Mr.
Gerald Guay. Some of the work de-
scribed in this paper was carried out
by Laura Daly of Gradient Corporation
and Donald DiCristofaro and Robert
Mentzer of Sigma Research Corpora-
tion. We also acknowledge the assist-
ance of dozens of scientists within
ADEC and other government agencies
who have shared their data, their re-
ports, and their advice with us. In par-
ticular, Dr. Gerald Gait and his staff
at NOAA's Hazardous Materials Re-
sponse Branch have provided us with
much information in hard copy and on
floppy disks regarding the oil spill po-
sition and the wind fields.
References
1. B. Hodgson, "Alaska's big spill:
Can the wilderness heal?" Na-
tional Geographic 177: 5 (1990).
2. D.D. Kelso, M. Kendziorek,
"Alaska's response to the Exxon
Valdez oil spill," Environ. ScL
Technol 25: 16 (1991).
3. A.W. Maki, "The Exxon Valdez
oil spill: Initial environmental im-
pact assessment," Environ. ScL
Technol. 25s 24 (1991).
4. J.R. Payne, G.D. McNabb, Jr.,
"Weathering of petroleum in the
marine environment," Marine
Technology Society J. 18: 24
(1984).
5. J.R. Payne et al., "Mutlivariate
analysis of petroleum weathering
in the marine environment-sub
arctic," Volume 21 of Environ-
mental Assessment of the Alaskan
Continental Shelf, Final Report of
Prinicipal Investigators, Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental
Assessment Program, U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, 1984.
6. J.R. Payne et al., "Oil-ice sedi-
ment interaction during freeze-up
and break-up." U.S. Department
of Commerce, NOAA, OCSEAP,
Final report 64, 1989.
7. P.J. Drivas, "Calculation of
evaporative emissions from mul-
ticomponent liquid spills," En-
viron. ScL Technol. 16: 726
(1982).
8. W.C. Yang, H. Wang, "Model-
ing of oil evaporation in aqueous
environment," Water Research 11:
879 (1977).
9. G.M. Torgrimson, "The on-scene
spill model," NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 12,
Rockville, MD, 1984.
10. W. Stiver, D. Mackay, "Evapo-
ration of spills of hydrocarbons and

308 • March 1993 • Vol. 43 • AIR & WASTE

 petroleum mixtures," Environ. Sci.
Technol. 18: 834 (1984).
11. S.R. Hanna, P.J. Drivas,
"Guidelines for Use of Vapor
Cloud Dispersion M o d e l s , "
American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, Center for Chemical
Process Safety, New York, 1987.
12. W. Stiver, W.Y. Shiu, D. Mackay,
"Evaporation times and rates of
specific hydrocarbons in oil spills,"
Environ. Sci. Technol. 23: 101
(1989).
13. D. Mackay, R.S. Matsugu,
"Evaporation rates of liquid hy-
drocarbon spills on land and
water," Canadian J. Chem. Eng.
51: 434 (1973).
14. R.E. Treybal, Mass-Transfer Op-
erations, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1968.
15. H.S. Carslaw, J.C. Jaegar, Con-
duction of Heat in Solids, 2nd Ed.,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1959.
16. R.H. Perry, D.W. Green, J.O.
Maloney, Eds,, Perry's Chemical
Engineers' Handbook, 6th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984.
17. R.G. Riley, B.L. Thomas, J.W.
Anderson, R. M. Bean, "Changes
in the volatile hydrocarbon con-
tent of Prudhoe Bay crude oil
treated under different simulated
weathering conditions" Marine
Environ. Research 4:109 (1980).
18. R.C. Clark, D.W. Brown, "Pe-
troleum: properties and analyses
in biotic and abiotic systems," in
Effects of Petroleum on Arctic and
Subarctic Marine Envrionments
and Organisms, Volume I, Aca-
demic Press, New York, 1977.
19. S.R. Hanna, P.J. Drivas, A. Ro-
senstein, D. DiCristofaro, R.
Mentzer, A. Roche, "Air quality
impacts from VOC emissions,"
ADEC, P.O. Box 0, Juneau, AK,
99811-1800, 1991.
20. J.G. Wilson, J.E. Overland,
"Meteorology. Gulf of Alaska,
Physical, Environmental and
Biological Resources," PB87-
103230, MMS, 949 E. 36th Ave.,
Anchorage, AK, 99508-4302, pp.
31-56, 1987.
21. S.R. Hanna, "Simple methods of
calculating dispersion from urban
area sources," JAPCA 21: 774
(1971).
22. S.R. Hanna, L.L. Schulman, R.J.
Paine, J.E. Pleim, M. Baer, "De-
velopment and evaluation of the
offshore and coastal diffusion
model," JAPCA, 35: 1039 (1985).
23. S.R. Hanna, G.A. Briggs, R.P.
Hosker, "Handbook on Atmos-
pheric Diffusion," DOE/TIC-
11223, Dept. of Energy, 1982.
24. D.C. DiCristofaro, S.R. Hanna,
" O C D / 4 : The Offshore and
Coastal Dispersion Model. Ver-
sion 4, Vol. I: User's Guide,"
Report No. A085-1, MMS, 381
Elden St., Herndon, VA 22070-
4817,1989
About the Authors
Or. Hanna is the chief scientist of Sigma
Research Corporation, 196 Baker Ave-
nue, Concord, MA, 01742. Dr. Drivas is
the director of environmental modeling of
Gradient Corporation, 44 Brattle St.,
Cambridge, MA, 02138. This manuscript
was submitted for peer review on July 26,
1991. The revised manuscript was re-
ceived on October 13, 1992.
AIR & WASTE • Vol. 43 • March 1993 • 309
TITLE V OPERATING PERMITS
Workshops advance
Clean Air Act
requirements
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
programs that affect an estimated 34,000 existing
facilities. Power plants, refineries and other industrial
facilities must apply and pay for permfts regulating
the kinds and amounts of pollutants they emit.
The 1990 Clean Air Act requires states to develop
permitting programs and issue permits to covered
sources of air poffution. Tfiese programs, under £Pk
rule, must include provisions for re*permitting
existing facilities (estimated at 34,000) and must set
minimum standards facilities must meet for
recordkeeping and reporting. Facilities will be
required to re-apply for their permits, keep records
and report on their air pollution emissions.
A series of workshops about EPA's operating permit
regulations under the 1990 Clean Air Act:
"Strategies (or Obtaining and Complying with
Operating Permits Regulations," will provide
practical information on how to write permit
applications and comply with requirements under
recently published Part 70 operating permit
regulations.
The workshops are designed for plant-level
environmental professionals with responsibility for
writing permit applications. In addition to industry
managers, the program will be important to state
and local government regulators, environmental
consultants and contractors and attorneys.
The workshop faculty includes leading experts in
compliance assurance, local legal counsel and state
and federal regulators who are responsible for
program implementation. Core faculty members:
Gale Hoffnagle, TRC
Gary McCutchen, Radian
Ken Weiss, ERM
Workshops will be held as follows:
March 8-9,1993 Irvine, California
March 22-23,1993 Atlanta
April 19-20,1993 Philadelphia
May 3-4,1993 Chicago
May 24-25,1993 Seattle
The workshops are sponsored by the Air & Waste
Management Association and are hosted by the Air
& Waste Management Association's sections and
chapters.
For registration information call
MarciMazzeiatthe
Air & Waste Management Association,
(412) 232-3444, ext. 3142.
The Air & Waste Management Association is a
nonprofit technical and environmental organization
with 14,000 members in more than 50 countries.
Founded in 1907, the Association provides a neutral
forum where all sides of an environmental issue
receive equal consideration.