-------
which are controlled and operated by the supplier and operate on relatively
low margins. Low volume stations, those dispensing less than 25,000 gallons
per month, are mostly lessee dealers and open dealers supplied by all classes
of suppliers. These low volume stations, which comprise close to 50 percent
of the total number of stations, are the segment of the retail industry that
is most vulnerable to changes in marketing economics as well as external costs
such as vapor recovery costs.
5.3.2 Cost of Reasonably Available Control Measures
Emissions occur from two major sources at service stations - the loading
of underground storage tanks (Stage I) and the refueling of motor vehicles
(Stage II). For Stage I emissions, vapors can be controlled through the
use of a vapor balance system, where vapors are vented by displacement to
an intermediate holding area (usually the tank truck) for ultimate disposal
or recovery at the bulk terminal or bulk plant. Stage II emissions can be
controlled through a variety of systems, the most basic of which is the
balance system where vapors from the refueling operation are displaced by
means of a tight fitting nozzle and vapor return lines to the underground
tank. More elaborate recovery systems create a vacuum where vapors are
drawn from the refueling operation, alleviating the need for a tight nozzle
fit. Vapors are again displaced to the underground storage tanks, with the
excess vapors being incinerated in most cases. There are several variations
of this vacuum assist system which are too numerous and involved to discuss here.
Preliminary estimates indicate that vapor balance systems are less costly
than vacuum assist systems and provide for between 80 to 90 percent control of
the HC emissions. While it may ultimately be necessary to use the vacuum system
in specific locations, as yet these locations have not been defined. Consequently,
5-8
-------
only the cost of the vapor balance system is considered in this analysis.
The capital costs of the balance system varies with the number of dispensers
at the station, the number of underground tanks, and the physical layout of
the station. For a typical nine dispenser, three island station, the capital
costs will approximate $8,800. These costs can range from $4,500 for a
Q
two-dispenser station to over $11,000 for a 15-dispenser facility.
Essentially the only operating and maintenance cost associated with
the balance system is that for nozzle maintenance since the system does not
require any power to operate and there are no moving parts associated with
the remainder of the system. Nozzle maintenance requirements will be
extremely variable depending on a number of factors. However, it is expected
that the nozzle will have to be replaced only once a year or the faceplate
and/or boot repaired or replaced no more than twice a year. This would result
in an annual maintenance cost of about $60 per nozzle, or about $540 for a
nine-nozzle station.
Since the vapor balance system is characterized by a high fixed cost
component, the annualized cost per gallon of throughput is naturally highly
dependent on the volume of the station and the cost of investment capital for
the station. Costs range from about 0.1 cent per gallon for high-volume
direct operations to over one cent per gallon for low-volume open dealer.
Costs for other low volume outlets range from 0.5 to 0.6 cent per gallon
while other medium to high volume outlets have costs ranging from 0.2 to
0.4 cent per gallon.
5-9
-------
5.3.3 Economic Impact of Control Measures
The direct economic effect of vapor recovery at service stations
is to reinforce the existing economies of scale in gasoline marketing.
The competitive position of high volume outlets may be strengthened
since their economics will not be significantly affected. On the other
hand, low volume outlets which are already marginal operations will have
their position eroded even further, even though it is expected that most
of these marginal stations will close in the next five years regardless
of the requirement of vapor recovery due to unfavorable station economics.
While the costs for the balance system are insignificant to the
consumer, the costs are still of appreciable magnitude to the dealer,
who typically has a profit margin of one cent or less per gallon on
gasoline. Thus, in some instances, vapor recovery costs could entirely
wipe out profit margins and in other cases severely reduce the margin by
over 50 percent. In addition, some owners of stations may have difficulty
obtaining the capital necessary to finance the vapor recovery equipment.
Highly leveraged firms may not have the capacity to absorb additional
debt and thus could not obtain loans. This aspect is particularly crucial
to large independent marketers who typically own anywhere from 20 to 100
stations and hence would have to come up with a sizable sum of investment
capital for vapor recovery systems.
It is difficult to segregate the marginal stations which will
eventually survive in the marketplace but would have to close with the
requirement of vapor recovery. In a study conducted for EPA and OSHA by
Arthur D. Little, Inc., an attempt was made to estimate the number of
5-10
-------
closures nationwide which would result due to market forces, due to
capital availability constraints for vapor recovery investment, and
finally due to the impact of the vapor recovery costs on the profitability
g
of stations. The analysis indicated that over 20 percent of the current
population could close by 1981 due solely to market forces, with over
75 percent of closures resulting in the lessee dealer segment of the
market. Vapor recovery requirements, on the other hand, would result in
additional closures representing about six percent of the current population,
or just over 10,000 stations nationwide. Around 12 percent of these vapor
recovery-induced closures would be in the large independent segment of
the market where companies with large numbers of stations would be unable
to obtain the required investment to finance vapor recovery systems at all
their stations. The remainder of the closures would be open dealers for
whom the increased costs would severely reduce or eliminate profit margins
and make staying in business unattractive. The closures in this segment of
the market would represent about 17 percent of the total open dealer
stations.
5.4 GASOLINE BULK PLANTS
5.4.1 Industry Profile
Bulk gasoline loading plants are typically secondary distribution
facilities which receive gasoline from bulk terminals by trailer transports,
store it in above-ground tanks, and subsequently dispense it via account
trucks to local farms, businesses, and service stations. Bulk plants may
be owned by a major or independent petroleum refiner, an independent jobber,
or an individual operator. Although operation and ownership of bulk plants
5-11
-------
include cooperatives and salaried employees, the predominant types are
the independent jobber and the commission agent who operates the plant
for a larger refiner but owns his own delivery trucks.
Currently there are less than 20,000 bulk plants in operation in
the U.S. with almost half having daily throughputs less than 4,000 gallons.
This represents a decline of nearly 4,000 stations facilities from the
population in 1972. This trend is expected to continue as major oil
companies dispose of their many bulk plants as they decline in importance
in gasoline distribution and become less profitable. While bulk plants
served useful pruposes in years past, their role in the distribuiton chain
have declined since more stations are receiving deliveries directly from
bulk terminals. Bulk plants are being bypassed since economies of labor
and capital can be realized if the transport truck can deliver directly
from the terminal to an account, thus reducing the cost of gasoline to
the station by an appreciable amount. Another important factor in the
decline of bulk plants has been and will continue to be a decline in the
customer population served by bulk plants. Small stations and commercial
accounts which once depended upon bulk plants are also undergoing a
significant attrition in the retail market. Even commercial accounts
once served by bulk plants are receiving deliveries directly from terminals,
No estimates are available which indicate what the bulk plant population
will be in the next five years or once the market rationalization process
is completed, though it is expected to be significantly less than the
current population.
5-12
-------
5.4.2 Cost of Reasonably Available Control Measures
Control of breathing, working and miscellaneous losses resulting from
storage and handling of gasoline at bulk plants can be accomplished through
submerged fill, balance systems, vapor processing systems and control of
truck loading leaks. Vapor processing systems have not been applied to
bulk plants, but have been used to recover hydrocarbon vapors at bulk
terminals during truck loading.
By changing from top splash loading to submerged fill, vapors generated
by loading tank trucks can be reduced by about 58 percent. Submerged fill
decreases turbulence, evaporation, and eliminates liquid entrainment. The
cost to install submerged fill at the typical plant with three loading arms
is less than $1,000. This cost is more than offset by the cost savings that
result from the elimination of the generation of vapors during loading.
The vapor balance system operates by transferring vapors displaced from
the receiving tank to the tank being loaded. A vapor line between the truck
and storage tanks essentially creates a closed system permitting the vapor
spaces of the two tanks to balance with each other. In addition, vapor
balancing of incoming transport trucks displaces vapors from the storage
tanks to truck compartments, with the emissions ultimately being treated at
the terminal with a secondary recovery/control system. The vapor balance
system can reduce emissions from the bulk plant by around 90 percent.
The capital costs for vapor balance systems at bulk plants will vary
depending upon a number of factors, such as the configuration of the plant,
age and condition of tanks, and requirements for additional equipment due
to local regulations such as fire laws. In areas where these regulations
are less restrictive, vapor balance costs are substantially lower. Based
5-13
-------
on an analysis of costs from various sources, EPA estimates the capital costs
for converting to submerged fill and installing the cheaper vapor balance
systems to be around $4,000 for a 4,000 gallon per day (gpd) facility
and $5,000 for a 20,000 gpd plant. Except to a minor extent, these
costs are not a function of throughput of the bulk plant since the
number of tanks is relatively independent of throughput and the number
of delivery trucks serviced is small. The annualized costs for these
model facilities are offset by a credit for gasoline recovery. The
credit, which includes only the savings for the emissions which are not
generated in the first place as opposed to the vapors which are returned
to the bulk terminal for processing, is naturally a function of throughput.
The large bulk plant has a sizeable gasoline recovery credit.
In areas where local regulations prohibit use of the cheaper vapor
balance systems, a more complete and expensive balance system will have
to be installed. Capital costs for converting to submerged fill and
installing the complete balance system would range from about $23,000
for a 4,000 gpd facility to close to $26,000 for a 20,000 gpd plant.
The annualized costs for these model facilities amount to around $3,500 for the
small plant (or about 0.3 cents per gallon) and about $750 for the large
plant (less than 0.1 cent per gallon).
5.4.3 Economic Impact of Control Measures
The economic impact on bulk plant operators due to vapor recovery
requirements depends on the system which can be installed at the plant.
If the cheaper balance systems can be used, the capital costs are not
of such magnitude as to cause a significant impact in the industry.
5-14
-------
An economic impact analysis is being conducted by EPA which will quantify
the potential impacts which could result from the range of vapor recovery
system costs.
The magnitude of the costs for the more expensive balance systems
will likely have a more significant impact on bulk plants. A capital
outlay of around $23,000 represents a significant investment for small
plants. Some sources have reported sales prices for bulk plants that
have been sold by major oil companies which range between $45,000 and
$65,000. Thus, investment for the expensive vapor balance systems
represents one-third to one-half of these transaction prices. A
preliminary economic analysis prepared for EPA concludes that bulk plants
having throughputs less than 4,000 pgd are either unprofitable or only
marginally profitable and could possibly be unable to cope with an
expenditure of this magnitude. EPA's current analysis will better
determine the extent of the potential impacts of these costs on small
bulk plants.
When assessing impacts on bulk plants or potential closures of
plants, it is important to consider several points. First, until SIP
revisions are submitted, enforcement discretion is being utilized to
prevent closures from occurring due to pollution control requirements.
Guidance has been developed and provided to the states in developing
the SIP revisions. Secondly, not all bulk plants in the country will
be affected by vapor recovery regulations. Only bulk plants in
5-15
-------
non-attainment areas will be required to install controls. Since bulk
plants are concentrated in rural areas, it is likely that a large number
of bulk plants would not be required to install vapor recovery systems.
Finally, most of the bulk plants that could be closed by vapor recovery
requirements are likely to go out of business or dispose of their gasoline
operations in the near future due solely to market forces. Hence, vapor
recovery requirements could only accelerate closures that will take place
even in the absence of such requirements.
5.5 AUTOMOBILE ASSEMBLY PLANTS
5.5.1 Industry Profile
In the model year 1976, over 8.5 million automobiles were sold by
U.S. automakers. They represented a significant rebound from 1974 and
1975 sales levels when, respectively, only 7.3 and 6.7 million cars were
sold. General Motors and Ford Motor Company dominate the industry as the
two companies accounted for 58 and 24 percent of the autos produced in
1976, respectively. The other two major automakers, Chrysler and American
12
Motors, accounted for 16 and three percent, respectively.
There are currently 46 auto assembly plants in the U.S., though this
number can vary due to temporary shutdowns and switchovers to light-duty
truck assembly. GM has 22 of the plants while Ford has 14. The remainder
of the plants are owned by Chrysler and AMC as well as Checker Motors and
Volkswagen, which is opening a new plant in Pennsylvania. The locations of
13
these plants are indicated in Table 5-2. Essentially all of the plants are
located in non-attainment areas for oxidants.
5-16
-------
Table 5r2.
Manufacturer
American Motors
Chrysler Corp.
Ford Motor Co.
General Motors
Checker Motors
Volkswagen
U.S. AUTOMOBILE ASSEMBLY PLANTS
Location
Kenosha, Wisconsin
Toledo, Ohio
Belvidere, Illinois
Hamtramck, Michigan
Detroit, Michigan
Newark, Delaware
St. Louis, Missouri
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois
Dearborn, Michigan
Kansas City, Missouri
Lorain, Ohio
Los Angeles, Calif.
Mahwah, New Jersey
Metuchen, New Jersey
St. Louis, Missouri
San Jose, California
Twin Cities, Minnesota
Wayne, Michigan
Wixom, Michigan
Arlington, Texas
Baltimore, maryland
Detroit, Michigan
Doraville, Georgia
Fairfax, Kansas
Flint, Michigan
Framingham, Mass.
Fremont, California
Janesville, Wisconsin
Lakewood, Georgia
Lansing, Michigan
Leeds, Missouri
Linden, New Jersey
Lordstown, Ohio
Norwood, Ohio
Pontiac, Michigan
St. Louis, Missouri
South Gate, Calif.
Tarrytown, New York
Van Nuys, California
Willow Run, Michigan
Wilmington, Delaware
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Pennsylvania
5-17
-------
The earnings of the automakers sagged in 1974 and 1975 due to reduced
sales levels. However, in 1976 earnings expressed as return on equity or
return on assets returned to historical levels, though American Motors is
still experiencing financial difficulties.
5.5.2 Cost of Reasonably Available Control Measures
For the paint coating of auto bodies at assembly plants, numerous
options exist for the control of VOC emissions, with control ranging
from 70 to 95 percent. Options potentially consist of process changes,
such as electrodeposition (EDP) of the primecoat and water-borne topcoats,
and add-on control devices such as carbon adsorption, thermal incineration,
and catalytic incineration. For purposes of this study, the most cost-effective
control options for prime and top coating were chosen that resulted in at
least 80 percent control. Other control options could possibly be chosen
in actual existing plants, but this analysis considers only the least costly
14
option, based on costs furnished to EPA by Springborn Laboratories. The
following control option was chosen:
• Prime coating: EDP with water-borne dip and solvent guide coat
• Prime and top coat spray booths: Catalytic incineration with
primary heat exchange
• Prime and top coat ovens: Catalytic incineration with primary
heat exchange.
Add-on controls in addition to EDP are needed for the prime coating
operation in order to control emissions from the application of the solvent
guide coat.
5-18
-------
Costs for these options have been estimated for a "model" auto
assembly plant producing 211,200 bodies per year. The capital cost of
converting the plant to EDP and adding the control devices is estimated to
be about $20.2 million, with $15.7 million resulting from the conversion
to EDP, $0.8 million from the prime coat add-on devices, and $3.7 million
from the top coat add-on controls.
Annualized costs have also been estimated taking into account operating
and maintenance costs of the processes and devices as well as the depreciation
and interest charges. Only the incremental O&M costs incurred over the
existing base case (solvent-borne prime and top coats with no control) are
included in the estimates. However, the entire capital charges of the new
processes and devices are included since it is assumed that the existing
equipment has no salvage value. Salvage values will vary significantly
from plant to plant and thus it is difficult to generalize on an appropriate
value. Based on these assumptions, the increased annualized cost of control
is estimated to be almost $34 per car.
5.5.3 Economic Impact of Control Measures
E-PA is conducting but has not completed a formal study of the economic
impact of these controls on the automobile industry. However, tentative
conclusions can be drawn.
Currently, about 60 percent of the assembly plants employ EDP to
apply prime coats. Since this process change contributes almost half of
the annualized cost per body, many of the existing plants will be able to
5-19
-------
achieve the required additional control for about $18 per car. In
addition, due to the fact that such a large portion of the industry has
already moved to EDP for economic and technical reasons the economic impact
of such a switch for the remainder of the industry should not be unduly
burdensome.
The impact on sales of automobiles is not expected to be significant.
Rough estimates based on the Ford Econometric Sales Forecasting Model indicate
that a $34 increase in the cost of the average automobile could result in a
15
reduction in sales of 0.2 percent in 1983. This is not a reduction in
sales from current levels, but rather a reduction in levels that would
otherwise occur in 1983. Such a reduction in foregone sales will have a
negligible effect on the return on investment in the industry.
It is important to remember that these general conclusions are based
on model plants and average conditions in the industry. Though none of
the major firms are expected to experience serious impacts, some individual
plants will experience more costly conversions to alternative processes
which could affect their viability. A determination of the individual
plants which have the potential to be severely impacted has not been
determined and is beyond the scope of this analysis.
5.6 METAL FURNITURE INDUSTRY
5.6.1 Industry Profile
The metal furniture industry consists of about 1600 firms employing
nearly 100,000 people and producing around $3.4 billion in metal furniture
5-20
-------
shipments in 1975. The industry is highly fragmented, including the
following categories of products: household metal furniture, office metal
furniture, public building furniture, and metal partitions and fixtures.
Around 500 firms manufacture household furniture, another 500 manufacture
partitions and fixtures, over 400 produce public building furniture, and
200 firms engage in office furniture manufacture.
The industry is characterized by relatively small manufacturers.
Whereas single-unit firms, those with one establishment for both manu-
facturing and administration, account for only 19 percent of the value of
shipments for all manufacturing establishments listed by the Census of
Manufacturers, such firms account for over double the average for household
furniture, public building furniture, and partitions and fixtures. Only
the office furniture segment of the market is consistent with the overall
industry average. In addition, over 85 percent of all metal furniture
establishments employ less than 100 people. In fact, more than 50 percent
of the establishments in segments other than office furniture have less
than 20 employees, according to the 1972 Census of Manufacturers. The
significant number of small firms indicates that no economies of scale
are evident which prohibit small manufacturers from competing, especially
in regional markets where low labor productivity may be overcome by lower
distribution costs.
The manufacturing markets of metal furniture facilities vary. Some
plants manufacture furniture to be sold directly to consumers through
5-21
-------
retail stores. In contrast, job shops, which produce furniture on a
contract basis, apply coatings on many different furniture pieces according
to the customer's specifications.
Metal furniture plants are located throughout the U.S. However, the
states of Illinois, California, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania
contain over 50 percent of the establishments in the industry.
5.6.2 Costs of Reasonably Available Control Measures
Measures to reduce volatile organic emissions from metal furniture
coating operations consist of process changes as well as exhaust gas
treatment with add-on control devices. Applicable process changes include
conversion to waterborne coatings, high solids coatings, powder coatings,
and electrodeposition (EDP) of waterborne coatings. Add-on control devices
include carbon adsorption and incineration. While each of these measures
achieves reasonable levels of control, the option chosen by an individual
plant will depend upon circumstances specific to the plant.
EPA has estimated costs of the alternative measures on the basis of
18
model plants in order to indicate the relative costs of the alternatives.
These models are one-color lines and are sized based on the annual product
coverage rates for the coating lines.
For electrostatic spray lines, the most feasible control option appears
to be conversion to high solids coatings in order to reduce solvent emissions.
The reduction can range from 50 to 90 percent depending upon the type of
coating used previously. For a three million square feet per year coating
line, the capital cost to convert the line is approximately $15,000, while
5-22
-------
for a large plant (48 million square ft/yr) the capital cost will approximate
$62,000. These costs represent a five to six percent increase in the invest-
ment in the existing line. However, in both cases, the increased capital
costs appear to be justified on economic grounds due mainly to the savings
in lower applied film cost when compared to conventional solvent coatings.
For the larger plant, the cost savings in the first year offset the capital
cost entirely, while for the smaller plant the savings represent a return
on investment approaching 20 percent.
Conversion to waterborne coatings, appears to be the most feasible option
for dip coating lines. Switching to waterborne coatings would entail a
capital investment of $3,000 for a smaller facility (seven million square
feet/year) and $5,000 for a larger plant (22.5 million square feet/year).
These costs represent an increase in investment of two to three percent.
There is an increase in operating and maintenance costs due to higher
materials costs, resulting in an increase in coating costs of seven percent
for the smaller plant and four percent for the larger facility.
5.6.3 Economic Impact of Control Measures
An analysis of the economic impact of these costs on the segments of
the metal furniture industry has not been conducted by EPA, thus no
definitive conclusions can be drawn. However, it appears from the model
plant analysis that conversion to high solids coatings for electrostatic
spray lines is justified from an economic standpoint and would be of
benefit to that portion of the industry utilizing this coating application
method.
5-23
-------
On the other hand, conversion to waterborne coating for dip coating
lines is more difficult to assess since one has to consider both the capital
investment requirements as well as the increased cost of coating on an
annual basis. With regard to this latter point, the 1972 Census of
Manufacturers indicates that the cost of coating materials comprise
19
0.8 to 1.4 percent of the value of shipments for metal furniture. An
increase of four to seven percent in coating costs resulting from the
conversion to EDP will affect the final selling price for the metal furniture
by an insignificant amount (less than 0.1 percent). In addition, a capital
investment of $3,000 to $5,000 does not appear to be burdensome for most
establishments. Some small, marginal facilities may find such an investment
level unjustified, but the extent of this is not known.
5-24
-------
5.7 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5
1. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Estimated Cost of Benzene
Control for Selected Stationary Sources, February 27, 1978, p. 3
2. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing
Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds,
EPA-450/77-025, October 1977, p. 4-10.
3. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of VOC from Petroleum
Refinery Equipment, Draft, April 1978, p. 4-7.
4. Energy and Environmental Analysis, p. 10.
5. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing
Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds,
EPA-450/77-025, October 1977, p. 5-3.
6. Sobotka and Company, Inc., Economic Impact of EPA's Regulations on
the Petroleum Refining Industry. EPA-230/3-76-004, April 1976.
7. Arthur D. Little, Inc., The Economic Impact of Vapor Recovery Regulations
On the Service Station Industry, Report prepared for EPA and OSHA,
March 1978, p. 6.
8. Lloyd, Kenneth H., "Cost of Alternative Vapor Recovery Systems at
Service Stations," Economic Analysis Branch, OAQPS, EPA, October 20, 1977.
9. Arthur D. Little, p. 131.
10. Sobotka and Company, Inc., Bulk Plant Vapor Controls Economic Impact,
August 15, 1977, p. 3.
11. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Economic Analysis of Vapor
Recovery Systems on Small Bulk Plants, September 1976, p. 2-2.
12. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Motor Vehicle Facts & Figures '77,
pp. 8 and 9.
13. Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Study to Support New Source Performance
Standards for Automobile and Light-duty Truck Coating, June 1977,
EPA-450/3-77-020, p. 35.
14. Ibid, pp. 8-42 and 8-43.
15. Personal communication from Tom Alexander, OPE/EPA to Ken Lloyd
OAQPS/EPA, March 13, 1978.
5-25
-------
16. Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Study to Support New Source Performance
Standards for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. EPA-450/3-78-006,
April 1978, p. 8-1.
17. Springborn, p. 8-15.
18. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources - Vol. Ill: Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture, December 1977, pp. 3-8 and 3-9.
19. Springborn, p. 8-22.
5-26
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
Ozone Design Values for 90 Air Quality Control Regions
(Estimated)
-------
OZONE DESIGN VALUES FOR 90 AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
(Estimated)
AQCR NUMBER
AQCR NAME
EXPECTED SECOND
HIGH DAILY
VALUE3
(PPM)
EXPECTED SECOND
HIGH HOURLY
VALUEa
(PPMj
002
004
005
013
015
016
018
022
024
025
028
029
030
031
033
036
038
041
042
043
045
047
048
049
050
052
055
056
060
062
065
067
069
Columbus-Phoenix, GA
Metropolitan Birmingham
Mobile-Pensacola, AL-FL
Clark-Mohave, AZ-NV
Phoenix-Tucson, AZ
Central Arkansas
Metropolitan Memphis,
AR-MS-TN
Shreveport, LA
Metropolitan Los Angeles
North Central Coat, CA
Sacramento Valley, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Joaquin Valley, CA
Southeast Desert, CA
Metropolitan Denver, CO
San Isabel, CO
Eastern Connecticut
Hartford-New Haven-
Springfield, CT-MA
New Jersey-New York-
Connecticut (NJ-NY-CT)
Metropolitan Philadelphia
NJ-PA
National Capital
(DC-MD-VA)
Central Florida
Jacksonville-Brunswick,
(FL-GA)
Southeast Florida
West Central Florida
Chattanooga, TN-GA
Metropolitan Atlanta, GA
State of Hawaii
Eastern Washington-
Northern Idaho
Burlington-Keokut, IA
Metropolitan Chicago, IL
Metropolitan Quad Cities,
IL-IA
.15b
!l5c
.15
.12
.14C
.13
.14
.14
.38
.11
.14
.24C
.17
.15
.25
.17
.09
.23
.27
.24
.26
.19
.10
.13
.12
.14
.11
.14
.06
.08
.11
.20
.11
.15b
.15
.16
.15
.14
.13
.14
.15
.38
.12
.19
.24
.19
.19
.25
.17
.09
.23
.32
.27
.30
.21
.10
.13
.13
.14
.11
.15
.08
.08
.12
.26
.13
A-l
-------
070 Metropolitan St. Louis,
IL-MO .23C .23
073 Rockford-Janesville-
Beloit, IL-WI .14 .17
078 Metropolitan Louisville, KY .17 .22
079 Metropolitan Cincinnati,
KY-OH .17 .20
080 Metropolitan Indianapolis,
IN .17 .17
081 Northeast Indiana .17° .17&
082 South Bend-Elkhart-
Benton Harbor, IN-MI .16b .16b
085 Metropolitan Omaha-
Council Bluff, IA-NE .10 .10
092 South Central Iowa .10 .11
094 Metropolitan Kansas City,
KS-MO .10 .12
099 South Central Kansas .17C .17
106 Southern Louisiana-
Southeast Texas .19 .19
113 Cumberland-Keyser, MD-WV .12C .12
115 Metropolitan Baltimore, MD .23 .25
118 Central Massachusetts .16 .16
119 Metropolitan Boston, MA .16 .17
120 Metropolitan Providence,
MA-RI .19 .19
121 Merrimack Valley-Southern
New Hampshire, MA-NH .17 .17
122 Central Michigan .13 .17
123 Metropolitan Detroit-Port
Huron, MI .18 .23
124 Metropolitan Toledo, MI-OH .14° .14
125 South Central Michigan .09 .09
128 Southeast Minnesota-La
Crosse, MN-WI .13 .16
131 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN .09 .12
151 Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper
Delaware Valley, PA-NJ-DE .23 .23
152 Albuquerque-Mid Rio Grande,
NM .14C .14
153 El Paso-Las Cruces-
Almogordo, NM-TX .16 .16
158 Central New York .12 .12
160 Genesse-Finger Lake, NY .13 .13
161 Hudson Valley, NY .14 .14
162 Niagara Frontier, NY .16 .18
167 Charlotte, NC .14 .17
173 Dayton, OH .18 .18
174 Greater Metropolitan
Cleveland, OH .19 .19
176 Metropolitan Columbus, OH .16 .16
A-2
-------
178 Northwest Pennsylvania-
Youngstown, OH-PA .19 .21
184 Central Oklahoma .11 .12
186 Northeastern Oklahoma .14 .18
193 Portland, OR-WA .13 .16
195 Central Pennsylvania .13 .15
196 South Central Pennsylvania .18 .19
197 Southwest Pennsylvania .18 .20
199 Charleston, SC .14b .14b
200 Columbia, SC .14 .15
208 Middle Tennessee .17 .17
?12 Austin-Waco, TX .12 .13
214 Corpus Christi-Victoria, TX .11 .14
215 Metropolitan Dallas-
Forth Worth, TX .17 .19
216 Metropolitan Houston-
Galveston, TX .26 .27
217 Metropolitan San Antonio, TX .15 .16
220 Wasatch Front, UT .15 .16
223 Hampton Roads, VA .15 .15
225 State Capital, VA .17 .20
229 Puget Sound, WA .13 .14
230 South Central Washington .15C .15
239 Southeastern Wisconsin .23 .25
240 Southern Wisconsin .12 .13
The fourth highest average value over the 3-year period (1975-77) was used
unless the difference between the third and fourth highest values exceeded
.01 ppm (20 mg/m3), in which case the average of the third and fourth highest
value was used.
Estimated value since no data are available for these areas.
c Daily values are not available, thus these values represent the hourly values.
SOURCE: Monitoring and Reports Branch, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division,
OAQPS, EPA
"Note: These are only estimates of design values for use in this analysis.
Actual values which will be used in the determination of attainment
and for planning purposes will be calculated by the state and local agencies
based on the guidance issued by EPA.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION FACTORS
-------
APPENDIX B
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION FACTORS
This appendix summarizes the mobile source emission factors which
serve as the basis for emission projections resulting from the Federal
Motor Vehicle Control Program as well as an inspection/maintenance
program. Table B-l presents the non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emission
factors for various classes of vehicles for base years 1975 and 1987.
The 1987 emission factors reflect the emission standards mandated by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
In order to estimate the change in mobile source emissions for an area
between 1975 and 1987, the following equation is used:
1987 Emissions = 1975 Emissions X ^75 Emission Factor X (1 + Annual Growth Rate)12
Estimates have also been made regarding the effectiveness of an
inspection/maintenance program in reducing mobile source emissions through
overall improvement in fleet maintenance. Emission factors for light duty
vehicles for various I/M scenarios are summarized in Table B-2. As can be
seen, the effectiveness of an I/M program depends on the stringency level
and the extent of mechanic training. For a 30 to 40 percent stringency
level, an I/M program can reduce emissions in 1987 by 25 to 44 percent
depending on whether there is mechanic training. For purposes of this
study, an emission reduction of 30 percent was assumed to reflect a mid-range
of the estimates.
B-l
-------
Table B-l. NON-METHANE HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR
MOBILE SOURCES3 (grams/mile)
1975 1987
Light Duty Vehicles
(without I/M) 7.96 1.98
Light Duty Trucks
0-6000 Ibs 8.65 3.30
6000-8500 Ibs 12.17 4.71
Heavy Duty Gasoline Trucks 28.66 12.18
Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks 4.33 3.34
Motorcycles 11.01 1.36
All Modes 9.08 2.71
a Includes evaporative emissions
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and
Land Use Policy, Mobile Source Emission Factors, EPA-400/9-78-005,
March 1978.
B-2
-------
Table B-2. EFFECTIVENESS OF INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES (1987 NMHC Emission Factors)
Grams/Mile
% Reduction
from Base
Base
w/o I/M)
1.98
--
30% Stringency Level*
No Mechanic
Training
1.49
25%
Mechanic
Training
1.19
40%
40% Stringency Level*
No Mechanic
Training
1.42
28%
Mechanic
Training
1.13
43%
^Stringency level is a measure of the rigor of a program based on the estimated
fraction of the vehicle population whose emissions would exceed cutpoints for
NMHC were no improvements in maintenance habits or quality of maintenance to
take place as a result of the program.
Source: Based on Appendix N to 40 CFR Part 51: ^Emission Reductions Achievable
Through Inspection and Maintenance of Light Duty Vehicles, Motorcycles.
and Light and Heavy Duty Trucks, May 1977.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
Analysis of Costs for Hydrocarbon Control Measures
-------
Appendix C
ANALYSIS OF COSTS FOR HYDROCARBON CONTROL MEASURES
C.I Introduction
This analysis presents the costs for selected hydrocarbon control
measures for stationary and mobile sources. The costs are derived from
numerous EPA reports and documents and represents the Agency's best
estimates of costs as of July, 1977. The sources covered by this analysis
are not the only sources of volatile organic emissions, rather they are
the sources for which cost information is readily available. Some are
described more completely than others, with the extent of coverage
depending on the availability of information for each source.
C.2. Costs for Stationary Source Control Measures
Tables C-l through C-7 summarize the control costs for selected
stationary sources. The methodology for estimating costs for most sources
involved selecting model facilities of a size or sizes considered typical
in the industry. For these model facilities, capital costs for the
control equipment were developed which included equipment costs as well
as installation costs.
The annualized costs for each model facility include direct operating
costs such as labor and materials, maintenance costs, and annualized capital
charges. This latter component accounts for depreciation, interest,
administrative overhead, property taxes, and insurance. The depreciation
and interest are computed by use of a capital recovery factor, the value of
which depends on the operating life of the device and the interest rate
(in most cases, an annual interest rate of 10 percent has been assumed).
C-l
-------
In many instances, the annualized costs also include a credit for
product, heat or steam recovery. These credits are substracted from the
costs of control so that the annualized costs included in the tables are
net costs.
The cost effectiveness of control represents the net annualized costs
divided by the annual tons of hydrocarbons removed. While cost effective-
ness serves a useful purpose as one factor in comparing control measures,
it cannot serve as the only decision-making tool. Cost effectiveness in
itself does not give any indication of the economic feasibility of
alternatives since it does not take into account the baseline economic
or financial conditions of the source or industry. However, such an
evaluation was beyond the scope of this study, so that cost effectiveness
is the only means available by which to compare control measures. None-
theless, the limitations should be recognized.
Finally, there are in many cases several control measures available
to achieve a certain level of control at the various sources. However,
this study considers costs for only one control measure at each control
level. In choosing the measure, the assumption is made that a prudent plant
manager will choose the lowest cost option on an annualized cost basis.
In addition, if a higher level of control can be achieved at a lower
annualized cost than a lower level of control, then the latter is not
considered to be a viable option. Thus some of the control measures
considered may not be as energy efficient as others or recover the end
product, but they are still the least cost options and have therefore
been chosen for inclusion in the tables.
C-2
-------
C.2.1 Oil and Gas Production, Refining, and Storage
Table C-l presents costs of controlling hydrocarbon emissions from
selected sources associated with oil and gas production, petroleum refining,
petroleum storage tanks, and natural gas and gasoline processing plants.
Exact cost figures are not yet available for these sources, but preliminary
consideration of costs indicates that the net costs will be minimal since
the costs of control will be, for the most part, offset by appreciable
savings from product recovery. In fact, much of the control equipment
is already in operation in many plants or fields, indicating that the
controls must be justifiable from a cost standpoint in many cases.
C.2.2 Gasoline Handling and Distribution Operations
The costs for controlling hydrocarbon vapor emissions from selected
gasoline handling and distribution operations are shown in Table C-2.
These operations trace the flow of gasoline and resultant hydrocarbon
vapors from the bulk terminal to the bulk plant to the service stations
and finally to the refueling of vehicles. As can be seen from the table,
relative control costs are much higher at smaller facilities as evidenced
by the significantly greater cost effectiveness numbers.
At service stations there are two sources of vapor loss—the under-
ground tanks (Stage I) and vehicle refueling (Stage II). Stage I can
be implemented alone at service stations but Stage II cannot since vapors
captured during refueling would be lost through the underground tanks that
had no control. Thus, costs are presented for Stage I alone and Stages
I and II in conjunction. The cost effectiveness numbers for Stages I and
II take into account the total amount of vapors collected during the two
stages instead of just the incremental cost of controlling Stage II emissions.
C-3
-------
LU
CD
O
h-
^C
UJ
2;
i
o
a:
»—
o
Lu
O
h-
CO
0
0
.
QJ
ro
1—
u
c:
QJ
S-
QJ
QJ
CL
r— OJ
O S-
s- ra
4-> in
C fO
O QJ
0 S
(
in
in
QJ
QJ C
4-J > O
I/) -r- 4-J
O 4-> -^
O O <^
QJ
tjj_
LU
•a
QJ
IM - — •
lr_ 4_> O
»— in o
ro o o
c
r-
4-> 4-J O
•r- m o
a. o o
ro c_} -t^-
O -^.
i — U
o c
S_ GJ
C U ^S
o •*•"
LU
•i— QJ
•^ •
(J LO
^^
*r
••-
S-
QJ
O.
O
i
QJ
3^
QJ
—
Q
O
ro
d
„
r—
1
1
ra OJ
o
c c
O ro
4-1 QJ
O 4J
OJ C
4-1 ••-
OJ ro
D E
CO
c
s:
«c
^^
OJ
z:
c
o
•r-
|
O-
in
ro
CD
c
-
o
1
N«. O
i— OJ
CL CL
, .
i — i —
OO oo
E <- <-
5) QJ QJ
oo oo O O
.— >, 00
ro CO
-a o) _-o
C CO !- O OC
ro OJ OJ O Ore
o i— -a i- s.
C c ro ra C
O ro O OJ Ol OOO
•r- c ••- 3C C C-i-
4-1 OJ C •!- -1-4-1
O 4-J ro QJ 4J 4-J o
QJ C _C S- ro ra O)
4-1 T- O ra O O 4-J
OJ ro OJ i— r— r— OJ
Q E S U- U- U_Q
1 II III
^f
c -a- co
z: ~-^ <_*
i § s
z z: z
r- 00
^
>^ ro
ro "O
-O J3
JD
O
0 0
0 0
O •
•0
OJ O
CO OJ
00
00 S-
(/) OJ O
OJ O 4J
•i- s_ ro
S- 3 TJ J-
O) O C ro
C CO ro CL
•t- OJ
<4- 00 C 00
OJ 3 . i-
Oi O ro S-
QJ S- Q)
3 (O ro
OJ i — 00 S
r— r— 00 OJ
O 4-1
S- 0 0 00
4-1 oo o ie
oj •>- s_ 3
D- S: Cl-
OU
CO
CL
1 —
00
if- OJ
o •—
C 10
OJ O 00
O -r- C
C 4-1 0)
rt3 ro -o
c: s_ c
QJ QJ O
4J CO
C •!- I
•i- 0 C
ro CO
E >-H c
i
m
CO
OJ
z
z
CTl
CTl
^
ro
-O
.a
0
o
o
o
o
00
I
00
00
Ol
c
o
"g
CL
e
3
O
ro
1
in
OJ
CL
• —
C 00
O S-
o o
I CL
C ro
c
QJ
4-1 < —
oo .a
3 ro
XI 00
E £
o -o
1
CO
c
s:
z
z
Ol
-o
c
3
urnaro
4-*
C
in
in
QJ
8
S-
O-
f
CNJ
CL
r—
^
C C
0 *
S*o
00 O
s_
£" 0)
ro C
C 4J
O Q- O 4-1 CT
O QJ OJ QJ O)
<_> COS Q 4-1
1 1 1
CO
c
s
§
z
CTl
oo
4-1
C
r— ro
ro •—
S- 0-
do.
ro C
C •!-
00
T3 00
C 0)
ra O
0
00 S-
ro CL
Ol
QJ
i — C
££
3 O
4-1 00
ro ra
Z 01
^}-
S-
OJ
0-1 >
-t— o
-M S
c: s_
g +j
fa. O
¥1
OJ i.
O.
O E
!- 5
4-1 S_
C <»-
O
O OO
cn
OJ C
-C •!-
4-J >
ra
«H— 00
O
u
§4-1
a>
oo
OJ If-
O 1-
C 0
OO OJ
ro t —
E •—
E'5
E oo
OJ 00
S- 0
ra o
00 I —
4-1 O
00 i-
0 4-1
0 C
o
4-1 O
t3
Ol OJ O)
C -r- >
•I— r— OJ
> O) •«•
ro -Q f*-
00 a)
oo JD
OJ 00
C 4-1 •!-
OJ "~ 4-1
ra S-
O OJ "
•r- > C
•r- 0 4-1
00 T3
OJ • "O
oo C ro
OJ S
f— Q £2
4-1 c >-<
C -V
QJ
S- 4-1 •
ro O 00
Q- C T3
« OJ OJ
>1 S- ••-
t- ro 4-
OJ
> 00 S-
O OJ O
O S-
QJ 3 00
S- 00 4-1
ro C
4-1 OJ ro
3 ErQ.
o "o >,
S- S- C
CL 4J ra
s- o E
O O C
• OJ *~
4-1 OJ 00 C
•r-i— OJ O
•o -Q jr -i-
OJ ro 4-1 4-1
!- i— ro
O "- S- S-
ro O OJ
QJ > If- CL
"O ra O
3 00
r— 4-1 4-1 C
O O 00 T-
C C O
•r- 0 >>
II -0
00 4-1 ra
4J 0 QJ
00 ct ra S-
O • X *—
o z: LU re
•— OJ CO
•o
C;
S
QJ
• 4-1
t— J=
QJ 4-1
3
4-1
0 >,
J= S-
ra
o >
S- t—
4J r—
|*
i- in
ro f—
JD ro
QJ
QJ in
5 >>
C
01 jj5
•^ -^
s- s-
QJ D-
O QJ
0 >
.*-£
0 10
4-1 T)
00 C
O ra
i.
QJ OJ
t~ >
4-1 O
S_ 00
O i—
ro
S- OJ
QJ VI
00
c >>
OJ S-
T3 ro
c -a
8 0
OJ <1)
O 00
ro
f- f-
S- O
3
00 00
00
(O OJ
C
^ OJ
0? >
4-1
L O
OJ OJ •
> H-fJ
•i- if-o
OJ QJ3
o no
OJ 4-10
S- 00i_
OCL-
OJ O
l/l 4J ~O
i- ra -DQJ
OJ 00 C&-
> c roO
O OJ 4-1
O T3 >4J1
C S-
If- O OJOJ
0 0 >J=
O O4-1
S_ ra O
OJ4-
01 f- S-O
c o
•r- 4JQJ
4-1 4-> OS-
ro oo 33
O O-ooo
1 — O OOO
i[ t-OJ
QJ CLS-
O "O CL
4-1 3 QJ
>, O CO
t— C QJO-
C "--Cro
0 >
4-"a
c o coj
•i- C (O3
•0 !_
4-1 00 C4J
!_ OJ O
O- -O4J.C
00 O) 3
cn 4-i-cro
C ra rjjc
••- E s-ra
ro 4-J c>,
00 00 O4-1
QJ-i-r-
OJ OOO
oo oo coo
-C -C EO)
r— 1— LU>
^t LOLD
C-4