EPA-450/3-77-024
August 1977
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ON NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM MARINE TERMINAL
TRANSFER OPERATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-77-024
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ON NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM MARINE TERMINAL
TRANSFER OPERATIONS
by
C.E. Burklin. W.C. Michelctti. and J.S. Sherman
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
P.O. Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78766
Contract No. 68-01-4136
Task No. 2
EPA Project Officer: William L. Polglase
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
August 1977
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations in limited quantities from the
Library Services Office (MD35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Radian Corporation, 8500 Shoal Creek Blvd. , P.O. Box 9948, Austin,
Texas 78766, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-4136, Task No. 2.
The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from
Radian Corporation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those .of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-024
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The loading and unloading of volatile hydrocarbon
liquids at marine terminals is known to be a source of hydro-
carbon emissions. This report presents the results of an in-
depth study for EPA to assess the effectiveness of marine
terminal emission control by modification in operating proce-
dures as an alternative to vapor recovery systems. Topics
addressed in the final report include national marine transpor-
tation patterns of crude oil and gasoline, projected patterns
through 1985, marine terminal operations, sources of hydrocarbon
emissions, operational control technology, estimates of national
hydrocarbon losses from marine terminal operations, and poten-
tial emission reductions resulting from applying modified
operating procedures. The purpose of this report is not to
recommend major changes in ship and barge operating procedures,
but rather to point out the possible advantages of some operat-
ing procedures and the potential hydrocarbon emission reduction
which may be achieved through their use. Additional studies
will need to be conducted to establish the exact benefits of
each operational control procedure. This study was completed
through the helpful aid of people representing the petroleum
and marine industries, trade associations, and government
agencies.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
1.1 Summary 1
1.1.1 Background Information 1
1.1.2 Crude Oil Movements 3
1.1.3 Gasoline Movements 4
1.1.4 Proj ected Trends in Movements 5
1.1.5 Effectiveness of Operational Control
Techniques . . . 6
1.1.6 Estimates of National Hydrocarbon
Losses from Marine Operations 8
1.2 Conclusions 9
1.3 Recommendations 11
2.0 INTRODUCTION 12
2.1 Objectives 12
2.2 Scope 13
2.3 Approach 14
3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 15
3.1 Marine Transportation in the Petroleum
Refining Industry 15
3.1.1 Marine Transportation of Crude Oil.. 16
3.1.2 Marine Transportation of Gasoline .. 18
3.1.3 Economics of Marine Transportation.. 18
3.2 Marine Terminal Operations 20
3.2.1 Unloading Operations 24
3.2.2 Gasoline Loading of Tankers 25
3.2.3 Gasoline Loading of Barges .. 28
3.3 Characterization of Hydrocarbon Emissions.. 29
4.0 MARINE TRANSPORTATION PATTERNS 30
4.1 Crude Oil Movements 30
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
4.2 Gasoline Movements 36
4.3 Projections for Crude Oil and Gasoline
Marine Transportation 43
4.3.1 Methodology 43
4.3.2 Projection Scenarios 44
4.3.2.1 Scenario I - Maximum Growth. 46
4.3.2.2 Scenario II - Minimum Growth 52
4.3.3 Projection of Crude Oil Movements ... 56
4.3.3.1 Scenario I 56
4.3.3.2 Scenario II 58
4.3.4 Projections of Gasoline Transportation 61
5.0 OPERATIONAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 66
5.1 Alternate Loading Procedures 66
5.1.1 Source and Mechanism of Loading
Emissions 66
5.1.2 Emissions from Dirty Tanks 69
5.1.3 Effects of Tank Cleaning 70
5.1.4 Effects of Ballasting 73
5.1.5 Effects of Loading Rate 75
5.1.6 Effects of Short Loading 79
5.1.7 Inerting and P/V Valves 81
5.1.8 Summary of the Impact of Operational
Controls on Gasoline Loading Emissions 82
5.2 Alternate Unloading Procedures 85
5.2.1 Source and Mechanism of Unloading
Emissions 85
5.2.2 Operational Control Technology 88
6.0 NATIONAL HYDROCARBON REDUCTIONS FROM OPERATIONAL
CONTROL TECHNIQUES 90
6.1 Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline
Loading in 1975 90
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
6.2 Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Gasoline Loading in 1985 92
BIBLIOGRAPHY 96
APPENDIX A - INDUSTRY CONTACTS A-l
APPENDIX B - ANNOUNCED REFINERY EXPANSION PLANS,
1976 . B-l
APPENDIX C - PROJECTED REFINING CAPACITY BY AQCR. C-l
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
3.1-1 TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL, 1975 17
3.1-2 TRANSPORT OF GASOLINE 19
4.1-1 TANKER AND BARGE MOVEMENTS OF CRUDE OIL 32
5.1-1 EXAMPLE PROFILE OF GASOLINE LOADING EMISSIONS -
UNCLEANED TANKS 68
5.1-2 EXAMPLE PROFILE OF GASOLINE LOADING EMISSIONS -
CLEANED TANKS 72
5.1-3 HYDROCARBON PROFILE PRIOR TO BALLASTING AN
EMPTY TANK 74
5.1-4 HYDROCARBON PROFILE OF A BALLASTED TANK 74
5.1-5 HYDROCARBON PROFILE OF AN EMPTY TANK AFTER
BALLAST DISCHARGE 74
5.1-6 EXAMPLE PROFILES OF GASOLINE LOADING EMISSIONS
USING SLOW LOADING RATES 77
5.2-1 EXAMPLE PROFILE OF GASOLINE BALLASTING EMISSIONS 87
.Vll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
3.1-1. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM VESSEL SIZE OF U.S. PORTS 21
4.1-1. PERCENTAGE OF CRUDE OIL TO WEST AND MIDWEST
REFINERIES SUPPLIED BY CANADIAN OIL 31
4.1-2. WEST COAST DESTINATIONS OF NORTH SLOPE CRUDE 34
4.1-3. U.S. IMPORTS OF CRUDE OIL 35
4.1-4. 1975 CRUDE OIL IMPORTS (THOUSANDS OF BARRELS) ... 37
4.1-5. 1975 REFINERY RECEIPTS OF CRUDE OIL BY TANKERS
AND BARGES (THOUSANDS OF. BARRELS) 39
4.2-1. TANKER AND BARGE MOVEMENTS OF GASOLINE IN 1974
(THOUSANDS OF BARRELS) 39
4.2-2. 1974 GASOLINE STATISTICS (THOUSANDS OF BARRELS) . 40
4.2-3. 1974 IMPORTS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS (THOUSANDS
OF BARRELS) 42
4.3-1 REFINERIES PLANNED BUT NOT CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE
OF OPPOSITION ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS 48
4.3-2. PROJECTED REFINERY CAPACITY FOR MAXIMUM GROWTH
SCENARIO I IN 10s BARRELS PER YEAR 51
4.3-3. PROJECTED REFINING CAPACITY UNRESTRICTED EAST
COAST OPTION (BBL/DAU) 52
4.3-4. ROUNDOUT CAPACITY IN GROWTH AREA AQCR'S (BBL/DAY) 55
4.3-5. PROJECTED REFINERY CAPACITY FOR MINIMUM GROWTH
SCENARIO II IN 10s BARRELS PER YEAR . . 56
4.3-6. PROJECTED CRUDE OIL SUPPLIES TO REFINERIES 1985
SCENARIO I - MAXIMUM GROWTH (10s BARRELS PER YEAR)56
4.3-7. SUMMARY OF CRUDE OIL IMPORT PROJECTIONS FOR 1985
BY REGION OF ORIGIN AND REFINERY REGION - SCENARIO
I (ALL FIGURES IN 105 BARRELS PER YEAR) 59
4.3-8. PROJECTED CRUDE OIL SUPPLIES TO REFINERIES 1985
SCENARIO II - MINIMUM GROWTH (105 BARRELS) ...... 60
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
4.3-9. SUMMARY OF CRUDE OIL IMPORT PROJECTIONS FOR
1985 BY REGION OF ORIGIN AND REFINERY REGION -
SCENARIO II (ALL FIGURES IN 10s BARRELS PER
YEAR) 62
4.3-10. PROJECTED GASOLINE OUTPUT BY REFINERY REGION,
1985 63
4.3-11. RELATIONSHIP OF DEMAND FOR GASOLINE TO REFINERY
OUTPUT BY REGION, 1985 (10s BARRELS/YEAR) 63
5.1-1. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LOADING GASOLINE
INTO UNCLEANED VESSELS 70
5.1-2. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LOADING GASOLINE
INTO CLEANED VESSELS 73
5.1-3. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LOADING GASOLINE
INTO CARGO TANKS USED FOR BALLAST 75
5.1-4. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SLOW LOADING GASOLINE
INTO VESSEL TANKS 78
5.1-5. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT OF OPERATIONAL CONTROL
TECHNIQUES ON GASOLINE LOADING EMISSIONS 83
6.1-1. ESTIMATED HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE
LOADING IN 1975 93
6.2-1. ESTIMATED HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE
LOADING IN 1985 95
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of those
individuals from various companies and organizations which made
this report complete. The program was conducted under the
guidance of William Polglase, the EPA project officer. Valuable
information and guidance were received from other personnel with
the EPA offices in Durham and Research Triangle Park. Special
thanks also goes to those oil companies and marine industries
who were responsible for providing Radian with pertinent first-
hand information. These companies were:
American Petrofina, Inc.
Ashland Petroleum Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Champlin Petroleum Company
Cities Service Oil Company
Continental Oil Company
Exxon Corporation
Getty Oil Company
Gulf Oil Company
Gulf Trading and
Transportation Company
IOT Corporation
Marathon Oil Company
Mobil Oil Company
Phillips Petroleum Company
Shell Oil Company
Standard Oil of California (Chevron)
Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco)
Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio)
Sun Transport, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Union Oil of California
Other trade associations and governmental agencies to
whom we are indebted include:
American Petroleum Institute
American Waterway Operators,
Inc.
Association of Oil Pipelines
Maritime Research Information
Service
Transportation Association of
America
Transportation Institute
Federal Energy Administration
Great Lakes Commission
U. S. Coast Guard
U. S. Department of Commerce
Waterways Freight Bureau
x
-------
1.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the results of a study for the
EPA to assess the effectiveness of modified operating procedures
as an alternative to vapor recovery systems for controlling
hydrocarbon emissions associated with marine transfer operations.
This section summarizes the information included in the report.
Section 1.1 is a summary of the study's findings, Section 1.2
presents the conclusions developed from these findings, and
Section 1.3 lists areas where further study is recommended.
1.1 Summary
The information developed by Radian in this study are
presented here in the same manner as they are organized in the
report. The sections included are listed below.
Background Information
Crude Oil Movements
Gasoline Movements
Projected Trends in Movements
Effectiveness of Operational Control
Techniques
Estimates of National Hydrocarbon Losses
from Marine Operations
1.1.1 Background Information
The section concerning background information repre-
sents a brief overview of marine transportation in the petroleum
industry, marine terminal operations, and hydrocarbon emissions
generated at marine terminals. The background information was
-------
compiled from a number of sources, including personal contacts
with personnel from the oil refining and marine transportation
industries. Important facts included in this section are
condensed below:
In 1975 water carriers accounted for 10 percent
of the domestic receipts and 74 percent of the
foreign receipts of crude oil at U.S. refinery
centers. Overall, marine transportation
accounted for 31 percent of crude oil receipts
at refineries.
• Statistics for 1975 show that 9.5 percent of
domestic gasoline shipments and virtually all
(97.8 percent) of imported gasoline shipments
were made by water carriers. Overall, marine
transportation accounted for 12 percent of the
gasoline transported to U.S. bulk terminals.
The average cost of transporting crude and gaso-
line by tanker ranges from $0.15 to $0.40 per
thousand barrel miles. For barges the average
cost ranges from $0.40 to $1.50 per thousand
barrel miles.
Basically two operations occur at the major marine
terminal of refining centers: the unloading of
crude oil and petroleum products, and the load-
ing of crude oil and petroleum products. Very
little crude is loaded at one refining center
for transport to another.
-2-
-------
Hydrocarbon emissions are generated at marine
terminals when volatile hydrocarbon products
are either loaded onto or unloaded from ships
and barges. Loading emissions result from the
displacement to the atmosphere of hydrocarbon
vapors residing in empty vessel tanks by products
being loaded into the vessel tanks. Unloading
emissions are hydrocarbon vapors displaced during
ballasting operations at the unloading dock
following the delivery of a volatile hydrocarbon
liquid cargo such as crude oil or gasoline.
1.1.2 Crude Oil Movements
Statistical information on crude oil movements was
provided primarily by government agencies and trade associations
The major points of this section are summarized below.
Historically the four major U.S. refining centers
have enjoyed a relatively stable supply of crude
oil. The East Coast has imported most of its
crude with supplements from the Gulf Coast. The
Midcontinent .refineries have depended for the most
part on pipeline crude from Canada, Texas, and
Louisiana. The Gulf Coast and West Coast have
normally received domestic crude by pipeline and
imported crude by tanker.
The cutback of Canadian crude to Midcontinent
refineries will force refineries in this area to
either transport crude by barge up the Mississippi
River or rely on transmission from any of three
proposed West Coast pipelines. Economic and
-3-
-------
environmental problems are hampering the three
proposed pipelines. Therefore, an increase in
barge transport of crude oil on the inland
waterways appears probable.
The production of North Slope crude will result
in America's first major marine terminal for crude
oil loading at Valdez, Alaska. The sour crude
will be shipped to West Coast refineries, with
any excess destined for Gulf Coast refineries
via the Panama Canal. By the mid-1980's refinery
growth on the West Coast will mean that all North
Slope crude can be handled in this region.
Even with production of North Slope crude, U.S.
domestic production will continue to decline.
This decline will be offset by increasing imports
from Africa and the Middle East to the Gulf Coast
and East Coast.
1.1.3 Gasoline Movements
Most of the information used in determining marine
transportation patterns for gasoline was provided by trade asso-
ciations and government agencies. The information is summarized
below.
Almost all (97 percent) of the gasoline trans-
ported by ship and barge is loaded on the Gulf
Coast. Virtually all of this gasoline is shipped
to the East Coast by tanker and to the Midconti-
nent by barge.
-4-
-------
The growing U.S. demand for finished petroleum
products has resulted in increasing imports.
In 1974 the United States imported a total of
885 million barrels of finished petroleum pro-
ducts , 85 percent of which was received at the
East Coast. Gasoline accounted for 8.4 percent
of the total finished petroleum products
imported in 1974.
1.1.4 Projected Trends in Movements
In projecting movements of crude oil and gasoline by
marine transportation, two supply and demand scenarios were
modeled after similar energy scenarios developed by the FEA.
The projections developed under the two scenarios are included
below.
For maximum refinery growth, the 1985 refinery
receipts of crude oil will rise to 6.14 billion
barrels. Slightly more than 50 percent (3.1 billion
barrels) will be imported by tanker, predominantly
to the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Marine transport
of gasoline from the Gulf Coast by tanker to the
East Coast and by barge to the Inland Waterways
and Great Lakes area will continue to increase to
offset growing gasoline demands. Gasoline imports
may decline under maximum refinery growth.
For minimum refinery growth, the 1985 refinery
receipts of crude oil will increase to approximately
5.8 billion barrels. Only 26 percent (1.48 billion
barrels) will be imported by tanker, with most of
it arriving at the East Coast and Gulf Coast.
-5-
-------
Marine transport of gasoline from the Gulf Coast
by tanker to the East Coast and by barge to the
Inland Waterways and Great Lakes area will increase
at a slower rate. Tanker imports of gasoline to
the East Coast should increase steadily.
1.1.5 Effectiveness of Operational Control Techniques
An investigation of operational control techniques
indicates that there is a large potential for using modifications
in existing marine terminal operating procedures as a means of
controlling marine terminal emissions. This potential reduction
in emissions is baaed on emission factors which have been gener-
ated by several government and oil industry studies, and repre-
sent the best information presently available. A joint government/
industry effort is presently underway which is aimed at acquiring
more uniformly documented data and more accurate emission factors.
Important findings of this investigation are included below.
Emissions from loading gasoline into uncleaned
tankers are 2.4 lb/103 gal. Because some ships
currently practice various degrees of cleaning
and ballasting operations, the average gasoline
tanker loading emission rate is 1.2 lb/103 gal.
The use of tank cleaning, slow initial and final
loading, and short loading will potentially lower
gasoline loading emissions to less than 0.2 lb/103
gal. This represents a 92 percent reduction over
uncleaned tanker loading and a 83 percent reduc-
tion over the typical tanker loading.
-6-
-------
The hydrocarbon emission rate for loading gasoline
onto uncleaned ocean barges is 3.3 lb/103 gal. The
average hydrocarbon emission rate for loading ocean
barges with gasoline is 2.7 lb/103 gal.
The use of tank cleaning, slow initial and final
loading rates, and short loading will potentially
lower gasoline loading emissions for ocean barges
to less than 0.2 lb/103 gal. This represents a
94 percent reduction over uncleaned ocean barge
loadings and a 93 percent reduction over the
typical ocean barge loading.
The hydrocarbon emission rate for loading gasoline
into uncleaned inland barges is 4.0 lb/103 gal.
Because cleaning is not a standard practice on
barges, the average barge loading rate is also
4.0 lb/103 gal.
Due to limited flexibility in operating practices
the operational control most applicable to inland
barges is slow initial loading. Estimated hydro-
carbon emissions from slow initial loading gasoline
barges is 3.3 lb/103 gal. This represents an 18%
emission reduction.
Although limited information is available on crude
loading emissions, the emissions from loading
volatile crude oil onto tankers and barges are
expected to be reduced in the same manner as
gasoline loading emissions are by operational
control techniques.
-7-
-------
There are fewer operational control techniques
applicable to unloading emissions from ships and
ocean barges. The two most promising operational
control techniques for unloading emissions from
ships and ocean barges are segregated ballast and
short ballast. Both techniques potentially have
very high control efficiencies which will likely
exceed 90 percent.
1.1.6 Estimates of National Hydrocarbon Losses from Marine
Operations
Since reliable emission factors for the loading and
unloading of crude oil and for the unloading of gasoline are not
available, only hydrocarbon emissions resulting from gasoline
loading at marine terminals were estimated. For 1975 the esti-
mated emissions were calculated from interstate gasoline movements
discussed in Section 4.2. For 1985 the estimated emissions were
calculated from projected gasoline production statistics discus-
sed in Section 4.3. A condensation is presented below.
Estimated hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline
loading operations nationwide amounted to 7,600
tons in 1975. Approximately 6,600 tons of these
emissions occurred along the Gulf Coast of Texas,
Louisiana, and Mississippi.
Estimated hydrocarbon emissions from nationwide
gasoline loading operations in 1985 are estimated
to be approximately 10,000 tons, assuming no
change in current operating practices. The appli-
cation of operational controls is estimated to
lower the 1985 emissions to 4,000 tons.
-8-
-------
1985 nationwide emission reduction due to the
application of operational controls is 60 percent.
A 64 percent reduction was estimated for the Gulf
Coast where the majority of the loading is onto
tankers. An 18 percent reduction was estimated
for the Great Lakes and Inland Waterways where the
majority of the loading is onto barges.
1-2 Conclusions
The following conclusions have been developed from the
information generated by this study.
1) Transport of crude oil by water carrier is ex-
pected to increase significantly in the ten year
period (1975-1985). Tanker deliveries of imported
crude oil to the East Coast and Gulf Coast will
continue to rise, while tanker deliveries of North
Slope crude to the West Coast will stabilize im-
ports to that area. The Inland Waterways and
Great Lakes area will be a region of increasing
barge activity for crude oil from the Gulf Coast
as refiners seek to replace the dwindling Cana-
dian crude supply.
2) Marine transport of gasoline will also increase
from 1975 to 1985. Although the West Coast and
Gulf Coast will remain relatively gasoline suffi-
cient, East Coast tanker traffic will continue to
increase for gasoline arriving from the Gulf Coast
and abroad. In addition, barge transport of gaso-
line from the Gulf Coast to the Inland Waterways
will increase as consumer demand outpaces local
gasoline production.
-9-
-------
3) Three operational control techniques appear appli-
.cable to the control of loading emissions from
ships and ocean barges: tank cleaning, slow ini-
tial and final loading, and short loading. These
operational control techniques may potentially
lower existing gasoline loading emissions for
ships by 83 percent and ocean barges by 93 percent,
Note that tank cleaning creates emissions itself,
but these emissions will have little impact on
inland ambient hydrocarbon levels if the cleaning
is conducted out at sea. In addition, short
loading may encounter stability problems, but
these problems and their solutions are not well
defined.
4) The primary operational control technique poten-
tially applicable to inland barges is slow initial
and final loading. This control technique is
estimated to lower gasoline loading emissions '
from barges by 18 percent.
5) The most promising operational control techniques
for unloading emissions from tankers and ocean
barges are segregated ballast and short ballast-
ing. The control efficiency is estimated to be
very high.
6) Application of operational controls nationwide
in 1985 would potentially reduce the expected
national hydrocarbon emissions at transfer ter-
minals from loading gasoline onto ships and barges
. by 60 percent.
.-10-
-------
1.3 Re c ommen d a t ion s
As a result of this project, several areas have been
identified as needing further work to more completely define
emissions from marine terminal operations and the potential for
applying operational control techniques. The following studies
are recommended.
1) A study to obtain detailed information on a
regional basis as to the actual breakdown of
tank arrival conditions due to cruise history.
2) A sampling program designed to produce accurate
emission factors for,
a. all barge operations including loading and
unloading of gasoline and crude oil,
b. tanker unloading operations for gasoline
and crude oil, and
c. tanker loading operations for crude oil only.
3) A sampling program designed to produce accurate
control efficiency information for both loading
and unloading operational control techniques
applied to crude and gasoline ships and barges.
4) A background study on the cost and various ramifi-
cations of applying operational control techniques,
including such things as safety, cost, dock time,
and additional labor requirements.
-11-
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The loading and unloading of volatile hydrocarbon
liquids at marine terminals is known to be a source of hydro-
carbon emissions. A previous Radian study conducted for the
EPA focused on general information concerning marine terminal
procedures, emissions, and available control technology, with
particular emphasis on the Houston-Calveston port area (EPA
Project No. 68-01-4136 Task 1). As a continuing part of the
study, it was decided to investigate alternative emission
control methods. The EPA commissioned Radian Corporation to
conduct a study assessing the effectiveness of marine terminal
emission control by modification of operating procedures as an
alternative to vapor recovery systems. This report presents
the results of that study.
2.1 Objectives
The objectives of this study are to provide the
Emission Standards and Engineering Division of EPA with national
and regional information on marine terminal operations, includ-
ing,
Statistics concerning national geographical
patterns for the marine transport of crude oil
and gasoline,
Projected transportation patterns through 1985, and
Assessment of operational practice changes which
would potentially reduce hydrocarbon emissions.
-12-
-------
The information generated through this program will be used by
EPA to prepare control techniques guidelines documents to assist
states in revising their ambient air oxidant implementation
plans and to assess the need to prepare new source performance
standards.
2.2 Scope
To successfully meet the above stated objectives, a
five task program was devised. The tasks are briefly outlined
below.
Task 1, Marine Transportation Statistics: Provision
of statistics concerning current marine transporta-
tion patterns for crude oil and gasoline by geogra-
phic region.
Task 2, Growth Projections: Quantification of the
amount of growth or change that is expected to take
place in marine transportation activities over the
next ten years.
Task 3, Operational Control Techniques: Identifica-
tion of operating procedures (rather than equipment
intensive technologies like vapor recovery or
incineration) that could be utilized to minimize
hydrocarbon emissions at or near terminals by
vessels loading and unloading gasoline and crude oil.
Task 4, Effectiveness of Operational Control
Techniques: Estimation of the emission levels and
reductions that can be achieved with the operating
procedures identified in Task 3, using existing
data and engineering judgment.
-13-
-------
Task 5, National and Regional Emissions: Preparation
of estimates of the emissions from marine transfer
operations for a typical terminal on a national and
regional basis from existing data and engineering
calculations.
2.3 . Approach
To accomplish the project objectives, Radian estab-
lished contacts with the petroleum industry, the marine industry,
trade associations, and government agencies. These contacts
are summarized in Appendix A, Industry Contacts. Initially
Radian met with the U.S. Coast Guard and representatives of
several different oil companies and marine transportation cor-
porations. When these sources were unable to provide adequate
information, an intensive effort was made to retrieve statistics
from trade associations and government agencies . These latter
two sources provided the foundation for the marine transporta-
tion pattern statistics reported in this study. Radian was also
able to utilize in-house experience and data in projecting
transportation patterns for the next decade and in estimating
the potential reduction of hydrocarbon emissions by operational
practice changes.
-14-
-------
3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Petroleum refining operations in the U.S. are central-
ized in a few major refining regions. These regions are in or
near the major oil producing areas. Much of the consumption of
petroleum products lies outside these production and refining
regions. In addition, the overall domestic demand for crude
and petroleum products has far outpaced U.S. production and
refining capabilities. U.S. reliance on imports is increasing
with each year. Both circumstances have resulted in a complex
transportation network for crude and petroleum products of which
the marine industry is a major part.
3.1 Marine Transportation in the Petroleum Refining
. Industry
According to one source, more petroleum is carried by
water than any other commodity.1 Although the water carriers'
share of the domestic market has declined with respect to other
modes of transportation, the total volume has steadily increased.
With the exception of two crude oil pipelines from Canada, vir-
tually all imports of crude oil and finished petroleum products
are handled by water carriers.
For the "purposes of this report the marine transpor-
tation network was divided into five geographic areas: East
Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast (including Alaska and Hawaii),
Great Lakes, and Inland Waterways. There is only a small amount
of petroleum transportation on the Great Lakes. The 1975 total
of 86.6 million barrels represents a decline of 9 percent from
the previous year and reflects a long term trend.1 This steady
decrease in water carrier service can be attributed to the com-
petition of pipelines which can be operated when tankers and
-15-
-------
barges are ice-bound. Due to the incompleteness of Great Lakes
statistics, many of the statistics compiled for this study
consider the Great Lakes and Inland Waterways as a single region.
In 1975 the United States flag fleet was ranked eighth
(in total tanker tonnage) in the world.2 More recent statistics
show that in 1977 there were a total of 397 U.S. flag tankers;
oil companies owned and operated 75 (19%) with the remaining
322 (81%) being operated by leasing companies, independent
refiners, terminal operators, and for-hire carriers. These
figures do not reflect tankers owned by foreign affiliates of
U.S. oil companies.
In 1977 a total of 3,053 petroleum tank barges were
operating on the nation's inland waterways and along the coasts.
Oil companies owned 373 barges and leased another 66, for a
total capacity of 8.43 million barrels.
3.1.1 Marine Transportation of Crude Oil
In 1975 water carriers accounted for 10 percent of the
domestic receipts and 74 percent of the foreign receipts of crude
oil at U.S. refinery centers. Overall, marine transportation
accounted for 31 percent of crude oil receipts at refineries.
While the amount of domestic crude handled by marine transporta-
tion is declining, the arrival of North Slope crude at the Valdez
terminal during the summer of 1977 will begin to reverse this
trend. In addition, the quantities of foreign crude oil being
shipped to U.S. refinery centers, particularly on the East Coast,
have increased significantly. The water carriers' share of crude
oil transport should steadily increase in the future. Figure
3.1-1 illustrates the various crude oil transportation patterns.
-16-
-------
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
8.33
IMPORTS
4.09
PIPELINE 7.28
RAIL AND TANK TRUCK 0.22
BARGE AND TANKER 0.83
PIPELINE 1.08
MARINE TANKER 3.01
FIGURE 3.1-1 TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL, 1975
(RATES IN MILLIONS OF BARRELS PER DAY)
REFINERY
STORAGE
SOURCE: MINERAL INDUSTRY SURVEYS, ANNUAL PETROLEUM STATEMENT (Reference 3)
-------
.3.1.2 Marine Transportation of Gasoline
Statistics for 1975 show that 9.5 percent of domestic
gasoline shipments and nearly all (97.8 percent) of imported
gasoline shipments were made by water carriers. Overall, marine
transportation accounted for 12 percent of the gasoline trans-
ported to U.S. bulk terminals.2 This percentage is considerably
less than the national domestic average for all petroleum pro-
ducts , in which ships and barges accounted for 15 percent and 30
percent, respectively, as the primary means of transportation to
bulk terminals. "* The various methods of transporting gasoline
from refinery storage to bulk terminals are shown in Figure 3.1-2.
The major traffic pattern for flow of gasoline in the
United States is from refineries along the coasts of Texas and
Louisiana to high population centers along the East Coast. A
large portion of the gasoline is carried by the Colonial Pipeline
which originates in the Houston area and terminates at New York
City. Since there are relatively few pipelines to the six-state
New England area, this region relies predominantly on water car-
riers for gasoline supply with some support from tank cars and
trucks. Therefore, the substantial coastal transportation net-
works should continue to handle large volumes of gasoline. The
traffic should increase in the foreseeable future.
3.1.3 Economics of Marine Transportation
Transportation of crude and gasoline by tanker is by
far the cheapest means of conveying these cargoes. The average
cost ranges from about $0.15 to $0.40 per thousand barrel miles.
Pipelines represent the nearest competition at a cost of from
$0.30 to $1.20 per thousand barrel miles and barges are a close
third at $0.40 to $1.50 per thousand barrel miles.
-18-
-------
REFINERY
STORAGE
TOTAL
GASOLINE
B528
TANKER/BARGE 180
PIPELINE 4
TANK CARS/TRUCKS NEG.,
TANKER/BARGE 614 ;
PIPELINE 4964
TANK CARS/TRUCKS 892.
TANKER/BARGE 9
PIPELINE 11
TANK CARS/TRUCKS 18
FIGURE 3.1-2 TRANSPORT OF GASOLINE
(RATES IN THOUSANDS OF BARRELS PER DAY. 1975)
SOURCE: MINERAL INDUSTRY SURVEYS. ANNUAL PETROLEUM STATEMENT (Reference 2)
-------
According to the U.S. Coast Guard, the average
capacity of U.S. tankers is 210,353 barrels or about 33,000
dwt. The draught of such a vessel would be approximately
34 feet. Recently, however, the increasing worldwide demand
for Middle East crude oil and the economics of volume trans-
portation have led to the construction and use of ships of
265,000 dwt. with a 67 foot draught. Table 3.1-1 shows that
no U.S. receiving ports are capable of docking these very
large crude carriers (VLCC's). Since Freeport in the Bahamas
can accommodate vessels up to 380,000 dwt., it has become an
exchange terminal where VLCC's from the Middle East can unload
crude oil and smaller ships, which are able to negotiate U.S.
harbors', can reload the oil for final delivery to East Coast
and Gulf Coast refinery centers.
The low cost of barge transportation can be attributed
primarily to the extremely large size of a unit movement and
the innovative designs for floating equipment. On the calm
waters of inland waterways, large numbers of barges can be
lashed together to form flotillas with capacities of 80,000
to 100,000 barrels. This has enabled barge service to operate
at an average of three mills per ton-mile as compared with
rail and truck service costs of eleven and eighty mills per
ton-mile, respectively.1 Recently, ocean-going barges (7,500 -
35,000 dwt.) have become important factors in petroleum
transportation. Powered by ocean-going tugboats, these barges
have been used to lighter tankers which are too large to enter
port. The petroleum liquids are then barged to nearby refineries,'
population centers or transhipment points.
3.2 Marine Terminal Operations
Basically two operations occur at the major marine
terminal of refining centers: loading and unloading of crude
-20-
-------
1ABLE 3.1-1. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM VESSEL SIZE OF U.S. PORTS
DWT (Current)
East: Coast
Baltimore, Md.
Boston, Mass.
Delaware River Ports
Hampton Roads, Va.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Miami, Fla.
New York, N.Y.
Port Everglades, Fla.
Portland, Maine
Savannah , Ga .
Gulr Coast
Baton Rouge, La.
Baytown, Tex.
Beaumont , Tex .
Corpus Christi, Tex.
Freeport, Tex.
Galveston, Tex.
Houston, Tex.
Lake Charles, La.
Mobile, Ala.
Nederland, Tex.
New Orleans, La.
Pascagoula, Miss.
i'ort Arthur, rex.
Texas City, Tex.
35,000
60,000
55,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
70,000
50,000
70,000
35,000
50,000
50,000
35,000
55,000
40,000
35,000
35/50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
~~- — = — = : • ••- 50 , 000 — —
35,000
(Continued)
-21-
-------
TABLE 3.1-1. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM VESSEL SIZE
OF U.S. PORTS (CONTINUED)
DWT (Current)
West Coast
Anacortes, Wash. 120,000
Anchorage, Alaska 35,000
Ferndale, Wash. 150,000
Honolulu, Hawaii 35,000
Long Beach, Calif. 120,000
Los Angeles, Calif. 110,000
Portland, Oreg. 35,000
Richmond, Calif. 35,000
San Diego, Calif. 35,000
San Francisco, Calif. 55,000
Tacoma, Wash. 150,000
Valdez, Alaska 150,000
Sources: References 5, 6
-22-
-------
oil and petroleum products. In some instances the same dock
area can not be used for both operations. In addition, petro-
leum products are unloaded at bulk terminals that serve as dis-
tribution centers for wide marketing areas.
Very little crude oil is loaded at one refining
center for transport to another. The small amount that does
undergo such transfer is almost exclusively loaded in the
Texas-Louisiana coastal area for shipment to refining centers
along the Delaware River and lower New York Bay. In 1974
tankers delivered about 60 million barrels by this route.1
Crude oil loading operations are also carried out at offshore
production platforms and in the swamps of Louisiana at
"mudhole" wells. The crude is then unloaded at nearby coastal
refineries for processing.
In the summer of 1977 the United States will have
its first major oil loading port when Valdez, Alaska initiates
operations for North Slope crude. Three berths designed to
handle tankers up to 150,000 dwt. will be equipped with four
16-in. loading arms. A smaller fourth berth will be for
120,000 dwt. tankers and will have four 12-in, loading arms.
All four berths will have a 42-in. ballast line which will
connect to a 1.33 million b/d ballast-water treatment facility.
Estimated tanker loading time will be 22 to 30 hours. Future
plans provide for a fifth berth and modifications to increase
three original berths to accommodate 250,000 .dwt. tankers.
Initial flow is expected to be 600,000 b/d and to increase to
1.2 million b/d by the end of the year.5
-23-
-------
3.2.1 Unloading Operations
After the ship is docked at the terminal where it
will discharge its load, dock and ship personnel connect the
shore and ship manifolds using cargo hoses or hydraulic arms.
Then, the ship's main cargo pumps are used to discharge the
cargo. These pumps vary in number and capacity for different
tankers. The tanks are unloaded from the bottom, just as they
are loaded. During unloading the P/V valves are manually
opened and the ullage caps are opened.
Once the main cargo pumps have removed all the cargo
possible, they are switched off. The smaller stripper pumps
and lines are used to remove the remaining cargo from each tank.
This procedure ijs called stripping. Each cargo tank's strippings
are pumped to a designated cargo tank usually located aft. When
all the tanks have been stripped, the main cargo pump for the
tank holding the strippings is used to pump them ashore. This
completes the unloading operation.
Before the tanker departs, however, it must take on
some ballast to make it seaworthy. A ballast diagram drawn
by one of the ship's officers determines which tanks will be
ballasted. The sea valves to these tanks are opened allowing
water to flow in. The displaced vapors are vented through the
ullage cap and P/V valve which are still open.
Ships reportedly may ballast anywhere from 20 to 40
percent of their cargo capacity before leaving the dock,
depending upon the ship officer's orders. Should weather
it. more ballast may be taken on while_the
ship is at sea. The level of ballast in the tanks is usually
fairly high. This minimizes the danger of the ship's developing
-24-
-------
severe rolling in bad weather due to the sloshing of the ballast
in its tanks.
After ballasting is completed, the ullage caps are
closed; the P/V valves are returned to their normal position;
and the ship readies for departure.
There are relatively few differences between the
unloading of crude oil and gasoline. Perhaps the greatest
difference is the extra care which must be taken in connecting
discharge hoses in order to avoid faulty hose alignment and
subsequent gasoline grade contamination.
3.2.2 Gasoline Loading of Tankers
As the ship nears the refinery dock, it discharges
the clean ballast water into the channel. With the help of
several tugs it is piloted into position at the dock and made
fast to the shore moorings with its heavy docking lines. Crew
members and shore personnel next connect the ship's slop line
to the shore slop line. Any oily ballast water onboard the ship
is pumped through this line to the refinery for treatment before
it can be discharged. Depending upon the amount of dirty
ballast on board, this operation may take 10 or more hours to
complete. Once the deballasting of the cargo tanks is complete,
they are stripped, using small stripper lines located in the
bottom of each tank. This operation removes the small amount of
ballast the larger cargo pumping lines cannot remove.
After the deballasting is finished, cargo loading
hoses are connected to the shore lines in preparation for
receiving product. A specific loading pattern and loading
-25-
-------
sequence for the tanks is determined by the ship's officers.
Improper loading patterns can cause the vessel to be improperly
trimmed or even rupture if the stresses are sufficiently high.
Flexible hoses are attached to the proper shore and ship
flanges. After each tank has been visually inspected and
approved, the deck officer advises the shoreside operators that
the ship is ready to accept cargo. Before the shoreside loading
pump is turned on, the product is usually allowed to gravity
feed from the shoreside tank through the loading line and into
the vessel's tank (or tanks). This is done to insure that flow
has been established and that the cargo lineup is correct.
Once verification has been made that the lineup to a
tank is correct, the crew advises the shoreside operators to
turn on the loading pump. The displaced vapors are usually
vented through the ullage cap located atop the cargo tank
hatch. The vapors may be vented out the P/V valve to the
stack if the ullage cap is closed. Each cargo tank P/V valve
is manually lifted off its seat during the loading operation to
insure that a faulty valve does not cause overpressurization
of the tank. Periodic checks of the ullage gauges of the tanks
are made as they fill with gasoline.
Typically, several tanks are being filled at once.
Loading may be interrupted from time to time to correct trim
on the vessel. For those situations in which three tanks
across are being filled simultaneously with the same grade of
gasoline, a special loading sequence is usually followed. The
levels of the center tank and the two wing tanks are allowed to
reach an ullage of perhaps 15 to 20 feet. Then the flow to
the center tank is shut off and the two wing tanks are brought
up, one level slightly behind the other. Usually two to tour
members of the crew are responsible for bringing the product
-26-
-------
level up to the final ullage. This procedure is called "topping
off". It is accomplished with calibrated sticks about five to
six feet long. These sticks are inserted like dipsticks into
the tank from the ullage cap and the ullage read directly from
the stick. When the product reaches the desired final ullage,
the flow to that tank is shut off. Then, the other wing tank
is topped off. Following this, the flow is resumed into the
center tank until it is topped off.
This procedure is used for safety reasons. The wing
tanks have a smaller volume than the center tank. Should any
problem occur during the topping off of a wing tank, flow can
be quickly and easily diverted into the center tank which has
plenty of available space. Another reason for this sequence is
that it is more difficult to top off three tanks in a short
time than it is to first finish the two wing tanks and then
the center.
For the topping off of the final cargo tank loaded
with gasoline, the crew keeps in touch with the shoreside
operators with walkie-talkies. A crew member notifies the
operators the instant they should shut off the loading pumps
of that grade of gasoline to complete the product transfer.
Then the loading lines are disconnected; the ullage caps are
sealed shut; the P/V valves are returned to their operating
position; and the crew readies the ship for departure.
The loading of crude oil on tankers involves tech-
niques and equipment which are very similar to those previously
described for the loading of gasoline.
-27-
-------
3.2.3 Gasoline Loading of Barges
Barges differ from ships in that they do not take on
ballast after unloading. Empty barges are returned by tugboat
to the terminal where they are to load their next product.
Usually no cleaning is performed on the cargo tanks because
barges lack cleaning facilities and convenient disposal methods
for the cleanings. For these reasons they remain in a single
product service until the barge is sent to drydock for repairs.
While in dry dock the barge tanks are cleaned by removing all
hydrocarbon vapors so that regularly scheduled maintenance on
its equipment can be performed. Following this work, the barge
would be free to switch cargo service.
For loading gasoline or crude oil the barge is moved
into position at the marine dock by a tugboat and then secured
with mooring ropes. Cargo hoses or hydraulic arms, if they
are available, are attached to the barge's cargo loading
header and to the shore manifold.
The barge is filled in much the same manner as a
ship. Usually, however, only one person is available to
monitor loading operations on the barge. Barge tanks require
more frequent monitoring because the loading rate is generally
higher relative to tank size as compared to tankers. Observa-
tions on the product level are made by direct sighting through
an ullage cap. Topping off is completed in the same manner on
barges as on ships.
The loading of crude oil on barges involves techniques
and equipment .which are very similar to those just described
for the loading of gasoline.
-28-
-------
3.3 Characterization of Hydrocarbon Emissions
Hydrocarbon emissions are generated at marine termi-
nals when volatile hydrocarbon products are either loaded onto
or unloaded from ships and barges. Loading emissions result
from the displacement to the atmosphere of hydrocarbon vapors
by products being loaded into the vessel tanks. Unloading
emissions are hydrocarbon vapors displaced during ballasting
operations at the unloading dock following the delivery of a
volatile hydrocarbon liquid cargo such as crude oil or gasoline.
Loading emissions can be separated into the arrival
component and the generated component. The arrival component
consists of hydrocarbon vapors left in the empty cargo tanks
from the previous cargo. The generated component consists of
hydrocarbon vapors generated in the cargo tanks as hydrocarbon
liquids are being loaded.
Unloading emissions occur when an empty marine vessel
not equipped with segregated ballast takes on ballast water before
leaving port. Unloading emissions apply only to tankers and
ocean barges, since inland waterway barges do not take on ballast
water. During the unloading of a volatile hydrocarbon liquid,
air drawn into the emptying tank absorbs hydrocarbons evaporating
from the liquid surface. Before sailing, the empty marine vessel
will fill several cargo tanks with ballast water to maintain trim
and stability. As the ballast water enters the cargo tanks it
generates "unloading emissions" by displacing residual hydrocarbon
vapors to the atmosphere.
-29-
-------
4.0 MARINE TRANSPORTATION PATTERNS
The movements of crude oil and gasoline by ships and
barges have established worldwide transportation patterns from
production regions to refining centers to consumption areas.
Until the past decade, the United States has been at the center
of all three processes: production, refining and consumption.
Recently, however, U.S. demand for crude oil and finished petro-
leum products has far outpaced the domestic capacity for produc-
tion and refining. The result has been steady increase in
imports to meet demand. Consequently, marine transportation
patterns for crude oil and gasoline have changed. This section
contains a discussion of the present network of marine transpor-
tation patterns for crude oil and gasoline and will project how
these patterns might be altered in the next decade.
4.1 Crude Oil Movements
In 1975 almost 31 percent of the crude oil input to
refineries was received by ship or barge. This figure can be
expected to increase significantly in the immediate future.
Although marine transportation accounted for only 10 percent of
the domestic crude oil shipments, the transfer of North Slope
crude from Valdez to ports on the Pacific Coast and Gulf Coast
should more than double the amount presently shipped by tanker.
In addition, the decline in Canadian pipeline imports will almost
certainly be offset by increasing tanker imports from the Middle
East. Therefore, marine transportation is expected to assume an
even more important role in the future movements of crude oil
from production regions to U.S. refining centers.
Historically, the four major refining centers in the
U.S. have enjoyed a relatively stable supply of crude oil.
-30-
-------
The East Coast has depended almost exclusively on tanker deli-
veries of imported crude, supplemented by minor tanker receipts
from the Gulf Coast. Midcontinent refineries, on the other hand,
have relied heavily on pipeline transmission of oil from Texas,
Louisiana, and Canada with only negligible amounts supplied by
inland river barge. Refining centers on the Gulf Coast and
West Coast have normally received both domestic crude by pipe-
line and imported crude by tanker. The recent history of the
marine transportation patterns is graphically illustrated in
Figure 4.1-1. By 1975, however, decreasing domestic oil pro-
duction and increasing petroleum products demand had already
resulted in altered crude oil transportation patterns.
The most significant change has been in crude oil
supply to Midcontinent refineries, which have relied historically
on imported Canadian crude. Table 4.1-1 illustrates the depen-
dence of this area on Canadian crude and indicates the dilemma
facing refineries as this source declines. In 1976 Canadian
imports were averaging 460,000 bpd. In 1978 Canadian imports
are expected to be down 64 percent, and by 1982 they are expected
to be phased out altogether.9
TABLE 4.1-1. PERCENTAGE OF CRUDE OIL TO WEST AND
MIDWEST REFINERIES SUPPLIED BY CANADIAN OIL
State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Washington
Montana
Michigan
worth uaKota - •-
Percent of Crude
by Canada
87%
87%
57%
30%
21%
18%
Supplied
Source : Reference 9
-31-
-------
100 r-
80 -
BO' -
TO -
60 -
SO -
40 -
30
20
10
FIGURE 4.1-1
TANKER AND BARGE MOVEMENTS
OF CRUDE OIL
(103BBL/DAY)
GULF COAST TO
MIOCONTINENT
VIA THE
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
GULF COAST TO
EAST COAST BY TANKER
MIOCONTINENT
TO EAST COAST
VIA THE
OHIO RIVER
MIOCONTINENT TO EAST
COAST VIA THE GREAT LAKES
1000
900
800
700
- 800
- 500
4QO
300
- 200
- 100
1965 1986 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
SOURCE: References 3, 8
1972 1973 1974 !975
-32-
-------
For the Midcontinent refining center the short term
answer appears to be importing Middle East crude via Mississippi
River barge. In 1976 one Minnesota refiner was already barging
25,000 bpd with plans to double that amount by 1977. If other
Midcontinent refiners follow suit, crude oil shipments by barges
on inland waterways will increase to its highest activity since
1967. This could also become a long term solution if excess
North Slope crude is brought to the Gulf Coast via the Panama
Canal. Estimated Transportation cost for moving North Slope
crude to either the Gulf Coast or East Coast is $1.75 per barrel.
The cost increases to $3.34 if the final destination is Chicago.9
Another alternative for supplying Midcontinent refin-
eries with North Slope crude hinges on the construction of any
of three proposed pipelines. The Kitimat line would connect
Kitimat, British Columbia with other Canadian-U.S. pipeline
networks and would be capable of moving 300,000 bpd initially.
The Northern Tier Pipeline would run from Port Angeles, Washing-
ton to Clearbrook, Minnesota and have a capacity of 600,000 bpd.
The Sohio Pipeline could handle 500,000 bpd and would run from
Long Beach, California to the pipeline network in Midland,
Texas.
All three proposed pipelines have encountered economic
and environmental problems. For instance, the California Air
Resources Board estimates that a 70,000 bpd terminal at Long
Beach would have hydrocarbon emissions of 40 tons/day. Sohio,
however, has calculated emissions to be only 1 ton/day and plans
to reduce emissions, possibly by using segregated-ballast
tankers.9 Sohio is also attempting to secure agreements from
local dry-cleaning establishments and a glass manufacturer,
which would require these industries to reduce their°Tiydrocarbiyrr
emissions in order to satisfy the EPA emissions offset policy.10
-33-
-------
Should Midcontinent refineries depend on excess North
Slope crude, the long range benefit is questionable. While it
is true that West Coast refineries cannot presently process all
the sour North Slope crude (see Table 4.102), the estimated sur-
plus of 762,000 bpd is expected to disappear by the mid-1980's.
TABLE 4.1-2. WEST COAST DESTINATIONS
OF NORTH SLOPE CRUDE
Company
Location
Sour Crude Capacity
(bpd)
ARCO
Exxon
Gulf
Mobil
Shell
Socal
Tosco
Union
Cherry Point, Wash.
Carson City, Calif.
Benicia, Calif.
Sante Fe Springs, Calif.
Torrance, Calif.
Ferndale, Wash.
Martinez, Calif.
Wilmington, Calif.
Anacortes, Wash.
El Segundo, Calif.
Richmond, Calif.
Martinez, Calif.
Los Angeles, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
96,000
100,000
45,000
197,000
438,000
Source: Reference 11
-34-
-------
Therefore Midcontinent refineries may have to rely on the future
production of major discoveries in Alaska and/or California and
West Coast imports to prove the economics of any proposed pipe-
line. At any rate, some form of crude oil imports will play a
significant role in the future supply of Midcontinent refineries,
In the past ten years (1965-1975) , imports of crude
oil to the United States have more than tripled. Imported crude
accounted for 33 percent of the total U.S. refinery receipts in
1975. Table 4.1-3 compares the steady shift in import sources
from Canada and South America to the Middle East and Africa.
TABLE 4.1-3. U.S. IMPORTS OF CRUDE OIL
Source
Canada
Middle East
Africa
South America
Other
%
1965
23.8
24.8
5.4
38.3
7.7
Provided by Source
1975
14.6
27.3
32.6
13.9
11.6
OPEC 69.9 78.2
Sources: References 3,8
Since Canadian imports are expected to cease altogether by 1982,
essentially all foreign crude will arrive in the U.S. by tanker.
Import activity is expected to remain high and continue to
increase, though perhaps at a slower rate. At full production,
the North Slope crude will temporarily postpone the inevitable
decline in domestic crude oil production, but demand on the
East Coast and probably on the Gulf Coast, due to the needs of
-35-
-------
Midcontinent refiniers, should continue to increase. Table 4.1-4
presents the origin and destination of approximately 99.4 per-
cent of the U.S. crude oil imports in 1975.
In order to provide the most current information on
marine transportation of domestic and imported crude oil, Table
4.1-5 was organized according to the four major geographic areas.
4.2 Gasoline Movements
Determining accurate gasoline movements by marine
transportation methods is extremely difficult since most statis-
tical data is presented in the more general form of "petroleum
products". What reliable data that is available is summarized
in Table 4.2-1. An effort to further reduce this data by using
estimates from maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey on
petroleum products movement has yielded the results organized in
Table 4.2-2.
A study of the 1974 gasoline statistics given in Table
4.2-2 shows that the bulk of gasoline movement by water carrier
is from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast, in spite of the Colo-
nial Pipeline which runs from Houston, Texas to New York City
and has a daily capacity of 960,000 barrels. Significant amounts
of gasoline are also distributed along the Great Lakes and
Inland Waterways. This amount could increase substantially if
the unavailability of crude oil prevents refinery growth in the
Midcontinent region from keeping pace with the increasing demand
for petroleum products in that area. The marine transport of
gasoline from the Gulf Coast to the West Coast has always been
minimal and could cease altogether with the arrival of North
Slope crude.
-35-
-------
TABLE 4.1-4. 1975 CRUDE OIL IMPORTS (THOUSANDS OF BARRELS)
OJ
^j
i
Origin
Africa
Nigeria
Algeria
Libya
Angola
Gabon
Middle East
Saudia Arabia
Iran
Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Qatar
North America
Canada
Mexico
South America
Venezuela
Ecuador
Trinidad
Asia
Indonesia
Europe
Norway
Total
275.015
98,428
83,064
28,946
11,965
258,622
112,861
'43,454
1,444
6,657
219,175
28,198
182,558
24,914
42,956
138,270
4,552
East Coast
88,005 (32)*
44,293 (45)
20,766 (25)
19,104 (66)
9,213 (77)
82,759 (32)
38,373 (34)
5,649 (13)
1,097 (76)
1,692 ( 6)
96,756 (53)
6,873 (16)
11,062 ( 8)
774 (17)
Great Lakes,
Inland Waterway
162,190 (74)
Destination
Gulf Coast
178,760 (65)
51,183 (52)
57,314 (69)
6,947 (24)
598 ( 5)
134,483 (52)
24,829 (22)
23,900 (55)
4,061 (61)
23,968 (85)
29,209 (16)
1,993 ( 8)
35,224 (82)
16,592 (12)
3,778 (83)
West Coast
5,500 ( 2)
984 ( 1)
3,323 ( 4)
38,793 (15)
38,373 (34)
13,036 (30)
347 (24)
2,596 (39)
56,986 (26)
18,256 (10)
18,686 (75)
110,616 (80)
Puerto Rico
2,750 ( 1)
1,969 ( 2)
1,661 ( 2)
2,895 (10)
2,154 (18)
2,586 ( 1)
11,286 (10)
869 ( 2)
2,538 ( 9)
38,337 (21)
4,235 (17)
839 ( 2)
*Indicatcs % of total Imported from that country
Source: Reference 3
-------
TABLE 4.1-5.
1975 REFINERY RECEIPTS OF CRUDE OIL BY TANKERS
AND BARGES (THOUSANDS OF BARRELS)
Region & State
East Coasc
Delaware, Maryland
Fla., Ga., Virginia
Hew Jersey, Rhode Is.
New York, New Hamp.
Penn. (East)
Gulf Coast
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Great Lakes &
Inland Waterways
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Missouri, Nebraska
Kansas
Kent., Tenn.
Illinois
Minn. , Wisconsin
Indiana
Ohio (East)
(West)
Michigan
Penn (West)
West Virginia
Pacific Coast
California
Washington
Ore. , Alas., Hawaii '
Crude Oil
Input to
Refineries
49,925
23,278
189,233
31,238
192,411
486,085
1,210,366
549,790
98,253
13,169
1,871,578
19,211
167,132
33,833
141,119
70,423
357,870
69,201
163,277
20,897
162,636
41,318
21,998
5,720
1,274,685
562,462
105,792
Refi
(Dome
Intrastate
Tankers
& Barges
—
—
' —
~
—
—
17,220
80,169
—
661
98,050
—
— •
—
—
—
— '
—
~
—
—
—
—
__
__
36.S07
—
nery Receipt
stic)
Interstate
Tankers
& Barges
5,153
31
11,954
«
14.233
31,371
64,015
8,112
~
459
72,586
~
—
~
~
14,147
.
—
2,515
—
—
~
1,563 .
1,137
19,412 •
43,084
3,683
s
(Foreign)
Tankers
& Barges
44,497
21,983
178,121
1,855
171,935
418,391
303,361
89,159
38,600
671
431,791
—
—
—
—
159
~
~
~
--
—
~ •
.- —
—
159
191,190
7. By
Marine
Trans .
99.4
94.6
100.4
5.9
96.8
92.5
31.3
32.3
39.3
13.6
32.2
—
—
—
~ .
20.3
—
~
1.5
—
'
~
7.1
20.3
1.5
48.2
42.754 43.9
38,594 ! — 32 16.588 43.3
706,843 , 36,807 -6.799 ' ; :50,632 47.3
13^,357
1,100,973
Source: Reference 3
-Jo-
-------
TABLE 4.2-1,
TANKER AND BARGE MOVEMENTS OF GASOLINE IN 1974
(THOUSANDS OF BARRELS)
Origin-
Gulf Coast
Midcontinent
New England
Central Atlantic
Lower Atlantic
Midcontinent
West Coast
East Coast
Via Great Lakes
Via Ohio River
Cargo
>r Gasoline Aviation Gasoline
24,084
51,644
101,180
27,357
1,392
1,054
4,834
357
767
1,856
533
--
--
— —
Source: Reference 3
-39-
-------
TABLE. 4.2-2
1974 GASOLINE STATISTICS
(THOUSANDS OF BARRELS)
Region & State
East Coast
Maine
New Hampshire
Veraont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Penn. (Ease)
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
Morth Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
"lorida
Gulf Coast
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Great Lakes i
Inland Vac arrays
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Missouri
Tennessee
Kentucky
Indiana
Illinois
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Icwa
Ohio
Michigan
?enr. . v«'«st)
Vase Virginia
Vest Coas:
California
Oregon S Idaho
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii
Gasoline
Production
—
—
—
—
885
—
13.864
90,024
100,300
22,324
4,252
8,139
—
—
2,331
826
243,445
609,347
281,788
49,911
528
942,074
7,443
99,584
15,510
6,131
23,066
30,022
216,355
32 , 604
7,157
—
117,622
19,543
11,466
1,394
637,537
260,452
436
50,086
2,370
3,039
326,433
2,149,489*
% of Total Gasoline % of Total
Petro. Prod. Consumption Petro . Prod
Produced Consumed
—
—
—
—
40.4
~_
40.4
40.3
35.5
43.6
43.5
40.7
—
—
40.7
40.7
38.7
41.7
44.0
31.4
4.4
41.4
35.5
43.5
43.3
43.6
43.5
43.3
52.9
52.6
52/6
—
43.0
40.3
35.5
24.1
i?.l
33.2
14.7
50.0
14.7
14.7
34.5
4-6.1
12,382
9,299
5,603
54,689
8,851
31,602
142,806
75,588
102,358
7,059
42,606
58,130
67,150
34,632
65,229
100,124
818,558
169,030
41,318
28,461
44,349
283,658 .
27,433
39,393
. 62,586
51,948
39,919
65,216
119,537
48,431
51,034
39,215
119,193
103,694
11,753
18. 248
303,255
235,428
39,173
39,634
3,333
6,515
324,783
2,230,359*-
- 29.6
38.5
47.1
23.4
35.3
33.0
32.2
34.6
44.3
26.7
• 39.0
42.4
58.3
56.7
55.6
43.8
39.3
51.7
39.3
45.4
56.5
49.5
44.5
61.3
59.4
65.9
63.9
47.9
48.9
50.3
55.7"
57.5
63.9
53.5
44.3
65.2
55.9
52.9
51.3
51.7
20.6
21.6
50.1
47.0
Gasoline
Surplus or
(Deficit)
( 12,382)
( 9,299)
( 5,603)
( 54,689)
( 7,966)
( 31,602)
(128,942)
14,436
( 2,558)
15,265
( 38,354)
( 49,991)
( 67,150)
( 34,682)
( 62,398)
( 99.298)
(575,213)
440,817
239,970
21,450
( 43,321)
653,416
( 19,990)
56,691
( 47,436)
( 45,317)
( 15,353)
14,806
96,718
( 15,327)
( 43,927)
( 39,2.15)
( 1,571)
( 39,151)
( 292)
( 16,354)
(165,713)
25,024
( 33,692)
20,402
( 1,513)
( 3.576)
1,645
( 30,870)
Receipts &
by Tanker
Domestic
- 1,268
1,268
2,303
12,676
1,268
6,338
\ 20,270
18,015
( 10,000)
| 36,412
7,367
7,367
10,314
76.131
191,497
(123,579)
( 83,499)
( 2,092)
—
(209,170)
2,413
—
5,736
5,540
2,038
|( 3,400)
1,914
5,354
4,742
190
—
2,417
2,417
24,366
i,392
420
—
—
2.650
4,462
233,725
(227,570)
(Shipments)
and Sarne
Foreign
7,446
5,381
1,376
28,149
4,488
16,927
} 19,740
8,400
—
I 7,380
1,344
1,260
1,260
6,720
• 110,371
2,569
2,569
1,235
423
5,531
—
—
—
—
—
500
—
—
—
3iQ
42
—
. —
1,332
163
—
—
1,513
926
2,602
121,235
* Represents 933 of the National Tccal
**Represeni:5 92?. of the National local
Sources: References 1,3
-40-
-------
Of increasing significance is the growing amount of
imported petroleum products being received at U.S. ports, espe-
cially along the East Coast. In 1974 the United States imported
a total of 885 million barrels of finished petroleum products,
85 percent of which was received at the East Coast.3 A major
factor in the increasing East Coast dependence on imported pro-
ducts has been the economic situation fostered by federal legis-
lation. The Jones Act requires that domestic marine trade be
handled by U.S. shipping. Since the costs of U.S. tankers
have been higher than those of foreign flag ships, imported
petroleum products have been cheaper at their East Coast desti-
nation than domestic products. Table 4.2-3 summarizes the im-
ported petroleum products during 1974. Gasoline accounted for
8.4 percent of the total finished petroleum products imported
that year.3
Transportation of domestic petroleum products from
refinery centers to consumption areas is actually a two step
process. The first step is transfer from loading refinery bulk
terminals to receiving marketing bulk terminals. In 1975
approximately 50 percent of the domestic petroleum products was
transferred by pipeline. Still another 45 percent was trans-
ferred by water carriers, with ships and barges accounting for
15 percent and 30 percent, respectively (1974 Inland Waterborne
Commerce statistics). The remaining 5 percent was transferred
by trucks or tank cars. Approximately 9.5 percent of the gaso-
line leaving refineries was transported by tanker or barge.
The second step is the transfer of petroleum products
from marketing bulk terminals; either directly to the consumer
or indirectly to the consumer via smaller bulk stations. Almost
all of the petroleum products reach the consumer and bulk station
by tank truck. Less than 1 percent of the petroleum products
transferred in this second step are transferred by water carrier.
-41-
-------
TABLE 4.2-3. 1974 IMPORTS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS (THOUSANDS.OF BARRELS)
ho
I
Region and Port
Africa
Kast Const
Portland, Maine
Hoston, Mans. 1,500
Providence, H.I.
Now Haven, Conn. 300
New York, N.Y. 6.900
1'hlladelphla, Penn. 4,800
Baltimore, Md. &
Norfolk, Va. 200
WDmlnKton, N. Cnr.
Chnrleston, S. Car.
Savannah, Ga.
Miami, Kla. 100
T.impa, Kla.
13,800
Oulf Coast
Mobile. Ala.
Now Orleans, La. 400
Port Arthur, Tx.
HOUR ton-Calves ton.
Tx.
400
Cre.it Lakes & Inland
Waterway
Detroit, Mich.
Cleveland, Ohio
Huffnlo, N.Y.
O|',urg, N.Y.
Allians, Vt.
West Coast
Sun Diego, Cal.
I.OB Angeles, Cal.
San Francisco, Cal.
Son t tie, Wash.
Anchorage, Alaska
Honolulu, Hawaii 1.200
1.200
iTTAOO
Ay la Australia Canada
1,700
1 ,000
13,000
300 3,400
100 6,200
200 600
100 500 25,900
200
1.100 100
1,300 . 100
5,000
2,200
6,100
800
14,100
1,100
4,000 300
600 200
400
2,500
7,000
15,200 900
iTTloo 500 ViTooo
Region of
Caribbean
7,100
36,600
2,200
13,000
107,200
22,900
33,800
3,400
3,300
5,100
13,000
25.800
273,400
7,300
6.200
2,200
3,000
18,700
7,000
BOO
600
600
1.100
10,100
IbTTzoo
Origin
Cent. An.
100
200
200
500
200
400
11.600
200
100
100
13,600
100
200
300
13,900
Europe
12,000
10,600
3,700
43,900
27,600
10,600
2,100
200
200
600
800
112.300
2,900
1,600
8.800
13.300
2,100
200
200
2.500
Tl8,i60
Middle East
700
200
200
500
1,900
900
100
200
4,700
300
1,300
600
1,900
4,100
100
400
900
100
1,100
4.700
7,300
16,100
South Am.
13,400
3,900
6,000
59,800
25,100
49.000
500
8,500
4,100
9.400
21.300
201,000
1,200
4,100
700 .
15.200
21.200
400
4,300
800
5,500
14,400
2,700
900
18,000
245,700
Source: Reference 1
-------
4.3 Projections for Crude Oil and Gasoline Marine
Transportation
This section contains the projections and methodology
used to project marine transportation of crude oil and gasoline
in the United States ,for the year 1985. Starting from two growth
scenarios for petroleum product demands, projections for the
expansion of refineries and the location of new refineries were
generated. The transportation of crude oil and gasoline into
and out of the refineries was projected in order to meet the
feedstock requirements of the facilities.
4.3.1 Methodology
The methodology and assumptions used to project the
volumes of crude oil and gasoline shipped to and from marine
terminals in the United States are described in this section.
The initial step in the projection procedure involved
adaptation of the energy scenarios developed by the FEA to des-
cribe possible futures and to demonstrate the dependency of the
U.S. energy supply situation on pricing and regulatory policies.
Each scenario includes projections of domestic oil production
and foreign oil imports to meet a total petroleum liquids demand
for 1985. Two projections were chosen as reasonable boundary
conditions to possible futures for marine transportation. One
projection requires the maximum shipping while the other requires
the minimum shipping of crude oil by ship and barge.
The next step was projection of refinery growth based
on the energy development scenarios previously cited. One
scenario projected the maximum growth of refineries while the
other projected the minimum growth. The refineries were taken
-43-
-------
as the central focal point of the study. Crude oil shipments are
assumed unloaded at the refineries and gasoline shipments are
assumed loaded there. Assumptions for expansion of existing
refineries and location of new refineries were based primarily
on oil company announcements of future growth plans.
Gasoline marketing networks were assumed to expand
proportionally to the refinery expansions. In actuality market-
ing will follow population growth by region but no attempt was
made to refine the projections to this level.
4.3.2 Projection Scenarios
The projections of future movements of crude oil and
gasoline by marine transportation were based on FEA forecasts
for petroleum demand in 1985. The demand for petroleum products
was translated into expansion and growth of refineries. Changes
in transportation patterns will depend on location of new refin-
eries as well as any expansions of existing facilities.
The procedures developed do not include trend analysis,
since past trends are not necessarily a good indication of the
future. The picture of petroleum production and imports is
changing rapidly and several announced policies have made past
trends obsolete.
The movements of crude oil and gasoline by marine
transportation over the next ten years (1975-1985) will depend
on several factors including,
Demand for petroleum products in the U.S.,
Domestic oil production,
Price structures for both foreign oil and
domestic oil,
-44-
-------
Economics of marine transportation, and
Marketing of Alaskan crude.
The ratio of domestic crude to foreign crude will
impact marine transportation significantly, as most domestic
crude is transported by pipeline, while most foreign crude is
moved by tankers to the refinery.
The whole picture depends on the projections of energy
supplies for the country. A widely accepted estimate of future
demand for petroleum products was developed by the FEA.12 This
document considered several energy policy scenarios and generated
a series of projections for foreign oil imports based on these
scenarios. The two energy scenarios used to estimate future
crude oil movements are:
1) $13/bbl for foreign oil, $9/bbl for domestic
oil with a pessimistic outlook for supply
(PESS), business as usual (BAU).
2) Domestic oil priced at $13/bbl.
Two growth projections were used to describe a range
of possible refining industry responses to the projections of
crude demand. The first refining growth scenario allows for the
completion of all announced new refineries and refinery expan-
sions. The second refining growth scenario assumes that condi-
tions for establishing new refineries are very unfavorable and
that no new refineries will be built. However, the second scenario
does assume that a vigorous expansion effort will take place to
compensate for the lack of new "grass roots" refinery capacity.
This expansion is estimated at 2 percent per year or 20 percent
over the 1975-1985 time period. This second refining growth
scenario will force higher importation of petroleum products as
opposed to crude oil imports.
-45-
-------
These two refining growth projections bracket reason-
able refining growth possibilities, i.e., they represent the
maximum and minimum growth scenarios. The blocking of refinery
growth directly impacts the storage industry by shifting the
product and crude import mix. The shift in import mix impacts
most significantly the location of product storage. Distribution
avenues rather than refinery locations are, thus, a more dominant
consideration. Therefore, the use of twp refining growth scenar-
ios not only bracket that industry's possibilities, but also
brackets growth possibilities in the petroleum storage industry.
4.3.2.1 Scenario I - Maximum Growth
Scenario I represents a maximum importation situation
caused by low pricing of domestic crude, resulting in greater
imports to meet projected demands. This scenario would result
in the greatest quantities of crude to be moved by tankers to
U.S. refining facilities. The scenario assumes $13/bbl as the
price of imported oil and $9/bbl as the price of domestic oil
with a pessimistic estimate of U.S. supplies. The impact of
pricing domestic oil at low levels such as $8 or $9 per barrel
is to make tertiary recovery techniques as well as new wells
uneconomical. The total domestic supply impact could be as much
as 2.5 MMB/D in reduced production compared to production levels
estimated for domestic oil priced at $13/bbl. By 1985 the pro-
jections call for imports totaling 12.6 MMB/D compared to the
5.8 MMB/D level of 1975. Domestic production is assumed to
decline slightly from the 1975 level of 10.0 MMB/D to 9.6 MMB/D.
The total demand on petroleum liquids will grow to 22.2 MMB/D
compared to the 1975 total of 15.8 MMB/D. All of the increase
is assumed to be made up of imports. The total refining capa-
city, assuming importation of crude oil as opposed to products,,
should be around 22 MMB/D in 1985.
-46-
-------
For the five year segment 1975 to 1980, industry
announcements were used to allocate refinery growth to Air
Quality Control Regions (AQCR's). Refinery expansion and new
refinery projects require lead times sufficient for planning,
engineering and construction. Therefore, new refineries
announced for this time period should be well defined and firmly
committed. Expansions require shorter lead times and should
be considered less definite. However, expansions announced for
the first several years were considered definite. Additional
expansion announcements are to be expected for the latter part
of this time period. The list of announced expansions and new
facilities brings the U.S. crude refinery capacity to approxi-
mately the refinery capacity projected for 1980.
The period of 1980-1985 was projected using announced
projects and an additional incremental expansion of the refining
industry of 1 percent per year. The industry announcements used
are listed in Appendix B as Uncertain, Undefined, or Early Stages
of Planning. These announcements consist mainly of major new
refineries now in planning and are assumed to be targeted for
the 1980 to 1985 time period.
A third assumption used in making growth projections
was that only 30 percent of the announced new East Coast refin-
eries would be built. The basis for this assumption is the
significant opposition from local environmental groups and state
legislatures. This opposition is singularly strong on the East
Coast.
The historical opposition to East Coast refinery con-
struction is illustrated in Table 4.3-1. An examination of this
table shows that the Fuels Desulfurization Corporation and its
subsidiaries proposed four sites for a 200,000 bbl/day refinery,
-47-
-------
TABLE 4.3-1. REFINERIES PLANNED BUT NOT CONSTRUCTED
BECAUSE OF OPPOSITION ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS
Company
Location
Barrels/Day
Final Action Blocking Project
CO
Shell Oil Co.
Fuels Desulfurization1
Maine Clean Fuels1
Maine Clean Fuels1
Georgia Refining Co.1
Northeast Petroleum
Supermarine, Inc.
Commerce Oil
Stewart Petroleum
C. H. Sprague & Son
Belcher Oil Co.
Delaware Bay, DE 150,000
Riverhead, Rl 200,000
South Portland, ME 200,000
Searsport, ME 200,000
Brunswick, GA
Riverton, RI
Hoboken, NJ
200,000
65,000
100,000
Jamestown Island, RI 50,000
Piney Point, MD
Olympic Oil Refineries, Durham, NH
Inc.2
Newington, NH
100,000
400,000
50,000
Manatee County, FL . 200,000
State reacted by legislature is
passing bill forbidding refineries
in Coastal Area.
City Council opposed project and
would not change zoning.
City Council rejected proposal.
Maine Environmental Protection Board
rejected proposal.
Blocked through actions of Office of
State Environmental Director.
City Council rejected proposal.
Hoboken Project withdrawn under
pressure from environmental groups.
Opposed by local organizations and
contested in court.
Rejected by St. Mary's County voters
by referendum on July 23, 1974.
Withdrawn after rejection by local
referendum.
Voted down in community vote on
June 28, 1974.
Voted against in referendum
September 10, 1974.
'Maine Clean Fuels and Georgia Refining Company are subsidiaries of Fuels Desulfurization and
the refinery in question is the same in each case, so the capacity in barrels per day is not
additive, but the incidents are independent and additive.
201ympic is still.considering other nearby sites.
-------
each of which was ultimately rejected because of regional
opposition. Thus, it may be logical for oil companies to
announce plans for several refineries in the hope that one might
be permitted. In such cases the other projects would be cancelled.
This could also occur if several companies announced refineries
in the same area, bidding for the same product market.
Table 4.3-1 also shows eight other East Coast refinery
projects which have been blocked in recent years. No new refin-
eries outside of the East Coast area were listed as being
blocked due to environmental opposition.
A final consideration in the evaluation of this assump-
tion is the impact on resulting projected refining capacity. If
announced East Coast refining capacity is used for the projec-
tions a considerable surplus in refining capacity results for
the "most likely" case. It is therefore felt that if East Coast
refining capacity is restricted to 30 percent of that announced,
the projections will be more realistic.
The dates for completion of the "Uncertain, Undefined,
or Early Stages of Planning" projects are generally absent or
vague. It was assumed that they would be completed during the
period of 1980-1985. New refineries require several years of
planning to complete the administrative, engineering, and con-
struction phases. Since incremental or major expansions gener-
ally require considerably less lead time, it would seem reason-
able to assume that expansion plans (as opposed to grass-roots
projects) would not be announced as far ahead of time, and would
not appear in announced 1980-1985 plans at this time. It seems
evident, however, that a significant portion of additional
refining capacity will be added in this manner.
-49-
-------
An analysis of 1975-1980 growth indicates that incre-
mental expansions over this five year period will average 1.4
percent per year. Data from Trends in Refinery Capacity and
Utilization indicate 1975 expansion capacity at 1.2 percent.13
To estimate 1980-1985 expansion growth, a value of 1.0 percent
per year was used. This allows a conservative estimate of
expansion capacity in addition to the expansions itemized in
Appendix B.
Refinery Growth Projections: Restricted East Coast
Construction
Under the maximum refining growth scenario refinery
growth for the 1980-1985 time period was projected according to
announced "Uncertain, Undefined, or Early Stages of Planning"
projects. It was assumed that only 30 percent of the new refin-
eries announced for the East Coast would be completed. In
addition to the announced new refineries, incremental and major
expansions were presumed at existing facilities in potential
growth areas at a rate of 1 percent per year.
Using these assumptions, new refining capacity of 2.1
MM bbl/day and expansion capacity of 1.1 MM bbl/day would be
added. The total 1985 refining capacity would amount to 21.5
MM bbl/day. This capacity is slightly higher than the demand
projected under the $13/bbl BAU scenario. Product imports of
0.7 MM bbl/day would be required under the $13/bbl PESS scenario.
The additional new refining capacity would be projected
to AQCR's for which the projects are announced, with the new East
Coast capacity reduced to 30 percent of that announced. Under
this procedure, new East Coast refinery capacity amounts to
0.685 MM bbl/day, and new refining capacity of 1.43 MM bbl/day
is projected to AQCR's in the rest of the country.
-50-
-------
Appendix C lists the 1985 refining capacity by AQCR
under the restricted East Coast maximum refining growth scenario.
Table 4.3-2 presents a summary of refinery capacity by region of
the country. It was necessary to manipulate the data by region
as opposed to AQCR as domestic oil and foreign oil supply data
could not be organized by AQCR.
TABLE 4.3-2. PROJECTED REFINERY CAPACITY FOR
MAXIMUM GROWTH SCENARIO I IN 10 6 BARRELS PER YEAR
Region of
Country
Gulf Coast
East Coast
West Coast
Inland, Great Lakes
Refinery Growth
1975
Capacity
2332.4
609.6
897.9
1547.6
1985
Projected Capacity
3566
1284.8
1427.2
1715
Allocation: Unrestricted East Coast
Construction
With this method, the completion of all "Uncertain,
Undefined, or Early Stages of Planning" projects is assumed, and
refinery growth for the maximum refinery growth scenario is
allocated on the basis of announced plans.
In addition to the announced new refineries, incremen-
tal and major expansions were presumed at existing facilities in
potential growth areas at a rate of 1 percent per year.
With these assumptions, 2.7 MM bbl/day refining capa-
city will be added in East Coast locations, and 1.4 MM bbl/day
refining capacity will be projected as an addition to the rest of
the country. In addition 1.1 MM bbl/day of expansion capacity is
projected for potential growth areas. The total of 5.2 MM bbl/day
-51-
-------
of additional U.S. refining capacity provides a capacity surplus
of 2.5 MM bbl/day over the demand projected in the $13 bbl BAU
scenario. There is a surplus capacity of 1.0 MM bbl/day in the
$13/bbl P.ESS scenario.
The refining capacities in AQCR's affected by this
assumption are listed in Table 4.3-3. As the unrestricted East
Coast option produces capacities well in excess of the projec-
tion, it was decided to use the restricted growth case previously
presented.
TABLE 4.3-3. PROJECTED REFINING CAPACITY
UNRESTRICTED EAST COAST OPTION (BBL/DAU)
AQCR
41
42
45
110
115
119
121
158
223
1985 Capacity
400,000
400,000
1,252,646
250,000
428,500
100,000
800,000
208,637
301,450
4.3.2.2 Scenario II - Minimum Growth
The minimum transportation of crude oil and, therefore,
minimum refining capacity scenario assumes $13/bbl for domestic
oil and business as usual conditions. This scenario is also
referred to as a "most likely" to occur possibility. Under the
assumptions of this scenario petroleum product demands will
increase only 2.0 percent per year as opposed to historical
growth rates of 3.5 percent per year, resulting in a total
demand of 19.8 MMB/D in 1985 compared to 15.3 MMB/D in 1975.
The lower growth rate is the expected result of higher priced
petroleum products.
-52-
-------
Domestic production is expected to increase from 1975
levels of 8.5 MMB/D to 13.9 MMB/D, spurred primarily by higher
crude oil prices. Imports are expected to remain at about the
1975 level, increasing only 0.1 MMB/D to 5.9 MMB/D. Marine
transportation of foreign oil should remain at about the same
level as in 1975 with higher domestic crude oil marine trans-
portation, primarily involving Alaskan crude.
The generally lower demand for petroleum products
associated with this scenario results in fewer refinery growth
projects. As a result, it is assumed that no new refineries
will be built between 1975 and 1985 with the exception of those
currently under construction or firmly committed for this time
period. The required increase in refinery capacity will be
supplied by expansion of existing refineries at a rate of 2
percent per year. The expansion growth was projected for growth
potential areas.
Growth Potential AQCR's
Certain regions are preferred for refining growth due
to considerations of crude availability, land, water, power,
labor, and market location. Historically, the refining industry
has tended to concentrate in certain regions. Therefore, to
establish the AQCR's preferred for growth in the expansion
studies, growth potential was based on announced intentions of
industry to build new refineries or to significantly expand
present facilities. It is felt that this firmly establishes
an area growth potential. A second consideration for expansion
studies is, of course, that there be current refining capacity
located in that area where growth potential is assessed.
-53-
-------
Growth potential is established on the basis of indus-
try announcements. To reduce the number of AQCR's considered
and simplify calculations, cut-off limits of 30,000 bbl/day for
1975-1980 growth and 100,000 bbl/day for 1980-1985 growth were
established. This assumption affects a significant number of
AQCR's but only 2 percent of 1975-1980 capacity and 5 percent
of 1980-1985 capacity.
The second condition is that current refining capacity
is necessary before expansions can take place. The capacities
dealt with are AQCR capacities. A cut-off level of 100,000
bbl/day present capacity was used to simplify calculations.
This assumption impacts 6 of 29 growth potential AQCR's but
affects only 1.4 percent of the present capacity in these AQCR's.
Since expansions are directly proportional to the present capa-
city, the results are not significantly affected.
In addition, there were twelve AQCR's for which industry
has announced growth plans, but in which there is no present
capacity. This indicates growth potential for that AQCR and
also growth potential for the area. Because it is impossible
to expand in the specific AQCR, expansion in a neighboring AQCR
was allowed if that AQCR had present refining capacity. AQCR's
109, 110, 116, 119, and 121 had no neighboring AQCR with present
refining capacity. Several other AQCR's with no present capa-
city were located adjacent to growth potential AQCR's and it
was assumed that this growth would account for the area growth
potential. For example, AQCR 193 was a growth potential AQCR
with~no present capacity. Neighboring AQCR's 228 and 229 were
expanded to account for the area growth potential. Similarly,
expansion in AQCR 162 was substituted to account for the growth
potential of AQCR 158.
-54-
-------
Table 4.3-4 lists the growth area AQCR's, the 1975
capacities, and the 1980 and 1985 capacities at an expansion
rate of 2 percent per year.
TABLE 4.3-4. REFINERY CAPACITY IN GROWTH AREA AQCR's (BBL/DAY)
Growth Area
AQCR
5
22
24
30
43
45
60
70
106
158 (162)
193 (228,229)
214
216
223
1975 Refining
Capacity
343,300
116,468
1,078,635
626,000
353,000
993,000
101,750
430,750
2,997,025
111,385
380,900
476,725
1,631,725
53,000
9,693,663
20% Overall
T980
337,630
128,115
1,186,499 1
688,600
388,300
1,092,300 1
111,925
473,825
3,296,728 3
122,524
418,990
524,398
1,794,898 1
58,300
10,663,032 11
Expansion
1985
411,960
139,762
,294,362
751,200
423,600
,191,600
122,100
516,900
,596,430
133,662
457,080
572,070
,958,070
63,600
,632,396
Minimum Growth Allocation to AQCR's
The 1980 and 1985 refining capacities are listed by
AQCR for the minimum growth scenario in Appendix C. The refinery
expansions are summarized by region in Table 4.3-5.
-55-
-------
TABLE 4.3-5. PROJECTED REFINERY CAPACITY FOR
MINIMUM GROWTH SCENARIO II IN 10s BARRELS PER YEAR
Region of Country
1975
Capacity
1985 Projected
Capacity
Gulf Coast
East Coast
West Coast
Inland, Great Lakes
2332.2
609.6
897.9
1547.6
2993
719
1073.1
1547.6
4.3.3
Projection of Crude Oil Movements
4.3.3.1 Scenario I
Scenario I would require some 12.6 MMB/D of petroleum
imports to supply U.S. demands in 1985. This is a 117 percent
increase over 1975 imports. Of this import total, some 8.8 MMB/D
is assumed to be crude oil imports to U.S. refineries (assuming
the same crude oil to total petroleum products ratio as in 1975) .
If transportation patterns remain the same as in 1975,
most of this increase will be absorbed by higher imports from
Africa and the Middle East. Canadian imports are expected to
stop prior to 1985. Most of the foreign crude will, therefore,
be shipped to the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Table 4.3-6
summarizes the expected mix of foreign crude to domestic crude
at these refineries.
TABLE 4.3-6. PROJECTED CRUDE OIL SUPPLIES TO
REFINERIES 1985 SCENARIO I - MAXIMUM GROWTH
(10s BARRELS PER YEAR)
Refining Region
of Country
Projected Domestic Crude Foreign Crude
Refinery Receipts Oil Supply Oil Supply
Gulf Coast
East Coast
West Coast
Inland, Great Lakes
2661.5
1074.8
1008.5
1393.4
1103.3
18.3
523.0
1393.4
1558.2
1056.5
485.5
T-
-56-
-------
Domestic Oil Production
Domestic oil production is projected to decline
slightly from the 10.0 MMB/D level of 1975 to 9.6 MMB/D. This
total will include 3.4 MMB/D from the lower 48 states, Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) and Alaska. It is not known how much
of the OCS oil will be transported by marine shipping. In the
past the primary method of transporting offshore crude to refin-
eries has been by ship and barge.1*'15 It is assumed that all
of the 1.2 MMB/D of oil produced in Alaska will be shipped by
marine transportation; however, the destination of this oil
is in doubt. The likely routes are to Southern California and
the Gulf Coast. Both of these areas could experience a signifi-
cant increase in marine transportation of domestic crude. The
loading operations will be offshore and in Alaska.
If all the Alaskan oil is shipped to the West Coast,
the total amount in 1985 would be 620.5 x 106 barrels, well in
excess of the projected domestic feedstocks to this area sum-
marized in Table 4.3-6. Sufficient refining capacity is pro-
jected in the area to handle the crude if this situation occurs.
The impact would probably be to reduce foreign oil shipments
to this area in favor of the Gulf Coast and East Coast refineries.
Foreign Oil Imports
This scenario assumes a very high importation of crude
oil'from foreign countries.. The 11 percent increase over 1975
levels would result in large scale increases in crude oil ship-
ping to the U.S.
Projection of foreign oil imports were made assuming
transportation patterns will be the same as in 1975. The increase
.was expected to be made up by African and Middle Eastern countries
-57-
-------
as a preponderance of world reserves are in that area. The
Venezuelan government has announced that production levels of
imports will not be increased beyond the 1975 totals . As a re-
sult, all of the additional imports were assumed to come from
Africa and the Middle East.
The projections are summarized in Table 4.3-7. From
the table it can be seen that the major impact will be from the
Gulf Coast and East Coast refinery centers.
4.3.3.2 Scenario II
Scenario II would require an increase in domestic oil
production of about 38 percent by 1985 as compared to the 1975
totals. Foreign oil imports would remain about the same as in
1975. Canadian oil, however, is expected to be stopped by 1985.
In order to make up the difference, increased oil imports from
Africa and the Middle East are projected.
It was assumed that the transportation patterns for
foreign oil in 1975 would remain the same thru 1985. The foreign
crude was allocated to regions according to this assumption. A
summary of domestic and foreign crude oil to U.S. refinery cen-
ters is presented in Table 4.3-8. As a direct result of the
high domestic production and low foreign import, most of the
feedstocks to the Gulf Coast and West Coast are projected to be
domestic oil (as compared to the higher imports and lower domes-
tic production of Scenario I).
50
O-
-------
Ln
VD
I
TABLE 4.3-7. SUMMARY OF CRUDE OIL IMPORT PROJECTIONS FOR 1985
BY REGION OF ORIGIN AND REFINERY REGION - SCENARIO I
(ALL FIGURES IN 106 BARRELS PER YEAR)
Refinery
Region
Gulf Coast
East Coast
West Coast
Africa
908.6
567.7
49.4
Middle East Canada
544.0
376.1
286.5
South
America
29
92.7
35
Indonesia
17.8
11.3
114.4
Trinidad
35.1
6.9
__
Mexico
23.6
1.7
«.*-
Inland
Great Lakes
Puerto Rico
18.5
55.5
43.7
0.7
2.4
-------
TABLE 4.3-8. PROJECTED CRUDE OIL SUPPLIES TO
REFINERIES 1985 SCENARIO II - MINIMUM GROWTH
(10s BARRELS/YEAR)
Refining Region Projected Domestic Crude
of Country Refinery Receipts Oil Supply
Gulf Coast
East Coast
West Coast
Inland, Great Lakes
Domestic Oil
2704.4
652
939.5
1445
Production
2019.9
163.1
637.5
1445
Foreign Crude
Oil Supply
684.5
488.9
302
Alaskan production is expected to reach 3.1 MMB/D by
1985 in this scenario. Almost all of this oil can be expected
to be moved by ships to the lower 48 states. If substantial
quantities are sold to Japan, the effect would probably be to
ship Arabian light to the Gulf Coast on approximately a one to
one ratio with the Alaskan crude. Lower 48 states OCS production
is projected to reach 2.1 MMB/D in Scenario II, most of which is
assumed to be transported by ship and barge. The major OCS
production should be in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, the
shipping patterns will be to Gulf Coast refineries or to marine
terminals near the Mississippi River for barge transport to
Midwest refineries where Canadian cutbacks will create shortages.
Foreign Oil Imports
The importation levels for foreign oil will remain
about the same in 1985 as in 1975, but there will be a necessity
for increased imports from Africa and the Middle East to offset
losses from Canada. The impact will be to increase the foreign
oil to domestic oil ratio slightly in the Gulf Coast and East
Coast refineries. There will be an accompanying increase in
marine shipments to those areas.
-60-
-------
The projections of foreign oil imports are summarized
in Table 4.3-9.
4.3.4 Projections of Gasoline Transportation
The refining projections were translated into gasoline
outputs for the two scenarios by assuming that the ratio of
gasoline to crude oil refinery receipts will remain the same
through 1985. Data from U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Surveys
for 1975 were used to calculate the ratio of gasoline output to
refinery capacity for the four regions.16 The projections of
gasoline output are summarized in Table 4.3-10.
The outputs for scenario II are significantly lower
due to the higher price structure driving down demand for refined
products.
Demand projections for gasoline products were taken
from the FEA energy forecast.12 The data are for the 1985 refer-
ence case and represent projected demands for gasoline by region,
based on population projections. These demand regions were
compared to the refinery regions in order to calculate the defi-
cit or surplus of gasoline in that region. The results are
summarized in Table 4.3-11.
These figures indicate a large surplus of gasoline
production in the Gulf Coast region with large deficits on the
East Coast and Inland. The West Coast is projected to produce
about the same amount as demand. It is apparent from the table
that large quantities of gasoline will be transported from the
Gulf Coast to the East Coast and Inland.
-61-
-------
N>
1
TABLE 4.3-9. SUMMARY OF CRUDE OIL IMPORT PROJECTIONS FOR 1985
BY REGION OF ORIGIN AND REFINERY REGION - SCENARIO II
(ALL FIGURES IN 106 BARRELS PER YEAR)
Refinery
Region
Gulf Coast
East Coast
West Coast
Country or Geographical Region of Imports
Africa
360.8
225.4
19.6
Middle East
218
150.7
114.8
South
Canada America
29
92.7
35
Indonesia
17.8
11.3
114.4
Trinidad
35.1
6.9
__
Mexico
23.6
1.7
_»
Inland,
Great Lakes
Puerto Rico
7.4
22.3
43.7
0.7
2.4
-------
TABLE 4.3-10. PROJECTED GASOLINE OUTPUT BY REFINERY REGION, 1985
Region
Gulf Coast
East Coast
West Coast
Inland
Output
Scenario I
1256.2
476.1
531.5
624.2
Totals 2888.0
(106 barrels /year)
Scenario II
1276
288.8
495.1
647.4
2707.3
TABLE 4.3-11. RELATIONSHIP OF DEMAND FOR GASOLINE
TO REFINERY OUTPUT BY REGION, 1985
(10s barrels/year)
Region
Scenario
Production Demand
Gulf Coast
East Coast
West Coast
Inland
Total
1256.6
476.1
531.5
624.2
2888.4
298.1
940.0
577.1
1072.7
2887.9
I
Surplus
(Deficit)
958.5
(463.9)
(45.6)
(448.5)
0.5
Scenario
Production Demand
1276.0
288.8
495.1
647.4
2707.3
279.4
881.2
541
1005.6
2707.2
II
Surplus
(Deficit)
996.6
(592.4)
(45.9)
(358.2)
0.1
-63-
-------
The gasoline produced at the refinery centers is stored
temporarily and then moved to bulk terminals by pipeline, ship,
barge, truck and tank car. Most of the gasoline transported is
moved by pipeline. About 50 percent of the bulk terminals in
the country listed pipelines as the primary method of receiving
petroleum liquids in 1975. It is not known what percent of the
total U.S. storage capacity was represented by those terminals.
In addition, it is not known what quantity of gasoline products
was transported by this method. For these reasons it is diffi-
cult to accurately estimate how much gasoline was transported
by what method. Only major trends can be addressed.
About 15 percent of the bulk terminals received petro-
leum products by ships as the primary method while barges
accounted for 30 percent. When the data is analyzed by region
some trends do develop. Approximately 60 percent of the bulk
terminals on the East Coast received gasoline primarily by ship
and barge with barges accounting for 40 percent and ships for
the remaining 20 percent. On the Gulf Coast slightly less than
30 percent of the terminals received gasoline by barges, while
ships accounted for about 1 percent. On the West Coast most
of the traffic is by marine transportation, with 32 percent
being supplied by barges and 24 percent by ship. Surprisingly,
almost 30 percent of inland terminals are supplied by ships and
barges. Ships account for about 9 percent, probably due to
shipping on the Great Lakes, and barges transport 20 percent.
Data were collected from the American Waterways Opera-
tors, Inc. for traffic on inland waterways (including the inter-
coastal canal).17 The data are tabulations of total quantities
of gasoline transported over various shipping and barging routes.
Most of the traffic is on the Mississippi River, the main East
Coast waterways (including the Delaware River, Chesapeake Bay
-64-
-------
and Hudson River) and the Houston Ship Channel. The data suggest
heavy shipping traffic from the Gulf Coast refineries up the
Mississippi to bulk terminals inland and to East Coast facilities,
It is assumed that these traffic patterns will continue through
1985 with large quantities of gasoline being shipped up the
Mississippi and to the East Coast to offset the deficits in the
supply and demand situation. It should be remembered that the
economics of pipeline, ship and barge transportation will heavily
influence the primary method of transportation.
-65-
-------
5.0 OPERATIONAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
This section addresses the potential reductions in
marine terminal emissions which can be obtained by altering
marine terminal operating procedures. Hydrocarbon compounds are
emitted from ships and barges during loading and unloading
operations at marine terminals. One proposed method for
reducing these emissions is through the use of vapor recovery
units. However, there are several disadvantages associated
with vapor recovery units. These disadvantages include cost,
added safety risk, ship retrofit problems, and reduced dock
space.
A possible alternative to the use of vapor recovery
units is the use of modified marine terminal operations. Many
marine terminal operations already practiced, or easily put
into practice, have the potential to lower marine terminal
emissions by moderate amounts. If applied collectively, these
alternative marine terminal operating procedures can signifi-
cantly reduce loading and unloading emissions. Section 5.1 con-
tains an investigation of the impact of alternate loading pro-
cedures and Section 5.2 contains an investigation of the impact
of alternate unloading procedures.
5.1 Alternate Loading Procedures
5.1.1 Source and Mechanism of Loading Emissions
A major source of hydrocarbon emissions at marine
terminals occurs during loading operations. Hydrocarbon emis-
sions from loading operations are attributable to the displace-
ment to the atmosphere of hydrocarbon vapors residing in empty
vessel tanks by products being loaded into the vessel tanks.
-66-.
-------
Loading emissions can be separated into the arrival component
and the generated component. The arrival component of loading
emissions consists of hydrocarbon vapors left in the empty cargo
tanks from previous cargoes. The generated component of load-
ing emissions consists of hydrocarbon vapors generated in the
cargo tanks as hydrocarbon liquids are being loaded.
The arrival component of loading emissions is directly
dependent on the true vapor pressure (TVP) of the previous
cargo, the unloading rate of the previous cargo, and the cruise
history of the cargo tank on the return voyage. The cruise
history of a cargo tank may include heel washing, ballasting,
butterworthing, vapor freeing, or no action at all. Temperature
gradients, vessel motion, and long elapse times contribute to
the well mixing of empty cargo tanks, resulting in almost uni-
form vapor concentrations in the arrival component. The arrival
component for vessels loading gasoline characteristically range
from 0 vol % to 20 vol 7» hydrocarbons, but can exceed 50 vol %.
The generated component of loading emissions is pro-
duced by the evaporation of hydrocarbon liquid being loaded into
the vessel tank. The quantity of hydrocarbons evaporated is
dependent on both the true vapor pressure of the hydrocarbons
and the loading practices. The loading practice which has the
greatest impact on the generated component is the loading rate.
An example profile of hydrocarbon vapor concentrations
in a vessel tank during loading is presented in Figure 5.1-1.7
As indicated in the figure, the hydrocarbons present throughout
most of the vessel tank vapor space are contributed by the
arrival vapor component and the concentration is almost uniform.
There is a sharp rise in hydrocarbon vapor concentration just
-67-
-------
I
cr>
oo
i
V)
DC
o
a.
w
z
o
m
tr
<
o
O
GENERATED VAPOR COMPONENT
ARRIVAL VAPOR COMPONENT
20 30 40
FEET ABOVE LIQUID SURFACE
50
FIGURE 5.1-1 EXAMPLE PROFILE OF GASOLINE LOADING
EMISSIONS - UNCLEANEO TANKS
-------
above the liquid surface. This is the generated component.
The generated component, also called a vapor blanket, is attri-
butable to evaporation of the hydrocarbon liquid being loaded.
From Figure 5.1-1 it is apparent that for large
vessels with 55 foot ullages, the average hydrocarbon concentra-
tion of vapors vented during loading operations is primarily
dependent on the arrival component. For smaller vessels such
as barges with 12 foot ullages the average hydrocarbon
concentration in the vented loading vapors is dependent on
both the generated component and the arrival component.
5.1.2 Emissions from Dirty Tanks
The greatest emission losses from loading gasoline
at marine terminals occur during the loading of gasoline into
the uncleaned tanks of a vessel in dedicated service. This
situation would represent an uncontrolled, worst case situation.
Vessels in dedicated service consistently carry the
same cargo. The uncleaned tanks of empty dedicated gasoline
vessels contain significant amounts of hydrocarbon vapor
remaining from the previous voyage. Some typical hydrocarbon
emission rates for loading uncleaned vessels in dedicated
gasoline service are presented in Table 5.1-1. As these
emission rates indicate, the arrival component constitutes a
major portion of the total loading emissions. It should also
be pointed out that these are average emission factors, and
that actual emission rates can vary greatly.
Figure 5.1-1 also represents an example concentration
profile of the hydrocarbon emissions vented from loading gasoline
into uncleaned cargo tanks.
-69-
-------
TABLE 5.1-1. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LOADING
GASOLINE INTO UNCLEANED VESSELS
- Hydrocarbon Emissions (lb/103 gal)
Type
Range Average
Tanker 0.4 to 4 2.4
Ocean Barge 0.5 to 5 3.3
Barge 1.4 to 9 4.0
Arrival
Component
1.5
2.0
2.8
Generated
Component
0.9
1.3
1.2
Source: Reference 7
5.1.3 Effects of Tank Cleaning
One means of lowering marine terminal loading emissions
is through the application of tank cleaning techniques. Tank
cleaning lowers loading emissions by lowering the arrival com-
ponent. The three most common tank cleaning procedures are
heel washing, butterworthing, and gasfreeing.
Heel Washing
The heel of a cargo tank is the residual puddles of
hydrocarbon liquids remaining in cargo tanks after emptying.
These residual liquids will eventually evaporate and contribute
to che arrival component of subsequent vessel loading emissions.
By washing out this heel with water, Amoco Oil Company found
that they were able to reduce the average hydrocarbon concentration
in the emissions from subsequent filling operations from a level
of 5.7 vol % to a level of 2.1 vol % hydrocarbons.18
-70-
-------
Butterworthing
Butterworthing is the washing down of tank walls in
addition to the washing out of tank heels. Normally, butter-
worthing is accomplished by lowering a revolving nozzle into
the tank and spraying sea water on the walls. Occasionally
detergents are added to the water to improve cleaning ability.
The hydrocarbon liquids washed from the tanks are stored in a
slops tank for disposal onshore.
Gasfreeing
Heel washing and butterworthing lower arrival vapor
components by removing residual hydrocarbon liquids from tank
walls and bottoms before they evaporate. However, these two
techniques do not affect hydrocarbon vapors which have already
formed. Marine vessels can purge the hydrocarbon vapors from
empty and ballasted tanks during the voyage by several gas-
freeing techniques which include air blowing and removal of
ullage dome covers. A combination of tank washing and gas-
freeing will effectively remove the arrival component of
loading emissions. *9
Table 5.1-2 presents typical hydrocarbon emission
factors for loading gasoline into cleaned vessel tanks. An
example concentration profile of these loading emissions is
presented in Figure 5.1-2. Effectively, all of the hydrocarbon
emissions from loading clean vessels are attributable to the
generated vapor component. Cleaning the vessel tanks eliminates
the arrival vapor component.19 (See Figure 5.1-1)
-71-
-------
hO
I
v>
a:
o
a.
CO
z
o
to
tc
o
o
(C
a
X
if
UJ
3
40 -
30-
20-
10-
10
-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
20 30
FEET ABOVE LIQUID SURFACE
~1 1—r
40
60
FIGURE 5.1-2
EXAMPLE PROFILE OF GASOLINE LOADING
EMISSIONS - CLEANED TANKS
-------
TABLE 5.1-2. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LOADING
GASOLINE INTO CLEANED VESSELS
Vessel Type
Tanker
Ocean Barge
Barge
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Range
0 - 2.3
0-3
not available
(lbs/103 gal)
Average
1.0
1.3
1.2
Source : Reference 7
5.1.4 Effects of Ballasting
Ballasting is the act of partially filling empty cargo
tanks with water to maintain a ship's stability and trim.
Figures 5.1-3, 5.1-4, and 5.1-5 present sample hydrocarbon vapor
profiles for empty gasoline cargo tanks prior to ballasting, for
ballasted gasoline cargo tanks, and for gasoline cargo tanks
after ballast discharge.18 As Figure 5.1-3 indicates, prior to
ballasting, empty cargo tanks normally contain an almost homo-
geneous concentration of residual hydrocarbon vapors. When
ballast water is taken into the empty tank, Figure 5.1-4 indi-
cates that hydrocarbon vapors are vented but that the remaining
vapors not displaced retain their original hydrocarbon concentra-
tion. Upon arrival at a loading dock, a ship discharges its
ballast water and draws fresh air into the tank. The fresh air
dilutes the arrival vapor concentration and lowers the effective
arrival vapor concentration by an amount proportional to the
volume of ballast used (Figure 5.1-5). Although ballasting prac-
tices vary quite a bit, individual tanks are ballasted about 80
percent and the total vessel is ballasted approximately 30 per-
cent to 40 percent.18 Consequently, ballasting potentially
lowers the individual tank arrival component by 80 percent and
lowers the total ship arrival component by 30 percent to 40 per-
cent-. Table 5.1-3 presents typical levels of hydrocarbon emissions
-73-
-------
FIGURE 5.1-3
DROCARBON CONCENTRATION
(VOL «t
3 01 O 01
t 1 1 ' 1.
nuwnb a.t-& n i isnwvnnDwn rnuriuc rmwn IW DMUUMO 1 ln\a
AN EMPTY TANK
/ f
> -'•••' | • i • | I • • | l i • | 1 1 i | 1 • y
X o 10 20 30 40 SO
ULLAGE (FT)
o
cc
t-
IU
o
o
a
GC
<
O
O
CC
a
"5-
IQ-
FIGURE 5.1-4 HYDROCARBON PROFILE OF A BALLASTED TANK
BALLAST WATER SURFACE
10
I
20
BALLAST WATER
30
ULLAGE (FT)
I
40
50
FIGURE 5.1-5 HYDROCARBON PROFILE OF AN EMPTY TANK
% AFTER BALLAST DISCHARGE
-------
from loading gasoline into vessel tanks which have been filled
with ballast water.7
TABLE 5.1-3. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LOADING GASOLINE
INTO CARGO TANKS USED FOR BALLAST
Hydrocarbon Emissions (lbs/103 gal)
Vessel Type
Tanker
Ocean Barge
Barge
Ranges
0.4-3
0.5 - 3
not used
Average
1.6
2.1
not used
Source: Reference 7
Regulations recently proposed by the U.S. Coast Guard
will require all new and existing foreign and U.S. tankers over
20,000 dwt used in the U.S. oil trade to be equipped with segre-
gated ballast. Tankers equipped with segregated ballast have
tanks which are specifically designated for ballast and cannot
be used for cargo transport. Assuming a vessel could maintain
stability strictly through the use of segregated ballast, then
ballasting emissions would essentially be eliminated. If adopted,
the Coast Guard regulations would become fully effective within
the next five years.20
5.1.5 Effects of Loading Rate
Marine terminal loading rates noticeably affect marine
loading emissions and therefore represent another potential
»
method for controlling marine loading emissions.
Currently, marine terminal loading rates are far from
standardized. Reported marine terminal'loading rates in the
Houston-Galveston area ranged from 1000 bbl/hr to 15,000 bbl/hr
for each loading line. Loading rates are highly dependent on
-75-
-------
the size of the individual dock equipment and on the size of
each ship's piping system. Normal loading rates for barges are
2000 bbl/hr to 5000 bbl/hr and normal loading rates for ocean
barges and tankers are 5000 bbl/hr to 10,000 bbl/hr.
Studies conducted in 1975 by Atlantic Richfield and
Amoco Oil Co. show that the initial loading rate, bulk loading
rate, and final loading rate all noticeably affect marine load-
ing emissions. The optimum selection of these loading rates
presents a potential method for lowering loading emissions
without the use of vapor recovery equipment.21'18
Initial Fill Rate
There is a significant degree of splashing and liquid
turbulence as cargoes are first pumped into empty vessel tanks.
This splashing and turbulence results in rapid hydrocarbon evapo-
ration and the formation of a vapor blanket. By reducing the
initial velocity of cargoes entering empty tanks, it is possible
to reduce the turbulence associated with initial tank filling
and, consequently, to reduce the size and concentration of the
vapor blanket. Table 5.1-4 and Figure 5.1-6 present the results
of Amoco Oil Company tests on the effect of slow loading the
initial 1 ft. and 2 ft. of gasoline cargo tanks. The slow loading
rate used in the Amoco study was one foot of elevation per fif-
teen to twenty minutes. This is an equivalent loading rate of
700-1000 bbl/hr for both ships and barges.18
The information in Table 5.1-4 and in Figure 5.1-6
indicate a 50 percent reduction in vapor blanket size by using
slow initial loading rates. For a clean tanker this is equal
to a 50 percent emission reduction and for a dirty tanker is
equivalent to a 17 percent emission reduction.
-76-
-------
40n
DC
O
o.
z 30-
u>
O
o
-------
TABLE 5.1-4. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SLOW LOADING
GASOLINE INTO VESSEL TANKS
Reduction Estimated Emission Rates (lb/103gal)
Loaaing Procedure ^ clean Dirty
Blanket Tankers Tankers
Slow Loading Initial 1ft. 25% 0.8 2.3
Slow Loading Initial 2ft. 50% 0.5 2.0
Slow Loading Initial 2ft.
and final 2ft. 607.-65X 0.4 1.9
Clean . Dirty Clean Dirty
0. Barges 0. Barges Barges Barges
1.0 3.0 0.9 3.7
0.7 2.7 0.6 3.4
0.5 2.5 0.5 3.3
Bulk Fill Rate
Normally, the vapor blanket profile is established by
the initial filling rate and undergoes very little change
throughout the loading sequence. The bulk loading rate nor- .
mally has very little effect on the vapor blanket because of
the relatively slow diffusion rate of hydrocarbon vapors in
air. However, if the bulk loading rate is very slow, or is
interrupted by ship personnel, the vapor blanket profile can
change appreciably. Marine loading emission tests conducted
by Atlantic Richfield indicated that lowering the bulk loading
rate of a gasoline tanker from 3300 barrels per hour to 450
barrels per hour raised the average hydrocarbon emission rate
from 0.5 lbs/103 gal to 1.5 lbs/103 gal. The emissions were
tripled.
It is therefore very important to increase the bulk
loading rate to the maximum rate after the first two feet of
slow loading have been achieved.
-78-
-------
Final Fill Rate
As the hydrocarbon liquid level in a marine vessel
tank approaches the tank roof, the action of vapors flowing
towards the ullage cap vent begins to disrupt the quiescent
vapor blanket. Disruption of the vapor blanket results in
noticeably higher hydrocarbon concentrations in the vented vapor,
Amoco test results from slow final loadings indicate that,
although not as significant as slow initial loading, slow final
loading can lower the quantity of hydrocarbon emissions from
marine vessel loading of volatile hydrocarbon liquids. Table
5.1-4 and Figure 5.1-6 present the results of the Amoco slow
loading studies.lB
The use of slow initial and final loading rates does
not necessarily increase overall tanker loading times. High
bulk loading rates allow the ship to make up for time lost
during slow initial and final tank loadings. Because multiple
tanks can be filled simultaneously, one tank can be bulk loading
at a rate of 12,000 bbl/hr while another tank is topping off at
a rate of 700 bbl/hr, and still another tank is initial loading
at a rate of 700 bbl/hr.
5.1.6 Effects of Short Loading
Displacement of the vapor blanket during the final
stages of loading gasoline or volatile crudes contributes a
significant part of the total hydrocarbon emissions from that
tank. By stopping the loading of the cargo tank short, the
vapor blanket can be partially or totally kept within the tank.
The depth of the blanket usually varies from 3 to 8 feet (see
Figure 5.1-1). Therefore, to keep most of the blanket from
being displaced, loading must be stopped about 3 to 5 feet
-79-
-------
from the deck level.7 For a tank 55 feet deep, short loading
would represent a 5.5-9.0 percent loss in potential cargo space.
The effect -of short loading on the emissions from
gasoline loading onto a ship can be estimated from the numbers
in Table 5.1-1. The contribution of the vapor blanket displace-
ment to total tanker emissions is approximately 0.9 to 1.0
lb/103 gal. Therefore, it can be deduced that short loading
can potentially reduce the emissions from clean tankers by 100
percent and the emissions from dirty tankers by 40 percent.
Short loading can potentially lower the emissions from ocean
barges by a comparable 100 percent and 40 percent. However, due
to their small volumes, short loading is not considered economi-
cal for standard barges.
There are several consequences of short loading which
may adversely affect its ability to reduce emissions from load-
ing operations. This problem becomes apparent when one loading/
unloading cycle for a cargo tank is examined. First, assume a
tank is short loaded with a four foot space left from deck
level to liquid level. During the time required for transport
of the cargo to its destination the space left above the liquid
will very likely become saturated with gasoline vapors. As
the cargo is unloaded the vapors become diluted with air to
a lower concentration. When the ship returns for a new load,
the vapor blanket which was not displaced during the previous
loading now manifests itself as the arrival component of the
emissions and will be displaced as the tank is refilled.
Therefore, unless the tanker is cleaned and vapor freed during
the return voyage, the net hydrocarbon emissions will not be
effectively reduced by short loading.
-80-
-------
A second consequence of short loading is that it
increases the number of voyages required to ship the same quan-
tity and consequently increases the number of loading operations.
The net reduction in emissions must surpass any net increase in
voyages to be considered effective.
Another potential problem with short loading standard
cargo tanks is that it decreases the stability of tankers and
barges. This instability is due to sloshing action in the
partially filled tanks and may preclude short loading as an
operational procedure for controlling emissions. However,
sloshing problems due to short loading may be solved by inclu-
sion of baffles in the upper portion of the tank.
5.1.7 Inerting and P/V Valves
Two other operational control measures which have been
suggested are inerting and P/V valves. Inert gas systems pro-
vide a source of inert (low oxygen content) gas which is injected
in the vapor space of vessel tanks. For cargoes of volatile
liquid hydrocarbons, the inert gas prevents the formation of
flammable atmospheres in the cargo spaces thereby making tank
washing and gas freeing a safe operation. The source of the
inert gas may be either boiler flue gases, combustion gases
from a specially designed oil fired generator, or generated or
bottled pure nitrogen or carbon dioxide.22
Studies by British Petroleum on emissions from loading
crude oil onto tankers indicate that inerting lowers hydrocarbon
emissions slightly. The exact reason for,the reduction is not
known but it may be attributable to the fact that inerted BP
.tankers'are loaded at a pressure of 1 psig.23
-SI-
-------
The use of P/V valves has also been suggested as an
operational control measure. Pressure/vacuum valves would
lower loading emissions by effectively compressing the vapor
blanket to a thinner size. Theoretically, a 1.5 psig loading
pressure should reduce the vapor blanket thickness by 10 percent,
but should also increase its hydrocarbon content by 10 percent.
The net effect of applying P/V valves on clean tankers would be
to lower the loading emissions by less than 10 percent. The
net effect on dirty tankers and barges would be to lower the
loading emissions by less than 5 percent.
Based on these preliminary results it is estimated
that inerting and P/V valves would have a minimal effect as an
operational control measure. However, inerting is an effective
safety measure which may prove necessary in conjunction with
one of the other operational control measures.
5.1.8 Summary of the Impact of Operational Controls on
Gasoline Loading Emissions
The information presented in Section 5.1 on loading
controls indicates that there is a very good potential for using
modifications in operating procedures to control hydrocarbon
emissions from marine terminal loading operations. The data
presented in Section 5.1 is summarized in Table 5.1-5.
Tankers
Emissions from dirty tankers can be reduced approxi-
mately 50 percent by cleaning and vapor freeing the tanks.
Emissions from dirty tankers can be reduced approximately 83
percent by combining slow initial and final loading rates with
tank cleaning. Finally, the information in Table 5.1-5 indicates
that short loading tankers that have been cleaned and slow
-82-
-------
CO
TABLE 5.1-5. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT OF OPERATIONAL CONTROL
TECHNIQUES ON GASOLINE LOADING EMISSIONS
Tank Condition
dirty
ballasted
b
typical
cleaned
cleaned w/slow loading
cleaned w/slow loading
and short loading
dirty w/slow loading
dirty w/slow loading
and short loading
Tankers
Emissions
(lb/103 gal)
2.4
1.6
1.2
1.0
0.4
<0.2
1.9
1.5
Control
Efficiency
Over Dirty
Tank
0%
33%
50%
58%
83%
>92%
21%
37%
Ocean
Emissions
(lb/103 gal)
3.3
2.1
2.7
1.3
0.5
<0.2
2.5
2.0
Barges
Control
Efficiency
Over Dirty
Tank
0%
36%
18%
61%
85%
>94%
24%
39%
Barges
Emissions
(lb/103 gal)
4.0
NA3
4.0
1.2
0.5
<0.2
3.3
2.8
Control
Efficiency
Over Dirty
Tank
0%
NA
0%
70%
88%
>95%
18%
30%
a. NA - not applicable.
b. The term typical refers to the national average emissions from vessels in 1975.
-------
loaded will potentially lower dirty tanker emissions by more
than 92 percent. Slow loading and short loading are rela-
tively ineffective control measures by themselves.
Information reported by Atlantic Richfield and Exxon
indicate that tank cleaning is a relatively simple procedure.
for tankers. Tank cleaning can be conducted out at sea to
minimize the release of hydrocarbon vapors in the vicinity of
land areas. Whenever a safety hazard is created by tank clean-
ing, the tank vapors can be purged using inerting gases before
attempting the tank cleaning.2* '2 "*
Data by Amoco indicates that slow initial and final
loading is also a relatively simple procedure.18 However, very
little data is available on the problems, if any, involved with
short loading tankers. On the surface it appears that the
major problem associated with short loading is product sloshing.
This problem can be solved by the use of baffles in the tank
ceiling.
Initial data indicate that inerting and using P/V
valves during filling operations only slightly reduce tanker
loading emissions.
Ocean Barges
Ocean barges are very similar to small tankers and
therefore respond similarly to operational control techniques.
Tank cleaning and vapor freeing reduces hydrocarbon emissions
61 percent. Cleaning and slow loading reduces emissions approx-
imately 85 percent and short loading, cleaning, and slow loading
can potentially lower ocean barge emissions by greater than 94
percent.
-84-
-------
Operational control techniques for lowering ocean
barge emissions are almost as easily applied to ocean barges as
they are to tankers. The primary difference is that ocean barges
generally carry a smaller crew and have fewer people available
to assist in the cleaning operations.
Barges
As Table 5.1-5 indicates, slow loading and short load-
ing in conjunction with cleaning are potentially very effective
for reducing hydrocarbon emissions from barge loading operations.
However, barges seldom are equipped to be cleaned on a regular
basis. Also, because barges are generally confined to inland
and intracoastal waterways, vapors purged during barge cleaning
would still affect inland ambient hydrocarbon concentrations.
Short loading barges also may not be feasible because
it would reduce the effective capacity of barges by 33 percent
and increase the required number of barge operations by 50 per-
cent. Consequently, the most applicable operational control
technique for barges is probably slow initial and final loading.
Slow loading will potentially reduce barge loading emissions by
18 percent.
5.2 Alternate Unloading Procedures
5.2.1 Source and Mechanism of Unloading Emissions
Unloading emissions are hydrocarbon emissions dis-
placed during ballasting operations at the unloading dock sub-
sequent to unloading a volatile hydrocarbon liquid such as
gasoline or crude oil. During the unloading of a volatile
hydrocarbon liquid, air drawn into the emptying tank mixes with
-85-
-------
hydrocarbons evaporating from the liquid surface. The greater
part of the hydrocarbon vapors normally lies along the liquid
surface in a vapor blanket. However, throughout the unloading
operation, hydrocarbon liquid clinging to the vessel walls will
continue to evaporate and to contribute to the hydrocarbon con-
centration in the upper levels of the emptying vessel tank.
Figure 5.2-1 presents a hypothetical profile of gasoline vapor
concentrations in a vessel tank during ballasting. If signifi-
cant temperature gradients exist between cargo temperature and
the ambient temperature, they will create convection currents
which in time will disrupt the vapor blanket and promote a
homogeneous hydrocarbon vapor concentration throughout the tank.
Before sailing, an empty marine vessel must take on
ballast water to maintain trim and stability. Normally, on
vessels that are not fitted with segregated ballast tanks, this
water is pumped into the empty cargo tanks. As ballast water
enters cargo tanks, it displaces the residual hydrocarbon vapors
to the atmosphere generating the so termed, "unloading emissions"
Although ballasting practices vary quite a bit, individual tanks
are ballasted from 80 percent to 100 percent and the total vessel
is ballasted approximately 40 percent.18
Ballasting emissions have not been studied in the same
detail as loading emissions. Some sources have reported severe
vapor stratification and very sharp vapor blankets.23 Other
sources have reported high levels of mixing and very little
vapor concentration gradient.7 Emissions estimates range from
very low to 2-3 Ibs. of hydrocarbons per thousand gallons of
ballast.
-86-
-------
00
^J
I
W
cc
o
a
v>
z
o
o
oc
<
o
O
oc
a
O
>
40
30
20 H
• 0
VAPOR BLANKET
i i—i r i i
10
I '
20
I
30
. . . , ,
40
I
50
FEET ABOVE LIQUID SURFACE
FIGURE 5.2-1 EXAMPLE PROFILE OF GASOLINE BALLASTING EMISSIONS
-------
5.2.2 Operational Control Technology
Two of the most promising operational control tech-
niques for controlling ballasting emissions are segregated ballast
and short ballast. Segregated ballast involves the use of
special ballast tanks, not cargo tanks, for storing ballast
water. Since these tanks are used strictly for ballast, they
are vapor free and completely eliminate the generation of
unloading emissions. The effective control efficiency is 100%.
Although ships occasionally require more ballast than their
segregated ballast capacity can supply, their segregated ballast
capacity is generally sufficient to get them out to sea where
ballasting emissions are much less of a problem.
The application of segregated ballast ships in gaso-
line service is not a problem. However, converting a nonsegre-
gated ballasted ship to segregated ballast is a major under-
taking and may not have any advantages over the application of
shore-side recovery systems. Retrofitting segregated ballast
capacity is expensive, and it results in reduced cargo capacity.
Short ballasting refers to the practice of only par-
tially filling cargo tanks with ballast water. Normally ships
with integrated ballast, ballast 40 percent of their tanks to
80 percent - 100 percent of capacity. In short ballasting, the
ship would fill 40 percent of its tanks to 50 percent of capacity,
and take on the remaining needed ballast after they are out to
sea. Adverse weather conditions would of course preclude the
practice of short ballasting.23
The control efficiency of short ballasting will vary
from 50 percent to 100 percent depending on the degree of vapor
stratification experienced in the cargo tank. Under high
-88-
-------
stratification as experienced by British Petroleum, the effi-
ciency of short ballasting will be very high.23 Under condi-
tions of well mixing as measured by Radian Corporation, the
efficiency will be much closer to 50 percent.
-89-
-------
6.0 NATIONAL HYDROCARBON REDUCTIONS FROM OPERATIONAL
CONTRAL TECHNIQUES
Hydrocarbon emissions occur at marine terminals when
crude oil or gasoline are either loaded onto or unloaded from
tankers and barges. To accurately calculate the hydrocarbon
emissions for a particular vessel requires precise data on the
amount transferred, the transfer procedures, and the cruise
history of the tanks. With the exception of special field
sampling programs, this type of data is rarely available.
However, emission factors based on the test data recorded
during such field sampling programs can be used to estimate
the hydrocarbon emissions from a vessel when loading and
unloading volatile hydrocarbon products under a given set of
circumstances.
The only reliable emission factors which are available
pertain to hydrocarbon emissions resulting from the loading of
gasoline. Due to insufficient test data, there are no reliable
emission factors for estimating hydrocarbon emissions when
unloading gasoline or when loading or unloading crude oil.
Consequently, present and anticipated future national emissions
are calculated only for the case of gasoline loading on tankers
and barges.
6.1 Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline Loading
in 1975
In 1975 approximately 228 million barrels of gasoline
were loaded on tankers and barges in U.S. ports. Although this
figure applies only to interstate movements of gasoline, it is
thought to be a fairly representative estimate of the national
total. Most of the gasoline loading (9270) occurred at Gulf
-90-
-------
Coast ports, while only minor amounts (4% each) were loaded on
the East Coast and on the Great Lakes and Inland Waterways. No
significant gasoline loading of ships and barges occurred at
West Coast ports.
In estimating the hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline
loading operations three levels of control were considered:
Uncontrolled (UNC) -- Assumes all tanks are dirty
and no attempt is made to regulate loading rates
or to contain the vapor blanket by short loading.
The proper emission factor is 2.4 lb/103 gal
(see Table 5.1-5) for tankers and 4.0 lb/103gal
for barges.
Present Operating Controls (PDC) — Assumes a
present mix of tank conditions, including clean,
ballasted, and dirty. POC also assumes no
attempt to regulate loading practices. The
emission factors are 1.2 lb/103 gal for tankers
and 4.0 lb/103 gal for barges.
Complete Operating Controls (COC) -- Assumes the
tanks of ships have been cleaned, the initial
loading rate was slow, and all tanks were short
loaded. For barges, the tanks were dirty, the
initial loading rate was slow, and the tanks were
completely filled. Cleaning and short loading
of barge tanks is considered impractical. The
emission factors are 0.2 lb/103 gal for tankers
and 3.3 lb/103 gal for barges.
Before these emission factors can be used to calculate the
-91-
-------
hydrocarbon emissions for a particular region, the mix of
tanker and barge traffic must be known. Since no definitive
statistics of this kind are available, it was necessary to
estimate these traffic mixes according to the characteristics
of a certain region. For example on the Gulf Coast, the states
of Texas and Louisiana would be expected to have slightly
different mixes of tanker and barge traffic. Texas predomi-
nantly exports gasoline to the East Coast. Thus, tankers account
for the majority (95%) of the gasoline loaded on water carriers
in this state. Louisiana, on the other hand, will barge a
significant amount of gasoline up the Missippi River. Although
tankers still account for a majority (8070) of the gasoline
loaded on water carriers in Louisiana, the amount of barge
traffic is well represented in the overall traffic mix.
The estimated national hydrocarbon emissions from gas-
oline loading in 1975 are summarized in Table 6.1-1. The
emissions estimates are based on amounts of gasoline loaded on
water carriers for interstate transportation only. It is
important to note the rather large amount of hydrocarbon emis-
sions contributed by marine transport of gasoline on the Great
Lakes and Inland Waterways with respect to the total amount of
gasoline loaded. Barges are the major type of vessel used in
this region. Since barges cannot be cleaned, the arrival
component of the loading emissions is always present. Therefore
the impact of operating procedures is minimal and results in
a larger degree of emissions with respect to volume loaded.
6.2 Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline Loading
in 1985
The amount of hydrocarbon emissions resulting from
gasoline loading operations on tankers and barges in 1985 will
-92-
-------
TABLE 6.1-1.
ESTIMATED HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM
GASOLINE LOADING IN 1975
Region & State
East Coast
Delaware
Gulf Coast
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Great Lakes &
Inland Waterway
Ind. & 111.
West Coast
Total
Type of
Vessel
Tanker
Barge
Tanker
Barge
Tanker
Barge
Tanker
Barge
Barge
Amount
Loaded
(103 BBL)
8,500
1;500
10,000
117,400
6,179
67,499
16,000
1,569
523
209,170
8,400
8,400
„
227,570
Hydrocarbon Emissions (Tons)
UNC
428
126
554
5,917
519
3,402
1,344
79
44
11,305
706
706
„
12,565
POC
214
126
340
2,958
519
1,701
1,344
40
44
6,606
706
706
„
7 , 652
COG
36
104
140
493
428
283
1,109
7
36
2,356
582
582
3,078
-93-
-------
depend heavily on the growth rate of refineries in the four
geographic regions under consideration. It is this projected
refinery capacity which directly determines the gasoline production
and, subsequently, the supply/demand situation for a particular
region. Using the data of Table 4.3-11 as a means of scale-up and
assuming that transportation patterns and marine traffic mixes
have not changed appreciably, the estimated hydrocarbon emissions
from gasoline loading in 1985 were calculated and summarized in
Table 6.2-1. Figures for the uncontrolled case (UNC) are not
reported since by 1985 some form of emission control will almost
certainly be in effect. The present operational controls case
(POC) represents the projected 1985 national marine terminal
emissions assuming a continuation of current loading practices.
The complete operational controls (COG) case represents projected
national emissions in 1985 under the application of applicable
operational control techniques.
As before, the contribution of barges to the overall
hydrocarbon emissions total is readily apparent. An interesting
comparison can be made in Scenario II, which represents a minimum
growth situation. Although the amount of gasoline loaded in
Delaware is slightly greater than the amount loaded in Indiana
and Illinois, the anticipated hydrocarbon emissions are considerably
less. Under present operating controls (POC), Delaware experiences
less than half the hydrocarbon emissions of Indiana and Illinois.
If complete operating controls (COG) are employed, the difference
is even more dramatic with Delaware experiencing approximately one
fifth of the hydrocarbon emissions of Indiana and Illinois. The
major difference is the type of vessel loading gasoline. Delaware
loads mostly tankers, which can be cleaned to reduce the arrival
component of hydrocarbon emissions. Indiana and Illinois will load
only barges which do not have the facilities or crew to clean tanks.
-94-
-------
TABLE 6.2-1. ESTIMATED HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE LOADING IN 1985
Region & State
East Coast
Delaware
Gulf Coast
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Great Lakes &
Inland Waterway
Ind. & 111.
West Coast
Total
Type of
Vessel
Tanker
Barge
Tanker
Barge
Tanker
Barge
Tanker
Barge
Barge
SCENARIO I
Amount
Loaded
(103 BBL)
16,626
2,934
19,560
156,591
8,242
90,032
21,341
2,093
698
278,997
8,225
8,225
_.
306,782
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(Tons)
POC
419
246
665
3,946
692
2,269
1,793
53
59
8,812
691
691
— —
10,168
COG
70
203
273
658
571
378
1,479
9
48
3,143
570
570
— —
3,986
SCENARIO II
Amount
Loaded
(103 BBL)
10,085
1,780
11,865
159,026
8,370
91,432
21,673
2,125
708
283,334
11,378
11,378
_ •_
306,577
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(Tons)
POC
254
150
404
4,007
703
2,304
1,821
54
59
8,948
956
956
_M
10,308
COC
42
123
165
668
580
384
1,502
9
49
3,192
788
788
__
4,145
I
VO
Ul
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Congressional Research Service. National Energy Transporta-
tion Volume I -- Current Systems and Movements . Publication
No. 95-15, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
May, 1977.
2. "World Tanker Fleet Up 15% in 1975, New Building Drops".
Oil and Gas Journal, January 10, 1977, p. 51.
3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Mineral
Industry Surveys, Annual Petroleum Statement. Washington,
D.C., 1975.
4. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Waterbome
Commerce of the United States, 1974 National Summaries.
5. International Petroleum Encyclopedia. Petroleum Publishing,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1976.
6. Wilson, Howard M. "Valdez Terminal Due Early Completion"
Oil and Gas Journal, November 1, 1976.
7. Burklin, C.E., et al. Background Information on Hydrocarbon
Emissions from Marine Terminal Operations, Volume I:
Discussion. Radian Corp. Austin, Texas, November, 1976.
8. American Petroleum Institute. Annual Statistical Review,
Petroleum Industry Statistics, 1965-1974. API Statistics
Department, Washington, D.C. May, 1975.
9. Crow, Patrick, "Imports, Alaskan Crude to Top U.S. Pipeline
Choices". Oil and Gas Journal, November 1, 1976.
-96-
-------
10. Chemical Engineering. Chementator, July 18, 1977, p. 54.
11. Weismantel, Guy E. "Where Will North Slope Oil Go?"
Chemical Engineering, March 14, 1977.
12. Federal Energy Administration, National Energy Outlook,
1976.
13. Peer, E.L. and F.V. Marsik. Trends in Refinery Capacity
and Utilization, FEA, Office of Oil and Gas, Washington,
D.C. , December, 1975.
14. American Petroleum Institute. Annual Statistical Review.
Petroleum Industry Statistics 1964-1973. Washington, D.C.,
1974.
15. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 1973, 94th edition.
Washington, D.C. .
16. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Mineral
Industry Surveys, Annual Petroleum Refineries. Washington,
D.C., January 1, 1976.
17. American Waterway Operators, Inc. 1974 Inland Waterbourne
Commerce Statistics. Washington, D.C., 1975.
18. Amoco File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support Section,
Dallas, Texas, 1976.
19. Exxon Correspondence, L.O. Fuller, Supervisor of Environ-
mental Engineering, Exxon Company, Baytown, Texas,
June 14, 1976.
-97-
-------
20. "U.S. Coast Guard Proposes Strict New Tanker Standards".
Oil and Gas Journal. May 23, 1977, p. 23.
21. Arco File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support Section,
Dallas, Texas, 1976.
22. Riley, J.E. "Operation Experiences with Inert Gas Systems"
Airfilco Marine Installations Ltd. March 14, 1975.
23. British Petroleum Correspondence. Gordon Wanless, British
Petroleum Company, New York City, New York, July, 1976.
24. Exxon File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support Section,
Dallas, Texas, 1976.
-98-
-------
APPENDIX A
INDUSTRY CONTACTS
-------
APPENDIX A - INDUSTRY CONTACTS
Company
Petroleum Industry Contacts
Name
Title/Department
Address and Phone
>
American Petroflna, Inc. Mr. Clarence Crow
Mr. William H. Rode
Mr. T. J. Lyden
Mr. Sam Hunnicutt
Asliland Petroleum
Company
Chnmplln Petroleum
Company
Cities Service Oil Co.
Mr. Robert I. Lichtner
Atlantic Rlrht'lcld, Co. Mr. Harvey Grimes
Mr. Edward Stewart
Mr. Pat Sadler
Mr. Ancal Neal
Marketing
Refinery Coordinator
Manager, Southeast
Terminals
Manager, Harbor Island
Terminal
Manager, Transportation-
Engineering Dept.
Environmental Affairs
Marine Transportation
Manager of Planning and
Economics, Supply and
Distribution
Marketing, Environmental
Rep.
Box 2159
Dallas, Texas 75221
(214) 750-2708
Box 849
Port Arthur, Texas 77650
(713) 962-4421
2970 Parrott Ave., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30318
(404) 794-7616
Box 1311
Big Spring, Texas
(915) 263-7661
79720
Box 391
Ashland, Kentucky 41101
(606) 329-3333
400 E. Sibley
Harvey, Illinois 60426
(312) 333-3000
515 S. Flower St.
Los Angeles, California 90071
(213) 486-3511
700 Houston Natural Gas Bldg.
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 651-0411
Box 300
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
(918) 586-3750
-------
APPENDIX A - INDUSTRY CONTACTS (Continued)
Company
Cunt liu'iil /I I Oil Ciimp.-iny
Kxxon Corporation
Getty Oil Company
Culf Oil Company
Maratlinn Oil. Company
MohJ I. Oil Corporation
Name
Mrs. I,. Mnrl In
Mr. Dole Breed love
Mr. W. M. Kluss
Mr. Cordon Potter
Mr. Lee Fuller
Mr. 0. W. Druckenmiller
Mr. D. M. Langston
Mr. James N. Brown
Mr. A. P. Kowallk
Mr. F. C. Aldrich
Mr. Ron II. Stovner
Tit. le/ Department
Address and Phone
Surface Transportation
Operations Manager,
Marine Facilities
Vice President, Marine
Marketing
Refining
Distribution and
Engineering Manager
Director, Environmental
Affairs (Marketing)
Manager, Marine Operations
Supply & Transportation
Director, Environmental
Affairs (Refining)
Manager Environmental
Control Division
Manager, Regulatory
Compliance Product Supply
& Distribution
Box 2197
Houston, Texas 77011
(713) 965-2079
Box 37
Westlake, Louisiana 70669
(318) 491-5159
High Ridge Park
Stamford, Conn. 06904
(203) 359-3500
Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001
(713) 656-5207
Box 3950
Baytown, Texas 77520
(713) 427-5711
660 Madison Ave.
New York, New York 10021
(212) 832-7800
Box 2001
Houston, Texas 77001
(713) 226-1669
2 Houston Center
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 226-3137
Box 2001
Houston, Texas 77001
(713) 750-3322
539 South Main Street
Ftndlay, Ohio 45840
(419) 422-2121
150 East 42nd Street
New York, New York
(212) 883-4982
-------
APPENDIX A - INDUSTRY CONTACTS (Continued)
Company
Name
Mr. I). P. Heath
Title/Department
Coordinator, Environmental
Conservation
Address and Phone
150 East 42nd Street
Hew York, New York
(212) 883-4242
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Mr. Bob Wheeler
Petroleum Supply, Marine
Phillips Building
Oartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
(918) 661-4200
I
-P-
Shell Oil Co.
Standard Oil of
California (Chevron)
Standard 01] of
Indiana (Amoco)
Standard Oil of Ohio
(Sohto)
Texaco, Inc.
Mr. Rnn ShamhlIn
Mr. Dick Perkins
Mr. R. P. I.ermart
Mr. Bruce A. McCrodden
Mr. W. J. Coppoc
Transportation Development
Supply and Distribution
Manager, Transportation
Planning
Senior Environmental
Specialist
Vice President,
Environmental Protection
Box 2463
Houston, Texas 77001
(713) 220-6585
575 Market Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
(415) 894-4404
Box 6110 A
Chicago, Illinois 60680
(312) 856-7782
Midland Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
(216) 575-4444
Box 509
Beacon, New York 12508
Mr. John We Hand
Environmental Protection
Box 509
Beacon, New York 12508
(914) 831-3400
Union Oil of
California
Mr. Dick Salisbury
Environmental Affairs
Box 7600
Los Angeles, Calif: 90054
(213) 486-7538
Marine Industrv Contacts
(kilf Trading and
Transportation Co.
Captain Ed Marcus
Mr. M. 0. Simmons
Manager, Safety &
Environmental Control,
Marine
Director, Safety i
Environmental Control,
Marine
One Presidential Blvd.
Bala-Cynwyd, Penn. 19004
(215) 667-9000
-------
APPENDIX A - INDUSTRY CONTACTS (Continued)
Company
KIT Corp.
Sun Transport, Inc.
Name
Cnpl .
Mr. David Buchanan
Capt. J. II. Bates
Title/Department
Shipping
Barging
Fleet Captain, Operations
Address and Phone
Pennwalt Building
Philadelphia, Penn. 19102
(21S) 864-1200
(215) 492-8100
Box 280
Claymont, Del. 19703
(215) 485-1121
Trmle Associations
>
Ui
American Petroleum
Institute
American W.-itcrway
Operators, Inc.
Association of Oil
Pipelines
Maritime Research
Information Service
TrnnspnrtatIon Association
of America
Mr. A. E. Gubrud
Mr. J. K. Walters
Mr. V. K. Leonard
Mr. J. Donald Durand
Mr. Davis G. Mel lor
Mr. Bill Tupper
Director of Environmental
Affairs
Evaporative Loss
Measurement Committee
Transportation Division
Transportation Institute Mr. Luciano
General Counsel
Manager
Data and Statistics
Data and Statistics
Room 759
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 457-7058
Suite 1101
1600 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, Va. 22209
(703) 841-9300
Suite 1208
1725 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 331-8228
2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
(202) 389-6687
Suite 1107
1100 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 296-2470
923 15th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 347-2590
-------
APPENDIX A - INDUSTRY CONTACTS (Continued)
Company
Government Agencies
Name
Title/Department
Address and Phone
Environmental Protection
Apency
Federal Energy
Administration
Great Lakes Commission
U.S. Coast Gunrd
Mr. IHck Ball
Ms. Pat Barr Holmes
Mr. Albert Ballert
Mr. Bill Campbell
Office of Energy
Data Services
Director
Marine Engineer
Hall Code RD-681
401 M Street, S.M.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 755-0646
2000 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20461
(202) 254-8450
2200 Bonlsteel Blvd.
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109
(313) 665-9135
U.S. Department of
Commerce
Waterways Freight
Bureau
Mr. Hale
Lt. Powers
Commander Wicks
Mr. Dennis Pike
Chief Warrant Officer, Long Beach, California
Shipping Commissioner's (213) 590-2375
Office
Calveston, Texas 77550
Federal Building
Houston Ship Channel
Houston, Texas
Census of Retail Trade
Fourteenth St. & Constitution Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20230
(202) 763-7038
Suite 402
1334 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 638-0476
-------
APPENDIX B
ANNOUNCED REFINERY EXPANSION PLANS, 1976
-------
APPENDIX B - ANNOUNCED REFINING EXPANSION PLANS, 1976
Company /Location
Hunt Oil (Tuscaloosa) l
Louisiana Land & Exploration (Mobile) l
Marion Corp. (Theodore)2'3
Standard Oil Co. (Pascagoula) 1
Tesorp-Alaskan Petr. Corp. 2'3'5
Delta Refining (Memphis)2
J&W Rfy. Co. (Tucker)2
California Oil & Purification
(Ventura) 1'3'1*
Douglas Oil Co. Calif. (Paramount)1
Lundray-Thagard Oil Co. (South Gate)2'3'6
Standard Oil Co. Calif. (El
Segundo)1'2'3'*
Standard Oil Co. Calif.
(Richmond)1'2'3'1*
Standard Oil Calif. (Perth Amboy) l '2 ' 3 '"
Gulf Oil Co. (Philadelphia)2
Rock Island Rfy. Corp. (Indianapolis)1'2
Gladieux Rfy. Inc. (Ft. Wayne)2'1
Somerset Rfg. Inc. (Somerset)2'3'7
American-Petrofina (Port Arthur)2'3'1*'8
ECOL (Garyville) 2 ' 3
Exxon (Baton Rouge)2'3'9
Good Hope (Good Hope)1*
Gulf Oil (Port Arthur)1'2'1*
Kerr-McGee (Wynnewood) 1
Champlin Petr. Co. (Corpus
Christi)1'2'3'*'10
Sader Refining Co. (Corpus Christi)2
Sigmor (Three Rivers) 3
Three Rivers Rfy. (Three Rivers)2
Type
E
N
E
N
E
E
N
E
E
~ ~^
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
N
E
N
N
E
Stage
C
C
E
C
C
E
C
u
u
u
C
E
U
UorE
C
U
u
PAD
III
III
III
III
V
II
III
V
V
V
V
V
I
I
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
II
III
III
III
III
AQCR
4
5
5
5
9
18
22
24
24
24
24
30
43
45
80
81
105
106
106
106
106
106
188
214
214
214
214
Capacity
(bpd)
15,000
30,000
2,000
54,000
18,000
4,700
6,000
15,000
15,000
3,300
175,000
175,000
80,000
30,000
7,000
2,500
1,600
30,000
200,000
11,000
50,000
23,000
16,000
60,000
12,000
10,000
5,000
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B - ANNOUNCED REFINING EXPANSION PLANS, 1976 (Continued)
Comp any / Lo ca t ion
Atlantic Richfield (Houston) l '2 ' 3 '"' 1-1
Penzoil-United Inc. (Falling Rock)1'2
1977
Mallard Expl. Inc. (Atmor) 1
Energy Co. of Alaska (Fairbanks) l t2' 3>lM
Midland Corp. (Gushing)3'*
California Oil Purification (Ventura)3'"1
Standard Oil California (Perth Amboy)1'2
Shell Oil Co. (Woodriver) x
Tenneco (Chalmette) J '2' 3'"' l 3
Steuart Petr. Co. (Piney Point)1'21
Gulf Oil (Luling)3'*
Exxon (Bay town) 1'2'3>lf'1If
1978
Odessa Rfg. Inc. (Mobile) l '"' l s
Crown Central Petr. Corp.
(Baltimore)1'16
Dow Chem. Co. (Freeport) 2 ' 3 '"* ' 1 7
Hudson Oil Rfg. (Bayport) 1 ' ! 8
Hampton Roads Energy Co.
(Portsmouth)2'3'1*'19
Virco (St Croix)1*
1979
Pittston Co. (Eastport) 3'1*
Cascade Energy Resources (Rainier)1*
Type
E
E
N
12 N
E
E
E
E
E
N
N
E
N
N
N,E
N
N
N
N
N .
Stage
U
U
E
E
UorE
E
E
E
E
P
P
U
E
E
P
P
P
P
PAD
III
I
II
V
II
V
V
II
III
' I
III
III
III
I
III
III
I
I
V
AQCR
216
234
5
9
17
24
43
70
106
116
212
216
5
115
214
216
223
247
109
193
Capacity
(bpd)
93,000
40,000
7,000
25,000
16,000
15,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
100,000
30,000
250,000
120,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
184,000
200,000
250,000
200,000
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B - ANNOUNCED REFINING EXPANSION PLANS, 1976 (Continued)
Company/Location
Wallace & Wallace (Tuskegee) 3 ' "*
Odessa Rfg. Inc. (Mobile)1'1*
Tesoro-Alaskan Petr. Corp. (Renal)1*'2
PIMA (Phoenix)3
Atlas Processing (Shreveport)1*
J&W Refining (Tucker) 3
Penzoil (Shreveport)2
Atlantic Richfield (Wilmington)1*
Newhall Rfg. (Newhall) l ' 3'*'20
Powerine Oil (Santa Fe Springs)1*'1
Macario Indep. Rfy. (Carlsbad) **' 1
Pacific Resources (San Diego) 3
Urich (Martinez)3'1*
In-O-Ven (New London) 3
Pepco (Saybrook) 3
Shell (Gloucester)3
Conoco-Dillingham Oil (Barbers Point)1*'1
HIRI (Eua Beach)1*'1
HIRI (Ohau) 3
Texaco (Lockport) 3 ' ** ' :
Clark (Hartford)3
JOC Oil (Romeville) **
Le Gardeur Int. (Braithwaite) 3>1*
Texaco (Convent)3'1*
Gibbs Oil Co. (Sanford)3
Crown Central Petr. (Baltimore)1'3'1*
Saber-Tex (Dracut) 3
Granite State Refs. (Rochester)3
Olympic Oil Refs. (New Market)3
United Refining (West Branch) 3
Lakeside Rfg. Co. (Kalamazoo) l
Type
N
N
E
N
E
E
E
N
E
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
Stage PAD
III
I
P V
V
UorE III
III
III
P V
V
E V
P V
V
V
I
I
I
E V
P V
V
II
II
P III
III
III
I
I
I
I
I
II
U II
AQCR
2
5
8
15
22
22
22
24
24
24
29
29
30
41
42
45
60
60
60
67
70
160
106
106
110
115
119
121
121
122
125
Capacity
(bpd)
150,000
120,000
17,000
3,000
40,000
150,000
40,000
20,000
4,000
25,000
100,000 .
100,000
30,000
400,000
400,000
150,000
50,000
20,000
65,000
25,000
4,000
200,000
300,000
200,000
250,000
200,000
100,000
400,000
400,000
5,000
7
B-4 .
-------
APPENDIX B - ANNOUNCED REFINING EXPANSION PLANS, 1976 (Continued)
Comp any/Location
New England Petr. (Oswego)1'1*
Cirillo Bro. (Albany)3'"*
Vickers Petr. Corp. (Ardmore)
Cascade Energy Resources (Portland) l
Charter Oil (St. Helens)1*
Columbia Indep. Rfy. (Portland)3
Pacific Resources (Portland) 3
Saber Rfy. (Corpus Christi)2
Amoco (Texas City)1*
Charter Intl. (Houston)1*
Hudson Oil (Bayport) 3
Phillips Co. (Sweeny)1*
Texas City Rfy. (Texas City)1*
Hampton Roads Energy Co. (Portsmouth)22
Type
N
N
E
N
N '
N
E
E
N
E
E
N
Stage
U
P
P
U
U
P
U
PAD
I
I
II
V
V
V
V
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
AQCR
158
161
188
193
193
193
193
214
216
216
216
216
216
223
Capacity
(bpd)
200,000
20,000
60,000
30,000
30-50,000
50,000
50,000
12,000
?
7
100,000
65,000
?
184,000
1 HPI: February 1976
2 OGJ: April 26, 1976
3 PE-177; Trends in Refining Capacity and Utilization; December 1975
** EPA Listing
5 OGJ = 18,000*; FEA = 17,000 (A star will indicate the value used in this
table)
6 OGJ = 6,800; FEA = 3,300*
7 OGJ = 5,000; FEA = 1,600*
8 OGJ = 26,000; FEA = 34,000; EPA = 30,000*
9 OGJ = 11,000*; FEA = 10,000
10 OGJ = 52,000; EPA, FEA = 60,000*
11 HPI, OGJ = 95,000; FEA, EPA = 93,000*
12 HPI, OGJ = 25,000*; FEA, EPA = 15,000
13 OGJ = 35,000; HPI, FEA, EPA = 30,000*
l<* OGJ, HPI = Complete in 1976; FEA, EPA = Complete in 1977*
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B - ANNOUNCED REFINING EXPANSION PLANS, 1976 (Continued)
15 Uncertain on EPA listing
16
EPA, FEA listed as uncertain
17 OGJ, HPI = Complete in 1977; FEA, EPA = Complete in 1978*
18 FEA listed as uncertain
19 OCJ - 184,000; FEA, EPA - 175,000*; Uncertain due to opposition on
environmental grounds
20 FEA = 4,000*; EPA = 10,000
9 1 ^-^
FEA listed as planned but not constructed due to opposition on environ-
mental grounds
FEA listed for 1978; EPA opposed on environmental grounds (Washington
Post 4-20-76)
Type: E - Expansion
N - New
Stage: P - Planning
E - Engineering
U - Under construction
C - Completed
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
PROJECTED REFINING CAPACITY BY AQCR
-------
APPENDIX C - PROJECTED REFINING CAPACITY BY AQCR
(bbl/day)
1980
AQCR
2
4
5
8
9
14
15
17
18
19
22
24
29
30
31
32
35
36
41
42
43
45
49
56
58
60
65
67
70
74
77
/8
79
1975
-
31,875
343,300
60.000
14,250
38.400
-
-
43.900
60,786
116,468
1.078,635
.
626,000
189,000
9.500
9.200
52.925
-
-
353.000
993,300
5.700
5.000
13.000
101,750
2,800
949.500
430.750
279,000
22,535
25,200
42,100
Max
-
46,875
556,300
60,000
57.250
38.400
. -
16.000
48.600
60,786
122,468
1.301,935
•
801,000
189,000
9,500
9.200
52.925
-
-
463.000
1,023,300
5,700
5,000
13,000
. -
2.800
949,500
460,750
279,000
22.585
25.200
42,100
Min
-
377,630
60,000
14,250
38,400
-
-
43,900
60,786
128,115
1,186,499
-
688,600
189,000
9,500
9,200
52,925
-
.-
388.300
1.092,300
5,700
5,000
13,000
111,925
2,800
949,500
473.825
279,000
22,585
25,200
42,100
1985
Max
150,000
46,875
719,435
77.000
57,250
38,400
3,000
16.000
48.600
60,786
361,964
1,451,886
200,000
•
893,109
189,000
9,500
9,200
52,925
133,000
133,000
498,900
1,172,600
5.700
5,000
13,000
244,639
2,800
974,500
500,476
1 279.000
22,585
25,200
42,100
Min
-
411,960
60,000
14,250
38,400
-
-
43,900
60,786
139,762
1,294,362
_
751,200
189,000
9,500
9,200
52,925
-
-
423,600
1,191,600
5,700
5,000
13,000
122,100
2,800
949.500
516,900
279.000
22,585
25,200
42.100
C-2
-------
APPENDIX C - PROJECTED REFINING CAPACITY BY AQCR (Continued)
(bbl/day)
1980
AQCR
80
81
84
94
96
97
98
99
100
103
105
106
109
110
115
116
119
121
122
123
124
125
129
131
132
134
140
141
143
146
153
158
1975
32,000
12,500
8.075
192,000
54.150
25,000
51.100
226,430
9.500
135.800
3,000
2,997,025
-
-
28,500
-
-
-
76,600
65,000
295,300
5,600
68,900
66,000
127,300
4.200
137.900
15,781
2,500
5.000
157.830
-
Max
, 39.000
15,000
8.075
192.000
54.150
25.000
51.100
226,430
9,500
135,800
4,600
3,341,025
250,000
-
228,500
100.000
-
-
76,600
65,000
295,300
5,600
68,900
66,000
127,300
4.200
137.900
15.781
2,500
5.000
157.830
-
Win
32,000
12,500
8.075
192,000
54,150
25,000
51,100
226.430
9,500
135,800
4,600
3,296.728
-
-
28,500
-
-
-
76,600
65,000
295,300
5,600
68,900
66,000
127.300
4,200
.137.900
15.781
2,500
5,000
157.830
-
1985
Max
39,000
15,000
8,075
192,000
54,150
25,000
51,100
226,430
9,500
135,800
4,600
4,300,007
250,000
83,000
295,500
100,000
100.000
267.000
81,600
65,000
295,300
5,600
68,900
66,000
127,300
4,200
137,900
15.781
2,500
5,000
157,830
78,139
Min
32.000
12,500
8,075
192,000
54,150
25,000
51,100
226.430
9,500
135,800
4,600
3,596,430
-
-
28,500
-
-
-
76,600
65,000
295,300
5,600
68,900
66,000
127,300
4,200
137,900
15,781
2,500
5.000
157,830
-
C-3
-------
APPENDIX C - PROJECTED REFINING CAPACITY BY AQCR (Continued)
(bbl/day)
1980
AQCR
161
162
172
174
177
178
179
181
184
185
186
187
188
189
193
197
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
223
228
229
234
241
242
243
247
1975
-
111,385
58,658
64,000
188,370
82,920
4,850
9,700
5.225
198,800
.163.500
4,750
111.000
62,500
14.000
6.800
36,500
200,800
2,600
5,462
476,725
26., 000
1.631.725
32.620
105.500
7.000
145,000
53,000
336,500
30,400
4,900
43,000
69.100
75.240
-
Max
'
111,385
58,658
64,000
188.370
82,920
4,850
9,700
5,225
198.800
163,500
4,750
127.000
62,500
214,000
6,800
36,500
200.800
32,600
5.462
763,725
26.000
2,174,725
32,620
105,500
7.000
145,000
108,200
336.500
30.400
44,900
43.000
69.100
75.240
200,000
Min
-
. 122,524
58,658
64,000
188,370
82,920
4,850
9,700
5,225
198,800
163,500
4,750
111,000
62.500
14,000
6,800
36,500
200,800
2,600
5,462
524,398
26,000
1,774,898
32,620
105,500
7.000
145,000
58,300
418,990
30.400
4,900
43,000
.69,100
75.240
'
1985
Max
20,000
111.385
58.658
64,000
188,370
82,920
4,850
9,700
5,225
198,800
163,500
4.750
187,000
62,500
419,042
6,800
36,500
200,800
32,600
5,462
834,943
26,000
2,508,351
32,620
105,500
.7,000
145,000
108,200
336,500
30.400
44.900
43,000
69.100
75.240
200.000
Min
-
133,662
58,658
64,000
188,370
82,920
4,850
9,700
5,225
198,800
163,500
4,750
111,000
62,500
14,000
6,800
36,500
200,800
2,600
5,462
572,070
26,000
1,958,070
32,620
105,500
7,000
145,000
63,600
457,080
30,400
4,900
43.000
69,100
75.240
.
C-4 .
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-77-024
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Background Information on National and Regional
Hydrocarbon Emissions From Marine Terminal
Transfer Operations.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
C. E. Burklin,
W. C. Micheletti and J. S. Sherman
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
77-100-139-02-11
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard
P.O. Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78766
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4136 Task 2
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents results of a study to develop national and regional
background information necessary for the accurate assessment of Hydrocarbon Emissions
from Ship and Barge Loading and Unloading of Gasoline and Crude Oil. The report
assesses national marine transportation patterns of crude oil and gasoline, projected
patterns through 1985. Marine terminal operations, sources of hydrocarbon emissions,
operational control technology, estimates of national hydrocarbon losses from marine
terminal operations, and potential emission reductions resulting Trom applying
modified operating procedures.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Control Methods
Hydrocarbons
Marine Terminals
Ship and Barges
Gasoline Loading and Unloading
Crude Oil Loading and Unloading
Air Pollution Control
Mobil Sources
Hydrocarbon Emission
Control
Organic Vapors
3. Z.STRISUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS iThis Report!
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS iThis page:
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |