U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268
EPA-600/7-76-034b
December 1976
      ENVIRONMENTAL

      CONSIDERATIONS OF

      SELECTED ENERGY

      CONSERVING MANUFACTURING

      PROCESS OPTIONS:
      Vol. II. Industry

      Priority Report

      Interagency
      Energy-Environment
      Research and Development
      Program Report

-------
                       RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into seven series.
These seven broad categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental technology.  Elimination
of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.  The seven series
are:

     1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
     2.  Environmental Protection Technology
     3.  Ecological Research
     4.  Environmental Monitoring
     5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
     6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
     7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series.  Reports in this series result from
the effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment
Research and Development Program.  These studies relate to EPA's
mission to protect the public health and welfare from adverse effects
of pollutants associated with energy systems.  The goal of the Program
is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an
environmentally—compatible manner by providing the necessary
environmental data and control technology.  Investigations include
analyses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health
and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of, control
technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide
range of energy-related environmental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia  22161.

-------
                                                  EPA-600/7-76-034b
                                                  December 1976
         ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF  SELECTED
     ENERGY CONSERVING MANUFACTURING PROCESS  OPTIONS
                          Volume II

                  INDUSTRY PRIORITY REPORT
                 EP.A Contract No. 68-03-2198
                       Project Officer

                    Herbert S. Skovronek
         Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
                Edison, New Jersey 08817
         INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL  RESEARCH LABORATORY
               OFFICE OF-RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
  For sale by ths Snperint«nt)ent oKDocnments, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 20402

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                       ii

-------
                                 FOREWORD
     When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution con-
trol methods be used.  The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and im-
proved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and
economically.

     This study, consisting of 15 reports, identifies promising industrial
processes and practices in 13 energy-intensive industries which, if imple-
mented over the coming 10 to 15 years, could result in more effective uti-
lization of energy resources.  The study was carried out to assess the po-
tential environmental/energy impacts of such changes and the adequacy of
existing control technology in order to identify potential conflicts with
environmental regulations and to alert the Agency to areas where its activi-
ties and policies could influence the future choice of alternatives.  The
results will be used by the EPA's Office of Research and Development to de-
fine those areas where existing pollution control technology suffices, where
current and anticipated programs adequately address the areas identified by
the contractor, and where selected program reorientation seems necessary.
Specific data will also be of considerable value to individual researchers
as industry background and in decision-making concerning project selection
and direction.  The Power Technology and Conservation Branch of the Energy
Systems-Environmental Control Division should be contacted for additional
information on the program.
                                           David G.  Stephan
                                               Director
                             Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                                              Cincinnati
                                      iii

-------
                               ABSTRACT
This study assesses the likelihood of new process technology and new
practices being introduced by energy intensive industries and explores
the environmental impacts of such changes.

Specifically, Vol. II, prepared early in the study, presents and des-
cribes the overview of the industries considered and presents the metho-
dology used to select industries.  Vol. III-XV deal with the following
13 industries: iron and steel, petroleum refining, pulp and paper, olefins,
ammonia, aluminum, copper, textiles, cement, glass, chlor-alkali, phosphorus
and phosphoric acid, and fertilizers in terms of relative economics and en-
vironmental/energy consequences.  Vol. I presents the overall summation and
identification of research needs and areas of highest overall priority.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of EPA Contract No. 68-03-2198
by  Arthur D. Little, Inc. under the  sponsorship of the U.  S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
                                   iv

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                          Page
FOREWORD                                                                  iu
Abstract                                                                   iv
List of Figures                                                           vi
List of Tables                                                            vii
Acknowledgments                                                            x
Conversion Table                                                          xii

I.    INTRODUCTION                                                          1

II.   METHODOLOGY FOR INDUSTRY SELECTION                                    2

      A.   BACKGROUND                                                       2
      B.  . DEVELOPMENT OF QUANTITATIVE DATA                                 3
      C.   DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITATIVE DATA                                  6

III.  RANKING OF INDUSTRIES                                                 7

      A.   INDUSTRY SELECTION BY QUANTITATIVE FACTORS                       7
      B.   INDUSTRY SELECTION BY QUALITATIVE FACTORS                        8
      C.   FINAL SELECTION METHODOLOGY RANKING FACTOR                      10

IV.   METHODOLOGY FOR PROCESS ASSESSMENT STUDIES                           12

      A.   OVERALL ASSESSMENTS                                             12
      B.   IWESTMENTS AND OPERATING COSTS                                 13

           1.   Fixed Investments                                          14
           2.   Variable Operating Costs                                   14
           3.   Fixed Costs      .                                          18
           4.   Return on Investment                                       19
           5.   Miscellaneous Fixed Costs/Credits                          19

      C.   ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS                                       19
      D.   POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS                                         20

APPENDIX A - ENERGY DATA                                                   24

APPENDIX B - INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES                                         62

APPENDIX C - LITERATURE SOURCES                                           120

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES
Number                                                                    Page

A-l       Purchased Fuel Unit Costs Versus Total Energy Cost Per
          Dollar Value Added (1971)                                        58

A-2       Unit Electric Energy Cost Versus Total Energy Cost Per
          Dollar Value Added (1971)                                        59

A-3       Purchased Electric Energy Unit Costs Versus Total Purchased
          Electricity (1971)                                               60

A-4       Purchased Fuel Unit Cost Versus Total Purchased Fuel (1971)      61

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Number                                                                    Page

II-l      Energy Purchased in Top 16 Industries, 1971                       5

III-l     Summary of Quantitative and Qualitative Rating Factors for
          Major Industries and Their Integration into a Combined
          Industry Identification and Ranking                               9

IV-1      Factors Used to Compute Kilowatt-Hour and Btu Equivalents
          of Various Energy Sources                                        13

IV-2      Benchmark Energy Costs for Coal, Oil, Gas and Electric
          Power in March 1975                                              16

IV-3      Estimated Cost of Producing 450 psig Saturated Steam
          0-00,000 Ib/hr package boiler)                                   17

IV-4      Benchmark Earnings by SIC Code - March 1975                      17

A-l       Ranking by Total Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased
          (3-Digit SIC Grouping) 1954                                      25

A-2       Ranking by Total Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased
          (3-Digit SIC Grouping) 1958                                      26

A-3       Ranking by Total Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased
          (3-Digit SIC Grouping) 1962                                      28

A-4       Ranking by Total Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased
          (3-Digit SIC Grouping) 1967                                      30

A-5       Ranking by Total Fuel'and Electric Energy Purchased
          (3-Digit SIC Grouping) 1971                                      32

A-6       Ranking by Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased (4-Digit SIC
          Grouping) 1954                                                   34

A-7       Ranking by Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased (4-Digit SIC
          Grouping) 1958                                                   35

A-8       Ranking by Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased (4-Digit SIC
          Grouping) 1962                                                   37

A-9       Ranking by Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased (4-Digit SIC
          Grouping) 1967                                                   39
                                     •vii

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES  (Cont.)
Number                                                                    Page
  - - - ~                                                                        ,

A-10      Ranking by Fuel and Electric Energy Purchased  (4-Digit SIC
          Grouping) 1971                                                   41

A-ll      Summary of Total Energy Purchased  (2- and 4-Digit SIC
          Grouping)                                                        43

A-12      Summary of Total Energy Purchased  (2- and 3-Digit SIC
          Grouping)                                                        44

A-13      Summary of Total Energy Purchased  (Major 3-Digit SIC
          Grouping)                                                        45

A-14      Summary of Total Energy Purchased  (Major 4-Digit SIC
          Grouping)                                                        46

A-15      Summary of Energy/Value Added (2- and 3-Digit  SIC Grouping)      47

A-16      Summary of Energy/Value Added (Major 3-Digit SIC Grouping)       48

A-17      Summary of Energy/Value Added (2- and 4-Digit  SIC Grouping)      49

A-18      Summary of Energy/Value Added (Major 4-Digit SIC Grouping)       50

A-19      Summary of Energy Cost/Value Added (2- and 3-Digit Grouping)     51

A-20      Summary of Energy Cost/Value Added (2- and 4-Digit SIC
          Grouping)                                                        52.

A-21      Summary of Energy Cost/Value Added (Major 3-Digit SIC
          Grouping)                                                        53

A-22      Summary of Energy Cost/Value Added (Major 4-Digit SIC
          Grouping)                                                        54

A-23      Unit Fuel and Electric Energy Costs for 40 Industry Sectors
          (1971)                                                            55

B-l       Steel Industry Energy Use (1973)                                 65

B-2       Energy Purchases for the SIC Categories Included in Pulp and
          Paper Industry Sector Analysis  (Basis:  1971 Data)               69

B-3       Projected Purchased Energy Consumption (Basis:  Energy
          equivalents of fuel requirements)                                70

B-4       Summary of Energy Usage in the Pulp and Paper  Industry by
          Major Pulping Processes (Basis:  1973 Production)                71

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)


Number                                                                    Page

B-5       Typical Fuel and Energy Requirements in Production of
          Aluminum                                                          86

B-6       Shipments of Castings                                            105

B-7       Ferrous Foundry Melting Energy Requirements                      107

B-8       Current U.S. Elemental Phosphorus Producers                      113

B-9       Energy Consumption                                               114

B-10      Projected U.S. Demand for Phosphorus                             115

B-ll      U.S. Consumption of Selected Foods.                               116

B-12      Fuel Consumption - Selected Food Processing Industries           117

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
     This study could not have been accomplished without the support of a
great number of people in government agencies, industry, trade associations
and universities.  Although it would be impossible to mention each individual
by name, we would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the particular
support of a few such people.

     Dr. Herbert S. Skovronek, Project Officer, was a valuable resource to us
throughout the study.  He not only supplied us with information on work
presently being done in other branches of EPA and other government agencies,
but served as an indefatigable guide and critic as the study progressed.  His
advisors within EPA, FEA, DOC, and NBS also provided us with insights and
perspectives valuable for the shaping of the study.

     During the course of the study we also had occasion to contact many
individuals within industry and trade associations.  Where appropriate we
have made reference to these contacts within the various reports.  Frequently,
however, because of the study's emphasis on future developments with compara-
tive assessments of new technology, information given to us was of a confiden-
tial nature or was supplied to us with the understanding that it was not to be
credited.  Therefore, we extend a general thanks to all those whose comments
were valuable to us for their interest in and contribution to this study.

     Finally, because of the broad range of industries covered in this study,
we are indebted to many people within Arthur D. Little, Inc. for their parti-
cipation.  Responsible for the guidance and completion of the overall study were
Mr. Henry E. Haley, Project Manager; Dr. Charles L. Kusik, Technical Director;
Mr. James I. Stevens, Environmental Coordinator; and Ms. Anne B. Littlefield,
Administrative Coordinator.

     Members of the environmental team were Dr. Indrakumar L. Jashnani,
Mr. Edmund H. Dohnert and Dr. Richard Stephens (consultant).

     Within the individual industry studies we would like to acknowledge the
contributions of the following people.

Iron and Steel;           Dr. Michel R. Mounier, Principal Investigator
                          Dr. Krishna Parameswaran

Petroleum Refining:       Mr. R. Peter Stickles, Principal Investigator
                          Mr. Edward Interess
                          Mr. Stephen A. Reber
                          Dr. James Kittrell (consultant)
                          Dr. Leigh Short (consultant)

-------
 Pulp  and  Paper;
 Olefins:
Ammonia:
Aluminum:
Textiles:
Cement:
Glass:
Chlor-Alkali:
Phosphorus/
Phosphoric Acid:
Primary Copper:
Fertilizers:
Mr. Fred D. lannazzi, Principal Investigator
Mr. Donald B. Sparrow
Mr. Edward Myskowski (consultant)
Mr. Karl P. Fagans
Mr. G. E. Wong

Mr. Stanley E. Dale, Principal Investigator
Mr. R. Peter Stickles
Mr. J. Kevin O'Neill
Mr. George B. Hegeman

Mr. John L. Sherff, Principal Investigator
Ms. Nancy J. Cunningham
Mr. Harry W. Lambe

Mr. Richard W. Hyde, Principal Investigator
Ms. Anne B. Littlefield
Dr. Charles L. Kusik
Mr, Edward L. Pepper
Mr. Edwin L, Field
Mr, John W, Rafferty

Dr. Douglas Shooter, Principal Investigator
Mr, Robert M. Green  (consultant)
Mr* Edward S, Shanley
Dr, John Wlllard  (consultant)
Dr., Richard F, Heitmiller

Dr, Paul A. Huska, Principal Investigator
Ms. Anne B. Littlefield
Mr, J.. Kevin O'Neill

Dr. D. William Lee, Principal Investigator
Mr, Michael Rossetti
Mr, R. Peter Stickles
Mr, Edward Interess
Dr, Ravindra M. Nadkarni

Mr. Roger E. Shamel, Principal Investigator
Mr, Harry W. Lambe
Mr^ Richard P. Schneider
   1
Mr. William V. Keary, Principal Investigator
Mr. Harry W. Lambe
Mr. George C. Sweeney
Dr., Krishna Parameswaran

Dr. Ravindra M. Nadkarni, Principal Investigator
Dr, Michel R, Mounier
Dr, Krishna Parameswaran

Mr. John L. Sherff, Principal Investigator
Mr. Roger Shamel
Dr. Indrakumar L. Jashnani
                                  xi

-------
                    ENGLISH-METRIC  (SI)  CONVERSION FACTORS
To Convert From
To
Metre2
Pascal
Metre
Joule
Pascal-second
Degree Celsius
Degree Kelvin
Metre
3
Metre /sec
Metre3
Metre2
Metre/sec
2
Metre /sec
Metre3
Watt
Watt
Watt
Metre
Joule
3
Metre
Metre
Metre
Metre
Pascal-second
Newton
Kilogram
Kilogram
Kilogram
Kilogram
Kilogram
Kilogram
Multiply By
4,046
101,325
0.1589
1,055
0.001
t° = (tl -32)/1.8
c r
0.3048
0.0004719
0.02831
0.09290
0.3048
0.00002580
0.003785
745.7
746.0
735.5
0.02540
3.60 x 106
1.000 x 10~3
1.000 x 10~6
0.00002540
1,609
0.1000
4.448
0.4536
0.02916
1,016
1,000
907.1
1,000
Acre
Atmosphere  (normal)
Barrel  (42  gal)
British Thermal Unit
Centipoise
Degree Fahrenheit
Degree Rankine
Foot
Foot /minute
'Foot3
Foot2
Foot/sec
    2
Foot /hr
Gallon  (U.S. liquid)
Horsepower  (550 ft-lbf/sec)
Horsepower  (electric)
Horsepower  (metric)
Inch
Kilowatt-hour
Litre
Micron
Mil
Mile (U.S.  statute)
Poise
Pound force (avdp)
Pound mass  (avdp)
Ton (assay)
Ton (long)
Ton (metric)
Ton (short)
Tonne
Source:  American National  Standards  Institute,  "Standard Metric Practice
         Guide," March  15,  1973.  (ANS72101-1973)  (ASTM Designation E380-72)
                                  xii

-------
                              I.  INTRODUCTION
     The initial'task under EPA Contract No. 68-03-2198 (Environmental Considera-
tions of Selected Energy-Conserving Manufacturing Process Options) was to develop
a listing of a broad group of U.S. industries for screening and to recommend
selected process industry sectors for in-depth study.  In performing this task,
we have identified the priority placement of the industries, together with the
rationale for such selection and priority placement.  It was understood that, in
order to accomplish this task within the initial month of the study, we would
have to rely extensively on our own judgment and in-house information in making
these recommendations.  After reviewing the recommendations made in this report,
the EPA Project Officer'indicated those industries which should be studied
in-depth.

     In two EPA-ADL meetings in Cambridge, criteria for establishing the priority
listing of industries for study were agreed upon.  These included:

     •    the significance of environmental problems in the industry;

     •    the potential/probability of the implementation of the process
          change;

     •    and the total energy use within the industry.

Although the energy consequences of the process changes were important considera-
tions , it was agreed that they were only important in terms of defining the
probability of a change and in identifying those industries on which our study
should be focused.  The major emphasis of the study was on the environmental
implications of the process change.

     The body of this report has been kept brief in order to focus on the
findings and conclusions of the work to date.  Supporting quantitative and
qualitative data generated as a basis of our conclusions are found in Appendices
A and B.  Selected references are shown in Appendic C.

     This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of contract 68-03-2198 by
Arthur D. Little, Inc. under sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  This report covers a period from June 9, 1975 to July 8, 1975.

-------
                   II.  METHODOLOGY FOR INDUSTRY SELECTION
A.   BACKGROUND

     The major focus of this study was on the environmental impact of certain
potential manufacturing process changes.  We began the study by identifying those
industries in which energy consumption is a significant factor and in which the
implementation of energy-conserving process changes is possible or probable.
Although an illustrative selection of industries to be studied was given in the
RFP, the purpose of this initial task was to place industries in a priority order
and document their placement.

     Four days of EPA-ADL discussions in two separate meetings sharpened our
understanding of EPA's needs in connection with this study:

     •    Within the 15-year time span being considered, emphasis was to be
          placed on industries and processes with near-term potential rather
          than longer term potential.

     •    Energy conservation was defined in the broad sense to include
          conservation of form value of energy (e.g., conserving natural gas
          while using more energy units of coal), as well as feedstock changes
          and actual reduction of energy use per unit of product;

     In addition areas to be included within the scope of this study were:

     •    Changes in industrial practice that result in energy conservation,
          such as collection and use of CO-containing gases from basic oxygen
          furnaces in steelmaking;

     •    Pollution control methods resulting in energy conservation.

     Those areas not to be included within the scope of this study were:

     •    Energy conservation as a result of "policing or housekeeping" (e.g.,
          shutting off standby furnaces);

     •    Power generation, except for unusual situations;

     •    Steam raising or generation by alternative fuels (e.g., use of coal
          for gas or oil);

    '•    Carbon monoxide boilers; however, unique process vent streams yielding
          recoverable energy could be described either qualitatively or
          quantitatively;

-------
     •    Fuel substitution in fired process heaters;

     •    The agricultural sector, as well as mining and milling, except where
          they are or become an integral part of the process;

     •    Production of synthetic fuels from coal (low- and high-Btu gas,
          synthetic crude, synthetic fuel oil, etc.); however, coal-based
          processes for chemicals [such as ammonia from coal, methanol from
          coal, (refinery) hydrogen from coal, etc.] could be identified and
          might be deemed appropriate for inclusion;

     •    All aspects .of industry-related transportation.

     In addition to receiving background information from 'the EPA, we visited the
FEA to examine information it had collected that might be relevant to this study.
As a consequence, two basic types of readily available information were utilized
in the identification and priority ordering of industry sectors for in-depth
study:

     •    Quantitative factors based on gross amount of energy (fossil fuel and
          electric) purchased by each industry sector as found in U.S. Census
          figures and industry sources; and

     •    Qualitative factors relating to the severity of air, water, and solid
          waste problems, probability and potential for process change, and
          environmental and energy consequences of such changes.

     Integration of both the quantitative and qualitative factors yielded an
identification and ranking of industries which we believe show high probability
for energy conservation via changes in practices or processes.  We subjected the
final listing to an additional review so that we could incorporate specialized
factors peculiar to a specific industry and not easily accommodated in our selec-
tion and ranking process.

B.   DEVELOPMENT OF QUANTITATIVE DATA

     Our first objective was to identify the major energy-consuming industries.
The magnitude of an industry's total energy use was believed to be an important
criterion in judging where the most significant energy conservation might be
realized, since even a modest process change in a major energy-consuming industry
could have more dramatic natioiial consequences than a more technically significant
process change in an industry whose total energy consumption is rather modest.

     For several reasons, the Census of Manufactures' data were considered to be
the best source of quantitative energy-use information.  Data from the Census
are clearly the most comprehensive available.  In discussions with industry
specialists, we combined certain three- and four-digit SIC code classifications
into broader two-digit classifications to achieve a more comprehensive view of
several industrial groups, such as food and kindred products, glass, textiles,

-------
and pulp and paper.  The methodology in using these data (employed in "Energy
Consumption in Manufacturing"* by The Conference Board, under National Science
Foundation, and Ford Foundation funding) came the closest to meeting our needs for
purposes of ranking the industries by energy use, and that has been used
almost totally throughout this study.

     One drawback of the Census data is that they are based only on purchased
energy; data on energy generated internally from raw material utilization (as
with hydrocarbon feedstocks), or heat recovery from exothermic chemical reac-
tions, or from wastes cannot be determined from these sources.  A sense of such
energy factors is best obtained from industry specialists, as discussed in
Section C below.

     Using the Census of Manufactures for the years 1954, 1958, 1962, 1967, and
1971, we compiled data on total purchased energy (fuel and electric power) by
three- and four-digit SIC Codes for the most energy-intensive industrial sectors
(see Tables A-l through A-10 in Appendix A).  Since the Census data are reported
in kWh, total energy purchased was then calculated on a fossil fuel basis using
3412 Btu/kWh for fossil fuel purchased and 10,500 Btu/kWh for electric power
purchased, taking into account the efficiencies of typical power plants. This
exercise established total energy usage on a reasonably acceptable basis, since
the Census data do not reflect the efficiency of converting fossil fuel resources
into electric power.  We recognize that the methodology we used does not make
allowances for the utilization of hydroelectric or nuclear power.  However, we
believe that these approaches do not materially affect our ranking, considering
the purposes for which it is to be used, since hydro and nuclear energy accounted
for less than 2% of U.S. energy consumption in 1968**.  These data on energy
use are presented in Appendix A..

     Examination of the data shows that the relative positions of the industrial
sectors do not vary much from year to year.  Using the 1967 data as the base
year for ranking (1971 energy data on all industries are not yet available),
we find it interesting to note that no industry among the first 15 of the two-
and four-digit SIC codes ever ranked lower than 18 in the other years.  (See
Table A-ll.)

     Table II-l shows the ranking of the first 16 industries in descending
order of 1971 purchased energy.

     As shown in Appendix A, based on the year 1967, we also calculated other
factors, such as -

     •     energy cost per dollar value added,

     •     energy units required per unit of dollar value added,

     •     energy usage per unit of production and trends in this ratio
           with time,
 *Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1974).

**Patterns of Energy Consumption in the United States, Office of Science and
  Technology, Wash., D.C., Jan., 1972.

                                        4

-------
                              TABLE II-l


               ENERGY PURCHASED IN TOP 16 INDUSTRIES, 1971




 Industry                                      SIC No.       10   Btu/yr


 1.  Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills             3312           1.68


 2.  Petroleum Refining                         2911           1.67


 3.  Paper and Allied Products                    26           1.59


 4.  Stone, Clay, and Glass Products              32           1,48


 5.  Food and Kindred Products                    20           1.266


 6.  Industrial Organic Chemicals (n.e.c,)*     2818           1.116


 7.  Industrial Inorganic Chemicals (n.e.c.)*   2819           0.805


 8.  Primary Aluminum                           3334           0.592


 9.  Textile Mill Products                        22           0.54


10.  Alkalies and Chlorine                      2812           0.236


11.  Plastic Materials and Resins               2821           0.201


12.  Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories        3714           0.187


13.  Motor Vehicles - Passenger Cars            3712           0.156


14.  Cyclic Intermediates                       2815           0.161


15.  Electrometallurgical Products              3313           0.136


16.  Gray Iron Foundries                        3321           0.132
 *
  Not elsewhere classified
 Source:  1972 Census of Manufactures

-------
     •     purchased electric energy unit cost  ($/kWh) and total purchased
           electricity,

     •     unit electric energy cost and total  energy cost per dollar of value
           added,

     •     purchased fuel energy unit cost and  total purchased fuel, and

     •     purchased fuel unit costs and total  energy cost per dollar of value
           added.

     However, these calculations seemed of little value in obtaining a better
quantitative understanding of energy relationships among the industries.  Con-
sequently data from Census years other than 1967 were not similarly tested
except for the time trends noted above.

C.   DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITATIVE DATA

     Using the quantitative listing developed above, we concentrated on our
second major objective which was to identify the following for each industry
on the list:

     •     probability or potential of energy-conserving process change,

     •     pollution or environmental consequences of the change, and

     •     energy conservation consequences of  the change.

     To help develop a better understanding of  these more qualitative factors,
industry reviews, or "industry perspectives," were developed by ADL industry
specialists, most of whom attended the two EPA-ADL working sessions in
Cambridge which took place in the first month of the contract.  Many had also
participated in earlier industry reviews and analyses undertaken at the time
the proposal was submitted.  The thrust of the up-dated industry perspectives
was to tailor them more nearly to the needs and limitations of the EPA as
articulated in the two working sessions (noted earlier in this report).

     With such guidelines, the "industry perspectives" were prepared (see
Appendix B).  Their style differs from one to another, reflecting the particular
emphasis of each ADL industry specialist.  These "industry perspectives" serve
as the source material used in obtaining the qualitative industry rating dis-
cussed in Chapter III of this report.  Each is based on an initial assessment
of that industry without benefit of in-depth research or industry contact and
reflects the staff member's views as of the initiation of the project.

-------
                        III.  RANKING OF INDUSTRIES
A.   INDUSTRY SELECTION BY QUANTITATIVE FACTORS

     During development of the energy consumption data base and "industry
perspectives," it became apparent that selection of the industries for priority
ranking would involve making certain decisions based on nonstructured consid-
erations.  Among th&se were:

     •    Changes made by the Census Bureau in the manufacturing segments
          included within a given SIC category between 1967 and 1971.

     ••    Selection of the olefins from a listing of the Industrial Organic
          Chemicals (n.e.c.),*  This decision was based on the energy content
          of the raw materials which serve both as fuel and as chemical build-
          ing blocks for the olefins.  Purchased energy consumed is small in
          comparison to the energy content of the feedstocks.

     •    Inclusion of the alumina (SIC 2819) industry wi-th primary aluminum
          (SIC 3334) because of a tie between these two industry.sectors.

     •    Besides alumina, selection of phosphorus and phosphoric acid as the
          only inorganic chemical sector for consideration under Industrial
          Inorganic Chemicals (n.e.c.) based on its energy intensity and its
          importance in the industrial area.

     •    Removal of ammonia from the Agricultural Chemical SIC classification
          for consideration separately because of the high-energy value of the
          feedstock.  Retention of the remaining fertilizers under the generic
          heading of fertilizers (ex-ammonia).

     •    Inclusion of high energy-using industries, such as motor vehicles,
          although they are not generally considered purely process industries.

     After consideration of the'above, 34 industries were chosen for considera-
tion in developing a recommended ranking.  Although these industries are among
the higher energy purchasers, as determined from available data, there is more
than a 50-fold factor between industries at the top and bottom of the list.
This means that if a 2% energy savings were achieved in the top industry, the
least energy-consuming industry would have to become a zero energy user in
order to achieve the same total energy saving.  Consequently, it is apparent
that in developing a priority ranking, one must perceive a high probability for
*Not elsewhere classified

-------
process changes achieving large percentage energy savings if a lesser energy-
using industry were to be retained in the industries selected for further study.
We believe that the energy usage spread between the first and 34th industry
on our list is adequate to ensure that additions to the list, based on quanti-
tative factors, would not be effective.  This quantitative ranking in units of
1015 Btu (quads) is shown in Table II1-1.

B.   INDUSTRY SELECTION BY QUALITATIVE FACTORS

     Clearly there are numerous approaches to designing a methodology for con-
sidering the qualitative factors for industry selection and ranking.  Our source
material was basically the "industry perspectives," already discussed, which
are included in Appendix B.  Ideally, it would have been desirable to have
quantitative information on the potential for process change and the severity
of pollution/environmental problems.  However, this type of information is
generally not readily available and a methodology has yet to be developed for
comparing the relative magnitudes of air, water, and solid-waste problems..
Thus, a less than ideal methodology was used to place industries in priority
order within the one month allowed for this phase of the study.  As a result,
we sought a methodology which would balance out the differences in style of the
industry perspectives and would allow for a less structured, experience-
oriented analysis.  After considering many approaches with varying degrees of
structure and nonstructure, we developed a technique which we believe incorpo-
rates the essentials of both approaches.

     We utilized an evaluative approach, similar in many ways to the Delphi-
technique,  in which five senior ADL staff members skilled in the process indus-
tries and not heavily involved in the development of the "industry perspectives"
were asked to rate each industry by the following three factors:

     1.   Probability of Process Change

          3 - High
          2 - Likely
          1 - Small
          0 - Nil

     2.   Pollutional Consequences of Process Change

          3 - Major Change/Impact
          2 - Moderate Change/Impact
          1 - Small Change/Impact
          0 - Nil

     3.   Energy Conservation Consequences of Process Changes (Broad Definition
          of Energy Conservation)

          3 -.Major Consequences
          2 - Moderate Consequences
          1 - Small Consequences
          0 - Nil

-------
                                                 TABLE  III-l
 SUMMARY  OF  QUANTITATIVE  AND  QUALITATIVE RATING FACTORS FOR MAJOR  INDUSTRIES
   AND  THEIR  INTEGRATION INTO  A COMBINED  INDUSTRY  IDENTIFICATION  AND  RANKING
                     _Industry_ _S_e gtneiu

  1.  Blast furnaces and steel mills
  2.  Paper and allied products
  3.  (Industrial organic chemicals   /(olefins
     'Cyclic intermediates  and crudes »  only)
  4.  Ammonia
  5.  Cement
  6.  Aluminum
  7.  Petroleum refining
  8.  Glass                                  3211
  9.  Textiles
 10.-  Primary copper
 LI.  Gray iron foundries
 12.  Primary zinc
 13.  Alkalies and chlorine
 14.  Industrial inorganic  chemicals (phosphorus
     and phosphoric acid only)
 15.  Fertilizers (excluding ammonia)
 16.  Electrometallurgies!  products-Ferromanganese
     production)
 17.  Plastic materials and resins
 18.  Lime
 19.  Food and kindred products
 20.  Organic fibers - noncellulosic
 21.  Miscellaneous plastic products
 22.  Synthetic rubber
 23.  Carbon black
 24.  Cellulosic man-made fibers
 25.  Inner tubes and tires
26-34 Other" large consumers of  energy
     -  motor vehicle parts,  and accessories
     -  motor vehicles
     -  industrial gases
     -  aluminum rolling and  drawing
        ready mix concrete
     -  beet sugar
     -  brick and structural  clay tiles
     -  metal stampings
        uranium enrichment
                                                 SIC
                                                in Which     Combined
                                                Industry    Qualitative
                                                 Found     Rating Factor
3312
26
2818
2871
3241
3334
2911
,3221,3229
22
3331
3321
3333
2812
2819
2871
3313
2821
3274
20
2824
3079
2822
2895
2823
30] 1
3714
3711
2813
3352
3273
2063
3251
341.1
13)9
19.
15.
13.0
13.
15.
13.
2.9
6.8
3.4
19.
6.
12.
2.8
5.5
6.0
2.7
0.92
1.5
0.10
0.53
0.45
0.83
2. 3
0.66
0.3
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
00
(a)
(.1)
(h)
(c)
(d)
Less  than 0.1
Less  than 0.02
10'5  iiin/yr
                                                                                        B
                                                                                   quantitative
                                                                                   Rating Factor
                                                                                     (Ouad)c
                                                                                    Year: 1971
                                                                                        1.68
                                                                                        1.59
                                                                                            (d)
                                                                                        0.52
                                                                                        0.59
                                                                                        1.68
                                                                                        0.31
                                                                                        0.54
                                                                                        O.OB
                                                                                        0.13
                                                                                         .06
                                                                                        0.24
                                                                                        0.12(,

                                                                                                             O..i8
                                                                                                             0. 18

                                                                                                             0.18
                                                                                                             O.lX-6
                                                                                                              .058
                                                                                                              .057
                                                                                                              .015
                                                                                                             (b)
                                                                                                             (M
                                                                                                             U')
                                                                                                             (b)
                                                                                                             (10
1(1  I'li.mplici
             nly, Inrltith'H  i-n^r^y oT lumistn
                -r^y included :  ADL cstim.itL-
                                               ADI. i-sr Im.ii.i«
                mid phof(|)lior Lc rtcid only:  AIIL u H 11 m.'i t L

-------
     Each staff member undertook the rating on an individual basis.  All of
the staff members have been involved in technological aspects of process indus-
tries during most of their professional careers either at ADL or prior to join-
ing the staff.  They represent a total of 100 man-years of experience in the
process industries.

     A staff member's qualitative rating of an industry was obtained by multi-
plying the three rating factors.  If, for example, a staff member rated an
industry on a given factor in a range of from 1 to 2, a value of 1.5, halfway
between, was used.  The qualitative ratings were designed so that a maximum of
27 was possible (the product of three factors each having a maximum rating of
3).  On the other hand, if a zero were obtained in any one of the qualitative
factors (indicating either no process change, no pollution consequences, or no
energy consequences of process change), then the combined weighting factor was
also zero.  A rating of zero was considered sufficient reason to exclude an
industry from the recommended list.  An average industry qualitative rating
was then obtained as' summarized in Table III-l.

C.   FINAL SELECTION METHODOLOGY RANKING FACTOR

     Table III-l shows 25 industries with their quantitative and qualitative
ratings.  As an index of annual gross energy purchased by an industry, the unit
of 1015 Btu (1 quad) was used.

     Clearly there are numerous ways, all potentially subject to criticism, by
which the qualitative ratings could be combined with the quantitative (energy
purchased) factor to yield a priority ranking of industries.  For the purpose
of obtaining a "methodology ranking factor," the integration of quantitative
and qualitative factors was accomplished by simply multiplying the two factors
together to yield the results shown in the last column of Table III-l.  After
reviewing the "methodology ranking factors," and before making our final recom-
mendations, we presented the following general observations to the Project
Officer:

     •    The energy content in the form of feedstocks will be especially
          reflected in a study of the olefins and ammonia industries.

     •    The ranking of Gray Iron Foundries reflects a change in form value,
          i.e., the usual introduction of electric furnaces for fossil fuel-
          fired furnace, which will generally demand an overall increase in
          energy consumption.  Because similar technologies are recommended
          for study in the iron and steel industry, we concluded that an in-
          depth analysis of Gray Iron Foundries was not warranted within the
          scope of this study.

     •    Because primary zinc and primary copper production are both non-ferrous
          industries, we concluded that only primary copper should be studied
          initially because of its greater potential for change and the pollu-
          tional consequences of these changes.  Furthermore, many of the    i
          sulfur dioxide pollution problems in the zinc industry will be
          analogous to those found in the copper industry.
                                      10

-------
     •    An effort was made to select  industrial  sectors that demonstrate a
          variety of environmental impacts.

     Consequently, we recommended that  the  following  13  industrial segments be
studied' in-depth.

      1.  Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills,

      2.  Paper and Allied Products,

      3.  Olefins,

      4.  Ammonia,

      5.  Cement,

      6.  Alumina and Aluminum,

      7.  Petroleum Refining,

      8.  Glass,

      9.  Textiles,

     10.  Primary Copper,

     11.  Alkalies and Chlorine,

     12.  Phosphorus and Phosphoric Acid,  and

     13.  Fertilizers.
                                      11

-------
              IV.  METHODOLOGY FOR PROCESS ASSESSMENT STUDIES
A.   OVERALL ASSESSMENTS

     Within each industry sector chosen for inclusion in this study,  processes
subject to change were to be identified, using largely in-house expertise supple-
mented by industry contacts and discussions with consultants and the  EPA Project
Officer.  As a result of this preliminary information-gathering step  process,
options were to be selected for in-depth analysis focusing on those thought to
have both significant energy and environmental consequences resulting from the
change.          -,

     To ensure comparability between processes to be analyzed in the  various
industry sectors, a common methodology was to be used in making assessments on
the processes to be analyzed.  Important aspects of this methodology  were:

     •    Establishing a base line technology against which the process changes
          could be assessed.  Normally this base line technology would be cur-
          rently practiced technology in a major portion of the industry
          required to make a given product.  In choosing base line and alterna-
          tive processes, a deliberate attempt was made to start with the same
          or similar raw materials and produce the same or similar end-products.

     •    Estimating investments and operating costs (both variable and fixed
          costs) for both base line and alternative technology.

     •    Determining the energy requirements and the form of the fuel used in
          the base line and alternative technology.  This would include estab-
          lishing whether oil, gas, or coal was needed as fossil fuel, for
          example.

     •    Converting the different forms of energy used to a Btu basis.  To the
          extent possible, common conversion factors were to be used, as indi-
          cated in Table IV-1, so that total Btu's consumed in base line and
          alternative technology could be compared.  Only "fuels" or  electric
          power were considered in the energy-consumed comparison. Because
          such a large part of electric power is fossil fuel-based, we converted
          all electric power to a fossil fuel equivalent using 10,500 Btu/kWh.
          The fossil fuel equivalent could be gas, oil, or coal but within the
          context of a lot of energy studies, coal is the basis because of the
          abundant reserves of this energy source in the United States.

     •    'Determining the character and quantity of the pollutants emitted from
          the base line and alternative technology.  Air, water, and  solid
          waste were included in this assessment.  Toxic, hazardous,  and other
          emissions of environmental concern were to be identified.

                                     12

-------
                                  TABLE IV-1

        FACTORS USED TO COMPUTE KILOWATT-HOUR AND BTU EQUIVALENTS  OF
                            VARIOUS ENERGY SOURCES
Kind of fuel
Coal
Coke . .
Fuel Oil:
Distillate
Residual
Natural gas . .
Electric Bower ^
Unit of
measure
Short ton
.do

Barrel (42 gal)
. . do
Id3 cubic feet
Back Pressure Turbine
Generator with Steam
in process 1
1
Killowatt-hour (1)
equivalent
per unit
of measure
7,677
7,618

1,707
1,842
303.3



Million Btu (2>
per unit of
measure
26.2
26.0

5.83
b.29
I.-W5
10,500 Btu/kWh-e




lectric
1,000 Btu/kWh electric




             (1) Thermal kWh
             (2) Higher heating value (HHV)
             (3) National Average FPC (1971-80)
             (4) Arthur D. Little, Inc. estimates
             Source:  1972 Census-of Manufacturers


     •    Determining the cost and energy requirements  for pollution control
          technology to meet current or anticipated  standards.

     •    Comparing  the base line, and alternative  technology,  based on total
          energy consumption and total costs for both process  and pollution
          control.   Energy consumed was determined from our background exper-
          ience  in the process industries, by contacting industry sources, or
          making engineering calculations if no other industry data existed.
          The Census data proved of little use because  it tends to aggregate
          processes  and also because it considers  only  purchased energy.

     Further details are given below, focusing on:

     •    Costing Methodology,

     •    Environmental Regulations, and
     •    Pollution  Control Technology.

B.  INVESTMENTS  AND  OPERATING COSTS

     Both investments required and operating costs were to be  determined. Major
variable and fixed cost factors to be considered in  operating  costs are shown
listed below.  Investment and operating -costs were to be based on the first
half of^!975, using  March 1975 figures when available;  details are given below.
                                       13

-------
                      MAJOR COMPONENTS OF OPERATING COSTS
       Variable Costs
       Raw Materials
       Byproduct Credits
       Energy
         •  Purchased Fuel
         •  Purchased Steam
         •  Electric Power Purchased
         •  Miscellaneous
       Energy Credits
       Water
       Labor and Supervision
       Maintenance
       Labor Overhead
       Misc.  Variable Costs/Credits
       Royalty Payments (if any)
Fixed Costs

Plant Overhead
Local Taxes and Insurance
Depreciation
TOTAL PRODUCTION COSTS
Return on Investment (pretax)
1.  Fixed Investments

     Capital investments (all equity basis) were based on the first half
of 1975 using 1975 dollars as a basis.  Capital investments include physical
plant costs and other fixed capital costs that are normally allocated over
the life of the investment, such as spare parts, pre-startup and startup
costs, and owner's expenses.  Generally, land costs, infrastructure require-
ments outside the plant battery limits, working capital, escalation and
interest charges on debt financing during construction are not included in
"Fixed Investments." In a given industry, an attempt was made to use average
U.S. costs for typical plants built in the location selected.  Where signifi-
cant differences in working capital might be expected between the base line
process and the alternative process, we attempted to take this into account in
the return-on-investment calculation (see operating costs).  In many cases,
working capital requrements have been neglected because we felt that the
differences between base line and alternative technology would be small.

2.  Variable Operating Costs

     Variable operating costs include:

     •    Raw Materials:  This category includes raw materials used in the
          process; minor raw materials would appear under miscellaneous vari-
          able costs.

     •    Byproduct credits are noted here, such as chemicals from a
          coking facility, sulfur or sulfuric acid from a copper smelter,
          etc.  Byproduct energy credits, such as coke oven gas, are dis-
          cussed below.
                                      14

-------
Energy:  Energy-related costs, such as purchased oil, gas,  coal,
electric power, steam and coke, are shown under this category.
Benchmark energy costs are shown in Table IV-2 for March 1975.
It should be recognized that both gas and electric power rates
are expected to increase substantially in the future in comparison
to oil.  If a process generates steam and it can be sold or used
in a plant, we have assumed it had a value equivalent to the cost
of producing steam from a boiler.  Based on the assumption stated
below, the cost of generating steam under average conditions is
estimated to be about $3.25/1000 Ib when fuel oil costs $2.00/106
Btu, as shown in Table IV-3.

The following is a list of the bases used for preparing this
estimate:

     100,000 Ib/hr package boiler burning low sulfur No. 6 oil
     producing 450 psig saturated steam (this is a reasonably
     sized package boiler);

-    The boiler would operate at an average of 90% capacity for
     350 days/yr;

     A boiler efficiency of 84%, based on the higher heating value
     of fuel oil, has been used;

-    The boiler feedwater supply is assumed to be at 212°F, so that
     the heat input per pound of 450-psig steam produced is about
     1025 Btu/lb.

-    It is assumed that a 5% boiler blowdown is required.   (This
     of course depends on water quality but 5% blowdown is a
     reasonable figure.)

The investment for a complete boiler facility, including fuel oil
storage, building and all auxiliaries, is estimated to be $8/lb/hr
steam capacity in 1975.  It has been assumed that the low-sulfur
fuel oil is used; consequently no stack gas scrubbing costs have
been 'included.

Energy Credits:  Energy credits, such as coke oven gases, byproducts
from cracking operations, electric furnace reduction, byproduct
steam, etc., are shown here.  If such energy units can be sold or are
used in the plant, they are credited normally at about  $2.00/106 Btu
which reflects the cost of fuel oil in round numbers.

Water:  Process water and cooling water are identified separately to
the extent possible.  Cooling water, when shown, is based on circu-
lation rates (not make-up rates).

Labor and supervision costs are based on wages.  Fringe benefits are
taken into account under labor overhead.  Benchmark hourly earnings,
excluding overtime, for the various industry sectors are shown in
Table IV-4.

                            15

-------
                                 TABLE  IV-2

  BENCHMARK ENERGY COSTS FOR COAL, OIL,  GAS AND ELECTRIC POWER IN MARCH 1975
State

Arizona - Phoenix
California - Los Angeles
Florida - Tampa
Georgia - Savannah
Illinois - Chicago
Indiana - Indianapolis
Kentucky - Louisville
Louisiana - Baton Rouge
New Mexico - Albuquerque
New York - Buffalo
North Carolina - Greensboro
Ohio - Cincinnati
Oregon - Portland
Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh
South Carolina - Charleston
Tennessee - Memphis
Texas - Houston
Utah - Salt Lake City
Virginia - Norfolk
Washington - Seattle
West Virginia - Charleston
Wyoming - Cheyenne
      Fuel Prices
Cents per Million Btu
Coal      Oil       Gas
                    61.4
                    80.4
                    71.3
                    77.3
                    84.6
                   101.5
                    55.1
                    58.9
69.7
-
97.7
82.4
70.8
58.4
65.7
-
21.9
119.9
106.3
100.2
-
92.1
119.7
83.6
21.0
50.3
120.3
57.2
82.8
27.7
195.9
241.0
188.7
184.2
154.5
204.4
198.0
172.6
209.7
201.0
217.1
223.9
184.9
214.4
118.2
214.6
186.9
158.6
183.1
-
222.6
-
                      .5
                      .1
 56.
 80.
141.6
119.7
105.7

 74.5

 69.8
 55.1
 56.0
 Estimated .
Power Costs
 mils/kwh

    20.6
    21.1
    21.5
    18.8
    19.2
    16.7
    12.2
    14.5
    16.8
    24.8
    17.9
    17.0
     5.7
    24.6
    16.5
    11.9
    13.6
    16.5
    21.3
     3.9
    17.8
    12.5
 Average fuel prices paid by steam-electric plants, statewide.

31974 average statewide industrial power costs multiplied by 1.17 which is
   the electric power price index ratio of March 1975 to 1974 average (DOC),
Source:  Chemical Week, October 22, 1975, and Arthur D. Little, Inc.
         adjustments as noted above.
                                     16

-------
                                TABLE IV-3

  ESTIMATED COST OP PRODUCING  450 PSIG SATURATED STEAM
                  (100,000 Ib/hr  package  boiler)
            Physical  Investment:  $800,000
            Capacity:             1.92 x 10S Ib/stream day, 672 x 10  Ib/yr

            Operating Factor:     3 shifts/day, 350 stream days/yr


                                 Quantity/1000 Ib     S/Unit      $/1000 Ib

   Variable Costs

   No. 6 Fuel Oil                1.22 x 106 Btu       2.00          2.440

   Electric Power                3 tcwh                0.025         0.075

   Boiler Feedwater              0.126 103-gal        0.75 •        0.095
                                                                  2.610

   Operating Labor               1 man/shift        $6.00/man-hour  0.077

   Malnterance Labor  & Materials  3Z of Investment/yr               0.036

   Labor Overhead     ,           40% of Labor                      0.031
                                                                  0.144

   Fixed Costs
   Plant Overhead                601 of labor & supervision         0.046

   Taxes & Insurance              2Z of Investment/yr               0.024
                                                                 , 0.070
    TOTAL DIRECT COST                                              2.824
       Depreciation - 10 years                                     0.119
       Return on Investment (pretax)  20%  of Investment/yr           0.238

    TOTAL COST                                                     3.181

                                TABLE  IV-4


         BENCHMARK EARNINGS  BY  SIC  CODE  -  MARCH 1975
     Industry                           SIC Code

Aluminum                  3334 - primary aluminum
Ammonia                    287 - agricultural chemicals
Chlor-alkali               2812 - alkalies and chlorine
Copper                     333 - nonferrous metals
Cement                     324 - cement, hydraulic
Fertilizers                 287 r agricultural chemicals
Glass                      321 - flat glass
                          3221 - glass containers
                          3229 - pressed and blown glass,  nee
Iron and Steel             3312 - blast furnaces and steel  mills
Olefins                   2818   industrial organic chemicals, nee
Petroleum Refining          291 - petroleum refining
Phosphorus                 2819 - industrial inorganic chemicals, nee
Pulp and Paper              261 (
                           262 f  paper and pulp mills                   5.30
                           266!
                           263 - paperboard mills                       5.37
Textiles                    22 - textiles mill products                 3.30


*Cross earnings of production or non-supervisory workers


Source:   Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.  Department of Labor, Employnent and
         Earnings, Vol. 21, No.  11, May 1975.
                                        17

-------
          Maintenance labor and materials account for annual costs to maintain
          a facility in good operating condition.

          Labor Overhead:  Includes fringe benefits (vacations, holidays,  sick
          leave, etc.).

          Miscellaneous variable costs/credit include catalysts, minor chemical
          costs, analytical services, and miscellaneous supplies.  Waste dis-
          posal is not considered a "service," but a distinct pollution control
          cost.  For reference purposes, Chemical Marketing Reporter*
          (March 31, 1975)  was used as a reference for benchmark of
          miscellaneous chemicals.
3.  Fixed Costs
          Plant overhead would include overhead labor (service personnel) and
          their fringe benefits.   In addition, plant overhead includes space
          heating, personnel expenses, travel, telephone communications,  com-
          puters,  medical facilities, office supplies and services, etc.   These
          are estimated quite often as a percent of labor costs.

          Annual local taxes and  insurance are estimated at 1.5% to 2% of
          capital investment, depending on industry and location.

          Depreciation is calculated in these studies on a straightline basis.
          IRS depreciation guidelines, often used in industry feasibility
          studies, are used here.  These guidelines are:

               Textile Mills (excluding Finishing and Dyeing) - 14 years;

               Textile Mills (Finishing and Dyeing) - 12 years;

               Non-ferrous Metals (Copper, Aluminum) - 14 years;

               Iron and Steel - 18 years;

          -    Petroleum Refining - 16 years;

          -    Pulp and Paper - 16 years;

          -    Paper Finishing and Converting - 12 years;

          -    Glass and Glass Products - 14 years;

          -    Cement - 20 years; and

               Chemicals and Allied Products (including chlor-alkali, phosphoric
               acid, sulfuric acid, ammonia, fertilizers, olefins) - 11 years.
*Schnell Publishing Co., 100 Church Street,  N.Y., N.Y.
                                     18

-------
 4.   Return on Investment

      In order to:

      •    give recognition to the time value of money,  while covering  financial
           charges  and costs,  and to

      •    allow for a reasonable return on investment,

 we  have shown an annual allowance for "return on investment" (pretax)  amounting
 to  20% of the initial capital investment.   The allowance is allocated  to  a  ton
 of  product by assuming that the facility operates at 100% capacity.  Obviously,
 for any company making capital allocation decisions, a  more definitive analysis
 would undoubtedly  be made including examination of the  risks entailed  in  a  new
 project,  type of industry, market and business conditions,  etc.,  but such
 assessments were'considered to be outside the scope of  this study.

 5.   Miscellaneous  Fixed Costs/Credits

      Items not normally considered above need an explanatory remark, including,
 for example,  depletion allowances, or royalty payments  based on production  for
 proprietary technology, or licensing costs.   Paid-up royalties  would normally
 be  included under  "capital investments."

 C.   ENVIRONMENTAL  REGULATIONS

      Selected State air emission regulations along with the Federal Government's
 stationary source  performance standards and effluent limitation guidelines
 were surveyed to:

      •    establish the most  probable limits of air and water emissions,  and

      •    obtain a perspective of the types of pollution control  systems  to
           be considered.

 At  the State regulatory level, there are a large number of  different regula-
 tions for airborne emissions.  Nevertheless we found that approximately the
 same type of air pollution control systems would be required, regardless  of
-what State or Federal regulations were to  be met.

      For  water effluents we chose,the EPA Best Available Technology Economically
 Achievable (BATEA)  Guidelines (1983)  as the effluent limitations  that  would
 have to be met for both currently practiced and alternative processes  con-
 sidered.   The rationale for this choice was that any plant  employing the
 technologies  evaluated in these reports should install  wastewater treatment
 systems capable of meeting BATEA standards,  although at the time  of construc-
 tion the  New Source Performance Standards  might be applicable.  Because regu-
 lations for the handling and  disposal of solid waste are either non-specific
 or  non-existent, we chose various types of controlled landfill  disposal
 methods,  where our  judgment suggested potential adverse environmental  impacts
 might occur from uncontrolled disposal.
                                      19

-------
D.  POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS

     Development of the pollution control costs for both the base line and new
processes was to be based upon estimates of capital and operating costs for
selected pollution control technologies believed to be most applicable to the
various manufacturing processes.  In selecting the particular pollution con-,
trol technology for cost estimation, we chose that which is judged to be the
best available for the particular pollution problem.  This generally meant that,
for water pollution control, the technology was most similar to that designated
in the Development Documents for effluent limitation guidelines, while for
airborne particulates, it was most often high-efficiency scrubbers or fabric
filters.

     Preliminary sizing of the major components of the pollution control system
was to be based on estimated flow rates and compositions of air and water
streams anticipated for the plant capacity chosen to establish the probable
manufacturing costs for the process.  The estimated installed cost of pollu-
tion control equipment was based on a new plant construction site, i.e., no
provisions were made for the many site-specific factors, such as plant age,
unusual layout, etc., that could affect construction costs at an existing
facility.  Consequently, the estimated capital investment for pollution con-
trol systems in these reports is not intended to be compared with costs of
similar systems that might have been incurred by presently operating plants.
On the other hand, the pollution control cost estimates were prepared on a
basis consistent with the preparation of similar cost estimates for the pro-
duction process and, therefore, should give a good indication of the relative
significance of pollution control costs as a fraction of total production
costs.

     Capital investment estimates of pollution control equipment were to be
based on data from cost-estimating literatures, equipment vendors, operating
plants, and from our own engineering files.  In certain industries, such as
iron and steel, plastics and synthetics, textiles, and pulp and paper, we
have accumulated extensive cost data on presently installed pollution control
systems from previous work, and this data was relied on extensively.  Some-
times it was found most expedient to scale capital estimates from other time
periods and of different capacity to that desired for this study.  Capacity-
related scaling was determined by a. relationship such as:
          Capital
                 1
          Capital
                 2
Capacity
        1
Capacity,.
where the exponent "a" is typically between 0.5 and 0.7, depending upon the
type of pollution control system; for example, large-volume conventional
wastewater treatment systems would be near 0.5, while specialized systems,
such as activated carbon adsorption, would be closer to 0.7.  All capital
costs were normalized to a period of approximately March 1975, using an ;
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 2126.  Although other
methods for normalization of capital investments, such as the Chemical
                                      20

-------
Engineering Plant Cost Index published by McGraw Hill, or the Marshall & Swift
Equipment Cost Index, might be used, we have chosen the ENR Construction Cost
Index because we  believe it  to  be more representative of the manner in which
the cost of pollution control systems has increased in the past.

     Annualization of capital investment for pollution control was based on
two factors.  One is the depreciation guideline periods established by the
Internal Revenue Service for the particular industry, as noted in the costing
methodology section for the processes.  The second factor in annualization of
initial capital invested is designated as return on investment (ROI), amounting
to an annual charge of 20% of investments which gives recognition to the time
value of money by covering financial charges and costs and allowing for a
reasonable return on investment.  Although it might be argued that industry
should not be permitted a return on pollution control equipment investment,
the total annualization charges are not significantly different from those
that would have been established, if it were assumed that money was borrowed
at 10% interest for a period of 10 years and that straight-line depreciation
over a 10-year period was taken for all pollution control equipment.  This
latter method would result in annual charges of 26.27%, while the method
described above (and used here) gives annual charges (for ROI plus deprecia-
tion) of between 25% and 29.1%, depending on depreciation period.
                          I
     Direct operating costs and fixed charges were developed in the
following manner:

     •    Fuel, electricity, and steam costs are based on established
          quantities and the rates used were established for the industrial
          sectors.

     •    Operating labor and assigned overheads are the same as for the
          industrial sector of interest.

     •    Annual maintenance materials and labor were taken as a percentage
          of capital investment and were based on our estimate of the probable
          severity of operating conditions for the system.

     •    Costs for chemicals and other  supplies needed to operate the pollu-
          tion control system were typical_ of those reported in the March 31,
          1975 issue of the Chemical Marketing Reporter published by Schnell
          Publishing Company.

     •    Annual taxes and insurance were taken as 2% of capital investment.

     •    Solid residue disposal was taken as a direct operating cost,
          typically $5/ton for wastes that might go into average conventional
          sanitary landfill.  If special requirements for land disposal were
          required, the costs for preparation of an area to receive the annual
          quantity of residuals was taken as an expense item.
                                     21

-------
     The estimated annual costs for pollution  control, along with the esti-
mated energy consumed by the pollution  control equipment, were established
on the same unit production bases as used in preparing the production
estimates.

     The above described method for estimating costs for pollution control is
consistent with procedures used throughout other studies developing estimates
of the economic impact of pollution control on an industry (e.g., EPA Develop-
ment Documents for Proposed Effluent Limitations guidelines; Steel and the
Environment, A Cost Analysis, for the American Iron and Steel Institute; and
Estimated Potential Costs to Meet Regulations  of the 1972 Clean Water Act, a
report to the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement).  However, it must be recognized  that.the estimated pollution
control costs of new processes were based many times on either limited infor-
mation on the probable magnitude of the polluted streams to be treated, or
upon "best engineering" estimates prepared from conceptual flowsheets.  Further-
more, the technologies chosen may not be adequate to meet future, as yet
undefined,  regulations.  Although these estimates were prepared in a manner
which can readily be revised to other bases in time or to plants of different
capacities, it is necessary that appropriate recognition be given to scaling
factors.  For example, while capacity relating to scaling of capital investment
usually follows a power function relationship  (e.g., 0.6), energy, fuel, and
chemicals are usually directly related to capacity, while labor is related to
capacity by a power function relationship that is usually much lower than for
capital investment, e.g., 0.3 to 0.6.  Consequently, it cannot be too strongly
stressed that scaling must be done in a judicious manner, taking into con-
sideration the appropriate variations of individual factors.
                                        22

-------
                         APPENDICES
Appendix A - Energy Data                                24




Appendix B - Industry Perspectives                      62




Appendix C - Literature Sources                        12Q
                           23

-------
APPENDIX A




ENERGY DATA
    24

-------
                                            TABLE A-l
        RANKING BY TOTAL FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED (3-DIGIT SIC GROUPING)  1954

SIC
CODE
331

261

282
281
333

322

202
371

325

332

209

201
339

208
299

206
335

329


203
205
242

344

346

366

J30

354
221


INDUSTRY CROUP RANK
Blast Purnaces and
Steel Products 1
Pulp, paper and 2
Board
Organic Chemicals 3
Inorganic Chemicals 4
Primary Nonferrous 5
Metals
Glass & glassware 6
Pressed or Blown
Dnlry Produces 7
Motor Vehicles and 8
Equipment
Structural Clay 9
Products
Iron and Sceel 10
Foundries
Miscellaneous Food 11
and Kindred Products
Meat Products 12
Primary Metal Industryl3
n.e.c.
Beverages 14
Miscellaneous Chemical 16
Products
Sugar . 17
NonFcrroua Rolling
and Drawing 18
Miscellaneous Non-
Metallic Minerals
Products, n.e.c, 19
Canned, Cured & Prozen20
Bakery Products 21
Lumber a Basic
Products 22
Structual Metal
Products 23
Metal Stamping and
Coating 24
Communication
EaulDoont 2*i
uencrai tnduatrn i
Machinery 26
Hetelvorklng Machinery!?
Hoolen and Worsted
Manufactured 28

Purchased Fuel
UO9 kKh E

1495.2

158.46
147.51
58.41

63.136

32,99
52.6

37.68

49.1

34.328

3. .96
29.34

23.55
24.41
13 68

17.35
22.6

12.49


14.74
15.1
14.016

10.53

8.6

8.9

6.8

7.460
6.699

7.71
Purchased
Electric
Energy
UO9 kWhl

17,667

9.352
6,144
34.312

20.949

14.335
2.433

5.785

.683

2.518

29.96
2.082

2.070
1.147
i 307

2.154
57.0

2.462


1.121
844
1.137

2.056

1.357

1.235

1.556

1.043
1.122

.622

Total Purchased
Energy
CIO9 kVh Equlv.)

1513.89

167.81
153.65
92.72

64.134

33.47
55.1

43.47

49.8

36.846

2.004
31.4

25.62
25.56
17.99

19.50
22.6

14.95


15.85
16.0
15.153

12.59

9.96

10.2

8.4

8.523
7.821

6.33

Purchased
Fuel

5.1061

.541
.5037
.1994

.2156

.1126
.1796

-.1286

.1676

.1172

.1023
.1001

.0804
.0833
,0467 1

.0592
.0771

.04265


.05033
.0519
,04786

.0355

.02936

.03039

.02322

.02554
.02287

.02632
Purchased
Electric
Energy
<1015 fltu)

.1855

.09819
.0645
.3603

.2199

.1505
.0255

.06074'

.007171

.02643

.02104
.02186

.02173
.01204
.04522

.02262
.000598

.02585


.01177
.00886
.011936

.021588

.01425

.01296

.016338

.01095
.01178

.00653

Total Purchased
Energy
(101' Btu)

5.2916

.6392
.5662
.5597

.4355

.2631
.2051

.1893

.1746

.1436

.1233
.12196

.1021
.0953
.09193

.08187
,0777

.0685


.0621
.06076
.059805

.0575

.0436

.04335

,0396

.03649
.03465

.03285
Total
Energy
Cost
(S106)

1370.7

271.9
173.24
314.9

112.9

55.14
103.8

125.9

61.84

96.73

53.92
63.6

61.55
47.12
66.50

35.76
23.31

43.92


29.95
34.20
46.336

57.23

35.66

34.8

3i.l06

28.215
28.57

20.26
Value Added
by
Manufacture
CS106)

4755.2

2289.3
3214.4
1386.5

614.15

674.38
2256.7

6406.6

425.3

1339.2

1632.6
1930.9

1184.7
2237.4
628.76

1129.5
250.7

860.2


662,6
1301.1
1977.18

1595.3

2203.6

1245.0

321.4

IBM. Ob
2350.1

452.9

Energy Cost/
Value Added
(c/S)

28,82

11.87
5.39
22.71

13.39

L.648
4.60

1.96

14.53

7.22

3.303
J.29

5.196
2.106
1.058

3.169
9.299

5.107


4.519
2.629
2.3435

3.587

1.618

2.800

.968

1.417)
1.2156

4.47

Energy/
Value Added
(106 Btu/$)

1.1128

.2792
.1768
.4037

.7091

.3901
.0909

.0296

.4109

.10726

.0755
.0632

.0862
.0426
.0146

.0725
.3099

.0796


,0937
.0467
.03024

.0361

.0198

.0348

.0123

.ni<)h3
.UU7.'.

.0725
Equlv, - Equivalent

-------
                                                 TABLE A-2
               RANKING BY TOTAL FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED  (3-DIGIT SIC GROUPING) 1958
to
SIC
281
331

291
324
262
333

263
282

371

202
325

322

335

201'
327

332
204
372
221
206
20o
209

203

329

226

222

205
339
344

266
242
261
321
289
INDUSTRY OTOUP RANK Purchased Fue:
(10s ktJh Eaulv.
Industrial Chemicals 1
Blast Furnace and
Steal Products 2
Petroleum Refining 3
Cement Hydraulic 4
Paperoiills, except
Building paper 5
Primary Nonferrous
Metals 6
Paperboard Mills 7
Plastic Materials and
Synthetics 8
Motor Vehicles and
Equipment 9
Dairy Products 10
Structural Clay
Products 11
Glass and Glassware
Pressed and Bloun 12
Nonferrous Rolling
and Drawing 13
Mast Products 14
Concrete Gypsum and
plaster produces 15
Iron end Steel Foundriesl6
Grain Hill Products 17
Alrcrsfts and Peru 18
Weaving Mill, cotton 19
Sugar 20
Beverages 21
Miscellaneous Pood and
Kindred products 22
Canned, Cured and Prozen
foods 23
Miscellaneous Honmetallic
Mineral Products 24
-Textile finishing, except
wool 25
Heaving Hills,
synthetics 26
Bakery Products 27
Miscellaneous Primary
Metal Products - . 28
Fabricated structural
Metel Products 29
Building Paper & Board
Mills 30
Sswnllla end Planing
Mills 3,
Pulp ntlU 32
Plat Class 33
Misc. Chemical Products 34
261.0

333.3
250.9
110.1
104.9

62.4
78.4

61.7

41.9
36.8

38.3

35.0

23.2
26.8

29.6
29.0
22.4
13.4
11.9
24.8
20.1

14.2

18.5

16.7

17.5

3.5
14.0
14.1

10.4
12.3
9.9
12.4
11.8
9.6
Purchased
Electric
I Energy
) (10* kUh)
79.4

22.2
9.1
5.0
6.2

19.1
2.5

2.8

7.0
3.1

0.85

1.9

4.2
2.4

1.5
2.6
2.4
5.0
5.2
0.1
1.3

3.0

1.3

1.7

0.8

5.2
1.2
0.8

1.9
1.2
1.9
0.6
0.6
0.9
Total Purchased
Energy
UO' kVh Equlv.) 1
340.4

353.5
260.0
115.1
111..

81.5
80.9

64.5

48.9
39.9

39.2

36.9

27.4
29.2

31.0
27.7
24.8
18.4
17.1
24.9
21.6

17.3

19.8

18.4

18.4

B.7
15.3
14.9

12.3
13.5
11.8
13.0
12.4
10.5
Purchased
Purchased Electric Total Purchased
Fuel Energy Energy
[IQlS Btu) (101S Btu) (1015 Btu)
0.891

1.138
0.857
0.376
0.353

0.213
0.268

0.211

0.143
0.126

0.131

0.119

0.079
0.092

0.101
0-085
0.0765
0.046
0.041
0.085
0.069

0.0485

0.063

0,057

0.0598

0.012
0.048
0.048

0.0355
0.042
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.033
0.8339

0.2326
0.0957
0.0527
0.0649

0.2009
0,0258

0.0293

0.0737
0.0327

0.0089

0.0196

0.0445
0.0255

0.0153
0.0278
0.0257
0.0527
0.0546
0.0009
0.0155

0.0320

0.0133

0.0182

0.0086

0.0546
0.0132
0.0069

0,0197
0.0127
0.0198
0.0062
0.0064
0.0090
1.725

1.371
0.952
0.429
0.423

0.414
0.294

0.240

0.217
0.158

0.140

0.139

0.124
0.117

0.116
0.113
0.102
0.098
0.095
0.066
0.084

0.080

0.0765

0.075

0.068

0.067
0.061
0.057

0.055
0.055
0.054
0.049
0.047
0.042
Total
Energy
Cost
598.3

732.8
240.0
161.5
165.9

132.7
109.2

86.3

145.2
107.6

68.7

67.1

78.8
68.5

81.1
100.1
55.3
76.0
55.8
29.6
53.9

74.1

48.15

49.6

35.9

18.0
61.4
37.6

51.8
26.5
64.7
25.3
19.0
30.3
Value Added
by

4259.6

6862.9
2119. 4
724.8
1541.8

700.4
840.1

1819.8

6750.7
2866,8

490.5

d.V. .8

1721,. 0
2499.2

1548.4
1J22.2
1855.7
6924. J
U7t).<>
JJ7.1
2B35.7

1U59.1

1895.7

1001.7

455.9

468. b
26IK.. J
Ufi 1 .H

2SI62.9
2215.1
1 34 1 . I
196.0
263.2
604.5
Energy Coetj
(c/S)
14.04

10.68
11.32
22.28
10.76

18.95
U.O

4.54

2.15
3.76

U.O

7.-W

4.57
1 .11*

5.23
7.57
2,98
1.01
5.18
B.J7
l.<10

3.98

2.54

4.95

7.86

3.B4
2.3J
8.51

1.75
12.31
4.83
12.89
7.21
3.76
' Energy/
Value Added
0.4050

0.1997
0.449i
0.5914
0.2744

0.5911
U.3495

0.121,',

0.0321
0.0553

0.2H49

0.1647

0.01 1 1
[1.0468

0.0752
0.0950
0.0551
0.0142
0.0883
0.2540
0.0297

0.0433

0.0403

0.0751

0.14S4

(1. 1421
0.02 12
11.12'U

0.0166
0.2513
0.0400
0.247'J
0.1775
0.0511

-------
NS
353

263
264

265

356

362
2B4

34li
31)7
295
3Jb
223

354
225
3I>7
3bb
275
243

241

249

347
326

287
328

286
279
Construction and like
Equipment
Drugs
Paper & Paperboard
Product!
Paperboard. Containers
and boxea
General Industry
Machinery
Electric industrial
Apparatus
Oixids
MccaL Stumping
MUc. PUsllc Products
PnvliiK &' Roof INK
Nonfcrruus FouudrLVa
Weaving & finishing
Mills, vool
Mt'tu Ivorking machinery
Knitting Mills
Electronic Components
Cotrmunlcatlon EquipflL.nl
Commercial Prlnelng
Hllluork & rcUud
Produces
Logging Camp & Lugging
Contract
Miscellaneous wool
Produce
Ketal Services, n.u.c.
Pottery & Related
Products
Agricultural Chemicals
Cue seone, scone
Products
Gun and Wood Produces
Printing fTrsdc Scrvicei

35
36

37

38

39

40
41
42
43
44
45

46
47
48
49
t 50
51
. __
52

53

54
55

55
57

SB
59
I 60

7.2
8.8

8.3

7.8

5.6

N/A
8.0
0.3
4.U
7.3
5.4

5.1
2.9
4.1
3.0
4.2
2.2

L.O

4.3

2.8
1.7

1.9
KM

o.r
0.6
0.2

1.5
0.9

1.0

0.97

1.3

2.0
0.4
0.9
1.3
0.3
0.6

0.6
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.7
1.2

1.0

O.I

0.3
0.7

0.3
0.6

U.I
0.1
0.2

S.7
9.7

9.3

8.8

6.9

N/A
8.4
7.2
5.9
7.6
6.0

5.7
4.1
4.9
4.2
4.9
3.4

2.6

4.4

3.1
2.4

2.2
N/A

0.8
0.7
0.4

0.025
0.030

0.028

0,027

0.019

N/A
0.027
0.022
0.016
0.025
0.018

0.017
0.010
0.014
0.010
0.014
0.008

O.OOb

0.015

0.010
0.006

0.006
N/A

0.0024
0.002
0.0007

0.0154
0.098

0.0107

0.0102

0.0140

0.0205
0.0047
0.0099
0.0140
0.0032
0.0064

0.0062
0.0129
0.0086
0.0122
0.0077
0.0125

0.0103

0.0006

0.0032
0.0069

0.0029
0.0067

0.0013
0.001
0.0016

0.040
0.040

0.039

0.037

0.033

N/A
0.032
0.031
0.030
0.028
0.025

0.024
0.023
0.023
0.022
0.022
0.020

0.016

0.015

0.013
0.013

0.009
N/A

O.OG4
0.003
0.002

34.3
22.9

28.1

27.0

35.3

29. e
19.2
24.7
29.1
18.2
2i.O

16.0
34.8
21.6
22.2
16.3
3i.i

20.8

18.7

10.9
17.7

12.9
14.9

3.9
4.6
4.2

2054.8
2096.3

1412.9

1501.6

1935.2

1447.8
1903.1
1049.3
929.0
2&9.0
470.7

336.6
2058.5
1101.4
1433.9
2038.4,
2 344 . 5

925.0

387.4

339.5
362.2

283.9
414.8

129.0
85.3
390.0

1.67
1.09

1.99

i.eo

1.82

2.06
1.01
2.36
3.13
6, 75
4.47

4.J6
1.69
1.96
1.55
0.80
1 .33

2.25

4.84

3.20
4.88

4.55
3.58

3.03
5.38
1.09

0.0195
0.19U3

0.0276

0.0245

0.0171

S'/A
0.0168
0.0300
0.0320
0. 1045
0.0528

0.0703
0.0111
0.0205
0.0157
0.0108
0.0085

0.0171

0.0395

0.0376
0.0351

0.0329
K/A

0.0265
0.0365
0.0059
                      Equiv. • Equivalent

-------
                                   TABLE A-3
RANKING BY TOTAL FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED (3-DIGIT SIC GROUPING) 1962
SIC
CODE
231
331
291
333
324
262
263
282
371
325
322
202
335
332
204
327
209
201
329
208
206
203
221
226
301
261
289
242
266
205-
344
264
339
INDUSTRY CROUP
Basic Chemicals
Steel Rolling &
finishing
Petroleum Refining
Primary Nonfcrrous
Metal
Cement, Hydraulic
Paper Mills, Except
Building Paper
Peperboard Hills
Plastic Materials &
Synthetics
Motor Vehicles 5.
Equipment
Structural Clay
Products
Pressed & Blown Glass
Dairy Products
Noncerrous' Rolling &
Drawing
Icon & Steel Foundries
Grain Mill Products
Concrete and Plaster
Products
Pood & Miscellaneous
Kindred Products
Meat Products
Nonmefcalllc Minerals,
ncc.
Beverages
Sugar
Canned & Frozen Foods
Weaving Mills, Cotton
Textile Finishing,
Except Wool
Xires & Inner Tubes
Pulp Mills
Chemical Products
Sawmills «. Planing
Mills
Building Paper &
Board Mills
Bakery products
Structuca.1 Metal
products
^Misc. Converted Fcpcr
Products..
Primary Metal Indus-
tries
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Purchased Fuel
(109 kWh Equiv. )
342.1
342.3
311.3
82.4
121.2
113.1
85.3
69.0
47.0
45.8
40.6
31.2
25.3
28.4
26.8
28.2
33.5
24.5
23.6
24.7
29.1
23.0
10.6
18.8
15.8
18.9
U.2
12.6
14.9
14.2
12.1
13.2
13.4
Purchased
Electric
Energy
(109 kWh)
81.3
29.3
12.1
30.5
5.9
8.3
3.2
4.4
10.2
1.0
2.5
3.7
5.6
3.6
3.0
2.1
3.5
2.9
5 8
2.4
i.;
0.2
1.9
5.9
0.9
2.2
L.I
1.0
2.3
L.4
1.5
2.2
1.6
L L
Total Purchased
Energy
dO' kWh Equiv.)
423.4
371.7
323.4
112.9
127.1
121.4
88.5
73.4
57.2
46.8
43.1
34.9
30.9
12.0
29.8
30.2
37,0
27.3
20 2
25. 'J
26.4
29.3
24.9
16.5
19.6
18.0
20.1
18.2
14.9
16.3
15.7
14.3
14. 6
14.5
Purchased
fuel
dO15 Btu)
1.168
1.169
1.063
0.281
0.414
0.386
0.291
0.235
0.161
0.157
0.139
0.107
0.087
0.097
0.092
0.096
0.114
0.084
0.081
0.084
0.099
0.079
0.036
0.064
0.054
0.065
0.059
0.043
0.051
0.049
0.041
0.045
0.046
Purchased
Electric
Energy
(101S Btu)
0.853
0.3031
0.1275
0.320
0.0621
0.0871
0.0335
0.0461
0.1074
0.0108
0.0267
0.0336
0.05B7
0.0377
0.0312
0.0216
0.0371
0.0302
0 0605
0.0247
0.018
0.0023
0.0196
0.062
0.0919
0.0227
0.0119
0.0106
0.0242
0,0149
0.0158
0.0227
0.0167
0.012
Total Purchased
Energy
dO15 Etu)
2.022
1.472
1.191
0.601
0.476
0.473
0.325
0.282
0.268
0.167
0.165
0.14J (2)
0.145 (1)
0.135
0.123
0.118
0.114
0.1138
0.105
0.102 "
0.1016
0.0982
0.0981
0.0835
0.0767
0.07667
0.0693
0.0673
0.0659
0.0643
0.0641
0.0618
0.0577
Total
Energy
Cose
CS106)
715.5
689. 3
336.9
177.3
172.0
197.5
122.1
107.9
187.6
77.9
86.2
123.4
96.4
130.6
70.5
106.3
91.9
77.1
62.9
60.9
36.2
63.7
57.7
37.3
34.6
30.0
32.9
67.6
30.7
54.9
60.5
40.3
46.1
Value Added
Manufacture
(S106)
6,171.2
8,617.3
3,137.6
1,012.6
785.7
1,857.2
1,186.2
2,865.4
12,780.6
553.8
1,101.8
3,184.9
2,127.7
1,959.9
2,271.1
2,122.3
2,405.7
7,882.6
7 ,867 .3
1,337.6
3,724.8
590.8
2,776.8
1,256.8
582.3
1,321.7
295.8
1,035.5
1,572.5
153.1
3,030.8
3,219.8
1,962.4
658.3
Energy Cost/
Value Added
(c/S)
11.6
10.32
10.78
17,51
21.89
10.63
10.29
3.77
1.47
W.07
7.82
3.87
4.53
6.66
3.1
5.01
3.82
2.67
1.08
4.70
1.63
6.13
2.29
4.59
6.41
2.62
10.1
3.18
4.3
20.05
1.81
1.88
2.06
7.0
Energy/
Value Added
(10* Btu/S)
0.328
0.171
0.37S
0.594
0.606
0.255
0.274
0.0983
0.0209
0.302
0.150
0.0456
0.0682
0.0087
0.054
0.0555
0.0475
0.0395
.0.014
0.0787
0.0274
0.172
0.0125
0.0781
0.1434
0.058
0.259
0.0669
0.043
0.4303
0.0212
0.0199
0.0315
0.0876

-------
353

321
356

283
265

354
362

349

366

367
295

287
284

225
336
222

307
243

347
241

223

346
326

275
249
236
328

279

Construction &
Related Machinery
Plat Clasa
General Industrial
Machinery
Drugs
Prepared Containers
& Boxes
Metalworking Machinery
Electrical Industrial
Apparatus
Misc. Fabricated
Ketal Products
Communication Equip-
ment
Electronic Components
Paving Si Roofing
Materials
Agricultural Chemicals
Soup, Cleaners &
Toilet Goods
Knitting Mills
NonEerrous Foundries
Weaving Mils,
Synthetics
Plastic Products, nee
Millvork, Plywood,
Related Products
Ketal Services
Logging Camps &
Contractors
Weaving, Finishing
Mills, Wool
Metal Stampings
Pottery & Related
Products
Connercial Printing
Misc. Wood Products
Cum tt Wood Chemicals
Cut Stone & Stone
Products
Print ing TradcL
Services

35
36

37 •
38

39
40

41

42

43
44

45
46
47
48
49

50 —
51

52
53

54

55
56

57
58
y>
60

61

62

10.6
12.8

9.1
10.0

9.6
8.5

6.3

8.0

5.5
4.5

9.8
7.2
8.8
7.4
7.2

4.4
6.9

4.8
6.0

7.3

5.4
6.8

5.5
5.1
3.4
2.3

0.6

0.09

2.0
0.8

1.9
1.3

1.4
1.7

2.3

1.4

2.0
2,2

0.4
1. 2
0.6
1.1
0.9

1.8
2.4

1.3
0.8

0.2

0.7
l.t

0.3
1.6
0.4
O.I

0.2

0.2

12.6
13.6

11.0
11.3

11.0
10.2

8.6

9.3

7.5
6.7

10.2
8 14
9.4
8.4
8.2

6.2
9.3

6.2
6.8

7.5

6.1
7.9

5.8
6,7
3.9
2.4

0.8

0.3

0.036
0.044

0.0312
0.0342

0.0327
0.029

0.0213

0.0271

0.0186
0.0153

0.0333
0.0246
0.0299
0.0251
0.0247

0.015
0.0237

0.0165
0.0204

0.0251

0.0184
0.0233

0.0189
0.0174
0.0117
0.0078

0.0021

0.0003

0.0213
0.0087

0.0195
O.OL36

0.015
0.0179

0.0244

0.0142

0.0207
0.0228

0.0045
0.0124
0.0065
0.0112
0.0096

0.01B5
0.0025

0.014
0.0088

0.002

0.0072
O.OOU

0.0332
0.0017
0.0046
0.0013

0.0020

0.0019

0.0573
0.0523

0.0507
0.0478

0.0477
0.0469

0.0457

0.0413

0.0393
0.0381

0.0376
0.0370
0.0354
0.0363
0.0343

0.0335
0.0332

0.0305
0.0292

0.0271

0.0256
0.0247

0.0220
0.0190
0.0163
0.0091

0.0041

0.0023

42.2
23.6

42.4
28.4

38.1
44.7

34.5

36.9

32.5
36.6

24.4
25.4
22.6
28.3
28.3

20.8
48.3

27.3
27.8

30.0

15.6
29.3

13. B
39.5
16.2
5.5

5.0

5.0

2,732.3
364.5

2,812.7
2,807.3

1,941.0
3,037.7

1,889.2

1,725.8

5,341.5
2,508.1

355.6
628.3
2,866.4
1,396.0
656.5

661.5
1,660.1

1 ,239.8
554.7

520.5

380.6
1,369.0

337.2
2,961.1
513.6
100.3

131.5

434.4

1.55
6.47

1.51
1.01

1.96
1.47

1.83

2.14

0.61
1.46

6.86
4.03
0.79
2.03
4.31

3.14
2.91

2.2
5.01

5.76

4.04
2.1V

4.09
1.33
3.15
5.4B

3.8

1.15

0,021
0.144

0.018
0.017

0.0246
0.021

0.0242

0.0239

0.0074
0.01S2

0.1063
0.0589

0.0127
0.026
0.0523

0.0506
0.0201

0.0246
0.0526

0.052

O.OG62
0.0178

0.0652
0.0064
0.0317
0.0897

0.0311

0.00504
uiv, » Equivalent

-------
                                                    TABLE A-4

                  RANKING BY TOTAL FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED (3-DIGIT  SIC GROUPING)   1967
to
O


sic
CODE
281
331

291
333
262

324
263
262

371
327

322

335

332
325
209

204
202
372
201
203

329

289
206
206
221
139

344

261
141

226

287
353

307
3«7

346
295


INDUSTRY GROUP
Industrial Chemicals
Blaac Furnaces & Basic
Stael Products
Petroleum Refining
Primary Nonferrous Metal
PapermiLls, Except
Bldg. Paper
Cerent, Hydraulic
Poperboard Hills
Plastics Materials &
Synthetics
Motor Vehicles & Equip.
Concretef Gypsum &
Plaster Products
Glass, Clossvare,
Pressed and Blown
Nonferrous Rolling &
Drawing
Iron & Steel Foundries
Structural Cloy Proda.
Misc. Food & Kindred
Prods.
Grain Mill Products
Dairy Products
Aircraft & Parts
Meat Products
Canned, Curad & Frozen
Foods
Misc. Nonnatalllc
Mineral Products
Misc. Chemical Products
Beverages
Sugar
Weaving Kills, Cotton
Misc. Primary Metal
Products
Fabricated Structural
Metal Products
Pulpmllla
Sanmina & Planing
Mills
Textile Finishing,
Except Wool
Agricultural Chemicals
Construction & Related
Machinery
Misc. Plastic Products
Electronic Components
and Accessaries
Metal Stampings
Paving i Hoofing Mat 'Is


RANK
1

2
3
s 4

5
6
7

8
9

10

11

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19

20

21
22
23
24
25

26

27
28

29

30
31

32
33

34
35
36


Purchased Fuel
do' kllh Eoulv. )
452.54

407.23
369 .06
79.43

135.97
129.12
120.64

97.59
55.33

63.08

49.54

32.17
40.03
46'.38

36.33
33.93
32,45
17.47
28.29

30.28

27.53
29.69
26.95
31.62
10.20

24.65

18.45
21.72

16.24

22.80
15.01

11.26
(.88

7.67
10.86
18.57
Purchased
Electric
Energy
(109 kHh)
78.62

44.60
17.47
46.92

12.79
7.50
5.29

8.99
12.90

2.31

3.52

8.39
5.82
1.29

4.01
3.89
4.07
8.40
4.01

3.14

2.96
1.74
2.20
0.28
6.87

1.96

3.52
1.86

3.59

1.29
2.61

2.91
4.83

4.19
3.14
0.61

Total Purchased
Energy
(10' kUh Equlv.)
531.17

451.83
386.53
126.35

148. 75
136.61
125.94

106.54
68.13

65.3*

53.07

40.56
45.85
47.67

40.34
37.81
36,52
25.87
32.31

33.43

30.49
31.43
29.15
31.90
17,08

26.61

21.97
23.58

19.83

24.10
17.62

16.17
11.71

11.85
14.00
19.18

Purchased
Fuel
UQlS Ita)
1.545

1.391
1.260
0.271

0.464
0.441
0.412

0.333
0.189

0.215

0.169

0.110
0.137
0.158

0.124
0.116
0.111
0.060
0.097

0.103

0.094
0.101
0.092
0.108
0.035

0.084

0.063
0.074

0.055

0.078
0.051

0.045
0.024

0.026
0.037
0.063
Purchased
Electric
Energy
dO13 Btu)
0.826

0.468
0.184
0.493

0.134
0.079
0.056

0.094
0.134

0.024

0.037

0.088
0.061
0.013

0.042
0.041
0.043
0.088
0.042

0,033

0.031
0.018
0.023
0.003
0,072

0.021

0.037
0.020

0.038

0.014
0.027

0.031
0.051

0.044
0,033
0.006

Total
Total Purchased Energy
Energy
dO15 Btu)
2.371

1.859
1.444
0.764

0.598
0.520
0.468

0.427
0.323

0.239

0.206

0.198
0.198
0.171

0.166
0.157
0.154
0.148
0.139

0.136

0.125
0.119
0.115
0.111
0,107

0.105

0.100
0.094

0.093

0.092
0.079

0.076
0.075

0.070
0.070
0.069
Cost
(SIC*)
838.7

971.1
416.9
243.9

248.0
190.5
172.3

164.6
224.2

130.2

103.6

130.0
166.1
81.0

98.4
87.6
116.7
107.7
91.0

85.3

74.4
52.9
69.7
40.7
63.7

69.6

86.6
36.9

84.7

46.7
42.5

57.9
83.4

60.4
62.4
35.1
Value Added
by
Manufacture
($106>
7736.6

10170.1
4745.0
1381.5

2356.3
812.3
1508. S

3798.6
13666.1

2478.0

1501.1

3324.9
2631.0
611.9

2948.7
2881.9
3466.4
11327.0
3551.0

3588.2

1546.5
1587.1
4790.1
652.0
1624.0

113K9

4934.3
333.7

1783.9

710.0
2745.0

7865.0
2967.7

4359.2
3030. S
455.8

Energy Cose/
Value Added
(c/S)
10.841

9.549
8.796
17.655

10.525
23.452
n.420

4.333
1.640

5.254

6.902

3.910
6.313
13.237

3.337
3.040
3.367
0.951
2.562

2.377

4.811
3.333
1.455
6.242
3.920

6.150

1.760
11.060

4.750

6.577
1.550

0.740
2.810

1.390
2.060
7.700

Energy/
Value Added
(106 Btu/S)
0.307

0.183
0.304
0.553

0.2S4
0.640
0.310

0.112
0.024

0.097

0.137

0.060
0.075
0.280

0.056
0.055
0.044
0.013
0.039

0.038

0.081
0.075
0.024
0.170
0.066

0.093

0.020
0.212

0.053

0.130
0.029

0.010
0.025

0.016
0.023
0.151

-------
205
264
356
366
265
362
354
283
321
349
225
275
243
336
266
241
264
249
347
286
326
328
223
279
Bakery Products
Misc. Converted Paper
Products
General Industrial
Machinery
Connunleatlon Equipments
paperboard Containers &
Boxes
Electrical Industrial
Appar,
Metalvorklng Machinery
Drugs
Flee Glass
Misc. Fabricated Matel
Products
Knitting Mills
Conmerelnl Printing
Mllluork, Plywood,
Related Products
Nonferrous Foundries
Bldg. Paper & Board
Hills
Logging Caaq>s & Con-
tractors
Soap, Cleaners, Toilet
Goods
Misc. {food Products
Metal Services, N.E.C.
Gun & Hood Chemicals
Pottery ft Related
Products
Cut Stone & Stone
Products
Heaving & Finishing
Hills, Wool
Printing Trade Services
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
S3
54
55
56
57-
58
59
60
14.46
12.43
11.64
7.76
12.43
8.41
9.84
12.06
14.49
10.40
10.39
7.05
7.54
9.72
9.79
13.50
10.93
9.87
7.78
5.43
6.43
1.24
2.77
0.53
1.84
2.41
2.67
3.77
2.16
J.45
2.76
1.83
0.99
2.03
1.71
2.44
2.15
1.42
1.36
0.13
0.90
1.23
1.L5
0.82
0.43
0.22
0.1J
0.20
16.30
14.84
14.31
11.53
14.59
11.86
12.60
13.89
15.48
12.43
12.10
9.49
9.6$
11.14
11.15
13.63
11.84
11.10
8.92
6.23
6.86
1.46
2.90
0.73
0.049
0.043
0.040
O.OZ7
0.042
0.029
0.034
0.041
0.050
0.036
0.036
0.024
0.026
0.033
0.033
0.046
'0.037
0.034
0.027
0.019
0.022
0.004
0.010
0.002
0.019
0.025
0.026
0.040
0.023
0,036
0.029
0.019
0.010
0.021
0.018
0.026
0.023
0.015
0.014
0.001
0.010
0.013
0.012
0.009
0,005
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.069
0.068
0.066
0.066
0.065
0.065
0.063
0.060
0.060
0.057
0.054
0.050
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.047
0.047
0.046
0.039
0.028
0.027
0.006
0.011
0.004
53.0
46.6
57.1
53.4
49.6
45.1
61.0
36.3
28.7
49.1
38.0
51.4
40.8
37.5
23.4
43.1
27.6
30.8
38.2
8.2
15.9
5.0
16.5
5.9
6466.5
6210.1
6923.0
6992.5
5937.3
4623.7
7511.5
5301.6
422.9
4756.6
4519.3
3944.4
3653.2
1067.5
183.7
695.1
6511.2
750.3
864.3
100.8
418.7
148.2
428.6
543.7
0.820
0.750
0.825
0.764
0.840
0.980
0.812
0.685
5.780
1.030
0.840
1.300
1. 110
3.510
12.740
6.200
0.424
4.100
4.400
8.130
3.800
3.370
3.850
1.090
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.011
0.014
0.008
0.011
0.142
0.010
0.012
0.013
0.013
0.045
0.256
0.068
0.007
0.063
0.045
0.278
0.065
0.041
0.026
0.007
Equiv. • Equivalent

-------
                                                    TABLE A-5
                  RANKING BY TOTAL FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED (3-DIGIT SIC GROUPING) 1971
10

SIC
CODE
281
331

291
335

262

282

324
263
371

327

322

335

332

209

204
201
325

203
372
202
325
307
208
206
289
242

344

339

301
261
287
226

26i

393


INDUSTRY GROUP
Industrial Chemical!
Blast Purnsce, Basic
Steal Products
Petroleum Refining
Primary Nonfarrous
Metal
Papermills, Except
Bldg. Paper
Plastic Materials
and Synthetics
Ceoent, Hydraulic
Paperbosrd Hills
Motor Vehicles and
Equipment
Concrete, Gypsum,
Piaster Product*
Glaas, Glassware,
Pressed fit Blown
Nonferraua Rolling
and Drawing
Iron and Steel
Foundries
mac, Foods &
Kindred Products
Grain Hill Product)
Meat Products
hisc. Nonmetalllc
Mineral Products
Canned, Cured &
Frozen Poods
Aircraft & Parts
Dairy Products
Structural Cl«y Prod.
Misc. Plastic Products
Beverages
Sugar
Hlse. chetDlcal Prod.
Sawmills & Planing
Mills
Fabricated Structural
Ratal Products
Misc. Primary Metal
Products
Tires & Inner Tubes
Pulp Hills
Agricultural Chemicals
Textile Finishing,
Except Vool
Misc. Converted Paper
Products
Construction & Related
Machinery

RANK
1

2
3

It

5

6
7
e

9

10

LI

12

13

U
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26


27

28
29
>u
31

32

33

34

Purchased Fuel
(109 kWh Eouiv. )
304.2

395.5
422.3

8.13

154.3

118.7
125.9
128.0

57.2

72.4

56.7

37.0

38.5

42.2
37.6
33.3

35.4
34.2
17.5
28.5
39.0
17.3
31.2
3G.3
31.7
20.7


19.9

25.3
19.6
23.8
21. L

23.7

16.4

15.2
Purchased
Electric
Energy
(109 kVh)
75.4

49.9
22.5

49.0

17.0

13. 6
3.5
6.7

16. 0

3.2

4.9

9.9

7.9

5.4
5.1
5.9

4.2
».5
8,5
4.9
1.3
8.2
3.6
0.4
2.5
5.2


4.5

2.5
4.L
2.5
2.1

1.6

3.9

3.6

Energy
(10' kHh Eoulv.) I
579.6

445.4
444.8

130.3

171.3

1J2.4
134.4
134.7

73.2

75.6

61.7

46.9

46.4

47.6
42.7
39,3

39.6
38.7
26.1
33.4
40.3
25.5
34.8
3B.7
34.2
25.9


24.4

27.9
23.7
26.2
24.0

25.3

20.3

18.8

Fuel
[1Q15 Btu)
1.72

1.35
1.44

0.278

0.527

0.405
0.430
0.437

0.19S

0.247

0.194

0.126

0.131

0.144
0.128
0.114

0.121
0.116
0.597
0.097
0.133
0,059
0.106
O.L31
0.108
9.071


0.068

0.086
O.J I
O.OB1
0.072

o.oei

0.056

0.0380
Purchased
Energy
(1015 Btu)
0.79

0.52
0.24

0.5L4

0.178

0.142
0.089
0.070

0.168

0.034

0.052

0.104

0.083

0,056
0.053
-0.062

0.046
0.048
0,089
0.051
0.014
o.oa&
0.037
0.004
0.026
0.055


0.048

0.027
O.U6/
0.026
0.031

0.017

0,041

0.052

Energy
<1015 Btu)
2.51

1.87
1.68

0.792

0.705

0.548
0.519
0.437

O.J63

0.281

0.246

U.230

0.214

0.200
0.181
0.176

0.165
0.165
0.149
0.148
0.147
U.144
0.144
0,135
O.IM
0.126


O.L16

0.11 1
0.043
0.107
0.103

0.098

0,097

0.090
Total
Energy
Cost
(*106)
1,115.9

1,266.1
585.7

320.1

375.8

286.5
243. L
257.1

305.0

130.2

146.7

173.4

2U7.3

135.7
115.7
130.2

108.2
119.11
124.5
Hi. I
82.2
133.7
104. a
01.7
76. a
130.7


104.5

fin.1)
69. o
57.9
52.6

65.7

73.3

70.9
Value Added
by
Manufacture
(S106)
9,232.5

11,620,5
4,594.7

1,705.6

2,909.3

4.936.0
1,157.7
1,705.6

K.A.

3,842.3

• 2,341.1
\
J.79S.6

3,480.7

N.A.
N.A.
N.A.

2.J59.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
771.1
N.A.
N.A.
K.A.
2,357.3
N.A.


7,028.3

1 ,?&"». T
N.A.
306.0
1,741.9

I.I2U.Z

4,U05.U

N.A.

Energy Cost/
Value Added
(c/S)
12.1

10.9
12.8

.18.8

12.9

5.8
21. U
12.9

N.A.

4.7

6.3

4.6

b.O

S.A.
N.A.
N.A.

4.1)
K.A.
N.A.
N.A.
10.7
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
J.2
N.A.


1.5

I,.1!
S.A.
18.1
3.0

5.1

L.«

N.A.

Energy/
Valua Added
(10° Btu/S)
0.27

0.16
0,365

0.465

0.242

0.110
0.449
U.255

tl.A.

11.073

0.105

II.OUl

11.1102

S.A.
N.A.
\.A,

0.117
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
O.I'll
N.A,
N.A.
N.A.
O.lli?
N.A.


U.OLb

Ll.D'M
N.A.
J.35U
D.OS'J

U.UB7

11.024

N.A.

-------
LO
222

265
221
283
367

205
225
349

356

366
346
362

275
354
243

295
321
249

284

266

336
347
341

326

223

286
328

279
303
Weaving Mills.
Synthetics
Paperboard Containers
and Boxes
Weaving Mills, Cotton
Drugs
Electronic Cotiponancs
Accessories
Bakery Products
Knitting Hill.

35
36
37
38

39
40
41

9.2
16.3
8.B
16.7

9.0
16.2
14.3

5.6
3.2
5.4
2.8

5.1
2.3
3.L

14.8
19.5
14.2
L9.5

1.4.2
18.9
17.4

D.D31
0.056
0.057
0.057

0.031
0.084
0.049

0.058
0.033
0,030
0.029

0.054
0,055
0.033

0.089
0.089
0.087
0.086

0.085
0.029
0.082

63.7
73.0
60.7
63.1

77.8
66.4
66.8

1,831.6 3.5
3,599.3 2.0
1,256.3 4.U
6,132.0 1.0

N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A.
3,180.5 2.1

0.049
0.025
0.069
0.014

N.A.
N.A.
0.026
Miscellaneous Fabricated
Metal products
General Industrial
Machinery
Cccnunlcatloa Squlp.
Metal Steiaplnge
Electrical Industrial
Apparatus
Coanerclal Printing
Hetaluorklng Machln.
Htllvork, Plywood,
Related Products
Paving & Roofing
Materials
Flat Glass
Miscellaneous Wood
Producta
Soapv Cleaners and
Toilet Goods
Bldg. Paper and
Board Mills
Nanferroua Foundries
total Services, Nee.
Logging Canps,
Contcactora
Pottery and Related
Producta
Weaving and Finishing
Wool Hllla
Ctan and Wood Chemical.
Cut Stone and
Stone Products
Printing Trade Berv,
Reclaimed Rubber
42

43
44
45

46
47
48

49
•50
51

52

53

54
55
56

57

58

59
60

61
62
63
14.3

13.4
8.6
11.6

10.0
10.5
11.5

10.7
17.4
— 16,4

12.0

14.2

11.6
10.3
8.8

13.2

7.0

3.1
2.7

1.1
0.6
0.3
3.L

3.4
4.8
3.8

4.3
1.1
3.3

3.2
0.9
0.9

2.2

1.4

1.6
1.6
1.9

0.2

0.6

0.51
0.2

0.4
0.4
0.1
17.4

17.4
13.4
15,5

14.3
14.6
14.9

13.9
18.3
17.3

U.2

15.6

13.2
12.0
10.8

13.5

7.6

3.6
2.9

1.5
1.0
0.4
0.049

0.046
0.029
0.039

0.034
0.036
0.039

9.037
0.059
0.056

0.041

0.048

0.040
0.035
0.030

0.045

0.024

0.011
0.009

0.004
0.002
0.001
0.033

0.036
0.051
0.040

0.045
0.043
0.034

0.033
0.009
0.010

0.023

0.015

0.017
0.017
0.020

0.002

0.006

0.005
0.002

0.004
0.004
0.001
0.082

0.082
0.080
0.079

0.079
0.079
0.073

0.070
0.069
0.066

0.064

0.063

0.056
0.052
0.050

0.047

0.03

O.D16
O.D10

0.008
0.006
0.002
69.4

74.6
73.5
76.3

63.9
80.9
73.8

58.2
44.0
34.5

50.2

46.7

35.5
43.1
45.6

4S.2

19.4

12.6
6.6

5,6
7,6
1.9
5,109.5 1.4

N.A. S.A.
N.A. S.A.
4,291,3 1.8

K.A. S.A.
N.A. S.A.
N.A. N.A,

N.A. N.A.
846.9 5.2
662.3 5.2

N.A. H.A.

6,203.3 0.8

N.A. K.A.
1,269.2 3.4
1,124.3 4.1

N.A. N.A.

600.7 3.2

239.4 5.3
155.4 4.2

191.4 2,1
N.A. N.A
N.A. N.A.
O.O16

N.A.
N.A.
0.018

N.A.
N.A.
N.A.

N.A.
0.081
0.099

N.A.

0 . 0 1 0

X.A.
0.041
0.045

X.A.

u.ow

0.
-------
                                                            A-0
                 RANKING BY FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED (4-DIGIT SIC GROUPING) 1954
to
SIC
rnnp
3312
2911
2611
2819
3241
2829
3334
2825
3717
2612
28'24
2812
3251
2011
3221
3321
2822
2261
2823
3313
3333
3011
2421
2051
2094
3031
2826
3391
2082
2021
J!M3
3229
2033
3721
2023
3722
2491
2062
3254
3255
2085
JEquiv
INDUSTRY GROOP

Blast Furnace & Steel
Mills
Petroleum Refining
Pulp Hills
Inorganic Chemicals
n.e.c.
Cement Hydraulic
Primary Aluminum
Synthetic Fiber
Motor Vehicles
Paper & Papctboard
Hills
Synthetics Rubber
Alkalies & Chlorine
Brick & Hollow Tile
Heat Packing Plants
Glass Container
Cray Iron Foundries
Intermediate & Organic
Color
Textile Finishing,
Except Wool
Plastics & Materials
Electromctallurglcal
Products
Primary Zinc
Ttrca & Inner Tubes
Sawmills & Planing
Kills
Bread £. KclatcJ Prod.
Wet Corn Milling
Reclaimed Rubber
Explosives
Iron & Steel Forgings
Doer and Ala
Creamery Butter
Bldg. Paper & Board
Hills
Pressed & Blown Glass
Canned Fruits & Vcfc.
Aircraft
Concentrated Milk
Aircraft & Engines
Wood Preserving
Cnnu Sugar RoElning
Souor Pipes
ilay UcreacccTlcs
Distilled Liquor
. « Equivalent
RANK

1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Purchased Fuel
(10' kWh Equlv. )
1487.9
172.4
148.6
33.6
107.0
34.0
54.7
36.4
15.7
34.6
24.5
28.9
25.1
22.3
21.6
21.3
21.3
12.7
8.2
14.1
13.5
9.9
13.0
14.2
9.7
12.7
12.0
11.3
12.2
9.9
10.5
10.4
4.6
9.2
5.9
9.4
9.4
8.0
7.0
6.tt

Purchased
Electric
Energy
(109 kWh)
14.1
5.6
3.6
30.8
3.6
17.2
0.5
5.6
8.6
0.4
3.3
0.4
1.6
1.0
l.l
0.7
0.5
2.8
3.6
1.5
l.S
2.0
1.0
0.07
1.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.4
2.0
0.4
1.4
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.14
0.13

Total Purchased
Energy
dO* «wh Equtv.)
1502.0
178.0
157.7
64.6
110.6
81 2
51.2
55.2
42.0
24.3
35.0
27.8
29.3
26.7
23.3
22.7
22.0
21.8
13.5
11.8
15.6
14,9
11.9
14.0
14.3
11.1
13.0
12.5
11.9
12.4
10.6
11.1
10.8
6.6
9.6
7.3
9.5
9.4
8.1
7.1
6.9

Purchased
Fuel
UP1* »tu)
5.08
0.589
0.507
0.115
0.365
0 265
0.116
0.187
0.124
0.054
0.118
0.084
0.099
0.0856
0.076
0.074
0.073
0.0727
0.0434
0.028
0.0482
0.046
0.034
0.0443
0.0485
0.0332
0.0434
0.0411
0.0335
0.0416
0.0338
0.036
0.0355
0.0156
0.0316
0.0201
0.032
0.0321
0.0274
0.024
0.0232

Purchased
Electric
Energy
(101S Btu)
0.1477
0.0586
0,0905
0.3233
0.0383
0 0366
0.181
0.0049
0.0588
0.0905
0.0042
0.0346
0.004
0.0166
0.0104
0.0113
0.0075
0.0054
.0.0296
0.0379
0.0158
0,0156
0.0207
0.010
0.0008
0.0144
0.0036
0.0051
0.006
0.0024
0.0077
0.0054
0.0041
0,031
0 .0046
0.0145
0.0005
0.0001
0.0006
0.0015
0.0014

Total Purchased
Energy
CIO15 Btu)
5.228
0.6476
0.5979
0.4381
0.4035
0.297
0.1919
0.1831
0.1441
0.1222
0.1183
0.103
0.1022
0.0864
0.0852 '
0.0605
0.0781
0.073
0.0659
0.0639
0.0613
0.0547
0.0543
0.0493
0.0476
0.0470
0.0461
0.0445
0.0417
0.0415
0 .0414
0.0396
0.0366
0.0362
0.0346
0.0325
0.0322
0.0281
0.0255
0.0246

Total
Energy
CS10')
1349.0
135.1
NA
263.3
128.7
63.4
27.3
120.7
KA
7.09
48.8
35.7
49.4
3S.4
57.5
27.9
31.9
22.3
21.7
17.4
24.5
54.7
40.1
11.0
28.4
11.0
24.03
19.7
11.9
15.7
19.8
20.0
24.5
11.9
27.4
3.6
9.0
8.5
9.8
7.7

Value Added
by
(S106)
4640.5
1901.3
704.2
1069.3
528.9
264.2
717.2
6111.5
HA
152.9
251.0
183.3
1394.4
377.1
846.2
362.3
464.1
583.2
114.7
87.5
844.5
1502.9
1568.9
176.6
930.1
205.4
304.2
1100.7
-136.9
155.4
297.2
830.0
844.5
170.6
1435.4
69.3
139.0
55.3
88.7
356.7

Energy Cost/
(c/S)
29.07
7.11
NA
24.6
24.3
6.4
27.07
3.8
2.0
NA
4.6
19.4
19.5
3.5
9.5
6.8
7.7
6.9
3.8
16.91
19.88
2.9
3.64
2.56
6.2
3.06
5.33
7.9
1.8
8.7
10.1
6.65
2.41
2.90
7.0
1.91
5.17
6.46
15.4
11.03
2.16

Energy/
Value Added
(10 Bcu/S)
1.1265
0.3406
HA
0.4097
0.7629
0.2578
1 . 1241
0.2673
0.030
KA
0.8005
0.4713
0.560
0.0734
0.2991
0.1007
0.2216
0.1684
0.1252
0.574
0.7304
0.0725
0.0362
0.0346
0.2792
0.0511
0.2288
0.1515
0.0404
0.3215
0.267
0.1391
0.0477
0.0522
0.2122
0.0547
0.4693
0.232
0.5073
0.0495
0.0478


-------
                                    TABLE A-7
RANKING BY FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED (4-DIGIT SIC GROUPING) 1958
SIC
COPE
13LZ
2819
324 L

28LH
2631
3717
3334
2812
2H15
2823
3221
282 1
3251
2U2h
2211
2(1 SI
J 12 1
331!
3274
2046
20b3
3331
26bl
Mb I
:'n l 1
3^1 1
1UVI
20H2
•J«l
J229
INDUSTRY CROUP
Steel Hills
Pttroteun Refining
Inorganic Chemicals
Cucsunc , Hydraulic
Bldg. Popcr
Organic Chemicals
papcrboacd Mills
Motor Vehicles and
Parts
Priroury A Luminum
Alk-iLlus und Chlorine
Cyclic [ n t c rnx_-d i n t« s
Cfl lulusic Man -Mode
Glass CaiualnufA
Plastic Matt-rials and
Re sins
Rtlck and Structural
Fluid Hi IV
Weaving Ml L 1 Cotton
Rivntl & Rvtatuil
products
Lin*
Wet Corn Nil Ling
Beet Sugar
Primary Copper
Bldg. Pafwr & Board
Mills
Finish. IK Plants,
Cntron
Pulp Ml I U
Fl.it f.lti»ii
I run i Stvel Poi-Kinns
Halt Liquors
Saw Mi lib & Planing
Hills (Central)
Pressed & B lown
Glass, n.i-.c.
RANK
L
3
2
6
5
6
T
9
a
10
1 1
J4
U
16

19
11
20
1 ]
24
25
27
23
22
21
28
31
33
32
26
34
Purchased Fuel
<)09 kWi louiv.*)
114. i ,
250.9 ''
82.7
1 10.1
104.9
97.7
78.4
41.1
30.4
41. 1,
27.1
26. 8
24.6
22.9
22 2
23.0
18.5
11 .9
18.1
14 7
10.0
13.9
13.9
14.0
12.9
12.3
12.6
12.4
11.8
11.4
11.2
9.4
10.2
Purchased
Electric
Energy
16.4
9.1
67.7
5.0
6.2
4.6
2.5
6.8
16.2
4.1
1.0
0.3
1.3
1.6
0.5
2.0
5.2
1.0
1 . 1 "
4.8
0.!)
0.2
0.1
0.7
1.2
0.4
O.b
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.7
0.6
Total Purchased
Energy
(10* ktfh Equlv.)
330.9
260'.0
150.4
115.1
111.1
102.3
"SO. 9
47.9
46.6
45.5
28.0
27..I
26.1
24.5
23.4
20.5
17.1
19.1
15 8
14.8
14.3
14.1
14.1
13.7
13.5
13.0
13.0
12.4
11.9
11.8
11.1
10.8
Purchased
Fuel
1.074
0.857
0.282
0.376
0.358
0.334
0.268
0.141
O.L04
0.141
0.093
0.092
O.OS5
0.078
0.079
0.063
0.041
0.062
0 050
0.034
0.046
0.04B
0.048
0.044
0.04Z
0.043
0.042
0.040
0.039
0.038
0.032
0.035
Purchased
Electric
Energy
(10IS Btu)
0.172
0.096
0.71L
0.053
0.065
0.048
0.026
0.072
0.170
0.043
0.010
0.003
0.014
0.017
0.005
0.021
0.055
0.011
0 012
fl.osi
0.003
0.002
0,001
0.008
0.013
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.018
0.006
Total Purchased
Energy
(1015 Btu)
1.246
0.953
0.993
0.429
0.423
0.382
0.294
0.213
0.274
0.184
0.103
0.095
0.099
0.095
0.084
0.084
0.096
0.073
0 062
0.085
0.051
0.050
0.049
0.052
0.053
0.047
0.046
0.046
0.044
0.045
0.050
0.041
Total
Energy
Cost
(SIO6)
676.24
240.0
361.1
161.5
166.0
111.9
109.3
140.2
79.2
62.4
27.1
26.4
45.5
40.9
38.2
60.4
55.8
53.6
58 2
30.5
22.1
L3.4
16. a
21.8
26.5
22.4
25.3
19.0
26.0
21.0
60.0
21.6
Value Added
by
Manufacture
W106)
6062.2
2119.4
1468.9
724.8
1541.8
1671.7
840.1
6473.9
3BD.8
306.2
373. L
390.3
810.6
(72.0
196,9
1990.8
1076.6
2111.8
810.8
178.9
73.6
249.4
130.4
158.1
215.1
289. L
196.0
263.2
310.2
1114.6
1194.7
312.3
Energy Cost/
Value Added
(c/S)
11.15
11.32
24.58
22.28
10.76
6.69
13.0
2.17
20.64
20.37
7.26
6.76
5.61
4.69
2 76
19.42
3.04
5.18
2.54
7 18
17.07
30.04
5.38
12.9
13.76
12.31
7.73
12.89
7.21
8.38
1.88
5.02
6.92
Energy/
Value Added
(10" 6tu/$)
0.206
0.450
0.676
0.592
0.274
0.229
0.350
0.033
0.714
0.601
0.276
0.243
0.122
0.109
0,427
0.042
0.089
0.343
0 077
0.475
0.69)
0.201
0.376
0.329
0.25S
0.163
0.245
O.L75
0.142
0.040
0.042
0.131

-------
                      JMlfc    lnor»flntc Ptgnunta     35             10.1           0.4            10.5          0.035         0.004         0,039               15.5             235 7           t> V        0 166
                      .2033    Canned Fruits t,
                              V«8«tabU-.             37             10.0           0.4            10.3          0.034         0.004         0.038               20.3             808.3           251        0047
                      3352    Aluminum ttoll[rB and
                              Dr<""-nB                3°              7'5           2'°             >'5          °-026         0.021         O.D47               30.4             537.1           5.65        0088
                      2062    Cane SuB.r «,fUlna    39              9.5           0.02            9.5          0.032         0.0002         O.D34               11-2             LM g           6 07        0"184
                      3333    Primary zinc            35              J.I           ..4             8.5          0.024         0.015         0.039               19.5              71.7          27.23        0^4
                      3351    Copper Rolling and
                              Uraul"8                38              7'3           '•"             »-3          0.025         0.010         0.035               22.3             445 4           50         0 079

                      3"1    AlrCr°ft               '"              3'6           '•'             5''          «-012         ».»a         ».034               25.6            3399.2           0^75        0^010


                      Equlv.  - Equivalent
U>

-------
                                   TABLE A-8
RANKING BY FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED  (4-DIGlT SIC GROUPING) 1962
SIC
CODE
3312
2911
2819
2818
3241
2621
3334
2631
3717
2912
2815
3313
3221
2821
2211
2823
'2011
3321
3251
2026
3011
2611
2661
3331
2421
3352
2063
3333
3229
2046
3211
2813
INDUSTRY GROUP RANK Purchased Fuel
(lO9 kHh Equlv.
Blast Furnaces and
Steel Mills
Petroleum Refining
Inorganic Chemicals
Nee.
Organic Chemicals,
Nee.
Cenent, Hydraulic
Papermills, Except
Building Paper
Primary Aluminum
paperboard Ml Us
Motor Vehicles and
Parts
Alkalies and
Chlorine
Cyclic Intermediates
and Crudes
E lee trometallur glen 1
Products
Glass Containers
Plastics Materials
Cellulosic Hanmade
Fibers
Heat Packing Prod.
Gray Iron Foundries
Brick & Structural
Tile
Fluid Milk
Tires and Inner
Tubes
Pulp Mills
Building Paper and
Board Hills
Primary Copper
Sawmills and
Planing Mills
Aluminum Rolling
and Drawing
Beat Sugar
Primary Zinc
Pressed and Blown
Class, Hoc.
Wiit Corn Hilling
Flat Class
Industrial Gases
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LI
12
13
14
15
L6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3.
32
316.2
311.3
99.6
152,0
121.2
113.1
33.5
85,3
40,4
48.4
23,2
18.6
28.1
22.2
10.6
23.2
19.9
18.9
21.8
15.9
15.8
18.9
14.9
15,9
11.9
9.9
16,8
12.3
13.1
15.0
12.3
4.2
Purchased
Electric
Energy
1 UO9 kUh)
22.6
12.1
62.0
7.4
5.9
8.3
26.9
3.2
9.9
6.2
1.6
5.4
1.7
2.3
5.9
0.3
2.1
1.6
0.6
2.2
2.2
1.1
1.4
1.0
2.1
2.5
0.07
1.1
0.9
0.2
o.e
3.5
Total Purchased Purchased
Energy Fuel*
(JO9 kHh Equiv.) (10*5 Btu)
340.8
323.4
161.6
159.4
127.1
121.4
6D.4
88.5
50.3
54.6
24.8
24.0
29.3
24.5
lb.5
25.5
22.0
20.5
22.4
18.1
18.0
20.1
16.3
16.9
14.0
12.4
16. 8
13.7
14.0
15.2
13. 6
T.I
1.086
1.063
0.340
0.5192
0.4139
0.3862
O.H44
•• 0.2914
0.1378
0.1652
0.0792
0.0656
0.0959
0.0758
0.03611
0.0861
0.0679
0.0646
0.0745
0.0544
0.0540
0.0647
O.OMO
0.0544
0.0406
0.0339
0.0573
0.0419
0.0446
0.0512
0.0436
0.0144
Purchased
Energy
(1015 Btu)
0.2372
0.1275
0.6512
0.0772
0.0621
0.0871
0.2823
0.0335
0.1039
0.0646
0.0166
0.0570
0.0176
0.0240
0.062
0.0035
0.0215
0.0164
0.0060
0.0233
0.0227
0.0119
0.0149
0.0102
0.0222
0.0262
0.0007
0.0143
0.0091
0.0023
0.0087
O.I) If]/

Energy
UO15 Etu)
1.3237
1.1905
0.9913
0.5964
0.4760
0.4733
0.3967
0.3249
0.2417
0.2298
0.1265
0.1206
0.1135
0.0999
D.09B1
0.0896
0.0894
0.08097
0.0604
0.0776
0.0767
0.0766
O.OCi'J
0.0646
0.0628
0 . ObO 1
0.05J97
•I.056S
0.05JJ
(1.0135
,!!».!
1 , J21 . 7
11 5. 8
1>3. 1
285,5
1,376.1
721..'
.'till.?
'IK.8
1. J .' . J
."III,1!
-I''1. .^
.'hit. 1
Energy Cost/
Value Added
(c/S)
10.51
10.74
19. If
6.36
21.89
10.63
23.3
10.29
1.46
20.14
(i.4->
3J.1J
y.tfb
J.9H
4.59
5.59
2.K4
4.70
20.18
J.04
2.b'l
IU. l<*
2u.u:>
l>,6
4 . <> 1
•i. Jis
'J . '» J
1'l.tlJ
1'. ••'.
', . - J
I..'W
I't. .'.'
Energy/
Value Added
<106 Btu/$)
0.1719
0.3794
0.5210
0.2187
0.6059
0.2548
0.7939
0.2739
U. 1)190
0.5905
0.2218
0.08289
0. 180J
a. Mil
O.U7S1
0.2177
O.OM>9
0.0613
0.37U.
II.U3S2
II. OWU
0.2TO
U.<« JUJ
0.2261
tl,0<',M,
U.IIIMI
w..'Kh'i
ll.',i.'i.
0. II II
ii. I.HI;
O, 1-. 1^
11. I'lllS

-------
                        307)

                        3721
                        2062
                        3391

                        2816
                        2033
Finishing plants,
Cotton
Plastic products,
Hcc.
Aircraft
Malt Llquori
Iron and Stoel
Forglngi
Inorganic Pigments
Canned Fruit and
VegetableI
Food Preparations,
Dec.
34
35
36

37
38
13.0

 6.9
 5.9
10. L

10.1
10.3

10.4

 8.0
2.4
2.5
o.e

0.6
0.6

0.5

0.6
13.5

 9.3
 8.4
10.9

11.4
10.9

10.9

 8.6
0.0443

0.0237
0.0202
0.0344

0.0368
0.0350

0.0354

0.0272
0.0053

0.0249
0.0260
0.0084

0.0058
0.0063

O.UU59

0.0067
0.0496

0.04115
0,0462
0.0429

0.0427
0.0413

0.04L3

0.0339
23.4

4U.J
31.5
21.8

31.4
20.6

25.2

24.1
3,542.7
1,286.0

  395.3
  2H6.4

I,029.5
7.04

2. VI
(I.8BV
1.70

7.94
7. IV

2.45

2.84
O.UJW
O.UI30
O.03J3

0.1079
0.1443

O.U4UI

0.0399
                         Bqulv.  •< Equivalent
oo

-------
                                                     TABLE A-9
                   RANKING BY FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED (4-DIGIT SIC GROUPING) 1967
10

SIC
CODE
3312

2911
2819

281B

2621

3334
3241
2631
2812
3711
2821

3714


3221
3313

3321
2813
3S62

2211
2824

2823

3251

2011
3352

2011
2421

3011
32)4
35H
202li
3273
3229


INDUSTRY GROUP
Blast Furnaces and
Steel Hills
Petroleum Refining
Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals, Nee.
Industrial Organic
Chen, Ncc.
Papermills, except
Building Paper
Primary Aluminum
Cement, Hydraulic
Paperboard Mills
Alkalies and Chlorine
Motor Vehicles -
Passenger Car Bodies
and Resins
Motor Vehicle Parts

& Crudes
Glass Containers
Electronic to ILurgical
prod.
Gray Iron Foundries
Industrial Coses
Sail and Roller
Soaring
Weaving Hills, Cotton
Organic Fibers,
Nonce lluloslc
Celluioaic Hanmadc
Fibers
Brick a nd Structural
Clay Tii«
Meat Packing Plants
Aluminum Rolling
and Drawing
Pulp Hills
Sawmills und Filming
Ml ll«, firn,
Tims and Inner Tubes
U«»
Pumps and Compressors
Fluid Milk
Raady*mlxed Concrete
pruasad and Blown
alail. NIC,

HANK

1
2

3

4

5
6
i
a
9

10
u
12

13
it

15
16
1?

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

2<>
27
28
29
30
31

32

Purchased Fuel
(109 RWh Emily. )

388.81
369.059

129.274

219,161

13S.972
44 . 352
129.113
120.644
45.123

2K.955
" 31.666
24 286

33.895
32.287

13.803
25.260
LI. 914

3.3828
10.204

23.181

28.481

2l.2ai
20.514

15.874
21.716

I5.0H5
16.7972
22.550
3. 3948 •
15.125
20,825

17.254
Purchased
Electric
Energy
CIO9 kMO

34.794
17.474

45.924
.
13.378

12.776
41.956
7.495
5.294
9.298

5.714
4.367
6 733

2.574
2.329

7.852
2.805
6,776

.9192
6.871

2.539

.472

.702
2.503

3.863
1.859

3.276
2.674
.5515
.6432
2.S09
.5539

1.194

Total Purchased
Energy
(10' kNh Equlv.)

415.608
386.533

176.198

232.541

148. T49
36.309
136.610
125.938
54.421

34.669
36.034
3L 020

36.469
34.617

21.6S5
28.066
18.690

4,3020
17.076

25.720

28.954

27,v»i
23.018

19 . J 37
23.575

18.361
19.472
23.062
4.038
17.634
21.379

18,449

Fuel
(10" Btu)

1.3004
1.2603

,44 14

.7484

.4643
.1514
.4409
.4121
.1541

.0988
.1081
0829

.1158
.1103

.0471
.0862
.0406

.0115
.0348

.0791

.0973

.uvjl/
.07005

.0542
.0741

.0515
.0573
.0770
.01159
.05165
.0711

.0569
Purchased
Energy
(1015 Btu)

.3653
.1634

.4822

.1405

.13415
.44054
.0787
.0559
.0976

.0599
.0458
0707

.0270
.0244

.0824
.0294
.0711

.0965
.0722

.0266

.00496

.UU737
.0262

.04055
.0195

.0344
.0280
.00537
.0675
.0263
.0058

.0125

Energy
(1015 Beu)

1.6658
1.4438

.9236

.8889

.5985
.5920
.5196
.4676
.2517

.1588
.1540
. 1536

.1427
.1347

.1295
.1157
.1118

.10806
.1070

.1058

.1022

. 1UU54
.09634

.0947
.09366

.0859
.0854
.0823
.0791
.0780
.07693

.07147
Total
Energy
Cost
(310s)

877.3
416. 9

339.7

263.6

248.0
176.8
190.5
172.3
96.0

105.2
70.1
109,8

54.1
66.3

50.5
102.7
63.6

16.0
63.7

41.3

28.8

44. 1
56.7

54.0
36.9

77.0
40.7
31.4
15.3
66.5
50,0

37,3
Value Added
by
Manufacture
C$106)

8,910.1
4,745.0

2,295.4

3,575.3

2,356.3
811.8
812.3
1,508,8
410.2

7,353.6-
1,635.1
5, 712.0

129.5
842.2

193.2
1.543.1
400.9

833.3
1,624.0

i,251.8

506.8

2M.1
2,220.5

938.7
333.7

1,556.4
1,823.0
100. 1
1,210.2
2.350.7
1,155.5

658.9

Energy Cost/
Value Added
(c/S)

9.846
8.786

14.80

7.373

15.25
21.78
23.45
11.42
22.90

1.43
9.61
1.92

7.416
7.87

26.139
6.655
15.864

1.920
3.922

3.299

5.68

1/.8JL
2.553

5.753
U.053

4.947
2.232
31. .Ih*
1 . ;•("*
2.829
1.111

S,M>1

Energy/
Value Added
CIO6 Btu/S)

.1870
.3043

.4024

.2486

.2540
.7293
.6397
.3100
.6005

.0216
.0942
.0269

.1957
.1600

.6707
.0750
.2790

.1290
.0659

,0845

.2017

.4004
.0434

.1010
.2606

.0552
.0469
.8230
,Uti54
.0332
.Ot!<>lJ

, low.1-

-------
3461
3333
2822
2046
2063
205 1
3211
3391
Metal Stanplngl
Primary Zltte
Synthetic Rubber
Vet Corn Milling
Beet Sugar
Bread^ Cake and
Related Products
Flat Class
Iron and Steel
33
34
35
36
37
3B
39

10.86]
15.090
14.261
14.491
17.985
13.5
14.491

3.L37
1.493
1.570
.9883
.1104
1.435
.998

14.000
16.583
15.832
15.480
18.095
13.500
15.480

.0371
.0515
.0487
.0952
.0614
.0461
.0494

.0329
.01.567
.0165
.0639
.00115
.0151
.0103

.07004
.06721
.0652
.06399
.06297
.0612
.0598

62.4
22.9
24.4
20.3
22.1
44.2
28.7

3, 030. 8
119.5
404.9
353.6
209.7
i,702.7
422.9

2.059
19.163
6.026
6.741
10.539
.8662
6.796

.0231
.5624
.1610
.1810
.2984
,01198
.1416

       Forgings
                                         14.353
                                                          .745
                                                                                                                                                                  6.7L3
Equlv. • Equivalent

-------
                                 TABLE A-10
RANKING BY FUEL AND ELECTRIC ENERGY PURCHASED  (4-DIGIT SIC GROUPING) 1971

SIC
CODE
3312
HE
2819
2*21
3334
3241
2631
2812
2821
3714
2624
3221
<2862>1
3711
2611
3079
3313
2813
3321
3352
2011
2421
3274
3273
2221
2211
2623
2063
3251
3331
3461
3229

INDUSTRY GROUP RANK
Elast Furnaces and
Steel Mills 1
petroleum Refining 2
Industrial Organic
Chemicals Nee. 3
Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals 4
Paper Mills, Except
Bollding Paper 5
Primary Aluminum 6
Cement Hydraulic 7
paperboard Mills 8
Alkalies it Chlorine 9
plastic Materials and
Realm 10
Motor Vehicles, Parts . __
snd Accessories 11
Organic Fibers,
Noncellulosic 12
Glass Containers 13
Cyclic Intermediates
and Crudes 14
Ha tor vehicles 15
Pulp Mills 16
Miscellaneous Plastic
Products 17
E lee trome tallurgical
Products 18
Industrial Gases 19
Gray Iron Foundries 20
Aluminum Rolling
and Drawing 21
Meat Packing Plants 22
Saumills & Planing
Kills, General 23
Line 24
ReajyMlxed Concrete 25
Weaving Mills, Synth. 26
Heaving Mills, Cotton 27
Collulosic Manmade
Fibers 28
Beet Sugar 29
Brick and Structural
Clay Tilr-o 30
primary Copper 3>
Metal Stampings 32
pressed and Rljwn Class
NEC 33

Purchased Fuel
<10S kHh Eoulv.*)
367.9
422.3
266.3
132,8
154.3
41.9
125.9
128.0
40.9
33.3
27.8
38,6
38.2
37.0
26.3
23.8
17.3
16.3
12.6
24.8
21.1
23.1
19.5
26.4
23.5
9.2
8.8
23.5
24.2
22.5
19.6
11.6
Id. 'j
Purchased
Energy
CIO* kVh)
40.26
22.52
19.70
33.46
16.96
42.71
8.51
6.74
9.14
6.36
8.81
4,84
3.40
3.32
6.68
2.50
8.17
7.69
8.6
4.53
4.76
3.62
4.79
0.62
0.99
5.6
5.43
0.51
0. 19
0.71
1.36
3.82
1,56

Energy
UO9 kHh Equlv.)
408.2
444.8
286.6
166.3
171.3
S4.6
134.4
134.7 '
50.0
45.7
36.6
43.4
41.6
40.3
33.0
26.2
25.5
24.0
21.1
29.3
25.9
26.8
24.3
27.0
24.5
14.8
14.2
24.0
24.4
23.2
21.0
15.5
20.1

Purchased
(1Q15 Btu)
1.2560
1.4420
0.9090
0.4535
0.5269
0.1431
0.4299
0.4371
0.1397
0.1342
0.0949
0.1318
0.1305
0.1264
0.0898
0.0813
0.059
0.0557
0.0430
0.0847
0.0721
0.0789
0.0666
0.0901
0.0802
0.031
0.03
0.0803
0,0826
0.0768
0.0669
O.OJ96
0.0032
Purchased
Energy
<1015 Btu)
0.423
0.2365
0.2068
0.3513
0.1780
0.4485
0,894
0.0708
0.096
0.0668
0.0925
0.0509
0.0357
0.0349
0.0701
0.0643
0.0898
0.0607
0.090
0.0476
0.05
0.038
0.050
0.0065
0,010
0.059
0.057
0.0054
0.002
0.0074
0,0142
0.04
[) . 1) I {>

Energy
(1015 Btu)
1.6791
1.6786
1.116
0.8048
0.705
0.592
0.519
0.508
0.236
0.201
0.187
0.183
0.166
0.1613
0.156
0.1456
0.1450
0.136
0.133
0.132
0.1221
0.117
0.117
0.097
0.091
0.09
0.087
O.OBb
0,085
O.OB4
11, OH !
o.otui
0 . 1) 7 LJ
Total
Energy
Cost
1,152.2
585.7
402.2
392.7
375.8
216.8
243,1
257.1
111.4
119.9
159.1
95.8
97.8
91.4
133.3
S/.9
133.7
64. 0
SI.,
135.0
77.9
Hl.K
56.5
45.5
69.2
63.7
60.7
3B.6
35. fl
-•.•..(,
'.V5
It-.i
4H.9
Value Added
by
Manufacture
(S106)
10,304.7
4,594.7
4,965.1
2,037.3
2,909.3
816.0
1,157.7
1,994.6
455.6
2,160.5
N.A.
2,031,1
1,399.7
925.2
N.A.
306.8
N.A.
217.2
466.7
2,256.5
1,178.5
N.A.
2.850.3
L J 1 . '1
l,7%b.7
1,831.0
1,256.1
.!5.'.7
' «.A.
I lit. 4
4UI, e
4,2'P|, i
'I't 1 .•'!

Energy Costl
Value Added
(c/S)
11.2
12.8
8.1
19.3
12.9
26.6
21.0
12.9
24.5
5.6
N.A.
4.7
7.0
9.9
N.A.
18.9
N.A.
29.8
17.5
6.0
6. fa
N.A,
2.0
34.5
J.'l
3.5
4.8
.15.3
N.A.
IJ.<,
•i. .
1 .«
, ..

Energy/
Value Added
(106 Btu/S)
0.163
0.365
0.225
0.395
0.242
0.725
0.449
0.255
0.517
0.093
N.A.
0,090
0.119
0.174
N.A.
0.475
N.A,
0.626
0.243
0.059
0,104
N.A,
0,041
0.7J5
11.052
0.049
0.0*9
l,. MM
S.A.
i' . .' "i
o . 1 i.(,
0 . 1S(,
u,itn*>

-------
2822
2871
2026
2042
2046
2051
3211
Synthetic Rubber
Fertilizers
Fluid Milk
Prepared Feeds Cor
Animals and Fowls
Wet Corn Milling
Bread, Cake and
Related Products
Flat Glass
34
35
3«
37
36
39
40
17.3
15.9
12.9
13.5
17.9
13.0
16.4
1.95
2.3
2.81
2.25
0,71
2.2
0.93
19.2
18.2
15.7
15.8
13.6
LS.2
17.3
0.0591
0.054
0.044
0.046
0.061
0.044
0.056
0.020
0.024
0.03
0.024
0.008
0.023
0.01
0.079
0.078
0.074
0.070
0.068
0.067
0.066
32.2
37.5
65.3
50.3
_29.5
34.4
34. "•
491.7 6.6
879.0 4.3
N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A.
331.1 8.9
N.A. N.A.
662.3 5.2
0.162
0.09
N.A.
H.A.
0.207
N.A.
0.01
Bqulv. H Equivalent

-------
                                 TABLE A-ll
 SUMMARY OF TOTAL ENERGY PURCHASED (2-  AND 4-DIGIT SIC  GROUPING)
SIC
CODE
3312
2911
32*
26*
20*
231.9
2818
3334
22*
2812
3712
2S21
3714
2815
3313
3321
2813
3562
2824
2823
3352
2421
3011
3561
3461
1971
INDUSTRY CSOur
Blast Furnaces & Steel Mills
Petroleum Refining
Scone, Clay & Glaaa Products
Paper 4 Allied Products
Food & Kindred Products
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Primary Aluminum
Textile Hill Products
Alkalies 4 Chlorine
Motor VsMcles - Passenger Cars
Plastic Materials & Begins
Motor Vehicles Parts & Ace.
Cyclic Intermediates
Eleetrotnetallurgical Products
Gray Iron Foundries
Industrial Gases
Ball t Roller Bearing
Organic fibers. Noncellulosic
Celluloilc Henmade Fibers
Aluminum Rolling (t Drawing
SanBllli t Planing Hills
Tires A Inner Tubes
Pumps A Compressors
Hatal Stampings
RANK
1
2
4
3
5
7
6
8
9
10
15
11
12
14
16
18
17

13

1\
23



TOTAL
ENERGY
(1015 Btu)
1.68
1.67
1.48
1.59
1.266
0.805
1.116
0.592
0.54
0.236
0.156
0.2Q1
0.187
0.161
0.136
0.132
0.133
0-02
0.183
0.086
0.122
0.117
0.109
0.023
0.08
1967
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOTAL
ENERGY
UO" Btu)
1.665
1.444
1.369
1.3405
1.073
0.924
0.889
0.592
0.459
0.252
0.159
0.154
0.1536
0.1427
0.1295
0.1156
0.1118
0.1081
0.1058
0.1022
0.0947
0.0859
0.0854
0.0791
0.0700
RANI;
i
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
11

14
10
12
13
16
21


15
19
18
17


1962
TOTAL
ENERGY
UO15 Etu)
1.334
1.191
1.167
1.05
0-938
0.991
0.5964
0.397
0.459
0.230
NA
0.099
0.2417
0.126S
0.1206
0.081
0.0511
NC
NC
0.0896
0.0601
0.0626
0.0767
NC
NC

RANK
1
4
2
5
6
3
7
9
8
U

14
10
12
15
17



13
21
19



1958
TOTAL
ENERGY
(1015 Btu)
1.25
0.953
1.032
0.896
0.879
0.993
0.382
0.274
0.3119
0.184
NA
0.095
0.213
0.103
0.085
0.0(2
NC
NC
NC
0.095
0.042
0.05
NC
NC
NC

RANK
1
5
2
4
3
6
8

7
12

15
10
14
16
13





19
18


1954
IP,
(10 Btu)
5.228
0.648
0.971
0.726
0.8911
0.4381
0.3019
NC
0.330
0.1183
SA
0.073
0.1331
0.0305
0.066
0.085
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.055
0.061
NC
NC
• 4 Digit SIC for 1971's 32, 26, 20, 22
  Not Available

-------
                                    TABLE A-12
   SUMMARY OF TOTAL ENERGY PURCHASED  (2- AND  3-DIGIT  SIC GROUPING)
SIC
CODE
281
331
291
32'
26 «
20*
333
22 «
282
371
335
332
372
289
339
344
242
287
353
307
367
346
295
356
366
INDUSTRY CROUP
Industrial Chemicals
Blast Furnace & Steel Products
Petroleum Refining
Stone Clay & Class Products
Paper & Allied Products
pood & Kindred Products
Primary Nonferrous Metals
Textile Mill Products
Plastics Materials & Synthetics
Motor Vehicles and Equipment
Nonferrous Rolling & Drawing
Iron & Steel Foundries
Aircraft and Parts
Misc. Chemical Products
Misc. Primary Metal Products
Fabricated Structural Metal
Saumills 6 Planing Hills
Agricultural Chemicals
Construction 6 Related Machinery
Misc. Plastic Products
Electronic Components & Ace.
Metal Stampings
Paving & Roofing Materials
General Industrial Machinery
Communication Equipment
1971

TOTAL
RAKK ENERGY
<1015 Bty)
1 2
2 1
3 1
5 1
I 1
6 1
- 7 0
.51
.87
.68
.48
,59
.266
.792

RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9 0.54 8
6 0
10 0
12 0
13 0
IS 0
25 0
.548
.363
.23
.214
.149
.134
28 0.113
27 0
26 0
31 0
34 0
22 0
39 0
45 0
50 0
43 0
44 0
.116
.126
.103
.09
.144
.085
.079
.069
.082
.08
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1967
TOTAL
ENERGY
<1015 Btu)
2.37
1.86
i.U
i.37
1.34
1.07
0.764
0.459
0.427
0.323
0.198
0.198
0.148
0.119
0.105
0.100
0.093
0.079
0.076
0.075
0.07
0.07
0.069
0.068
0.066

RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.-
12
13
15
18
17
16
28
19
31
26
35
27
20
25
1962
TOTAL
ENERGY
(1015 Btu)
2.02
1.47
1.19
1.17
1.05
0.938
0.601
0.350
0.282
0.268
0.145
0.135
0.110
0.069
0.058
0.064
0.067
0.037
0.057
0.033
0.038
0.025
0.0378
0.051
0.039

RANK
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
3
9
10
li
12
13
17
14
15
16

18
24
28
23
25
20
29
1953
TOTAL
ENERGY •
(1015Btu)
1.73
1.371
0.952
1.032
0.396
0.379
0.414
0.312
0.24
0.217
0.124
0.113
0.098
0.042
0.057
0.055
0.054
NA
0.04
0.03
0.022
0.031
0.028
0.033
0.022

HANK
6
1

2
3
4
7
8
5
9
14
10
12
13
11
16
15




17

19
18
1954
TOTAL
ENERGY
(1015 Btu)
0.559
5.291
NA
0.971
0.726
0.891
0.436
• 0.330
0.568
0.189
0.0685
0,144
0.0919
0.0819
0.102
0.044
0.0575
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0434
NA
0.0365
0.0396
3 Digit SIC for 32, 26, 22, 20 of 1971 not available.

-------
                          TABLE A-13
SUMMARY OF TOTAL ENERGY PURCHASED (MAJOR 3-DIGIT SIC GROUPING)
SIC
CODE
281
331
291
333
262
324
253
232
371
327
322
335
332
325
209
204
202
372
201
203
329
289
208
206
"
TJ IS
INDUSTRY GROUP
Industrial Chemicals
Blaat Furnace 4 Basic Steel Products
Petroleum Refining
Primary Nonfcrrous Metals
Papernllls , Except Building Paper
Cement, Hydraulic
Paperboard Hills
1 Plastic Materials 6 Synthetics
Motor Vehicles & Equipment
Concrete, Gypsum & Plaster Products
Glass, Glassware, Pressed & Blown
Nonferrous Rolling & Drawing
Iron & Steel Foundries
Structural clay Products
Hlec. Food t Kindred Products
Grain Hill Products
Dairy Products
Aircraft & Parts
Meat Products
Canned, Cured & Frozen Foods
Klac. Nanmetalllc Mineral Products
Misc. Chemical Products
Beverages
Sugar
Weaving Mills, Cotton
"Organic Chemicals"

1971

1967

1962

1958

1954
TOTAL PURCHASED TOTAL PURCHASED TOTAL PURCHASED TOTAL PURCHASED TOTAL PURCHASED
RANK ENERGY ()0LS Btu) RANK ENERGY <1015 Btu) RAMK ENERGY (1015 Btu> RANK ENF.RCY (Ul15 Btu) KANK \.M.IU.~, (U>l-> Btu)
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
6
9
10
u
12
13
21
14
15
20
19
16
18
17
25
23
24
37

2.510
1.870
1,680
0.792
0.705
0.519
0.437
0.546
0.363
0.281
0.246
0.230
0.214
0.141
0.200
0.181
0,148
0.149
0.176
0.165
0.165
0.134
0.144
0.135
0.087

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
It

2.371
1.859
1.444
0.764
0.598
0,520
0.468
0.427
0.323
0.239
0.206
0.198
0.198
0.171
0.166
0.157
0.154
0.148
0.139
0.136
0.125
0.119
0.115
0.111
0.107

1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
16
.1
13
14
10
17
15
12
19
18
23
20
28
21
22
24

2.023
1.472
1.191
0.601
0.473
0.476
0.325
0.282
0.268
0.118
0.165
0.145
0.135
0.167
0.114
0.123
0.145
0.110
0.114
0.098
0.105
0.069
0.102
0,102
0.098

1
2
3
6
5
4
7
8
9
15
12
13
16
11
22
17
10
18
14
23
24
34
21
20
19

1.725
1.371
0.952
0.414
0.423
0.429
0.294
0.240
0.217
0.116
0.139
0.124
0.113
0.140
0.086
0.102
0.158
0.098
0.117
0.076
0.075
0.042
0.084
0.086
0.095

4


5



3'
B

6
18
10
9
ll

7
15
12
20
19
16
14
17
26

.5597
5.2916

.4355



.5682
.1893

.2631
.0685
.1436
.1748
.1233

,2051
.0919
.1220
.0608
.0621
.0819
.0953
.077!
.0329


-------
                                            TABLE  A-14
       SUMMARY  OF  TOTAL ENERGY  PURCHASED  (MAJOR 4-DIGIT  SIC GROUPING)
SIC
CODE
3312
29U
2819
2818
2621
3334
3241.
2631
2812
3712
2821
3714
2815
3221
3313
3321
2813.
3562
2211
2824
2823
3251
2011
3352
2611
INDUSTRY GROUP
Blast Furnace 6 Steel Mills
Petroleum Refining
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, N.E.C.
Industrial Organic Chemicals, N.E.C.
Papennills, Except Building Paper
Primary Aluminum
Hydraulic Cement
Puperboard Mills
Alkalies S Chlorine
Motor Vehicles
Plastic Materials & Resins
Motor Vehicles, Parts (. Accessories
Cyclic Intermediates & Crudes
Glass Containers
Electrometallurgies! Products
Gray Iran Foundries
Industrial Gases
Ball 6 Roller Bearings
Weaving Hills., Cotton
Noncellulosic Organic Fibers
Celluloslc Hannade Fibers
Brick I Structural Clay Tile
Meat Packing Plants
Aluminum Rolling 4 Drawing
Pulpmills

1971
TOTAL PUR-
CHASIiU ENERGY
RANK CIO1' Btu)
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
9
1
15
10
11
14
13
18
20
19
DC
27
12
23
30
22
21
16
1.6791
1.6786
0.8048
1.116
0.705
0.592
0.519
0.508
0.236
0.156
0.201
0.137
0.1613
0.166
0.136
0.132
0.133
NC
0.087
0.183
0.086
0.084
0.117
0.1221
0.1456

1967
TOTAL PUR-
CHASED ENEKCY
RANK UO15 Btu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1.6658
1.4438
.9236
.8889
.5985
.5920
.5196
.4676
.2517
.1586
.1540
.1536
.1427
.1347
,1295
.1157
.1118
.1081
.1070
.1058
.1022
.1005
.0963
.0947
.0937

1962
TOTAL PUR-
CHASED ENERGY
RANK (id' Btu)
1
2
3
4
6
7
5
8
10
93
14
NC
11
13
12
IB
32
NC
15
NC
16
19
17
26
22
1. 3237
1.1905
0.9913
0.5964
0.4733
0.3967
0.4760
0.3249
0.2298
0.2417
0.0999
HC
0.1261
0. 1135
0.1206
0.0810
0.0511
NC
0.0981
NC
0.0896
0.0804
0.0894
0.0601
0.0766

1958
TOTAL PUR-
CHASED ENERGY
RANK UOlS BlU)
1
3
2
6
5
8
4
7
10
NC
15
7'
11
12
17
21
HC
NC
13
HC
14
16
16
34
28
1.246
0.953
0.993
0.382
0.423
0.274
0.429
0.294
0.184
NC
0.095
0.213
0.103
0.099
0.085
0.062
NC
lie
0.096
NC
0.095
0.084
0.094
0.042
0.048

1954
TOTAL PUR-
CHASED ENERGY
RANK (10*5 Btu)
1
2
4


7
5

12
,S
19"
NC
175
15
20
16
NC
KC

116
HC
12
13
HC
NC
5.228
0.6476
0.4381


0.297
0.4035

0.1163
0.1831
0.0781
HC
0.0805
0.0864
0.0659
0.0852
NC
NC


NC
0.103
0.1023
NC
HC
'3712  Motor Vehicles - Passenger Car Bodies
:3711  Motor Vehicles
33ri7  Motor vehicles
''2823  Plastic Materials
52822  Intermediate 6 Organic Colors
'2824  Synthetic Rubber

-------
                        TABLE A-15
SUMMARY OF ENERGY/VALUE ADDED (2- AND 3-DIGIT SIC GROUPING)
SIC
CODE
333
281
291
286
331
32
295
26
282
339
332
289
241
249
335
22
242
336
347
20
287
307
371
346
344
IKDUSTRlt GROW
Primary nonferrous metals
Industrial Chemicals
Petroleum Refining
Cum & Wood Chemicals
Blast Furnace & Basic Steel Prodi
Stone Clay t, Glass Products
Paving & Roofing Materials
Paper & Allied Products
Plastics Materials^ Synthetic
Misc. Primary Hetal Products
Iron and Steel Foundries
Misc. Chemical Products
Logging Camps & Contractors
Mlflc. Hood Products
HonCerrous Rolling & Droving
Textile Mill Products
Savmills & Planing Mills
Nonxerrous Foundries
Metal Services H.E.C.
Pood 4 Kindred Produces
Agricultural Chemicals
Misc. Plastic Products
Motor Vehicles & Equipment
Metal Stampings

1971

1967

ENERGY/VALUE ADDED ENERGY/VALUE ADDED Eli
SAHK (106 Btu/$) RAHK (106 Btu/5) RAHK
1
3
2
B
4

7

S
6
9
12


10


14
13

11


15
16
0.465
0.275
0.365
0.071
0.16
NA
0.031
NA
0.110
0.091
0.062
0.057
HA
NA
0.061
NA
HA
0.04L
0.045
NA
0.059
KA
NA
0.018
0.016
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0.553
0.307
0.304
0.278
0.183
0.164
0.151
0.137
0.112
0.093
0.075
0.075
0.068
0.063
0.060
0.056
0.053
0.045
0.045
0.0403
0.029
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.020
1
3
2
9
4
5
7
6
8
10
11
13
17
21
12
15
19
18
16
20
14
23
22
25
24
1962

IERCJ/VALUE ADDED E
(1C6 Btu/S) BASK
0.594
0.32S
0.379
0.089
0.171
0.1657
0.106
0.142
0.098
0.0876
0.0687
0.0669
0.052
0.0317
0.068
0.057
0.043
0.052
0.0526
0.043
0.0589
0.0201
0.0209
0.0178
0.0199
2
4
3
20
5
6
10
7
9
8
11
14
17
18
12
1
16
13
19
IS

22
21
23
24
1958
1954
MERCX/VALUE ADDED EKEECY/VA1.UE ADDE
(106 Btu/$> RANK • (106 Bcu/S)
0.5911
0.4050
0.4494
0.035
0.1997
0.1866
0.1045
0.157
0.1264
0.1291
0.0856
0.0519
0.0395
0.0376
0.0717
0.6421
0.0400
0.0528
0.0351
0.01012
HA
0.0320
0.0121
0.0300
0.0186
2 0.7091
4 0.4037


1 1.1128
HA

6 0.1568
5 0.1768
8 0.0862
7 0.1073
10 0.0725


9 0.0796
3 0 6720
12 0.0361


11 0.0647


14 0.0296
13 0.0348
15 0.0198

-------
                                                      TABLE A-16

                               SUMMARY OF  ENERGY/VALUE ADDED (MAJOR 3-DIGIT SIC GROUPING)
•P-
00
SIC
CODE
324
333
263
281
291
325 .
286
266
262
261
331
206
292
321
322
226
282
327
339
329
332
289
241
221
326
INDUSTRY CROUP
Cement, Hydraulic
Primary NonCerrous Metals
Popcrboard Hills
Industrial chemicals
Petroleum Refining
Scruccural Clay Produces
<3um 6 Wood Chemicals
Building Paper & Board Hills
Papermllls, Except Building Paper
Pulpmillc
Blast Furnace & Basic steel Products
Sugar
Paving & Roofing Materials
Pint Glass
Glass* Glassware, Pressed & Blown
Textile Finishing, Except Wool
Plastics Materials & Synthetics
Concrete, Gypsum & Plaster Products
Klsc. Primary Metal Products
Hisc. Nonmetalllc Mineral Products
Iron & Steel Foundries
Hlsc. Chemical Products
Logging Camps & Contracts
Weaving Mills, Cotton
Pottery & Related Products

1971
ENERGY/VALUE
RANK ADDED
(10* Btu/S)
3
1
7
6
4
9
17

8
S
2

15
12
11
14
10
16
13
18
20
21

19
22
0.449
0.465
0.255
0.275
0.365
0.191
0.071
NA
0.242
0.350
0.465
MA
0.08]
0.099
0.105
0.067
0.110
0.073
0.091
0.070
0.062
0.057
HA
0.069
0.049

RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1967

1962
ENKRCV/VAIUC ENERGY/VALUE
ADDED RANK ADDED
(10* Dtu/S) (106 l)tu/5>
0.640
.0.553
0.310
0.307
0.304
0.280
0.278
0.256
0.254
0.212
0.183
0.170
0.151
0.142
0.137
0.130
0.112
0.097
0.093
0.031
0.075
0.075
0.068
0.056
0.065
1
2
7
5
4
6
16
3
9
8
11
10
14
25
12
13
15
23
17
18
20
21
24
19
22
0.606
0.594
0.274
0.329
0.379
0.302
0.090
0.430
0.255
0.259
0.171
0.172
0.106
0.021
0.150
0.143
0.093
0.056
O.OBB
0.079
0.069
0.067
0.052
0.078
0.065

1958

1954
ENERfiY/VAMIE EHBRCY/Vrtl,UE
RANK ADDED RANK ADDED
<106 Btu/S) (lO6 Btu/5)
1
2
5
4
3
6
24
8
7
10
11
9
17
12
13
14
16
20
15
21
19
22
23
13
25
0.5914
0.5911
0.350
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
405 2
449
285 1
037
254
274
248 5
200 6
254 4
105
176
165 3
150
126 7
0752
129 10
0751 9
066 8
052
040
088 11
0.404

0.411



0.280
1.113
0.310


0.390

0.177

0.086
0.094
0.107
0.073

0.073
0.033

-------
                                     TABLE A-17
            SUMMARY OF ENERGY/VALUE ADDED  (2- AND 4-DIGIT SIC GROUPING)
                                                                      1958
SIC
CODE
3334
3313
2812
3333
2819
2911
2813
2818
2823
2815
3312
32
2B22
26
3362
33:2
3391
2821
2824
3321
3561
22
2421
3011
20
INDUSTRY CROUP
Primary Aluminum
Blectronetollurgicel Products
Alkalies 4 Chlorine
Primary Zinc
Industrial Inorganic Chemical N.E.C
Petroleum Refining
Industrial Gaaaa
laduscrlal Organic Chemical H.E.C.
CeLluloaic Manmade Fibers
Cyclic Intermediates 6 Crudes
Blast Furnaces & Steel Hills
Stone Clay & Class Products
Synthetic Rubber
Paper 6 Allied Products
Boll It Roller Bearing
Aluminum Rolling & Drawing
Iron and Steel ForglngB
Plastic Hateriala t twins
Organic Fibers, Honcellulosic
Grey Iron Foundries
Pumps 6 Compressors
Textile Kill Products
Sawmills 4 Planing Mills, Gen. .
Tires & loner Tubes
Food t Kindred Products
HANK
1
2
3

4
3
7
a
6
9
10

11


12

13
14
IS


16


ENERGY/VALUE
ADDED
(10° Btu/$)
0.725
0.626
O.S17

0.395
0.365
0.243
0.225
0.339
0.174
0.163
HA
0.162
HA

0.104

0.093
0.090
O.OS9

NA
0.041

HA
RANK
1
.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1A
IS
1«
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ENERGY/VALUE
ADDED
CIO6 Btu/S)
0.7293
0.6707
0.600:
0.3624
0.4024
0.3043
0.2790
0.2486
0.2017
0.1957
0.1870
0.1642
0.1610
0.1374
0.1290
0.1010
0.0964
0.0942
0.0845
0.07SO
0.0654
0.0563
0.0552
0.0469
0.0403
HANK
2
1
3
4
5
6
11
J
10
8
12
13

14

7
15
16

17

19
20
18
Jl
ENERGY/VALUE
ADDED RANK
(10* Btu/S)
0.7939
0.8289
0.5905
0.5694
0.5210
0.3794
0.1965
0.2187
0.2177
0.2218
0.1719
0.1657

0.142

0.2889
0.1079
0.0831

0.0693

0.0572
0.0456
0.0580
0.043
1
6
4
i
2,'
7

10
9
8
11
12

13

16
14
15

17

}
19
EBERCY/ VALUE
ADDED
<106 Btu/S)
0.714
0.475
0.601
0.544
0.676
0.450

0.229
0.243
0.276
0.206
0.1866

0.157

0.088
0.142
0.109

0.077

0.6421
0.042
ENERCY /VALUE
RANK ADDED
(106 Btu/$)
2 ' 1
6 0
7 0
4 0
8 0
.1241
.574
.4713
.7304
.4097
9 0.3406

10 0.


1 1.

3 0.
11 0.


12 0.
L3 0,

14 0.

5 0.
17 0.

.2576


,1265
HA
8005*
1568


1515
1252"

1007

6720
0362
15 0.0725
18
0.05012
16 0.0647
* Code changed trim 2824 to 2822
"Code chanted from 2823 to 2821

-------
Ln
o
                                                     TABLE A-18


                               SUMMARY OF ENERGY/VALUE ADDED  (MAJOR 4-DIGIT SIC  GROUPING)
SIC
CODE
3274
3334
2211
3241
2612
3333
2819
3251
2631
2911
2063
2611
2813
2621
2818
2823
2815
3312
2046
2822
3221
3211
3562
3229
3352
INDUSTRY CROUP
Lino
Primary Aluminum
Electromctnllurglcal Products
Hydraulic Cenent
Alkalies 6 Chlorine
Primary Zinc
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, N.EtC.
Brick & Structural Clay Tile
Paperboard Hills
Petroleum Refining
Beet Sugar
Pulpmtlls
Industrial Gases
Papecullls , Except. Building Paper
Industrial Organic Chemicals, N.E.C.
Celluloslc Mannade Fibers
Cyclic Intermediates & Crudes
Blast Furnaces & Steel Hills
Wet Corn Milling
Synthetic Rubber
Glass Containers
Flat Class
Ball & Roller Bearings
Pressed & Blown Class, N.E.C.
Aluminum Rolling £ Drawing
RANK
1
2
3
6
4
NC
7
11
10
8
SA
5
12
13
14
9
16
18
15
19
20
30
NC
25
21
ENERGY
(106 Btu/S)
0.735
0.725
0.626
0.449
0.517
NC
0.395
-0.250
0.255
0.365
KA
0.475
0.243
0.242
0.225
0.339
0.174
0.163
0.207
0.162
0.119
0.010
NC
0.035
0.104
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ENERGY
VALUE ADDED
(10* Btu/S)
0.8230
0.7293
0.6707
0.6394
0.6005
0.5624
0.4024
0.4004
0.3100
0.3043
0.2984
G.'2B08
0.2790
0.2540
0.2486
0.2017
0.1957
0.1870
0.1810
0.1610
0.1600
0.1416
0.1290
0.1085
0.1010
RANK
NC
2
1
3
4
5
6
9
li
8
10
12
IB
13
16
17
15
21
19
NC
20
23
NC
25
27
ENERGY
VALUE ADDED
(106 Btu/S)
HC
0.7939
0.8239
0.6059
0. 5905
0. 5694
0. 5210
0.3716
0.2739
0.3794
0. 2899
0.2592
0.1965
0.2348
0.2187
0.2177
0.2216
0.1719
0.1837
NC
0.1802
0.1435
NC
0.1137
0.0833
RANK
2
1
7
5
4
6
3
9
11
8
10
17
NC
15
20
18
14
21
22
NC
29
24
NC
28
31
VALUE ADDED
(106 Btu/$)
0.693
0.714
0.475
0.592
0.601
0.544
0.676
0.427
0.350
0.450
0.376
0.245
NC
0.274
0.229
0.243
0.276
0.206
0.201
NC
0.122
0.175
NC
0.131
0.086
RANK
NC
2
6
4
9
5
11
7
NC
11
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC

20
1

NC
13

NC
24

ENERGY
VALUE ADDEP
(106 Btu/S)
DC
1.1241
0.574
0.7629
0.4713
0.7304
0.4097
0.560
NA
0.3406
NC
NA
NC
HA
NC

0.2216
1.1265

KC
0.2991

NC
0.1391


-------
                       TABLE A-19
SUMMARY OF ENERGY COST/VALUE ADDED (2- AND 3-DIGIT SIC GROUPING)

SIC
CODE
333
281
331
291
286
29S
32
332
111
26
242
347
282
249
335
336
22
289
307
20
346
344
371
287


INDUSTRY CROUP RAHK
Prinary Nonferrous !letalB 2
Industrial Chenlcali 6
Bleat Furnace b Basic Steel Prods. 5
Petroleum Refining 3
CUD & Hood Chemicals 11
Paving & Roofing Materials 9
Stone Clay &'Claaa Products
Iron 6 Steel Foundries 7
i*8.i»B c»r. . con^tor.
HlSC* PrlVUIT^ H6 C til PfOOUCC D
Paper fc Allied Products
Sawmills * P.onlnR Hllli
Ketal Services, H-E.C, 12
Plan tics Materials & Synthetics 6
Misc. WooJ Products
Honferroua Rolling & Drawing ^
Hanferrau* Foundries 13
Textile Hill Products
Mac. Chanlcal Products lit
Ml«c- PlMtlc Products
Food & Kindred Produces
Metal Scoaping 15
Motor Vahiclee 4 Equipment
Agricultural Chemicals 1
1971
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
ic/S)
18.8
12.1
10.9
12.8
4.2
5.2
HA
6.0
DA
NA
NA
4.1
5.8
NA
4.6 '
3.4
NA
3.2
HA
HA
1.8
_ -if
* 1.3
HA
16. 9


RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
»
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
2,
22
24
25
1967
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED

17.655
10.841
9.549
8.796
8.130
7.700
7.654
6.313
6.200
5.912
4.750
4.400
4.333
4.100
3.910
3.510
3.489
3.333
2.810
2'. 465
2.060
1.640
1.550


RAHK
1
2
4
3
11
7
5
S
10
9
15
12
1J
20
13
14
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
16
1962
ENERGY COS1
VALUE ADDEI

-------
tn
NS
                                                           TABLE A-20

                               SUMMARY OF ENERGY COST/VALUE ADDED  (2- AND 4-DIGIT SIC  GROUPING)
                                                      1971
                                                                1967
                                                                          1962
                                                                                              1954
SIC
CODE
3313
2812
3334
3333
2813
2819
3312
2821
2911
32
2815
2816
3391
3321
2822
26
3352
2823
2421
22
2624
20
3011
3461
3714
INDUSTRY GROUP
Electrometallurgical Prod*
Alkallee « Chlorine
Prlnary Aluminum
Primary Zinc
Industrial Caeea
Industrial Inorganic diem. N.E.
Blast Furnaces 6 Steel Hills
Plastics Materials & Hasina
Petroleum Refining
Stone Clay & doss Products
Cyclic Intermediates & Crudes
Industrial Organic Cham. H.E.C.
Iron 4 Steal Forging*
Gray Iron Foundries
Synthetic Rubber
Paper & Allied Producta
Aluminum Rolling & Drauing
Celluloaic Mannade Fibers
Sanmina 6 Planing Milln, Gen.
textile Mill Product
Organic Fiber, Honcelluloslc
Food Ik Kindred
Tires & Inner Tubes
Metal StaBpinga
Motor -Vehicle Parts 6 Ace.
RANK
1
3
2
NC
5
C. 4
8
14
7

9
10
HC
13
12

11
6
16

IS

KG
17

ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(e/$>
29.8
24.5
26.6
NC
17.5
19.3
11,2
5.6
12.8
HA
9.9
8.1
NC
6.0
6.6
MA
6.6
15.3
2.0
NA
4.7
NA
NC
i.e
HA
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(«/?)
26.139
22.90
21.78
19.163
15.864
14.80
9.846
9.61
8.786
7.654
7.416
7.373
6.713
6.655
5.026
5.912
5.753
5.68
4.947
3.4S9
3.299
2.485
2.232
2.059
1.922
RANK.
1
3
2
5
6
4
8
18
7
10
11
12
9
17

13
15
14
16
19

20
21


VALUE ADDED
<«/$>
33.13
20.14
23.3
19.03
14.22
19.19
10,51
3.98
10.74
7.899
6.49
6.36
7.9«
4.76
KC
6.203
3.38
5.59
4.91
3.618
NC
2.728
2.69
NC
NC
RANK
5
4
3
1

2
7
17
6
a
10
14
9
11

13
15
12
16
18

19



ENERGY COST
(C/$)
17.07
20.37
20.64
27.23
NC
24.58
11.15
4.69
11.32
8.483
7.26
6.69
8.38
7.18
NC
6.705
5.65
6.76
5.02
4.142
HC
2.96
NC-
NC
NC
RANK
6
5
2
4

3
1

8


11
7
9
12
10

14
15
13

16
17


ENERGY COST
<«/$>
18.91
19.4
27.07
19.88
NC
24.61
29.07
NC
7.11
HA
NC
£-.4
7.9
6.8
4.6
6.728
NC
3.8
3.64
4.136
NC
3.044
2.9
NC
NC

-------
                        TABLE A-21




SUMMARY OF ENERGY COST/VALUE ADDED (MAJOR 3r-DIGIT SIC  GROUPING)




                                                      1958
SIC
CODE
324
333
325
266
263
261
281
262
331
291
286
295
322
321
226
332
206
241
339
327
329
242
347
282
249
INDUSTRY CROUP
Cemont, Hydraulic
Primary Nonfcrrous Metals
Structural Cloy Products
Paperboard Mllle
PulpnUls
Industrial Chemicals
PapcrtnllJs, Except Building Paper
Blast Furnace & Basic Steel Products
Petroleum Refining
Gum 6 Hood Chemicals
Paving fi Roofing Materials
Claes, Glassware, Pressed & Blown
Flat Glass
Textile Finishing, Except Wool
Iran 6 Steel Foundries
Sugar
Logging Camps & Contractors
Misc. Primary Metal Products
Concrete, Gypsum & Plaster Products
Misc. Nonmeeallic Mineral Products
Sawmill 4 Planing Mills
Metal Services, N.E.C.
Plastic Materials I Synthetics
Miscellaneous Uood Products
RANK
1
3
9
KC
5
2
7
4
8
6
20
16
11
17
13
12
NC
DC
10
19
20 .
NC
21
14
1C
ENERGI COS?
VALUE ADDE1
(t/?)
21,0
18,8
10.7
12.9
18.9
12.1
-12.9
10.9
12.8
4.2
5.2
6.3
5.2
5.9
6.0
HA
HA
6.5
4.7
4.6
HA
4.1
5.8
NA
j RANK
1
2
3
^
' 5
6
7
B
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(«/$>
23.452
17.655
13.237
12 740
11.420
11.060
10. 841
10.525
9.549
3.796
8.130
7.700
6.902
6,760
6.577
6.313
6.242
6.200
6.150
5.254
4.811
4.750
4.400
4.333
4,100
RANK
1
3
4
2
9
10
5
7
e
6
19
13
a
15
16
14
17
18
12
20
22
26
21
32
33
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(C/S)
21.89
17.53
14.07
20 05
10, '29
1C. 10
11.60
10.63
10.32
10.78
5.48
6.86
7.82
6.47
6.41
6.66
6.13
5.76
7.00
5.01
4,70
«.30
5.01
3.77
3.15
• RANK
1
2
4
•j
5
6
3
9
13
8
18
17
13
16
14
15
U
23
12
19
21
24
22
28
;ic
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(C/S)
22.8
18.95 3
14.0 4
12 31
13.0
12.89 5
14.04 2
10.76
10.68 1
11.32
5.38
6.75
7.94 23
7.21
7.88
7.57 7
8.77 6
4.84
8.51 9
5.23
4.95 12
H.83 14
4.88
4.54 8
3.20
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(C/S)

16.39
14.53

11.87
22.71

28.82



1.688


7.22
9.299

5.196

4.519
3.587

5.39


-------
                          TABLE A-22
SUMMARY OF ENERGY COST/VALUE ADDED (MAJOR 4-DIGIT SIC GROUPING)
SIC
CODE
3274
3313
3241
2812
3334
3333
3251
2813
2621
2819
2631
2611
2063
3312
2821
2911
3221
281S
2818
3211
2046
3391
3321
2822
3352
INDUSTRY CROUP
Lino
Elcetrometallurglcal Products
Cement, Hydraulic
Alkalies 6 Chlorine
Prlnary Aluninum
Primary Zinc
Industrial Csscs
Papennllls, Except Building Papers
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, N.E.C.
Pflperboard Mills
PulumlUs
Beet Sugar
Blast Furnaces & Steel Milts
Plastic Materials & Resins
Petroleum Refining
Glass Containers
Cyclic Intermediates & Crudes
Industrial Organic Chemicals, N.E.C.
Flat Class
uet Corn Milling
Iron & Steel Forglngs
Gray Iron Foundries
Synthetic Rubber
Aluminum Rolling & Drawing
RANK
1
2
5
4
1
NC
10
8
11
6
12
7
NC
14
23
13
19
15
18
25
17
NC
22
21
20
VALUE ADDED
34.5
29.8
21.0
24.5
26.6
NC
13. 6
17.5
12.9
19.3
12.9
18.9
NA
11.2
5.6
12.8
7.0
9.9
8.1
5.2
8.9
NC
6.0
6.6
6.6
RANK
1
2'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(C/S)
31.369
26.139
23.45
22.90
21.78
19.163
17. 801
15.864
15.25
14.80
11.42
11.058
10.539
9.846
9.61
8.786
7.87
7.416
7.373
6.786
6.741
6.713
6.655
6.026
5.753
RANK
NC
1
3
5
2
3
4
9
1.
7
13
14
15
12
31
10
I/
21
24
22
27
18
29
NC
26
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(«/$)
NC
33.13
21.89
20.14
23.3
19.03
20. 18
14.22
10.63
19.19
10.29
10.14
9.92
10.51
3.98
10.74
8.86
6.49
6.36
6.47
5.23
7.94
4.76
NC
5.38
RANK
1
8
4
6
5
2
7
NC
16
3
10
12
11
IS
33
14
28
19
24
20
29
17
21
NC
27
ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
<«/$>
30.04
17.07
22.80
20.37
20.04
27.23
19.42
NC
10.76
24.58
13.00
12.89
12.90
11.15
4.69
11.32
5.61
7.26
6.69
7.21
5.38
8.38
7.18
NC
5.65
RANK
NC
8
4
7
2
4
5
NC
NC
3
NC
NC

1

16
12



22
14
19
15

ENERGY COST
VALUE ADDED
(c/$)
NC
18.91
24,33
19.4
27.02
19.88
19.50
NC
NA
24.6
NA
NA

29.07

7.11
9.5



6.2
7.9
6.3
7.7


-------
                             TABLE  A-23
UNIT FUEL AND ELECTRIC 'ENERGY COSTS FOR 40 INDUSTRY SECTORS  (1971)
SIC
CODE
291 1
3312

2818

2621


2819

2631
3241
3334
2812

2821

2824

3221
2815

3714

3711
3321

3274
2011
2611
3352

3079

'3273

2063
2421

2823

3313

3251

2813
3331
322 9

2822
2046
3211
2042

2815
2026
2033

3461
3391

2211
INDUSTRY RANK
Petroleum Refining
Bias t Furnaces &
Steel Mills
Industrial Organic
Chemical Nee.
Paper Mills ,
Except Bldg.
Paper
Industrial Inor-
ganic Chemicals
Paperboard Kills
Cement, Hydraulic
Primary Aluminum
Alkalies 4
Chlorine
Plastic Materials
k Resins
Organic Fibers,
Honeellulosic
Glass Containers
Cyclic Intermedi-
ates 4 Crudes
Motor Vehicles
Parts & Accessories
Motor Vehicles
Cray Iron
Foandrles
lime
Packing Plants
Pulp Hills
Aluminum Rolling
& Drawing
Misc. Plastic
.Products
Ready-Mixed
Concrete
Beet Sugar
Sawmills & Planing
Mills, General
Celluloslc Kaamade
Fibers
El«ctronetallurgi-
cal Products
Brick & Structural
Clay Tile
Industrial Gases
Primary Copper
Pressed & Blown
Glass, Nee.
Synthetic Rubber
Bet Com Milling
Flat Glass
Erepared Feeds for
Animals & Fowls
Inorganic Pigments
Fluid Milk
Canned Fruits
and Vegetables
Metal Stampings
Iron 4 Steel
Forglngs
Weaving Mills,
Cotton
1

2

3


4

5
6
7
a

9

10

11
12

13

14
15.

IS
17
18
19

20

21

22
23

24

25

26

27
28
29

30
31
32
33

34
35
36

37
38

39
40
c/106 Btu
28.6

54.9

29.6


45.6

33.6
45.8
38.1
24.5

41.0

47.3

43.9
50.7

48.0

59.5
63.7

93.8
42.8
48.4
51.1

51.8

55.9

67.0
40.4

83.5

42.5

34.5

46.5
30.0
49.0

53.2
31.0
37.1
45.9

49.3
50.3
58.1

54.6
64.4

59.4
48.2
«/kUh
0.77

0.97

0.68


0.80

0.72
0.85
0.93
0.43

0.59

0.89

0.78
0.93

0.93

1.17
1.14

1.23
1.11
1.22
0.66

0.85

1.23

1.56
1.28

1.38

0.88

0.59

1.40
| 0.80
0.94

0.98
0.71
0.96
0.94

1.23
0.97
1.41

1.29 '
1.32

1.36
0.85
Energy Coat/
Value Added
(C/S)
12.8

11.2

8.1


12.9

19.3
12.9-
21.0
26.6

24.5

5.6

4.7
7.0

9.9

HA
NA-

6.0
34.5
NA
18.9

6.6

NA

3.9
NA

2.0

15.3

29.8

13.6
17.5
9.3

5.2
6.6
8.9
5.2

NA
9.5
HA

2.7
1.8

5.8
4.8
Total Purchased
Fuel
(10* k«i Equiv.)
422.3

367.9

266.3


154. J

132.8
128.0
125.9
41.9

40.9

39.3

38.6
38.2

37.0

27.8
26.3

24.8
26.4
23.1
23.8

21.1

17.3

23.5'
24.2

19.5

23.5

16.3

22.5
12.6
19.6

18.5
17.3
17.9
16.4

13.5
14.5
12.9

14.2
11.6

13.6
8.8
Total Purchased
Electric Energy
(109 hW>)
22.5

40.3

19.7


16.9

33.5
6.7
8,5
42.7

9.1

6.4

4.8
3.4

3.3

8.8
6.7

4.5
0.6
3.6
2.5

4.8

8.2

1.0
0.2

4.8 .

0.5

7.7

0.7
8.9
1.4

1.6
1.9
0.7
0.9

2.3
1.2
2.8

1.3
3.8

0.8
5.4
                                  55

-------
                               NOTES ON GRAPHS
Pictorial Representation of Selected Energy Data

     In addition to examining the more traditional indicators such as total
purchased energy use, energy cost/unit value added and energy use rate per unit
value added, we examined the 1971 Census of Manufactures data to determine
whether a correlation could be obtained among selected factors within the 4-
digit SIC industries.  Among the factors examined were:

     •    Purchased electric energy unit cost and total purchased electricity.

     •    Unit electric energy cost in total energy cost per dollar of value
          added.

     •    Purchased fuel energy unit cost and total purchased fuel.

     •    Purchased fuel unit costs and total energy cost per dollar of
          value added.

These data are shown on the following graphs.

    .There are certain Industry characteristics which are reflected in those
industries which are furthest from the largest concentration of the data
population.  For example, although the lime industry (SIC 3274) obtains its
fuel and electric energy at unit prices competitive with the rest of industry,
for the low value added during manufacture the unit costs are high.  This
reflects the high energy usage required in the production of lime as well as
the nature of the industry, i.e., location, size and so on.  Similarly, the
aluminum industry (SIC 3334) obtains electricity at low unit costs because of-
the large amount of hydroelectric power;  however, it also obtains purchased
fuels at attractive unit costs compared with other industries.  Similar obser-
vations might be made among the relative position of other industries; however,
these attempted correlations seemed of little value in obtaining a better quan-
titative understanding of energy relationships among industries and they are
incorporated here for future reference purposes only.
                                      56

-------
(f>
o
o
CO
CE
U

LL)
  0
  LU
  UJ
tu
30
C
25
20

to
5
0
t


o
3334


O2
°2813

°2911
°2618
°2822



°32
3313

°2812
°3241
819


74


'

°2611

Q2823

•°2046
321
2824°

°3251
O2631
°2621
2815
"0O2816
3331
°O335
1ft O2821
°2211 33
O









3312

I
®3391
!29
2033
O
O xxxx - SIC CODE











°3273
3461












°2










3321
O

421
>5 35 45 55 65 75 85 9
"d/rnrn BTU
        Figure A-l.  Purchased Fuel Unit.Costs Versus Total Energy  Cost
                    •Per Dollar Value  Added (1971)
                                       57

-------
     40
     35
     30
CO

8

>-
o
IT
UJ

LJ
     25
UJ

o  20
LU
      15
      10


4
"^3334
*










3313

2812

+ +28t9
2611
1
2621
291

2818
2622
\






3241

2813
2823 ~
, +2631









+3312
281 5 .
333V*1 +2816
2046
J52+ +3221
28210. 3Z11
* 4-
824 2211 ~

229

4- xxxx SIC CODE







H

+3321 +3;
2033+
3401 '







~3251

591
"*"32
>421










73

0.4        0.6        0.8         1.0
1.2
                                                             1.4
                                                                      1.6
1.8
      Figure A-2,  Unit  Electric Energy  Cost Versus Total Energy Cost Per

                    Dollar Value Added  (1971)
                                         58

-------
  200
  100
   50
:*:
0>
o

X
 I
cr
LU
z
o
LU
_J
IU

Q
LU
O
cc
10
Q. 1.0
   0.5






3331










4,ft1<4
. + 2
2818 H
_i_
2S \2 .
^•^n















2b
2824
+

"*"2611
2822















.
3
911
K2621
-
K2813 +324
J 1 T i_
"•"2211
+3352







312


	 ~ 3714
1 T

+ 3711


i 3221


+ 3229
+ 2816
-f.

^3211
a
+ 2046
-•
-*-
^2823

I

' 3274




+ xxxx - SIC CODE










+
avfy


+3321 '
+2011 3461
+2042
+2033















!421

*"2026




















4.13Q..
• _,_
"*"a25i




+2063













   0.1
     0.4
            0.6
0.8
      Figure A-3.  Purchased  Electric Energy  Unit Costs Versus Total

                    Purchased  Electricity  (1971)
                                        59

-------
   1000
   500
 0)


 >

"5
 o-
n: 100
a
a:
LU

Q
LJ
CO
o
ac.
<

o
50
    10
      25






A

A2818
A
28








2822A A


















19 A3241



















^3312

A2621
2631





2812fi 2821
2824 2815
2063A A3274 2Q1, ^
2823 A 3,£ A ^335;
A204$ 3211
3313









. 3331 A3J
2816^ A,
fl2042

A2211
















A3714A3
i
.29
™%m, *
2026









A xxxx -SIC CODE
















711
A3273
3461


























A2-

























3321 fl
121









            35
45
55         65

        BTU
75
85
95
    Figure A-4.  Purchased Fuel Unit Cost Versus Total Purchased Fuel (1971)
                                       60

-------
     APPENDIX B





INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES
         61

-------
                                  APPENDIX B

                             INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES


 1.   IRON AND  STEEL  (BLAST FURNACES) (SIC 3312)

 a.   Technological Developments

     As  a result of technological advances, the world steel industry has been
 experiencing  changes at each major step of the steel-producing operation.  Not
 only has there been a continuous growth in steel capacity, but improvements in
 metallurgical processes, product properties, and production economics have been
 especially noticeable over the past decade and have led to major changes in the
 planning and  operation of steel complexes.

     Since World War II, advances in iron ore beneficiation have made possible
 the  exploitation of lower grades of ore.  The resulting agglomerated, high iron
 content  product, coupled with faster blowing rates used with high top pressure,
 have tremendously increased blast furnace production while at the same time
 achieving lower coke rates.  Coke oven throughputs, which remained static for
 years, are now becoming larger and, with technological advances, a wider variety
 of coals, can  be blended to make quality metallurgical coke.  In new shops the
 older, op,en hearth and Bessemer (or Thomas) technologies have been supplanted
 by oxygen steelmaking furnaces which are becoming ever larger.  Oxygen steel-
 making economics have been reinforced by the ability of steelmakers to obtain
 large volumes of low-cost oxygen.  With significant quantities of local scrap
 available in  many locations, along with direct reduction of iron ore, steel-
 making with electric furnaces has also been growing quite rapidly.  Continuous
 casting  of billets - and more recently slabs - has gained widespread acceptance
 in new mills  over conventional ingot casting, and hot-strip mills seem to be
 growing  continuously larger.

 b.   The  Industry

     The United States is the world's largest producer of raw steel, accounting
 for  about 151 million tons in 1973 and a somewhat comparable production in
 1974.  Total  net shipments in 1973 were 111.5 million tons and total revenues
 for  firms accounting for nearly 92% of the nation's raw steel output amounted
 to about $29 billion.  In that year, the domestic steel industry operated
 plants with a cumulative effective raw steel capacity of about 160 million
 annual tons.  We believe that domestic steel demand will experience continued
 steady growth through 1980, because of the need to expand, rebuild, and
modernize much of the U.S. economic infrastructure, including transportation,
 power generation, extraction of energy resources, communications, and sanita-
 tion.  Assuming that U.S. steel requirements will continue to grow at about
 2-3% per year, and that the U.S. steel industry continues to supply about 85%


                                     62

-------
of this demand, annual raw steel production should be about 175 million tons
by 1980.  Shipments would be about 135-140 million tons, and raw steel capacity
would be about 185 million annual tons.

     Virturally all U.S. raw steel production is derived via three process
routes.

     •    coke oven-blast furnace-oxygen converter

     •    coke oven-blast furnace-open hearth

     •    scrap-(reduced product)-electric arc furnace

Raw steel so produced is then rolled to final shapes  (bars, sheet, etc.) in a
steelfinishing (rolling mill) operation.

     The relative contributions of the different process routes to the national
aggregate steel output have been changing since the early 1960's.  Prior to
this period, the open-hearth furnace was the dominant steelmaking unit.  It
achieved its alltime peak in 1964 when it accounted for over 77% of the 27 mil-
lion tons of raw steel made in that year.  The open-hearth has since declined
in importance; no new furnaces are "being built and none have been built for
several years.  Accordingly, the open-hearth accounted for only about 35.5 mil-
lion tons in 1974 (less than 25% of total) and active units were generally
operated at less than 90% of their real capacity.  Total operating annual
capacity for open-hearths is now less than 40 million tons of raw steel, and
at least a quarter of this capacity is slated for replacement over the next
two to three years.  Much of the remainder will probably be operated only
sporadically when steel demand is extraordinarily strong.  In any case, we
expect that by 1985, the open-hearth process will no  longer be a signifi-
cant factor in U.S. steel production.

     The decline and eventual death of the open-hearth process has been dic-
tated largely by the fact that the two other competing steelmaking processes -
oxygen converter and electric arc furnace - have definite cost and operating
advantages.  For instance, the quality of the steel from the oxygen converter
is similar to that from an open-hearth, but it is produced about 10 times faster
(in 40 minutes instead of 6-7 hours for a 300-ton heat).  Furthermore, because
of developments in the past decade oxygen converter heats can be tapped on a
predictable, .periodic basis.

     In 1974, oxygen converters—basic oxygen (BOF) and bottom-blown (Q-BOP)—
were responsible for about 56% of U.S. raw steel production, up from 55.2% in
1973.  Total installed capacity in 1974 was 87.81 million annual tons, an
increase of 4.1 million tons over the prior year.  Most of the operating capa-
city during 1974 came on-stream in the 1963-70 period which saw the installation
of an average of 7.2 million tons of new capacity per year.  The rate of
increase has since declined substantially, as the rate of open-hearth replace-
ment has been slowed.  Future growth in oxygen steelmaking capacity will still
                                      63

-------
be  tied  in part  to  the obsolence of the open-hearth and in part to actual
increases in total  industry capacity.  On these bases, we expect its share
of  domestic raw  steel production to equal about 67% in 1980 and about 75% in
1985.  These would  represent steel outputs of about 121 million and 150 mil-
lion tons, respectively.

     The electric arc furnace process, which has now established its viability
as  a significant supplier of stainless/specialty as well as plain carbon steels,
has also witnessed  a surge in capacity over the past decade.  In 1974, it con-
tributed about 20%  of domestic raw steel output, and we expect it to capture as
much as  40 million  tons  (or 22% of projected crude steel production) in 1980,
rising to about 50  million tons (25% of production) by 1985.  The pattern of
capacity growth in  the recent past as well as the anticipated continued growth
are spurred on by a number of favorable technological, market, and economic
considerations, principal among which are:

     •    the decline of the open-hearth process and the concurrent growth
          in oxygen steelmaking, both developments making more scrap readily
          available at economically attractive prices;

     •    the development of high-power arc furnace technology;

     •    the establishment of the economic viability of the "mini-mill" concept
          of relatively low-investment small-volume steelmaking devoted to
          serving the needs for simple fabricated products in a restricted
          market area; and

     •    the commercialization of iron ore direct reduction processes as a
          source of a high-quality substitute for scrap in the electric furnace.

c.  Energy jJtilization

     In  1973 the U.S. basic steel industry consumed the equivalent of about
four quadrillion Btu of energy, or 5.3% of the national total.  Approximately
36 million Btu are  required to make a ton of steel.  The actual amount varies
with the specified product and the age and efficiency of the equipment employed,
with the older and  less efficient plants requiring more energy and non-integrated
plants much less.   Table B-l shows the estimated magnitudes pf the energy used
by  source in 1973.

     The industry historically has derived over 60% of its energy from coal,
the principal secondary energy obtained therefrom being coke for the pro-
cessing  and smelting of iron ores.  (It should be noted that the fuel values
of auxiliary fuels arising from coke production and use—coke oven gas, tar,
oil, and blast furnace gas—are  included in the coal data.)  Natural gas is
the second most important fuel in terms of quantity used, followed in turn
(in 1973) by fuel oil and electricity.
                                      64

-------
                                  TABLE B-l

                       STEEL INDUSTRY ENERGY USE (1973)
                                                            % of Total
       Energy Source                 Amount                 (Btu Basis)

      Coal                       90.4 x 106 tons               64.5

      Fuel Oil                   2000 x 106 gal                 8.4

      Natural Gas                725 x 109 cu ft               20.6

      Purchased Power            43.5 x 109 kWh                 4.2

      Other                      94 x 1012 Btu                  2.6

      Raw Steel Production = About 151 x 10  tons

     In analyzing energy utilization by form in the steel industry, it should
be borne in mind that while steel plant facilities are generally designed with
alternative fuel capabilities, csrtain steel processing applications, such as
soaking pits, reheating furnaces, annealing, heat treating and coating lines,
currently.have no practical alternative to oil and gas as fuels.  Further,
many plants have taken advantage of the benefits of natural gas or oil to
increase the production of such units as blast furnaces, open-hearths, and
basic oxygen furnaces.  Use of natural gas and oil in some of these applica-
tions could be eliminated, at the expense of time, money, and lost production.
Thus, although the steel industry has provided for alternative fuels in many
applications, much of this flexibility is presently an interchangeability
between oil and gas.  Little actual flexibility currently exists to convert
large users from oil or gas to coal or electricity.

     In view of these considerations, we believe that if in the near-term the
steel industry is severely restricted in its consumption of both gas and oil,
the consequence would be a reduction in domestic steel production.  The longer
term response would be pointed toward increased use of coal or energy derived
from coal.  The large programs required to move in this direction would
probably include the development of new raw materials operations, an even more
accelerated phasing out of open-hearth steelmaking, and the electrification
of heating operations.          ,

d.  Environmental Problems

     All major steel mill operations produce atmospheric emissions, wastewater
effluents and solid wastes, although the .quantities and characteristics from
each source vary greatly.  A medium-sized mill may discharge 100 million gal-
lons of water/day while a single blast furnace may use air at the rate of more
than 100,000 scfm and produce slag in excess of 1,000 ton/day.  It is
most constructive to review pollution problems in the iron and steel industry
in terms of individual process operations.
                                      65

-------
     The principal air pollution problems from byproduct coke ovens are
sulfur dioxide from combustion of coke oven gas, emissions from ovens
during charging and pushing and from door and lid leaks, and emissions from
wastewater quenching of incandescent coke.  State-of-the-art abatement
measures include removing hydrogen sulfide from the gas, oven lid and door
maintenance, baffling quench towers, and regulating coking times.  The
principal water pollution potentials in the byproduct coke plant are in
ammonia still wastes and light oil decanter wastes which contain phenols,
ammonia, cyanides, chlorides, and sulfur compounds.  Abatement measures
include biological treatment, chemical oxidation, and carbon adsorption.

     Blast furnaces (as well as sinter plants) can produce particulate
emissions in the off-gases from handling blast furnace burden materials, and
from opening blast furnace pressure release valves due to slips.  Hydrogen
sulfide and some sulfur dioxide may be generated in slag quenching.  Venturi
scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators are used to clean blast furnace gas.
As for water pollution problems in blast furnace plants, these.result pri-
marily from gas cleaning with wet washers.  The wastewater contains suspended
solids, cyanides, phenols, and ammonia.  The major solid waste problem arises
when more slag is produced than can be sold for road building.  The solids
recovered from blast furnace gas, either wet or dry, or from the sinter plant,
are customarily reused as blast furnace burden.

     The primary air pollution potentials of the steelmaking processes (oxygen
converter, open-hearth, and electric arc furnace) are represented by the fumes
generated from the furnaces themselves and during molten metal transfer opera-
tions.  Control facilities on oxygen converters and open-hearth furnaces are
generally either venturi scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators, while many
newer electric arc furnaces employ bag houses.  Water pollution problems in
steelmaking result from wet gas-cleaning methods and consist primarily of
suspended solids.

     In steel rolling and finishing, the major air pollution source is hot
scarfing.  Airborne particles generated in this process are extremely fine
and difficult to remove.  The most important water pollution potentials are
suspended particles of waterborne scale, lubricating oils, spent pickle liquor,
and pickling rinse water.  Most of the scale and oil is recovered in scale
pits, and spent pickle liquor and rinse waters are often neutralized with lime.

e.  Process Alternatives

     Process alternatives that could be considered include:

     •    Conversion of the steelmaking process from the open-hearth to the
          basic oxygen furnace.  This change is already occurring, the industry
          having shifted from practically no EOF production in 1957 to about
          55% of total steel production in 1973.  The trend is expected to
          continue until conversion is completed.  The EOF offers a more facile
          adaptability to pollution control, and the control technology itself
          offers an energy source (low heating value CO-rich gas).  In addition,
          the fuel consumption of the open-hearth is reduced.  The shift means
          however, that energy must be expended in the production of the oxygen
                                      66

-------
for the EOF and for melting (probably in electric furnaces) the
scrap which is normally charged to the open-hearth but cannot be
accommodated by the EOF.  Appropriate use of the CO-rich gas fuel
could compensate partly or wholly for these secondary energy demands,
such as by fueling an air separation plant or generating on-site
electricity.

Substitution of Metallurgical Coke by Formed Coke.  The development
of foraed-coke technology is already advanced both in the manu-
facturing process and in utilization.  Formed-coke manufacturing
technology promises easier accommodation to'pollution control and
a reduction in reliance on limited reserves of metallurgical coal.
This latter advantage is compensated for by the need in the iron and
steel plant for byproduct coke-oven gas which is not produced in
formed-coke manufacturing processes.  A substitute energy source
would be needed.  Dry quenching may offer an alternative for metal-
lurgical coke manufacture to recover additional energy with impli-
cations for the reduction of pollution from the quench tower.
Preheating of the coal blend may widen the range of accepted coals
and reduce emissions because of the closed system and pipeline
charging.

Integrated Production of Steel by Direct Reduction and Electric
Furnace Melting.  This is the so-called "mini-mill" approach.  The
need for a metallurgical coal is avoided as are the attendant pollu-
tion problems.  Fugutive emissions can be reduced by the closed-in
nature of much of the equipment.  Energy consumption per unit of
production may be higher within the plant but this may be partially
or fully compensated for by better locations relative to markets
and a reduction of energy consumption in transportation.  Increasing
use of direct-reduced iron units could force the recycling of a
cleaner scrap and reduce some of the electric-furnace emissions.

Coke-Rate Improvement in the Blast Furnace.  Coke-rate reduction
reflects on reduced emission control investment in the byproduct
coke-oven plant.  Coke rates have historically improved mostly
through more intensive physical preparation of the burden, rise in
blast temperature, and injection of alternative fuels in the tuyeres.
Production rates of iron can increase for a given furnace with
reduced coke rate, thereby reducing the emissions per unit of pro-
duction.  Further improvement may come from oxygen enrichment of
the blast and charging direct reduced iron units with the burden.

Introduction of Submerged Oxygen Injection Steelmaking.  This
approach offers the advantages of reusing the buildings housing
obsolete open-hearth furnaces, and conservation of oxygen and lime.
Emissions may be reduced in comparison with top oxygen blowing.
This process alternative can become significant in the short term.
                            67

-------
     •    Development of Systems for Recovering Sensible Heat.  Problems
          exist because of the intermittent nature of the processing and the
          high capital costs involved.  This alternative may become signifi-
          cant in the middle term.

     •    Development of Continuous Steelmaking from' Ironmaking to Steel
          Casting.  As with any continuous process, gas cleaning and heat con-
          servation could become more efficient through the operation of steady
          state control systems.  This process alternative probably would
          become significant in the long term.

     •    Process alternatives in the idea stage would require perhaps a
          20-year period for development before acceptance and commercial use.
          Included here is the use of energy from a high-temperature nuclear
          reactor to supply the energy for the direct reduction of the iron ore
          as well as to supply electricity for the steel works.  It would
          appear that a significant depletion of fossil energy reserves needs
          to occur before such a route would become attractive.  While several
          other processes can be considered (e.g., spray Steelmaking, electric
          melting, fuel-oxygen-scrap (FOS) process) we believe they are of
          lesser significance for the U.S. industry.

2.  PULP AND PAPER (SIC 262, 263, 261, 266)

a.  SIC Categories Included in the Analysis

     With a 1973 output valued at $30 billion, the U.S.  pulp and paperboard
industry, together with its allied industries, ranks eleventh among U.S. manu-
facturing industries.  In 1972, the combined sectors of this industry used
about 2,300 trillion Btu, thus ranking fourth in the country as a consumer
of fuel and power and first as a manufacturing consumer of fuel oil.  The indus-
try includes about 6,000 individual plants in 49 states and employs about
720,000 people.

     More specific to the aims of this study are the energy consumption and
effluent control practices of the prime paper and paperboard manufapturing
processes.  The inclusion of the secondary industry—i.e., the conversion
of paper and paperboard into corrugated boxes, stationery, cups, and other
retail  products—is  not relevant to the aims of the study because:  (a) energy
consumption in these segments of the industry is low compared to that of the
prime manufacturing processes and (b) the prime pollution problem facing these
secondary manufacturing operations is solid waste disposal not water or air
pollution.  Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis we have included the
four SIC categories—262, 263, 261, and 266—which comprise the manufacturing
operations for the conversion of cellulosic fiber (pulpwood, "market" pulp or
waste paper) to paper and paperboard products at the end of the paper machine.
We have excluded the numerous converting operations (SIC 264 and 265) which
are not major users of energy or faced with major air or water pollution
problems.  Table B-2 summarizes the purchased energy consumption of the SIC
categories included in this analysis.
                                      68

-------
                                    TABLE B-2


           ENERGY PURCHASES  FOR THE SIC CATEGORIES INCLUDED  IN PULP
                      AND PAPER INDUSTRY SECTOR ANALYSIS*
                               (Basis:   1971 Data)

                    TOTAL PURCHASED       PURCHASED                PURCHASED POWER
       INDUSTRY          ENERGV             FUEL                             Equivalent**
 SIC   GROUPS            IQ3 tons         JO12 Btu/yr             Ip9 kK-h/vr     1Q12 Btu/yr

 262  Paper mills except     697                 527                 17.0            170
       bldg paper


 263  Paper board mills      504'                437                  6.7             67


 261  Pulp mills           106                  81                  2.5             25


 266  Bldg. paper and board   56                  40                  1.6             16
          mills
            TOTAL       1363                1085                 27.8            278
 *  Does not include converting plants in SIC categories 264 and 265.

**  Converted from kWh to Btu on the basis of 10,000 Btu/kWh, i.e., condensing power.

      Table B-3 shows a reduction in purchased energy  anticipated by the indus-
 try between 1971 and 1976,  even though there is  an  estimated increase in pro-
 duction of some 12 million  tons of paper and paperbaord  products.  Note also
 that  while some of this reduction constitutes actual  energy savings, much of
 it can be attributed to fuel switching, i.e., to more extensive use of the
 residue fuels (bark and "spent liquor") which are available to integrated pulp
 and paperboard plants.  Because of the high cost of alternative fossil fuel,
 recovery of these residue fuel resources has become economically more
 attractive.

 b.  Energy Usage Patterns of Various Sectors
                                  i
      The industry uses various manufacturing processes,  sometimes to make the
 same  product, sometimes to  make uniquely different  products.  For example,
 bleached kraft and sulfite  pulp often are used interchangeably in the manu-
 facture of the same product, while groundwood pulp  is used to make dissimilar
 products.   The energy requirements and the pollution  control problems associ-
 ated  with each of these major  product/process categories are quite dissimilar.
 Hence,  an analysis of the potential impact of energy  conservation measures
 upon  effluent control must  include the evaluation of  each major process used
 in the industry.   Table B-4 indicates annual production  via each major process
 and the respective energy intensiveness of each.  The table provides a con-
 venient tool by which to assess the relative importance  ot each process from
 an energy usage point of view.   For example, the annual  production of ground-
 wood  pulp is comparatively  small,  but the process ranks  high in purchased
 energy requirements.

                                        69

-------
                                               TABLE  B^3
                             PROJECTED PURCHASED ENERGY  CONSUMPTION
                        (Basis:   Energy equivalents of fuel requirements)
Year
Industry Production
(106 tons)
Energy Source
FOSSIL FUEL
Coal
Residue Fuel (#5,6)
Distillate Fuel (#2)
Liquid Propane Gas
Gas
-RESIDUE FUEL
Hogged Wood
Bark
Spent Liquor
Other
PURCHASED ENERGY
Electricity**
Steam
TOTAL
1971
55.1
Consumption
1012 Btu % of Total

312.3
412.4
27.7
0.3
568.7

9.6
113.6
667.0
NA

276
NA

1,321.4 55.3
13.1
17.3
1.2
Neg
23.8
790.2 33.1
4.0
4.8
27.9
NA
276.0 11.6
11.6

2,387.6
1976
67.1
Consumption
1012 Btu %
1,217.7
256.1
506.9
49.4
2.4
402.9
984.7
68.7
123.9
791.1
1.0
360.4
352.0
18.4
2,562.8
of Total
47.5
10.0
19.8
'1.9
Neg
15.7
38.4
2.6
4.8
30.9
Neg
14.4
13.7
0.7

Change from 1971-1976
Increase 12.0
Consumption
lO12 Btu (%)
103.7 -7.8





+ 194.5 - 24.6




+ 84.4 + 30.1


-
 * Includes SIC categories 264 and 265, as well as 261,  262, 263 and 266.
** Converted from the reported kWh to Btu on the basis of 10,000 Btu/kWh.
Source:  American Paper Industry  "Patterns of Fuel and Energy Consumption in the U.S.- Pulp and Paper Industry1'
        report March 1974 by J.M. Duke.

-------
                                   TABLE  B-4
            SUMMARY OF ENERGY USAGE IN THE PULP  AND PAPER INDUSTRY
                          BY MAJOR PULPING PROCESSES
                           (Basis:  1973  Production)
                        Energy Consumption - Annual Total (10  Btu)
I.  WOOD PULP
    A.  Integrated to Paper/Paperboard Making:
        Kraft
            Bleached
            Unbleached
            Semi-Bleached
        Groundwood
        Semi-Chemical
        Sulfite'
        Defibrated/Exploded
    B.  Market Pulp:
        Kraft
            Bleached & Semi-Bleached
            Unbleached
        Sulfite
        Dissolving
                    (a)
II.   RECYCLED FIBER  '
      A.  Deinking
      B.  Non-deinking
         Corrugated  Containers
         News
         Mixed
         P/S
(a)
Produc-
tion
103 tons
per year
29,201
8,892
18,264
2,045
4,532
4,171
1,575
3,485
5,345
3,250
3,102
148
505
1,590
(b)
2,199
5,292
1,956
3,371
1,500
Total
Energy re-
quirement
N.A
188.2
205.7
33.2
57.7
38.0
12.6
26.1
N.A
N.A
78.1
2.3
6.1
55.2
26.6
21.2
5.9
10.1
4.5
          (a)  Does not include drying
          (b)  Includes 1/2 million tons of news
                                       71

-------
 c.  Example of Changes in Industrial Practices that will have an Impact
    Upon Energy Usage and Pollution Abatement Regulations

     The following is a brief description of five examples of significant
 emerging technology in the virgin fiber pulping, chemical recovery, and
 bleaching processes.  The intent is to identify "process changes" that will
 result in energy consumption changes and that may affect air and water pollu-
 tion levels.

 (1)  Diffusion Washing and Bleaching

     In the conventional system, pulp manufactured 'via either the kraft or
 sulfite pulping process is washed by diluting to low consistency (i.e., 1%
 solids or less) and then thickening to about 15% solids on a vacuu-u washer.
 Brown stock from a kraft pulp mill is typically put over three to four counter-
 current washers with the stock being diluted and thickened in sequential steps.

     .Similarly, in a bleach plant, the pulp is treated with bleaching chemicals
 at 12% to 15% solids content or higher and then washed between each stage by
 diluting to low consistency and thickening on a vacuum washer.  The typical
 kraft bleach plant utilizes five such stages.  Countercurrent washing is used
 where the chemistry of the system will allow but there are generally at least
 two dilute streams from the bleach plant, acidic and alkaline.

     The advantages of diffusion washing have been recognized for some time.
 If it were possible to add wash water or bleach chemical to the pulp stock at 15%
 solids and displace the liquid already mixed with the pulp, the dilution and
 rethickening steps could be avoided with consequent reduction in bleach plant
 effluent volume and reduction in energy consumption used in pulping the dilute
 stock and operating the vacuum thickeners.

     In the past five years, the development of the so-called Kamyr diffusion
washer has made possible application of diffusion washing to pulp systems.  In
 operation an assembly of vacuum screens and liquid addition' nozzles moves with
 the pulp on an upflow tower.  At the end of the travel the "basket" snaps down
 in a few seconds to the bottom of the travel and then resumes its upward motion.
 In this way problems of blinding of the stationary filter surfaces by a moving
 pulp mass are avoided.  The technique can be used either in washing of the
brown stock from the pulp mill digesters, washing pulp from each of the bleach
 plant stages or in introducing and removing bleach chemicals in a single,
multi-stage, upflow tower.  There are a number of commercial examples of the
 first two applications and there is a 125 ton-per-day pilot plant in Finland
 operating on the third application.  In this pilot plant, three stages of a
bleach plant operation are conducted in one upflow tower.

     In terms of the impact on pollution, there will probably be a small
reduction in overall pollution because of the possibility of obtaining higher
 dissolved solids content in the mill effluent and thus alleviating effluent
 treatment problems.  There should be a major impact on energy consumption
because of the elimination of the need to dilute the pulp to wash it and con-
 sequent energy consumption in pulping the dilute pulp slurries and rethickening.
                                      72

-------
 (2)  All-Kraft NewsprlnL

     Conventional newsprint is made up of 20 to 30% chemical pulp, such as
 semi-bleached kraft or unbleached sulfite, and the remainder is a high yield
 mechanical pulp.  Such a paper is a high energy consumer because of the high
 content of mechanical pulp which requires a large energy input compared to
 kraft or other chemical fibers.  Pollution problems arise from the dissolved
 organics from the water solubles in the wood and the air and water emissions
 from a semi-bleached kraft system.  The basis weight of the conventional news-
 print is about 30 lb/3,000 sq ft.

     We believe that it would be technically possible to make an acceptable
 newsprint from an all-kraft pulp furnish, and at a much lower basis weight
 than the conventional newsprint.  The conventional newsprint is made almost
 entirely from softwoods.  Conceptually, the all-kraft newsprint would be made
 from 50% hardwood^and 50% softwood semi-bleached kraft pulps with 10% of an
 opacifying filler such as clay and would be made in a 20. Ib basis weight.

     Such a newsprint would have a substantially lower energy input because
 of the substitution of high energy-consuming mechanical pulp by the low energy-
 consuming kraft pulp.  Papermaking energy consumption would be lower because
 of the 20 Ib vs. 30 Ib basis weight.  The overall air and pollution impact
would be in favor of the conventional newsprint (i.e., higher air and water
 pollution load from the all-kraft system compared with the kraft-mechanical
 pulp system.)

     The impact on wood consumption is more complex.  Going from 30 to 20 Ib
basis weight would result in an immediate decrease in pulp consumption of 33%.
The yield of kraft pulp is around 50-% and the mechanical pulp over 90%.  Thus,
 the quantity of wood used to make a square foot of newspaper would be about
 the same in both cases.  However, the all-kraft newsprint furnish would util-
 ize large quantities of the more available hardwoods and thus extend the soft-
wood supply.  In addition, it may be possible to utilize whole tree chips in
 the kraft system and make an acceptable pulp, whereas it is difficult if not
 impossible to remove the bark and other particles which would be obtained in
 the mechanical system from whole tree chips.  Thus, the total yield of news-
print from an acre of woodlands might be considerably greater with the all-
kraft furnish versus a mechanical pulp furnish.

     The all-kraft news product is still in the conceptual stage.  Laboratory
work is needed to demonstrate that such a newsprint can be made satisfactorily.
 If it were technically possible to make the newsprint, the net impact would
be a large decrease in energy consumption in newsprint, an increase in air
and water pollution from the higher percentage of kraft pulp, a large increase
in the consumption of hardwoods and, possibly, a decrease in the overall
consumption of wood per unit area of forest land.
                                     73

-------
 (3)  Oxygen Pulping

     The kraft pulping system, by far the most important chemical pulping
process, contributes appreciably to both air and water pollution, partly as
a result of the use of sulfur compounds as an integral part of the process.
For this reason, there is a high degree of interest in non-sulfur pulping
processes.  One of these approaching commercial status is oxygen pulping.

     In the kraft pulping process, a solution of sodium hydroxide and sodium
sulfide is used to dissolve lignin from wood chips.  The chemicals are
recovered by evaporating the effluent from the cooking process, burning the
organic material under reducing conditions, and causticizing the resulting
smelt solution to regenerate sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide.  In one
version of an oxygen pulping system the wood chips are softened under pressure
treatment with sodium hydroxide solution and then the softened chips are dis-
integrated mechanically.  The resulting raw, high yield pulp is then treated
with high purity oxygen under alkaline conditions to complete the delignifica-
tion.  The effluent from the first alkaline treatment and the alkaline-oxygen
delignification are combined, the resulting mixture evaporated, the organics
burned in a recovery furnace, and the smelt from the recovery furnace causti-
cized to recover sodium hydroxide cooking chemical.

     The major incentive for the use of oxygen pulping is a reduction in air
and water pollution levels; since there is no sulfur there are no malodorous
organic sulfur compounds emanating from the system—either in air emissions
or water effluent from the mill.

     The yield will be about the same as with kraf^t pulping so there will be
no reduction in wood consumption.  Pulp properties will be somewhat inferior
to those of kraft in terms of tear and tensile strength.  Thus, the papermaking
will have to make adjustments for the lower strength properties in using the
pulp as a replacement for kraft.  Such adjustments may involve additional
energy consumption.

     The alkaline oxygen stage will probably replace the initial chlorination
stage in the multi-stage kraft pulp bleaching system.  The effluent from the
kraft chlorination stage and subsequent alkaline extraction is difficult to
recover because of the high chlorine content and so it poses a pollution
problem.

     The alkaline-oxygen stage effluent, since it contains no chlorine, can
be recovered and recycled to the recovery furnace.  This factor results in an
additional reduction in pollution load compared to the conventional kraft
process.

     Overall energy consumption for the oxygen pulping process combined with
oxygen bleaching will probably be somewhat higher than for conventional kraft;
Energy is required in the disintegration step of oxygen pulping.  The overall1
energy balance on oxygen used for pulping and bleaching versus the power used
                                      74

-------
for generation of chlorine in the conventional kraft system will probably show
higher energy consumption for the oxygen pulping system.  The energy derived
from burning the dissolved organic material will be about the same in both
cases.  The overall result of replacement of kraft system with oxygen pulping
will be somewhat higher energy consumption but a substantial reduction in air
and water pollution load.

     The first commercial oxygen pulp mill is being constructed by Weyerhaeuser
at Everett, Washington.  This-mill will replace an existing sulfite mill of the
same size.  This particular installation may be justified on the basis that the
kraft pulp will have properties similar to those of a sulfite pulp and
Weyerhaeuser will gain experience in the use of oxygen in pulping and bleaching.

(4)  Peracetic Acid Pulping

     Another non-sulfur pulping process now under investigation uses peracetic
acid and alkali as delignification chemicals.  In an approach being pursued
at Colorado State University, the chips are impregnated with peracetic acid
solution and held for a period of time to allow the acid to react with lignin.
The chips are then extracted with aqueous sodium hydroxide solution at the
boiling point.  Because of the relatively mild pulping conditions, yields of
60-65% are obtained on a laboratory level versus 42-45% with the kraft system.
The peracetic acid pulp can be bleached readily—probably without the use of
chlorine.  The pulp properties are significantly higher than those of kraft
pulp, especially with regard to tensile strength.  With the peracetic acid
pulping system, wood consumption is reduced dramatically—by 40+%.  Air and
water pollution are largely eliminated.  However, the peracetic acid is a
lacrymator and the air pollution problems which might arise from a commercial
installation still need to be explored.

     From the standpoint of energy consumption, the heat recovered in the
recovery boiler will be considerably less than with the kraft system because
of the higher yield and lower quantity of dissolved organic material.  There
will be no energy required to disintegrate the wood chips since they fall apart
during the alkaline extraction stage.  The economics of the process depend
upon the development of a satisfactory method for recovery and regeneration of
the peracetic acid.

     The energy inputs required for regeneration of peracetic acid cannot be
quantified now because the process has not been fully developed.  Because of
the higher strength property, it may be possible to use higher quantities of
a lower quality pulp in combination with the peracetic acid pulp.  The impact
on energy consumption will need to be evaluated, but could result in lower
overall energy consumption.  The high yield peracetic acid pulp will beat more
rapidly and so there will be some energy conservation in the stock preparation
steps prior to papermaking.  On balance, the peracetic acid system could result
in large reductions in air and water pollution and wood consumption with rela-
tively small increases in energy purchased.

     This pulping system is still in the experimental stages.  The pulping
technology has been explored thoroughly but the peracetic recovery aspects are
still in need of further development work in order to define a commercial
peracetic pulping process.

                                      J5

-------
 (5)  Thermo-Mechanical Pulping (IMP)

     Recently it has been discovered that a superior mechanical pulp can be
obtained if the wood is steamed at 260°F for a short time prior to mechanical
disintegration and the mechanical disintegration step is conducted under pres-
sure so as to keep the temperature around 260°F.  Physical properties of the
pulp are considerably superior to those of stone groundwood pulp and are better
than those from atmospheric-discharge refiner mechanical pulp.  Yields are
slightly lower than for the conventional system—largely because of a slightly
higher dissolved wood solids.

     From a pollution point of view, there will be somewhat greater problem
with IMP because of the higher quantity of dissolved organics.  This probably
will be of significance in the use of the process since the effluent from the
pulping process is dilute (i.e.,  with regard to dissolved organics) and thus
difficult to clean up.

     With the TMP process, it is possible to make an acceptable pulp from wood
residues which formerly were not suitable for mechanical pulp.  The success of
the TMP process opens up the possibility of using residue wood chips and saw-
dust for mechanical pulp from southern pine.  Thus, the TMP process could
extend the total wood supply by making it possible to utilize formerly unused
wood.

     The energy consumption in the TMP process is about the same as, or slightly
higher than, the energy consumed in the refiner mechanical pulp process and
significantly higher than in stone groundwood.  Beyond this factor, the total
impact of the TMP process on energy consumption will depend upon the way the
process is utilized.  It may be used to replace a portion of the long fiber
pulp such as kraft used in a variety of furnishes.  In this application, the
net result could be substantial increase in energy consumption since the kraft
process is a low energy consumer and the TMP, or any mechanical process, is a
relatively high energy consumer.   On the other hand, it may be used to process
low grade residues such as sawdust and shavings.  In this case, the physical
properties are similar to those of stone groundwood and it would be used as a
direct, one-for-one, replacement of stone groundwood.  In this situation, the
energy consumption would only be slightly higher for the TMP but there would
be a substantial improvement in economy of wood utilization.

3.  INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC CHEMICALS (SIC 2869) (OLEFINS)

a.  Patterns in Energy Usage

     The U.S. petrochemical industry is a very large and diverse industry.  The
degree of integration of the petrochemical industry varies greatly—those
segments utilizing olefins as primary raw materials are normally closely inte-
grated while those segments utilizing aromatics as feedstocks do not need to be
integrated.  The petrochemical industry is in general located near the source
of the primary raw material.  The industry as a whole is a fairly large user
of energy for its processing operations, especially considering the energy
                                      76

-------
content of  the raw materials utilized for producing petrochemicals.  It should
be pointed  out that  the 1972 Census of Manufactures figures  (for 1971) on
fuels and electrical energy consumed do not consider the potential feedstock
consumed by this  industry as fuel.  For example, the energy  contained in the
LPG and liquid feedstocks used in 1974 for producing olefins was equivalent
to 984 x 1012 Btu -  more than half the total energy purchased by SIC 28,
Chemicals and Allied Products.

     The petrochemical industry has been and still is a rapidly growing indus-
trial segment.  The  products of this industry are essential  to our way of life
but the economic  strength of the petrochemical industry is very dependent on
the availability  and cost of feedstock materials which compete directly with
alternative fuel  uses.

     The petrochemical industry, in general, utilizes sophisticated and well
developed technology.  There are often a variety of techniques and processing
routes for  producing a given end-product.  The more recently developed pro-
cesses have been  motivated by economic pressures to incorporate the use of
lower cost  raw materials,  Other important changes in this industry have been
the increasing size  of production units in order to capitalize on the increased
economic advantages  of very large facilities.

     Most petrochemicals are produced from three categories  of raw materials -
olefins, primarily ethylene, propylene and butylene; aromatics, primarily
benzene, toluene  and xylene; and methanol.  These categories of raw materials
are in turn produced from basic raw materials which are in themselves fuels.
In 1974, 23.5 x 109  Ib of ethylene was produced* using approximately 13-1/3 x
109 Ib of'ethane, 14.4 x 109 Ib of propane, 2.6 x 109 Ib of  butane, 15.5 x
109 Ib of naphtha and gas oil.  Less than 0.5 x 109 Ib of ethylene was recovered
from refinery gases.

     The aromatic raw materials used in the petrochemical industry are also
derived from fuels.  Benzene is the major aromatic used and  in 1973 about
1.51 x 10y  gal were  consumed by the petrochemical industry.  The sources of
this amount  of benzene were as follows:

          Catalytic  Reformate               50.9%
          Pyrolysis  Gasoline                15.8%
          Hydrodealkylation of Toluene      27.1%
          Coke Oven  Operations   ,            6.2%

The catalytic reformate is produced in refineries and the pyrolysis gasoline
is produced  in olefins units utilizing liquid feed products.  In both refineries
and olefin  crackers, toluene is also produced and, since the requirements for
benzene far  outstrip those of toluene, toluene can be converted Lo . enzene by
hydrodealkylation.
*Facts and Figures:  The U.S. Chemical Industry, C&EN, 2 June 1975, pp 29-52.
                                      77

-------
     Essentially all of the methanol produced in the United States uses
natural gas as a feedstock material.  Thus, it is apparent that, when the
sources of the petrochemicals which are invariably fuels in themselves, are
considered along with other fuel and electricity purchased by the industry,
petrochemicals are a major factor in energy consumption in the United States.

     If the feedstock is not considered as part of the energy utilized, the
energy purchased in the petrochemical industry is highly variable.  For
example, in producing olefins, if ethane-propane cracking is utilized the
energy requirements for the facility are approximately in balance.  That is,
no energy needs to be utilized in the operation outside of that contained in
the feedstock.  However, if naphtha cracking is used for producing the olefins,
a lower yield of olefins is obtained but a net production of fuel is achieved.
If gas-oil cracking is utilized, even more fuel is produced at a lower net
olefin yield.  If, however, an olefin production facility along with the
secondary production units needed to convert the olefins into usable end-pro-
ducts is considered, the entire integrated complex is a relatively large user
of fuel.  In an integrated olefins complex, including downstream derivatives
units', over 60% of the total manufacturing cost is attributable to energy costs
when including feedstock as energy costs.   Single units in an integrated
facility, however, are highly variable in their use of energy.

 b.  Changes Anticipated

      The petrochemical industry in general is already using energy in a rela-
 tively efficient manner.   The current energy situation in this country will
 cause this industry to consider even more efficient use of energy but more
 importantly the use of more available and perhaps more economical feedstocks
 rather than the currently used feedstocks.  For example, methanol is generally
 produced by reforming natural gas,into a synthesis gas which is then converted
 to methanol.  Synthesis gas,  however, can also be produced from LPG, naphtha,
 heavy oils and coal.   Because of the cost and availability of feedstock, future
 methanol plants may be based  on using coal as the primary feedstock.

      As previously noted, the feedstock required in 1974 for producing olefins
 was equivalent to 984 x 1012  Btu with almost 75% of this being supplied by
 ethane and propane.   Most of  the ethane and propane is recovered from natural
 gas and it is well known that our supplies of natural gas are diminishing.
 There is, however, the probability that the percent of ethane removal from
 natural gas will increase by use of cryogenic extraction techniques and that
 the supply of available ethane for olefins operations will remain about
 constant for a while.   However, since the olefins industry has been growing
 at a rate of about 5% per year, it is generally agreed that the increased
 capacity of olefins production will come from the cracking of liquid feed-
 stocks such as naphthas and gas oils.  Hence, the major change foreseen in the
 olefins industry is one of feedstock.  New plants will utilize naphtha or gas
 oil as feedstocks.

      Generally, the more complex a feedstock is and the more impurities it
 contains, the more significant are the environmental problems associated with
 converting that feedstock to  a usable product.  For example, a facility
                                       78

-------
producing olefins by ethane and propane cracking is relatively easier to
make environmentally acceptable than is an olefin-producing facility which
uses a gas-oil feedstock.

     Generally, the environmental impact of an olefins plant is not severe.
However, when going from an ethane-propane feedstock to a naphtha-gas oil
feedstock, there are certain effluents which become more of a problem.  For
example, in the operation of the cracking furnaces, periodic decoking is
required to remove the buildup of carbon which accumulates on the inside of
the tubes in the cracking furnace.  In the decoking operation there are
normally effluents which contain hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and must be
cleaned up before release to the atmosphere.  This buildup of carbon is
slow in ethane-propane cracking but is fairly rapid when naphtha or gas oil
is used as a feedstock.

     In the quench system of an olefins plant used to cool the product gases
from the pyrolysis furnace, different techniques are used depending on the
type of feedstock.  An ethane-propane cracking furnace normally will use a
waste heat steam boiler followed by a direct water quench for cooling the
product gases.  An olefins plant processing naphtha or gas oil will often use
a waste heat boiler followed by an oil quench system and then a water quench
system to cool the product gases.  The composition of the effluent streams
from the ethane-propane cracking system is considerably different from those
from a naphtha or gas oil system.  When cracking naphtha or gas oil a con-
siderably greater amount of complex heavier hydrocarbons is formed, presenting
more problems in cleaning up the effluents.

     A new technology is being developed to produce olefins directly from
the cracking of crude oil and it is expected that some facilities will be
constructed in this country for this purpose.

     There have also been some recent developments on a process to produce
acetylene from coal which may have a significant effect on the petrochemical
industry in the future.  Coal is, of course, our most abundant resource of
energy and there are several obvious advantages to basing future expansion
in the petrochemical industry on coal as a primary raw material.  Further-
more, acetylene is a more reactive and, in some respects, more versatile raw
material than ethylene.  In fact, many of our major petrochemical products
were based on acetylene as a raw material 15 or 20 years ago and the petro-
chemical industry switched from acetylene to ethylene as a primary raw material
only because of the lower cost of ethylene.  With the increased cost of
petroleum feedstocks for producing ethylene, it may be that acetylene produced
from coal will provide a lower cost route for producing such important chemi-
cals as vinyl chloride monomer, vinyl acetate monomer, acrylonitrile and
others.

     The shortage of natural gas may also affect the raw material used to pro-
duce methanol, another large volume organic chemical.  Methanol is produced
from a synthesis gas which in turn can be made from propane, butane, heavier
hydrocarbons and coal, as well as natural gas.  It is likely that the shift
for new methanol plants will be toward utilizing coal as a basic raw material.
                                      7.9

-------
      The same pressures operating on the feedstock for methanol are also oper-
 ating on the feedstock which will be utilized for producing ammonia.  The
 technology and environmental energy impacts of producing ammonia would be simi-
 lar to those studied in the production of methanol.  Since the annual produc-
 tion of ammonia in 1974 was 15.7 x 10^ ton and methanol production was only
 3.4 x 1()6 ton, changes in energy usage in ammonia production would_have a
 greater overall impact.  [For a discussion of ammonia see our section on
 Ammonia and Fertilizers.]

      Outside of the monomers for plastics and plastics themselves, ethylene
 glycol is one of the largest volume petrochemicals produced in the United
 States.  In 1974 about 5.4 x 109 lb of ethylene glycol was produced.  Ethylene
 glycol is normally produced by oxidizing ethylene to ethylene oxide which is
 then reacted with water to form ethylene glycol.  There are two sources of
 oxygen for the ethylene oxidation, atmospheric air or high purity oxygen from
 an air separation plant.   If atmospheric air is used as a source of oxygen,
 the plant does not require any purchased energy, but if high purity oxygen
 is used,  purchased energy is required.   However, the yield of ethylene to
 ethylene  glycol is higher when high purity oxygen is used, so if the energy
 contained in the feedstock is considered, the processes are not significantly
 different in the total energy requirements.

      A rough estimate of  the energy requirements for producing ethylene glycol
 indicates that about 60 x 10^2 Btu per  year  are purchased for this industry.
 Of this,  about 10% is in  the form of electrical energy and the balance fuel.

      There are very few effluent problems associated with operating an ethylene
 glycol plant which uses high purity oxygen as the oxidant, and most of the
'ethylene  glycol producers in this country are believed to utilize high purity
 oxygen as the oxidant.  If,  however,  air is  used as the oxidant, the vent
 stream of the residual, unreacted oxygen along with the nitrogen in the air
 must be cleaned up before it is discharged to the atmosphere.

      New  technology is being discussed  in the literature for producing ethy-
 lene glycol directly from ethylene without having to isolate ethylene oxide
 as an intermediate.   However, little is known about this technology and it is
 not expected to have a significant impact on the industry in the next several
 years.  Still,  it may have long term potential.   It is also very unlikely that
 this new  technology will  displace existing plants.   It would more likely be
 utilized  in new plants constructed in the future.

      Therefore it is felt that the probability of process changes in the
 ethylene  oxide-ethylene glycol industry is small and, even if the changes
 occur,  their energy ramifications are small.

 4.  CEMENT,  HYDRAULIC (SIC 324)

 a.   Change to Coal from  Gas and Oil                                         <

      One  of the major changes which is  occurring in the United States portland
 cement industry today is  the rapid conversion of plants from the use of gas
 and oil fuel firing of their rotary kilns to the use of direct coal firing.


                                      80

-------
     The kiln is by far the largest consumer of energy in the portland
cement manufacturing process.  The chemical change which is required to
convert the raw materials into cement clinker occurs in the kiln.  Major
kiln fuels are coal, natural gas, and residual fuel oils.  The second largest
energy consuming unit process in portland cement manufacture is in the form
of electricity for grinding the raw materials to a fine powder before they
are fed to the kiln, and also for grinding the clinker produced in the kiln
to a fine powder, which is the finished cement product.  Presently the fuel
energy required in the clinkering step represents approximately 80% of the total
energy required for manufacturing portland cement.  The remaining 20% is
required for the raw material and finished cement grinding steps.

     The consumption of fuel by type for the burning of clinker in rotary kilns
in the U.S. cement industry is presently approximately:

                         Natural gas  =  45%
                         Coal         =  40%
                         Oil          =  15%

All rotary kilns are suitable for coal firing, and it appears that changes
only in the ancillary facilities such as coal storage handling and grinding
must be added to a plant which is switching from gas or oil to coal firing.

     Since a large fraction of the coal ash from a coal-fired cement kiln is
combined with the clinkering raw materials, the use of coal actually combines
the fuel stream to the main reactor (the kiln) with the raw material stream.
Therefore, a suitable adjustment must be made in the proportioning of the
various raw material components going into the rotary kiln raw feed mixture,
to account for the additional iron, silica and alumina values coming from the
coal ash.

     Most of the sulfur values contained in the coal are absorbed by the lime
in the rotary kiln, and become part of the cement produced.  Although this is
beneficial from an emissions standpoint  in  reducing S02 emitted to the atmos-
phere from the kiln stack, it can have a detrimental effect on the quality of
the cement, since a maximum sulfur content for cement is specified.  The two
main sources of sulfur in cement are the clinker itself, containing
sulfur from the fuel, as well as gypsum which is added to the clinker when
the finished cement is ground.  The gypsum is added to control the setting
time of the cement.  Consequently, as the sulfur content of the clinker
increases, the maximum quantity of gypsum which can be added to control the
physical characteristics of the cement must decrease to stay within the pre-
scribed ASTM specifications for portland cement.  So, excessive sulfur con-
tained in the clinker can have a detrimental effect upon the cement by limit-
ing the gypsum added to a level necessary to produce the desired character-
istics of the finished cement.

     The coal ash which does not become combined with the clinkering raw
materials in the rotary kiln leaves the reactor in the combustion gases along
with the kiln dust, and therefore can change the physical and chemical
                                      81

-------
characteristics of the dust collected from that gas stream before it is
discharged to the atmosphere.  Proper handling and disposal of this dust can
be significantly affected by the presence of coal ash.

 b.   Change from Wet Process to Dry Process

     Today, roughly half of the Portland cement produced in the United States
is produced by the wet process, with the remainder being produced by the
dry process.

     In the wet process, raw materials with high moisture content as quarried
are wet-ground to a slurry form, which is fed to the rotary kiln.  In the dry
process, relatively low moisture-containing raw materials are ground in a dry
form to produce a powder which is introduced to the rotary kiln.  As one would
expect, the evaporation of water from the slurry in the wet process requires
additional heat.  In 1973, the average fuel consumption for the wet process
was 7.8 x ID** Btu/ton, compared with only 6.8 x 10° Btu/ton for the dry proc-
ess.  Therefore, switching from wet-process to dry-process plants will have a
significant impact upon energy Requirements in the domestic cement industry.
Also, the most significant source of water pollution in the manufacture of
Portland cement comes from the discharge of water from wet-process cement
plants, so that switching to the dry process would reduce pollution problems.

c.   Suspension Preheaters

     The suspension preheater is not a simple heat recuperative device added
on to a kiln; instead, it is actually part of the reactor in which all of the
various chemical reactions and physical changes occur in the raw materials as
they are heated and processed into cement clinker.  A suspension preheater-
equipped rotary kiln is typically much shorter in length than a conventional
straight rotary kiln, since much of the utilization of heat, processing, and
chemical reactions occurs within the vessels of the preheater itself.  There-
fore, the preheater replaces a large part of the feed end of the rotary kiln.

     The cement kiln preheater was developed in Germany in 1950.  Since that
time, over 500 suspension preheater kiln installations have been built, but
only a small number (22 units) were sold in the United States through 1971.

d.   Flash Calciners

     The flash calciner represents an even more substantive change in the
design of the rotary kiln or cement reactor than does the suspension preheater-
equipped rotary kiln.  In the flash calciner, approximately 50% of the total
fuel is burned in the calciner, and up to 90% of the total calcination of
the calcium carbonate contained in the raw material is accomplished in this
unit before the raw material enters the kiln.
                                      82

-------
     The reported major benefits of the flash calciner are:

     •    Throughput of an existing suspension preheater kiln can be more
          than doubled without additional firing of the kiln.

     •    Large-capacity plants can be built with small kiln dimensions,
          resulting in the possibility of lower fixed capital investment,
          and also extending the life of refractory brick (which falls off
          dramatically as kiln size increases).

     •    Higher fuel efficiency can be attained than with suspension
          preheaters.

     •    The generation of nitrogen oxides is reduced by both the low
          temperature and the short time the combustion gases stand in
          the burning zone, relative to conventional kilns, where all
          fuel is fired at clinkering temperature of 2700°F.  Therefore,
          the NOX emissions from one of these systems could be significantly
          lower than emissions from conventional preheater kilns or standard
          long-kilns.

 e.   Roller Mills for Raw Material Grinding

     Today's state-of-the-art in cement manufacture is undergoing a signifi-
 cant change in the raw material grinding step.  Most of the cement mills in
 the United States today use closed-circuit ball mills for grinding the raw
materials (dry-process plants).  The air circulated through these ball mills,
 and then through the series-coupled air separator or classifier, is usually
heated by the addition of combustion gases from an oil-fired furnace.  This
 is done to dry the raw materials for proper grinding and classifying.  A
 roller mill teams up with a flash calciner especially well.  After the kiln
 off'-gases have heated raw materials entering the kiln, the gases can be
 further utilized in a roller mill for removing moisture from other raw
materials.  A ball mill is unable to match a roller mill in gas handling
 capability, and hence drying ability.  Also, it is reported that energy sav-
 ings with a roller mill are between 25 and 35% over today's ball mill.

 f.   Switch from Portland to Other Hydraulic Cements

     Approximately 95% of all of the hydraulic cement used in the United
 States is portland.  Of the remaining 5%, however, there are several types
which require less energy in their manufacture than does portland and thus
may be an important alternative as energy costs increase.  These cements
are used extensively in South America and Europe and have physical character-
 istics which are desirable and quite competitive with portland cement.  Both
of these categories of hydraulic cements can contain as much as 56% of the
reactive additive.                 >
                                     83

-------
     Examples of these cements are as follows:

     •    Pozzolanic Cements.  Naturally occurring and active minerals, or
          artificially produced substances such as fly-ash, react with lime
          in an aqueous solution to produce a material with hydraulic
          cementitious properties which can he used as an additive to portland
          cement.

     •    Slag Cement.  A reactive slag such as blast furnace slag, from the
          iron and steel industry, can be used as an additive to portland
          cement, producing much the same result as Pozzolanic cements.

     The primary energy related impact of the manufacture and use of such
cements is that blast furnace slag or other naturally occurring pozzolanic
materials enter the portland cement manufacturing process only at the final
grinding step.  Therefore, it is not necessary to subject them to the large
energy consuming processing steps of clinkering in the rotary kiln, or raw
grinding.  A shift toward the increased use of such hydraulic cements would
have -a significant energy conserving impact, and would also reduce pollution
problems per ton of cement produced.  The increased use of these cements would
also provide a beneficial and economic use for such waste materials as blast
furnace slag or fly.ash, thereby tending to reduce the environmental problems
associated with these waste materials.

g.   Fluidized-Bed Process

     An alternative to the rotary kiln or vertical shaft kiln for use in pro-
ducing portland cement clinker is the fluidized-bed reactor.  The fluidized-
bed process has been developed in this country, and demonstrated in a semi-
commercial-scale facility with a production capacity of 100 ton/day cement.
It has also been studied at the large pilot-scale level in Germany and Japan.
This work has been carried out during the past fifteen years and has resulted
in a technically successful new process.  There are, however, no commercial
installations using this process at present.

     One of the important aspects of this new process is its ability to pro-
duce acceptable portland cement clinker from discarded kiln dust, which
cannot be done by today's rotary kiln state-of-the-art.  The main reason that
kiln dust is unacceptable in. todayTs rotary kilns as the exclusive raw mater-
ial feed (even if it were chemically balanced to produce cement clinker) is
the presence of high amounts of potassium and sodium sulfates, commonly
referred to in the cement industry as "alkalies."

     The fluidized-bed process volatilizes such a high amount of alkalies
from the raw material fed into the reactor, that even kiln dust with its high
alkali content can successfully be converted into portland cement clinker of
acceptably low alkali content (0.6 wt % expressed as sodium oxide equivalent)*
The volatilized alkalies are carried from the fluidized-bed reactor by the   /
existing combustion and fluidizing gases, and condense into a fine particulate
material which can be removed from the gas stream by means of a glass cloth
filter.  Because of the ability to make acceptable portland cement clinker and
                                      84

-------
a relatively pure potassium and sodium sulfate byproduct from high alkali
waste dust, this is an important candidate process for significantly reduc-
ing the problem of waste kiln dust disposal in an economical and technologi-
cally feasible manner.

h.   Cold Processing

     This process represents a radical departure from today's state-of-the-
art in that no high temperature processing is involved.  Its inventors are
C.J. Schifferele and J.J. Coney.  In their process, quicklime and an
argillaceous component (to supply alumina and silica) such as a shale or clay
are chemically combined by grinding in a conventional ball mill.  Rather than
representing a change in one of the key unit processing steps, this departure
from conventional cement-making technology represents an entirely new
processing route.

     This process has been demonstrated at the pilot-scale level, and is
reported to produce a hydraulic cement of characteristics and properties which
compare favorably with portland cement.  The obvious advantage of such a proc-
ess is the significantly reduced fuel energy requirement, since the only
thermal processing necessary is for calcining limestone by conventional means.
The main "electrical energy required is for grinding the quicklime with the
other components.

     From an environmental standpoint the quantity of dust per unit of final
cement produced would be less than that associated with portland cement, since
only the limestone (rather than all of the raw materials) is burned in a kiln.

i.   Oxygen Enrichment

     The simplest way to increase cement capacity from an existing rotary kiln
is by oxygen enrichment of the combustion air.  We understand that this is
presently being practiced in several cement plants in the United States.  If
heat losses through the shell of the kiln remain roughly constant, and the
cement clinker output is increased through oxygen enrichment, there should
be a decrease in the unit fuel consumption.  This probably has implications
regarding the generation of NOX, due to the higher flame temperature and
reduced nitrogen concentration of the combustion gas.  Also, the quantity and
chemical composition of the dust leaving such a kiln operation would probably
be different from a conventional system.
                                 \
     The use of oxygen also should permit the use of special fuels, such as
petroleum coke, which may have implications concerning the quantity of sulfur
in the kiln gases and in the cement product when high sulfur petroleum coke
is used.  Finally, oxygen enrichment should permit maintaining proper burning
characterisitcs of the flame when using large quantities of recovered dust,
which could be recycled in order to- cut raw material wastage, or in order to
comply with dust disposal regulations.
                                     85

-------
 5.  PRIMARY ALUMINUM  (SIC 3334) AND ALUMINA  (SIC 2819)

 a.   Background

     The primary aluminum industry is a major consumer of energy as evidenced
 by the  fact that this industry has historically ranked in the top ten energy
 consuming industries at the 4-digit SIC code level.  The industry:s energy
 consumption is primarily in the form of electric power.  The total aluminum
 produced in the United States is about 80% from primary production and the
 remainder from secondary (scrap) production, so it is the primary aluminum
 industry that is the major power consumer.

     The production of primary aluminum is a 2-step process.  Bauxite, the raw
 material for the primary industry, is first converted to alumina in large
 hydrometallurgical Bayer plants.  The resulting alumina is reduced to aluminum
 metal by the Hall—Heroult process in aluminum reduction plants.  Approximately
 4 tons of bauxite are required to produce 2 tons of alumina in the Bayer
 process plants.  Approximately 2 tons of alumina are required to produce 1 ton
 of primary aluminum metal.   Bayer alumina plants are relatively minor con-
 sumers of energy (11.5 x 10*> Btu fuel and 300 kWh power/ton of alumina), while
 the aluminum reduction plants are major consumers of energy (11.5 x 10^ Btu
 fuel and 16,800 kWh.power).

     Table B-5 shows that the production of 1 ton of primary aluminum has
 roughly the following energy requirements per ton of primary alumnum for plants
 built prior to 1970.

                                 TABLE B-5

                  TYPICAL FUEL AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS IN
                           PRODUCTION OF ALUMINUM

                                                   Fuel         Power
                                                  106 Btu        kWh

   Alumina Production       Fuel   11.5 x 2        23

                            Power  300 kWh x 2                     600

   Aluminum Production      Fuel   11.5            11.5

                            Power  16,800          	         16,800

                Totals                             34.5         17,400


     Because aluminum production plants are large consumers of power, the
 industry has historically located its reduction plants near sources of low
 cost power (hydroelectric projects) or sources of low cost fuel ("mine mouth"
 coal or low cost natural gas).  The industry has always recognized the
 importance of reducing electrical energy consumption and through the years
has made some gains in reducing power consumption as a result of:
                                      86

-------
     •    Replacing the higher power-consuming, older Soderberg pot lines
          with the more efficient prebaked anode reduction cells.

     •    Use of larger cells that permits reduction of heat losses per ton
          of aluminum and lower current densities and therefore less reoxida-
          tion inefficiency at the anode.

     •    Minor improvements in efficiency through reduction in electrical
          resistance losses in the anode and cathode electrical connectors.

     Much of the existing aluminum reduction capacity was built prior to 1970
and, as stated earlier, typical power and fuel requirements for these plants
were 16,800 kWh and 11.5 x 10^ Btu/ton.  Typical power and fuel requirements
for new or modified plants are 14,800 kWh and 12.9 x 10& Btu/ton.   This repre-
sents a 12% reduction in more expensive electrical energy but an equal
increase in thermal energy.  The increase in thermal energy is due largely
to increased fuel requirements for prebaking which was formerly accomplished
in the Soderberg pot with electrical energy.

     These improvements were accomplished during the late 1960's and early
1970's, a period when energy costs were rather stable  and there was not the
incentive to reduce energy consumption that there is today.  Now with a higher
incentive for reducing energy consumption, and in particular, electrical
energy consumption, there are real prospects of more significant changes in
the processes for producing primary aluminum.  Most of these changes are
directed at reducing energy consumption but some are concerned with using
domestic alumina-bearing clay reserves to reduce the balance of payments
problem.  This is a real issue since almost all aluminum produced in the
United States originates from foreign sources of bauxite.

(b)  Potential Process Changes

     The potential process changes currently under development or considera-
tion are:

     (1)  Alcoa's aluminum chloride electrolysis process.  This process is
          expected to reduce electrical energy consumption by 30% and to
          eliminate the consumption of anode carbon.

     (2)  Replacement of the carbon cathode in the conventional Hall-Heroult
          cells with refractory hard metal cathode made of titanium carbide
          or titanium diboride.  This process modification is expected to
          reduce electrical energy consumption per.ton by 20%.  At the same
          time it may substantially increase power input to the cells which
          will result in equivalent increases in production per cell.  The net
          result of this modification would be substantial reduction of capital
          requirement for future expansions.
                                      87

-------
      (3)  Several proposed acid leaching processes for recovering alumina
          from abundant reserves of domestic clays in the United States.
          These processes are generally similar in concept but vary with
          respect to the acid used.  Processes involving leaching of kaolin
          clays with nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfurous acid, and a
          combination process involving the use of sulfuric acid for leaching
          followed by conversion of the aluminum sulfate to aluminum chloride
          have been developed.  At least three of these are currently being
          tested on pilot-plant scale by the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

      (4)  The Toth Process based on chemical rather than electrolytic reduc-
          tion of alumina.  This process as proposed could also be based on
          domestic clay reserves.  The clay, mixed with coke, would be
          chlorinated with recycle chlorine to aluminum trichloride which
          would then,be reduced with manganese metal to aluminum metal and
          manganese dichloride, which in turn would then be oxidized to
          manganese sesquioxide to produce chlorine for recycle.  The mangan-
          ese sesquioxide would be reduced in a blast furnace to manganese
          metal for recycle.   Aspects of this process are questionable but,
          in view of the amount of publicity and controversy it has generated,
          an investigation of its potential would be an essential part of
          the industry analyses.

     All of the potential process changes described above will have environ-
mental implications.  Even the modest modification of the carbon cathode in
the conventional cell to titanium diboride would have implications because
the present systems for control of fluoride emissions may be inadequate if
production is increased.

     Since two of the four potential process changes mentioned above involve
changes in raw material, any investigation of the industry should include
production of both alumina and aluminum metal.  However, since alumina pro-
duced for aluminum reduction represents 93% of all alumina (SIC 2819) produced
in the United States,  (i.e.,  excludes that for refractory chemical, abrasives,
etc.) we do not propose any investigation of the relatively small amount of
alumina produced for purposes other than for aluminum production.

6.  PETROLEUM REFINING (SIC 291)

     The U.S. petroleum refining industry can be characterized as a mature,
stable industry which is a large user of energy (approximately 10% of the
energy content of hydrocarbon inputs to refineries is consumed in the manu-
facturing process).

     The refinery industry has been extremely alert in optimizing the use of
existing facilities by continually reviewing opportunities to increase product
revenues (such as changing product mix to produce higher value products like
gasoline) or improving product qualities (such as increasing gasoline octane
number or reducing fuel oil sulfur content while minimizing raw material and
operating costs).  Within this context, internal energy consumption will be
minimized since purchased electricity, natural gas, or steam are direct
                                      88

-------
operating costs and if it is necessary to supply marginal energy from a por-
tion of the crude oil barrel (because of the lack of availability of purchased
natural gas) this will be reflected as a change in raw material costs.

     It has always been profitable for refineries to minimize energy consump-
tion and within the industry unit energy consumption has remained relatively
constant per barrel of refined product over the last 20 years, even though
plant processing complexity has increased substantially over the same period.
The economic incentive to continue this trend will be increased as the refining
industry's access to relatively cheap natural gas for energy use diminishes.
Since in the future the marginal energy supply for refining use will come
from a portion of the crude oil barrel, internal refinery unit energy costs
will increase by a factor of approximately 8-10.  The major efforts to achieve
energy conservation already practiced will be pursued even more aggressively
in the future and consist of:

     (1)  Greater heat exchange recovery, either by installation of additional
          surface area or by making more effective use of existing equipment
          (such as improving the average heat transfer coefficient).

     (2)  Increasing thermal efficiencies of direct fired heaters/boilers by
          installing additional surface area in convection sections, reducing
          excess air, etc.

     Higher unit energy costs will also accelerate the program of recovering
energy from 'catalytic cracker regenerator exhaust gases by installation of
carbon monoxide heater/boilers and/or expander turbines.  Installation of these
facilities has a favorable environmental impact in that it decreases emission
of carbon monoxide and catalyst particulates.

     There are two competitive processing sequences in the United States for
converting or upgrading heavy oils to lighter products.  These are catalytic
cracking and hydrocracking.  Most of the present U.S. refining in the industry
incorporates catalytic cracking, a process developed in the mid-1940's.  The
hydrocracking process did not become commercial until the 1960's.  Both
processes can achieve about the same conversion in product mix.  The hydro-
cracking process requires greater investment but produces a higher yield of
premium quality products.  Thus, to the extent that unit energy costs have
inflated more than capital investment, we would see a trend toward utilization
of hydrocracking in the U.S. refining industry.  The economic incentive for
this, however, is not sufficient to justify wholesale replacement of existing
facilities that are in good operating condition.  This trend should become
apparent only in new grassroots installations or in replacement of existing
catalytic cracking facilities that have exceeded their "useful" economic life.
                                      89

-------
     There are several uncertainties which will affect future energy consump-
 tion patterns in U.S. refining and resultant environmental emissions.  Among
 these are:

     (1)  The likely adjustment of U.S. refining yields to more closely balance
          the total demands of the domestic marketplace and thus produce more
          residual fuel oil.  This will reduce required processing complexity.

     (2)  The need for higher quality products in the marketplace, such as,
          increased clear pool dctane numbers for motor gasolines and lower
          sulfur contents of fuel oils.

     (3)  Increased environmental restrictions regulating emissions into the
          air and water and/or solid wastes from the refining industry.

     (4)  As supplies of indigenous high quality crude oils diminish, they
          will likely be replaced with poorer quality crudes from Venezuela
          and the Middle East.  This trend will be accelerated if Canada
          proceeds with its announced program to integrate Western crude oil
          production with refining demands in the East via pipeline construc-
          tion.  This would mean replacing approximately 1 million barrels
          a day of relatively good quality Canadian crude now available to
          U.S. refineries with poorer quality crude from other foreign sources.

     (5)  Curtailment and/or elimination of natural gas supplies available for
          refinery use.

     .This latter factor could have the most significant effect on refinery
energy usage with environmental implications.  The main uses of natural gas
in refining operations are as fuel for process heaters/boilers and as feed-
stock for hydrogen manufacture.  Initially it is most likely that natural gas
will be replaced with liquid petroleum fractions.   However, in the medium to
long term future, it may not be desirable to use liquid petroleum streams for
these purposes and the possibility of eventual replacement with coal exists.

     Refinery hydrogen is used in two basic processes—hydrocracking and hydro-
treating.  In the hydrocracking process heavy petroleum oils are converted
to lighter,  higher valued products.  The hydrotreating process improves pro-
duct quality of a petroleum fraction by removal of sulfur, nitrogen and other
undesirable impurities.  Since the U.S. refining industry will be processing
poorer quality crude oils, more hydrogen will be used for the above purposes.
A key point is that, if -he U.S.  refining industry continues its present high
conversion processing sequence, hydrocracking will be an important process.
If the U.S.  refining industry is modified to less conversion and produces
higher yields of residual fuel oil, then desulfurization of fuel oil will
become an important process.  Thus, no matter which scenario evolves, refinery
hydrogen requirements will increase and the problems associated with converting
coal to hydrogen could become a major issue in analyzing trends in refinery
energy consumption with environmental implications.
                                      .9.0

-------
7.  TEXTILES  (SIC 22)

a.   Introduction

     The textile industry  (SIC 22) consumes about 2.8% of the purchased fuels
and electrical energy required by all major industry groups surveyed by the
Census of Manufactures, and ranks about ninth in individual industry energy
use.  About 30% of this demand is for electrical energy and the remaining 70%
is supplied by distillate  and residual fuel oil, natural gas, propane, and
coal.  Dyeing and finishing operations consume about 60% of all the energy used
in producing textiles, relying heavily on propane and natural gas as a fuel
source.  The other processes, such as spinning, weaving, and knitting, consume
the remaining energy, primarily in the form of electricity.  Demand for energy
in the textile industry is expected to increase in line with population growth
and consumer demands.  Textile industry sources estimate that total energy
equivalent to 39.7 x 10& barrels of oil was consumed by textile manufacturing
in 1973 and that without additional energy conservation consumption will grow
to the equivalent of 52.5  x 106 barrels by 1980.  This represents an increase
in consumption of about 32%.

     Much of the energy required is used for heating water for dyeing fiber or
fabric and for subsequent washing and drying operations.  Therefore process
changes which reduce or eliminate water use will have a major positive impact
on energy conservation.  Major process changes either under development or
already in limited use commercially which satisfy these goals are described
below.

b.  Solvent Processing

     Solvent processing offers the prospect of substantial savings in energy
over conventional aqueous  processing because 15 times jnore energy is required
per pound to vaporize water than to vaporize typical solvents, such as
perchioroethylene.  For example, one pound of water requires 1,162 Btu for
vaporization against only  135 Btu for the same quantity of perchloroethylene.
Further, since non-aqueous solvents have higher vapor pressures, drying rates
are appreciably faster and less energy is required.

(1)  Sizing and Desizing

     Sizing, such as starch or polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), must be applied to
yarn to give it sufficient strength for the weaving operation.  Solvents can
replace the aqueous medium now used to apply size to the yarn.  Solvent
desizing operations constitute a reversal of the sizing process in which pure
solvent removes the size after weaving, leading to the potential recycle of
the sizing compound.

(2)  Scouring

     Solvent scouring to remove impurities is also being tried, particularly
for some knitted goods prior to dyeing.  In some cases solvent processing
offers the further advantage that several operations may be combined, as in
the "Markal" process for the simultaneous scouring, desizing, and bleaching
of the textiles.

                                      91

-------
 (3)  Dyeing

     Nearly all textile dyeing is now performed in an aqueous medium.  However,
 the "STX" solvent beam dyeing process for carpets can dye most synthetic fibers
 except dispersed dyeable polyester.  Complete exhaustion of the dyestuff is
 achieved by gradual azeotropic distillation and recovery of a small fraction
 of methanol used to solubilize the dyestuff in perchloreothylene.  The solvent
 can then be returned for reuse even without distillation.  Solvent vapors
 evolved during drying are collected and returned to the mixing tank.   Thus
 essentially all the solvent is recovered and recycled, and there is no solid
 residue for disposal.  A major drawback, however, to present solvent dyeing
 systems is that they have not yet been adapted for dyeing polyester which
 appears to be a major growth fiber of the future.

 (4)  Finishing

     Solvent finishing processes, e.g., "Varsol," are well known and some
 finishes such as silicone polymers can only be applied from solvents.  Appli-
 cation of stain and soil resistant finishes to upholstery fabrics by solvent
 processing is also becoming more common.  However, many finishes are still
 applied in aqueous solutions at elevated temperatures.  This offers further
 potential for energy conservation by extension of solvent processing methods.

 c.  Hot Melt Sizing

     Another sizing method under development is hot melt sizing which consists
 of applying the melted size to the yarn by a series of heated transfer rollers.
 Since very little water is required, this reeKices the energy requirements and
 the water pollution potential.  Another advantage is that the equipment
 occupies about half the volume of conventional sizing equipment.  Desizing of
hot melt sized yarns can be accomplished by conventional aqueous desizing
methods or more probably by solvent desizing systems.

d.  Dyeing Processes

     Other dyeing processes with potential for energy conservation include the
 "Thermasol" pad, high temperature fixation process where the dye is applied
directly to the fabric from a roller, and the "Sancowad" process.  The latter
utilizes dyeing at very low aqueous liquor ratios from a stabilized aqueous
foam,  reducing water consumption by as much as 90% and the accompanying energy
costs by about 65%, compared to conventional dyeing operations.

     Vacuum impregnation has been found useful in the dyeing of certain mater-
ials .   The use of vacuum to remove air from the fabric results in a more rapid
and even dye penetration, hence the dyeing times are considerably reduced.
Dyeing at elevated pressures in "becks" or jet machines leads to reduced water
use, reduced dyeing times, and lower chemicals consumption.  All these factors
assist in energy conservation.                                               '
                                     92

-------
e.  Washing Operations

     A substantial fraction of the energy used in textile operations is to
provide hot water for washing and rinsing between other process operations.
Therefore, more efficient washing assumes a high priority.  This can be
achieved by the use of more effective continuous countercurrent rinsing opera-
tions which requires the wider application of new equipment.  Rinsing at
slightly elevated pressures in continuous equipment has also been proposed to
provide more efficient removal of chemicals such as sodium hydroxide used
in mercerizing operations.  Development work is being conducted on the use of
turbulence, sonics, and other means of assisting with dirt and excess dye
removal, potentially resulting in lower energy requirements.

f.  Direct Drying

     Wide use is made of natural gas for direct infrared dyeing of textile
materials.  Electricity can be substituted for the natural gas and a more
recent development is the use of microwave drying.  This technique is attrac-
tive because the microwave energy is preferentially absorbed by the water
present in the fabric and gives uniform drying throughout the fabric, thereby
lowering dye migration effects.  In order to further reduce the heat energy
required for drying, a variety of mechanical techniques can be used to remove
the maximum amount of water in the fabric before the application of heat.
Squeezing between mechanical rollers will reduce water content to 50-100% of
the dry fabric weight.  Further water can be removed by the use of porous
rollers which reduce water content by capillary action.  This technique has
been demonstrated, but not widely applied.

g.  Environmental Considerations

     The textile industry has its major pollution problems in the area of
water; furthermore, the large number of small plants make the industry
especially sensitive to the impact of energy costs and the costs of pollution
control.  Consequently, process changes which conserve energy while reducing
wastewater should be especially attractive.  On the other hand, the type
and nature of the chemicals used might significantly change the nature of the
pollutants discharged, e.g., increased emission of photoreactive chemicals to
the atmosphere or change in the toxicity or hazard of waterborne pollutants.

8.  GLASS MANUFACTURING (SIC 3211, 3221, 3229, 3296)

a.  Industry Classification

     The manufacturing of glass and glass products is a large, widely diversi-
fied industry in the United States.  The Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) is a helpful but not comprehensive guide for segmenting the glass
industry.  The greater portion of glass manufactured products falls under the
SIC 3-digit classifications 321 and 322.  However, an important segment of the
U.S. glass industry is the manufacture of glass wool products, which is listed
in SIC 3296.  Another consideration in defining the industry segment of highest
                                      93

-------
priority  in  this discussion is the relative energy consumption; therefore,
those manufacturing processes involved in producing products from purchased
glass and those that require relatively minor quantities of energy are of less
interest.

     In order to effectively examine the energy intensive large volume produc-
tion of glass, the industry has been viewed more in terms of the industry
structure than on the basis of the SIC numbers.  Thus, the segments of the
industry  have distinct products, sell into different markets, are made with
different technology, and involve specific companies.

     The  segments of the glass industry covered in this discussion are:

     Flat  Glass            (SIC 3211)      including sheet, plate and float,
                                           laminated, tempered automobile
                                           glass

     Glass Containers      (SIC 3221)      food, beverage, pharmaceutical
                                           glass

     Pressed and
       Blown Glass         (SIC 3229)      tableware, T.V. bulbs, lamp
                                           enclosures, tubing, etc.

     Fiber Glass           (SIC 3229       continuous textile grade and
                            and 3296)      wool fiber glass.

b.  Industry Background

     In three of the major sectors of the glass industry - flat, container and
fiber glass - the industry is highly concentrated in a. few large companies.
Some of these companies are multi-product and even multi-industry, such as
PPG Industries, Ford Motor Company, and Owens-Illinois.  In the pressed and
blown sector there is a wide diversity of company participants from large
integrated corporations to small independent producers using nonautomated
techniques .
     The total value of the production from this industry is about $4 x
Historically, the growth has been at a rate of approximately 3.5% per year
over the last 25 years, a little less than Gross National Product.  The major
factor that dominates the industry's growth is the growth and economics of
the principal markets:  construction, automotive, packaging and consumer
products.  Significant growth in the container glass industry resulted in the
last decade from the use of nonreturnable glass beverage bottles.  That sector
of the total glass industry represents about 45-48% of the total output of the
industry.  Flat glass is about 15% of the industry and fiber glass and pressed
and blown glass each represent about 20% of the total output.  The total
number of plants of any significant size in the industry is approximately 400

     Two historical facts are evident in the glass industry's structure and
characteristics.  First, a single glass company produces in one of the major
sectors listed above with only a few of the larger companies manufacturing in
two.  By and large different companies participate in different sectors,

                                      94

-------
i.e., Owens-Corning is in fiber glass, Libby Owens Ford is in flat glass,
and Owens-Illinois is in glass containers.  Second, plants have tradition-
ally been located near sources of raw material (principally glass sand) and
skilled labor and in the general vicinity of major markets.  Thus, the Midwest
has the highest concentration of glass plants in all sectors.  More recently
with shifts in population and markets away from the Midwest and East coast,
glass plants are being constructed in areas of market growth, the Southeast,
Southwest, and Pacific coast.  Also, highly automated production reduces the
dependency on highly skilled glass makers.

     The total energy consumed by the glass manufacturing industry, according
to 1972 Bureau of Census data is about 80 x 10^ kWh of purchased fuel and
electrical energy.  This places glass manufacturers  high among the most
energy intensive industries in the United States.  50% of the total energy
consumed in glass manufacturing is within the glass container segment of the
industry.  More recent estimates have placed the current total energy con-
sumption of this industry at ~88 x 10' kWh.

     In the past 25 years, energy consumption in the glass industry has grown
at a lower rate than the total industry output.  The useful energy required per
unit of product over that time period has dropped from 46 kWh per 1967 dollar
of product to 25 kWh per 1967 dollar of product, which is an average annual
rate of 1% per year.  The increased efficiency of energy use is due to the
trend toward larger furnaces, increased use of waste heat, forming process
automation and an increase in the market for lightweight glass containers.

     The type of energy utilized by the glass industry has also undergone
some change in the last 2-1/2 decades.  In 1947 natural gas was 65% of the
total, oil 13%, electricity 3%, and coal 18%.  Of the total energy sources
used today, it is estimated that 86% is derived from natural gas, 3% from
oil, 8% from electricity, and 1% from coal.

c.  Glass Manufacturing Process

     Although the glass industry produces a large number of different prod-
ucts and serves quite different end-use markets, there are common features
in the production process.  The major unit processes may be viewed as follows:

     •    Raw materials handling and batch preparation
                                 i
     •    Melting

     •    Refining

     •    Forming

     •    Finishing

     The first three process steps of batch preparation, melting, and refining
are quite similar throughout the glass industry although refining may differ
in degree for processes producing different products such as flat glass, where
                                      95

-------
 optical homogeneity  is extremely important, and fiber glass, where the
 presence  of  fine bubbles is not as critical.  Batch preparation is not a
 significant  energy consuming process step.  However, melting of the raw mat-
 erials to form a viscous glass melt consumes approximately 70-75% of the total
 energy used  in glass production.  The refining step, which accomplishes the
 homogenization of the melt, accounts for  5-10%, and forming and finishing,
 principally  annealing, for 15%.  The remaining energy is consumed in ancil-
 liary equipment.  Melting and refining are carried out in the large continuous
 furnace and  it is this process step that will obviously receive the greatest
 attention in attempts to conserve energy through process change.

     Other factors that have been considered such .as feedstock changes do not
 appear to offer any great opportunity to conserve energy.  The compositions of
 commercially useful glass have evolved over a long period of time and are
 designed  to  meet requirements for transparency, corrosion resistance, strength,
 etc.  Raw materials are generally plentiful and low cost.  In no case are the
 mining and extraction of the raw materials particularly energy intensive.

 d.  Potential Changes in Melting and Refining of Glass

     All major operations in the production of glass utilize the continuous
 open-hearth  type of furnace for the melting and refining of glass.  The size
 of these  refractory furnaces ranges from capacities of less than 100 ton of
 glass per day to 500-600 ton/day.  By and large these furnaces are end- or side-
 port fired regenerative furnaces with checker systems to retain the waste heat
 and to reheat the combustion air during the reverse cycle.  In the United
 States 85-90% of the furnaces are fired with natural gas.  The energy consump-
 tion to melt glass varies significantly from plant to plant (due to product
 requirements and efficiency of operation) from 7 x 10^ Btu/ton to 14 x lO^/ton.

     In the  short term the trend will no doubt be to replace natural gas with
 oil and possibly with use of supplementary oxygen.  Heavy fuel oil is quite
 acceptable as an alternative to natural gas for melting glass.  However,
 special problems require that sulfur content be 2% maximum and vanadium as
V20tj be no greater than 200-400 ppm.  Refractory wear is considerably increased
 especially with high sulfur containing oil.  Further, oil flame temperatures
 and velocities are greater than with natural gas and result in increased NOX,
 SC>2/S03 and particulate emissions and higher volatilization from the glass
melt.  On the other hand, waste gas heat losses will be lower with oil firing
 than with natural gas and oil flame emissivities are greater, giving improved
melting rates.  Extensive experience with oil fired glass melting furnaces in
areas of Western Europe exist and this experience could be a useful source for
 comparison.

     Although limited work has been done with 'oxygen enrichment of combustion
air for fossil~fuel fired glass furnaces, this technique offers a potential
energy saving.  The output of existing furnaces can be increased and the
energy per unit output can be decreased with oxygen enrichment.  In one partir
 cular case,  fuel consumption was decreased as much as 0.6 x 10° Btu/ton through
 the use of oxygen, representing about an 8% decrease in energy consumption.
                                      96

-------
     A second short term alternative is the use of electric boosting of fossil-
fuel fired glass furnaces.  This technique has been useful in increasing
capacity in existing furnaces without extensive capital expenditures.  In gas
or oil firing the heat is transferred from the flame over the glass melt by
radiation from the flame and the heated superstructure.  Convection currents
in the glass melt distribute this absorbed heat throughout the melt depth.  In
electric melting, the glass melt is heated directly by passing a high current
through the conductive glass melt by way of electrodes inserted in the wall
or bottom of the furnace.

     The energy introduced by electric boosting is small relative to the total
energy input; however, it is utilized at something approaching 100% efficiency.
Experience varies with specific installations but 350-400 kWh of electricity/
ton of glass produced has been reported.  In a typical operation electric
boosting may increase the furnace output by up to 25%.  Increased use of
electric boosting would shift the energy consumption to perhaps less critical
types of fuel.

     Complete electric melting has been used with success in the United States.
But because of the high cost of electrical energy and the present limitation on
the size of all-electric furnaces, relatively few installations are in place.
All-electric furnaces involve complete new furnace construction and not simply
retrofitting as is the case with electric boosters.  The efficiency is high
with some claims of 80% (800 kWh/ton) being made.  The surface melt tempera-
tures are low and there are no waste gases.  Therefore the air pollution
problems are reduced considerably.  This is of particular advantage in melting
glass containing lead or fluorine.  It is not clear if there are technical
limitations on furnace size since the much higher tonnage output of these fur-
naces has not required that furnaces as large as gas-fired ones be built.

     In the longer term two additional approaches may offer potential energy
savings in this industry.  Submerged combustion has been attempted on an
experimental basis by placing the burners in the bottom of the glass furnace.
This accomplishes greatly improved heat transfer and vigorous stirring of the
melt.  In these experiments a reduction of 50% in fuel consumption compared
to regenerat-ion-type melting was observed. At the present time, however, the
quality of the glass produced by the submerged burner technique has been poor.
The large number of bubbles produced required extensive refining to produce
an acceptable glass.

     Although little work has been done to separate the melting function from
the refining step in the glass furnace, this approach could reduce overall
energy consumption in the glass-making process.  In the present regeneration
glass furnace, both functions are contiguous and the large heat inputs in
melting are carried over into the refiner section of the tank.  There are a
number of specific approaches but, conceptually, large energy input would be
required to react the decomposed raw material in an "intensive raelter" for
short time periods.  The reacted or melted material would be transferred to a
refining unit where the glass would be homogenized at a low temperature for
longer time.  The recent work in Japan on agglomerated batch may be considered
                                      97

-------
 as  a  similar  approach.  Here outputs were increased by as much as 50%.  This
 approach  is considered a longer term alternative to electric boosting,
 electric  furnace, and oxygen enrichment.

 e.  Process Replacement

      Within one segment of the glass industry, flat glass, the development of
 the float glass process in the 1950's has resulted in major process changes.
 Since the introduction of the float glass process, this technology has rapidly
 replaced  the  production of plate glass.  At first the bulk of float glass was
 sold  to markets formerly served by plate glass.  As the technology
 developed to  where thinner than 1/4" glass could be produced by float, not only
 construction  markets but the important automotive glass markets switched to
 float glass.  As of now the replacement of plate by float glass is essentially
 complete.  The driving force has been the substantially improved economics
 of  the float  process in terms of yield, production rate, and lower energy and
 labor cost.

      The tremendously rapid increase in float capacity in the recent past and
 the planning  of new facilities has raised a question concerning the supply/
 demand of float glass.  With the replacement of plate glass by float complete,
 it  is expected that in the future float glass will penetrate the sheet glass
 market as well.  At least one firm has already announced its intention to use
 an  intermediate quality float glass in the double strength window glass market
 now served by sheet glass.  The investment in float glass facilities by the
 major producers - ten times more than in sheet and plate facilities combined -
 seems to substantiate the trend.

      Thus, it would appear that plate glass facilities will continue to be shut
 down  as new float capacity comes on stream.   It is unlikely that any plate
 plants will be operating three years from now.  The effects on the sheet glass
 segment will  occur at a slower rate and will depend on the rate of market pene-
 tration of float into the areas traditionally served by sheet glass.

      By and large the future capacity of the plate and sheet facilities in the
 United States will probably be governed by economic and marketing factors
 including the cost and availability of energy.  Although specific data are not
 available at  this time the phasing out of many old, inefficient sheet glass
 plants would  result in energy sayings.

 f.  Summary

     Until recently there have been few incentives for the glass industry to
 consider radical changes in the process for melting glass.  However, with the
very  real presence of energy availability and cost problems, change can be
 anticipated.  In the near term there appears to be relatively little opportun-
 ity for major process changes.  The large, in-place investment and the nature
 of the industry preclude quick response.  Rather it is likely that energy
 considerations will accelerate the expansion of more energy efficient processes
 in phasing out inefficient operations.   In particular the float glass process
will  completely replace the old plate glass process for producing automotive
                                      98

-------
and architectural glass.  Further, the replacement of present sheet glass
operations, with their much less favorable economics, may be accelerated
due to energy considerations.

     In the near term there are opportunities to replace natural gas as the
principal fuel in present glass furnaces entirely by oil or all electric melt-
ing or in part by electric boosting.  This would not necessarily in all cases
reduce energy consumption but would change the pattern in favor of less criti-
cal fuels.

     In the intermediate time period, oxygen enrichment of fossil fuel could
aid in reducing the consumption of critical fuels.  More information on firing
conditions and glass quality is required before such a change will meet wide
industry acceptance.

     In the long term relatively new techniques such as submerged combustion,
agglomerated batch and  the development of "intensive melters" offer the great-
est opportunity for radical process changes and energy savings.  The pollution
problems associated-with these new approaches have yet to be defined.

9.  COPPER (SIC 3331)

     Most of the copper in the United States is extracted from low-grade
sulfide ores that require concentration.  The ore is mined, crushed and
ground and the sulfides are separated by froth flotation techniques.  The
sulfide concentrates are used to produce copper by pyrometallurgical methods
which are fairly uniform from smelter to smelter.  These methods utilize
drying (if necessary), roasting of sulfides (if necessary), smelting of this
material in a fuel-fired reverberatory furnace (reverb) to produce molten
sulfides and an iron silicate slag, converting to produce crude copper, fire
refining and, finally, electrolytic refining.

     The major energy requirement in a conventional smelter of this type is
for the reverb.  Reverbs can be fired with natural gas, oil or pulverized coal.
However,  because most of the copper smelters are located in southwestern
United States, they mainly use natural gas, which, until relatively recently,
has been  available cheaply in the area.

     There are two major factors that have had an enormous impact on con-
ventional smelting.  These are the new pollution control regulations and the
increased energy costs.

     Clean air legislation requires the control of sulfur oxide emissions from
smelters.   The general strategy in controlling emissions from a copper smelter
is to convert the strong gas streams (typically gases with over 4% S02 from
fluid bed roasters and converters) to sulfuric acid while venting the weak
stream (with under 2% SC>2 from the reverberatory furnace).  In many locations
the venting of the reverb gas is feasible without exceeding ambient air
quality standards for a large fraction of the time, but this is not a general
solution for all smelter locations.  As a result, U.S. smelters have evaluated
other smelting ^technologics, some of which have developed abroad under
different economic conditions.


                                      99

-------
     Process alternatives being examined include treating sulfide ores, oxide
ores, and treating mixed ores of copper.  Reserves of these ore types occur in
significant quantities in the United States.

     With regard to sulfide ores, process smelting options include processes
that can be roughly classified as follows:

     •    Pyrometallurgy: dead roasting, sulfide roasting, flash smelting
          (Outokumpu), oxygen smelting (INCO), cyclone smelting, continuous
          smelting, blast furnace smelting, electric furnace smelting, and slag
          treatment technology using pyrometallurgical techniques.

     •    Hydrometallurgy: elevated pressure leaching using acid solutions at
          high and low temperatures or basic solutions;  or atmospheric pressure
          leaching using "sulfuric acid bake" technology, cyanide leaching,
          ferric ion, chlorine, or ammoniacal leaching.

     •    Bacterial leaching.

     •    Electrolysis from sulfide melts, chloride melts, an indirect chloride
          process, and electrowinning from slurry.

     With regard to oxide ores, process options include:

     •    Oxide flotation;
     •    Pyrometallurgy based on segregation, sulfidizing or chloridizing
          reduction; and

     •    Hydrometallurgy including leaching based on acids, ammonia, sodium
          hydroxide.

     With regard to mixed sulfide and oxide ores, process options include:

     •    Leach precipitation float (L-P-F) technology,  and

     •    Dual and other processes.

     All of the hydrometallurgical processes involve extracting the copper from
solution.  Depending on the process, copper purity can vary widely.  Among the
process options to be considered are:

     •    Cementation;

     •    Solvent extraction and ion exchange;

     •    Electrowinning from sulfate solutions, chloride solutions, ammoniacal
          solutions; and

     •    Precipitation as metallic copper, chlorides, oxides, carbonates,
          cyanides, sulfides.

     In addition to primary copper production, a significant quantity of second-
ary copper (roughly 1/3 of total metallic copper production) is recycled to the
reverberatory smelters and converters found in the primary industry. Should
the primary copper industry technology change, alternative ways of treating
the secondary copper way need to be considered in addition to blast furnace

                                     100

-------
smelting.  As part of the scrap recycle picture,  ammonia leaching  has become
an accepted technology in the past decade.  Initially there were problems  in
making quality copper but these problems are being solved.

     Overall, we expect a high probability of process changes occurring in this
industry which can have significant consequences in terms of energy requirements
and effluent problems.

10.  AMMONIA (SIC 287)

     Ammonia is listed under Agricultural Chemicals in the 3-digit SIC category.
However, it is by far the industry's major energy user and is the  precursor of
all nitrogen fertilizers in the United States.  Consequently, the  production  of
ammonia is proposed to be discussed separately from the other agricultural
chemicals.

     Several changes in practice will occur in nitrogen fertilizer manufacture
due to both the shortage of natural gas and environmental regulations.   These
include the addition of air preheaters to new and existing ammonia plants to
decrease fuel consumption; conversion from natural gas to fuel oil in firing
ammonia reformers, boilers, and dryers; the separation of hydrogen from  the
purge gas in the ammonia synthesis loop; the building of new ammonia plants
based on petroleum or coal both for fuel and for feedstock; and the develop-
ment of processes for removing NO  from the gases vented from nitric acid
plants.  Of these, the only changes that meet the criteria of this study are
the production of ammonia from coal or petroleum in new plants and the devel-
opment of• processes to remove NO  emissions.

a.  Ammonia from Coal and Petroleum

     Ammonia manufacturers are among the largest energy users in the country.
We estimate that in 1973 ammonia plants consumed 590 x 109 cu ft of natural
gas, or 2.4% of total U.S. natural gas use.  Ammonia forms the basis for
nearly all nitrogen fertilizers and is also used along with its deriva-
tives for the manufacture of other basic chemicals.  About 20% of the ammonia
production is for non-fertilizer uses.  In the United States, its manufacture
is dependent on natural gas, both as a raw material and as a fuel.

     The ammonia industry in the United States and worldwide has seen tremen-
dous growth over the years.  Output in 1973 was almost ten times that of 1950
for an .average annual growth rate over the 23-year period of over 10% per
year.  This reflects almost exactly the growth rate in nitrogen fertilizers
in the United States, which has had a dynamic long-term growth.

     The shortage of natural gas has contributed to the problems of the U.S.
ammonia industry.  While the gas shortage is a nationwide phenomenon, each
gas pipeline or supplier has his own^unique problems, and these problems are
of differing severity.  A Fertilizer Institute survey indicates that only
231,000 tons of ammonia production were lost because of gas cut-backs in the
fiscal year 1973/74, about 1.5% of total production capability.  Today,  how-
ever, several ammonia plants are closed because of the inability to get
natural gas, and the situation is worsening.
                                     101

-------
     While existing plants have been able to get gas supplies, it is difficult
for a new plant to obtain gas.  Unless natural gas can be made available, new
plants to supply increased requirements in the future will have to use fuel
oil or coal both for feedstock and for process heat.  Many existing plants
may have to convert their reformers to fire fuel oil.  However, this latter
change is a fuel switch and would not involve a change in the chemistry of the
process since natural gas would still be used as a feedstock.  Basing new
plants on liquid or solid feeds, however, implies new processes.  Using fuel
oil as a raw material for ammonia plants would require new technology for the
United States.  This technology is commonplace in the rest of the world, but
not here.  The use of coal as a raw material for the manufacture of ammonia
will require new technology.  There are a few coal-based ammonia plants in the
world, but in the past these have not been economic.  We believe that tech-
nology changes or improvements will have to come before coal can be used on a
large scale.

     The use of fuel oil and coal for the manufacture of ammonia will require
partial oxidation processes.  These will require oxygen, which in turn
requires large amounts of electric power and the associated pollution required
to generate it.  These fuels are significantly higher in sulfur than is
natural gas, and it will be necessary to remove this sulfur.  This in turn
could imply increased sulfur contents of waste streams, either liquid or
solid.  There may also be increased NOX formation in these new processes.
The use of coal as a feedstock will result in increased mining, transporting,
and handling of coal, with associated pollution problems.  About 1.3 tons of
coal are required per ton of ammonia.

     An additional consideration in the manufacture of ammonia from coal would
be the potential need to develop improved water pollution control technology
if plants are to be located near western coal.  Western coal, however, may
not be a preferable starting material for ammonia plants.  Not only is it not
near potential markets, but it is also low in sulfur.  The ability of an
ammonia plant to use high sulfur coal will encourage its use of high sulfur
coal because of its lower cost.  Nevertheless, low sulfur western coals can
be made available fairly cheaply, and they conceivably could be used as raw
materials.   Generally ammonia plants are located in arid areas where rivers
and streams have less tolerance for pollutants.  Thus, water pollution restric-
tions on ammonia plants located in the West may have to be even more severe
than for those in other patts of the country.

(1)  The Manufacture of Ammonia from Petroleum in New Plants

     This technology is commonplace in countries outside the western hemi-
sphere, but no plants in the United States and probably in the western hemi-
sphere produce ammdnia from petroleum.  New plants built to manufacture
ammonia from petroleum will probably be based on the heavier petroleum frac-
tions because over the long term these will probably be less expensive than
lighter fractions such as LPG and naptha.  Because of this change., it appears
that there will be environmental problems associated with these plants and it
will be necessary to determine whether technology already exists to overcome
these problems.
                                     102

-------
(2)  Ammonia Plants Based on Coal

     A few ammonia-from-coal plants have been built in the world,  but  further
process improvements will be required before such plants become attractive  in
the United States.  Significant environmental impact will be felt  by the manu-
facture of ammonia from coal.  Such plants would probably be located near coal
mines and may in fact justify the opening of new mines.  Since ammonia plants
based on coal can normally use high sulfur coal, it would probably be  to their
advantage to do so.  High sulfur coal will have an intrinsically lower value
than low sulfur coal, and since it is possible to use the lower value  material,
ammonia producers probably would do so.  This may result in the manufacture 	
of significant quantities of byproduct sulfur but could also result in sulfur
discharges in either gaseous, liquid, or solid waste streams.

b.  Fertilizers
(1)  The production of nitric acid for nitrogenous fertilizers is of particu-
lar concern because of the energy usage required to prevent atmospheric emis-
sion of the intermediate products of nitrous and nitric oxides.

     Small.amounts of these noxious intermediates have been vented to the atmo-
sphere.  Current and new source standards are aimed at reducing and eventually
eliminating these emissions.  The proven technology for reduction of NO  emis-
sions is catalytic reduction.  Catalytic reduction will require over 2 x 10^
Btu of natural gas per ton of nitric acid.  Because of problems with catalysts,
fuels other than natural gas cannot be used, and if natural gas supplies are
not made available, these plants will not be able to meet the NO  standards
and still operate at high levels.  If the natural gas is made available by
reducing the natural gas input to the adjacent ammonia plant, it will reduce
the output of the ammonia plant.  Thus, a tradeoff develops between pro-
duction levels of ammonia and nitric acid and NO... emission levels.  Other
                                                A
control technologies which have much lower energy requirements are under
investigation.  There is concern that there is no technology available to
meet the new source standards for nitric acid plants.  If so, no new plants
can be built.  It will be necessary to investigate the plans for existing
nitric acid producers to reduce NOX levels, the methods by which they plan to
do so, the implications on their energy requirements, and the implications on
plant operating rates in terms of lost tons of product and value of product.

     In addition, it will be necessary to determine what other control tech-
nologies are available or are in the development stage, and to assess their
effectiveness, costs, energy requirements, and likelihood and timing of
installation.

(2)  Phosphoric acid-based fertilizer production faces a unique aspect of pol-
lution control legislation which may affect the heat balance in the phosphoric
acid plant.  The manufacture of phosphoric acid by the wet process requires
the use of sulfuric acid.  The manufacture of sulfuric acid is exothermic,
and the steam produced as a byproduct is used in the manufacture of phosphoric
acid.  In essence, sulfur is a fuel as well as a raw material for phosphoric
acid manufacture.
                                      103

-------
      Environmental regulations will force large fuel users  such  as  electric
 utilities and smelters to remove sulfur from their stacks.   Such removal,
 depending on the method used,  may result in the production  of  sulfuric  acid
 at the site of the electric utility.  The logical use for this acid then is
 the manufacture of phosphoric  acid.  If phosphoric acid  producers shut  down
 their acid plants and purchase sulfuric acid from public utilities,  it  will
 upset their traditional steam  balances.   They will no1 longer have available
 the steam from the sulfuric acid plant and will have to  burn fuel to provide
 the steam.             __            _.          ....

      It  will be necessary to determine the amount  of  fuel that will be needed
 to compensate for this change  in process.   This  will  require a review of the
 sulfur removal technology and  economics  to determine  whether it might be more
 beneficial from an energy standpoint to  produce  elemental sulfur  at the
 utility  or smelter site so that  the phosphoric  acid producers can continue to
 obtain the heat value from sulfur.   This has  additional  ramifications in that
 the use  of byproduct  sulfuric  acid  in the  manufacture of phosphoric acid will
 reduce the need for elemental  sulfur.   Since  elemental sulfur requires  sig-
 nificant amounts of energy in  its mining,  this would  Imply an offsetting
 energy savings when looked at  on a  national basis.

 (3)   The drying qf_. fertilizers usually results  in  the production  of consider-
 able dust  which must be removed  from flue gases.   In order  to contain  these
 dusts, some plants have been fitted  with scrubbers  and others with bag  filters.
 Bag filtration has caused technical  problems, primarily  because fertilizer
"dusts tend to be hygroscopic,  and if proper attention is not given to moisture
 levels in the dryers, the filters become clogged.   Companies forced to  switch
 from natural gas to fuel oil because of  the shortage  of  natural gas have been
 unable_tp maintain the proper  combustion and  flue  gas humidity control  to per-
 mit efficient use of  bag filters. The filters are  not only clogged with moisture-
 laden fertilizer dusts,  but also  with soot caused  by  the combustion of  fuel
 oil.  If  these plants  lose their  supplies of natural gas, they will have to shut
 down,  replace their recent investment in bag  filters  with further investment in
 scrubbers,  or develop better methods of  controlling the  drying atmosphere.

      It  will be necessary (a)  to  survey  fertilizer manufacturers  to find out the
 extent of the use of  bag filters  in  fertilizer drying operations; (b) to deter^
 mine if  methods have  been found which could alleviate the filter  clogging
 problems caused by shifting from natural gas  to  fuel  oil; (c) to  determine
 the economic impact of closing such  plants or installing different'particulate
 removal  systems;  and  (d)  to recommend avenues for  further development work to
 be done  to alleviate  this problem.
11.  IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES  (SIC 332)

     The industrial operations performed in iron and steel foundries encom-
pass the preparation of shaped molds from refractory oxides and ceramics,
melting iron and/or steel, and casting the molten metal into the prepared
molds.  The solidified cast shapes are subsequently taken from the molds,
cleaned of residual adherent refractory, heat-treated to desired metallurgical
condition, and finish machined, if required, to final dimensions.  There is
substantial conceptual similarity between production operations of iron and
steel foundries, but the difference in properties and resulting behavior of

                                      104

-------
iron and steel cause them to be processed in essentially independent foundries
with only slight overlap in the two types of metal.

     Ferrous foundries produce castings in three principal classes of gray and
ductile iron and malleable iron of which the gray iron is predominant.

                                 TABLE B-6
                           SHIPMENTS OF CASTINGS
                                  (106 ton)

                        Gray &       Malleable
                     Ductile Iron*     Iron        Steel          Total
       1974 (est)         16.8          0.9         2.1           19.8
       1973               17.3          1.0         1.9           20.2
       1972               15.3          1.0         1.6           17.9
       1971               13.8          0.9         1.6           16.3
       1970               14.0          0.8         1.4           16.2
       1969               15.9          1.2         1.5           18.6
       1968               15 ;i          1.1         1.4           17.6
       1967               14.3          l.O         1.3           16.7

       *Production of ductile iron castings is estimated to be about
        15% of the gray and ductile category.


This metal production is accomplished in coke-fueled cupolas or electric fur-
naces, either arc-heated or induction heated, depending upon the type of
product metal.

     The use of reverberatory or  open-hearth furnaces has almost completely
passed into obsolescence.  There  are only 4 to 6 remaining open-hearth shops
which use silica or acid brick linings for producing specialty grades of cast
steels for large process industry machinery.  Cupolas produce about 75-80% of
the gray cast iron and about 25%  of the ductile iron.  Both electric arc-
furnaces and coreless induction furnaces are used to produce the balance of
the gray iron ductile.  The trend in ductile is to arc-furnaces.

     The malleable iron is predominantly melted by induction heating furnaces,
either coreless or channel, and this transition is essentially complete.  The
production of steel castings was  the first foundry operation to turn to elec-
tric furnaces.  Except for the few acid open-hearths mentioned above, all
steel castings are now produced by electric furnaces.  Arc furnaces are used
for the larger sand castings of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel, while high
frequency coreless induction furnaces are used for small castings in carbon
and medium alloy steel and all castings in high alloy steels and superalloys.

     The traditional iron foundry produced gray iron castings by melting pig
iron in a cupola and casting the molten pig iron in sand molds.  The cupola
is a vertical or shaft furnace with a sand bed which is alternately charged
with coke and melting stock.  With air injected through these layers into the
furnace hearth, the coke is combusted and brings about sufficient temperatures
                                     105

-------
to melt the metal in the charge.  As the exhaust gases pass up through the
stack, they preheat the overhead burden.  The consumption of the coke and the
melting of the charge metal cause the burden to settle gradually in the shaft,
thus allowing the operation of the cupola to be relatively continuous and
uncomplicated..  If the charge metal in the burden is all pig iron, the rate
of coke consumption could be as low as 150 Ib/ton of molten pig iron, but the
availability of steel scrap at low cost relative to the price for purchasing
pig iron has led to the practice of displacing some of the pig iron in the
charge with steel scrap.  Since the steel scrap contains very little carbon,
compared to cast iron (which contains about 3.5-4% of carbon by weight), the
carbon deficiency in the molten charge is corrected by the solution of carbon
from the hearth coke as the melting metal trickles through.  In addition, the
low carbon steel scrap in the charge has a higher melting point than pig iron
and thus requires increased combustion of coke to reach the higher tempera-
tures .  These two effects together have resulted in the consumption of coke
increasing to current levels of 250 Ib/ton of molten iron.

     The supply of suitable foundry coke is one of the most serious problems
threatening cupola melting of cast irons.  The present outlook is that the
coke supply will be constricted until at least 1980.  The constricted supply
will impose severe cost pressures and economic penalties on cupola melting
operations.  This coke supply problem, in conjunction with the benefits
offered by electric melting, is expected to lead to the continued transition
of the bulk of the cupola melting to electric furnace melting, and most prob-
ably to coreless induction melting.  The comparative energy demands for these
alternative furnace practices are shown in Table B-7.

   _ _The preceding data shows that current shipments of castings by iron and
steer foundries are on the order of 20 x 10^ ton/yr.  These shipments require
the actual melting of about 31 x 10^ tons of metal with about 18 x 10^ tons
from cupolas and the balance from electric furnaces.  The industry long-term
expectation of transition from cupolas to electric furnaces will continue and
will increase the electric power generation demand accordingly.

     These trends, coupled with nominal growth for castings of 3% per year,
could increase purchased electrical energy from current levels of 8 x 10^ kWh
per year by a factor of 4 in 10 years, if all the cupolas are converted in
that time span.  This would increase energy consumption for power generation
from about 25 x 1012 Btu to the order 100 x lO*2 Btu.
                                      106

-------
                                 TABLE B-7

                FERROUS FOUNDRY MELTING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
                   (Energy Consumption/Ton Molten Metal)
                         Cupola
                   Electric Arc
                                         Induction
Coke
  250 Ib

3.25xl06Btu
Gas
  483 cu ft

0.5xl06Btu
Electricity
  40 kWh

0.14x105Btu
 500-550 kWh

1.7-1.9x106Btu
 600-650  kWh

2.0-2.2xl06Btu
For Generation

of Electricity
0.45x106Btu
  5.5-6 .&10<>Btu
  6.6-7.2xl06Btu
12.  ZINC (SIC 3333)

     The primary zinc  industry is nearly wholly based on five technologies;

     •    Horizontal retort
                                  i
     •    Vertical retort  (New Jersey Zinc)

     •    Electrothermic  (St.  Joseph Lead Process)

     •    Imperial Smelting Process (ISP)

     •    Electrolytic
                                      107

-------
     As a result of high labor requirements and environmental pressures, the
horizontal retort technology is largely phased out.  Although the ISP alter-
native is considered to be viable for bulk lead-zinc concentrates,  most of
the new zinc "smelters" are being based on electrolytic plants.

     Many of the process options considered under copper are equally applicable
to zinc. However, we feel that most of the older plants in the United States that
relied on horizontal retort technology will be converted to the electrolytic
process.  Among the major factors forcing the industry in this direction are
requirements of the U.S. market for large quantities of high grade  zinc.  As
a result, pollution/effluent problems from zinc dust and fumes in the hori-
zontal retort facilities are being eliminated by choosing the electrolytic
route.  In addition, fossil fuel requirements will be reduced at the expense
of using more electric power.  The recent development of a variety  of hot acid
leaching processes to recover additional zinc values will result in additional
solid waste problems.

     "As a result, we feel that process change in this industry is inevitable
and new zinc plants will be built.  We believe environmental problems will not
be as severe as in other metal industries partially because pollution prob-
lems are being passed back to the utility company generating electric power.
Thus, the form of energy used is changed, and to the extent that the utility
is based on coal and hydroelectric power rather than gas or oil, energy con-
servation in the broad sense of the word is achieved.

13.  ALKALIES AND CHLORINE (SIC 2812)

a.  Introduction

     The chlor-alkali industry includes three major industrial inorganic
chemicals, chlorine, caustic soda, and soda ash.  The electrolysis  of brine,
which produces 1.1 tons of coproduct caustic for every ton of chlorine pro-
duced, accounts for virtually all caustic production and approximately 95% of
U.S. chlorine production.  The remaining 5% of chlorine production  is obtained
either as a byproduct of magnesium production or from the catalytic oxidation
of waste HC1 streams by oxycfilorination or from the Kel^Chlor® process.  Soda
ash is produced in roughly equal amounts via the venerable Solvay synthetic
process or from treatment of natural ores in Green River, Wyoming,  and Searles
Lake, California.  The production of chlorine and caustic soda is one of the
most energy intensive chemical processing technologies—primarily due to the
use of brine electrolysis—and, together with soda ash, the chlor-alkali chem-
icals rank ninth in total energy consumption by SIC 4-digit code, according
to the 1972 Census of Manufactures.

b.  Process Description

(1)  Chlorine/Caustic

     The electrolytic decomposition of solid salt or a brine solution is
carried out in either the diaphragm cell or the so-called mercury cell.  The
                                     108

-------
diaphragm cell, accounting for nearly 80% of electrolytic production  capacity,
utilizes metal or graphite electrodes to produce chlorine and  hydrogen gas, and
a weak caustic solution.  This solution must be concentrated from 10-12%  to
approximately 50% NaOH via evaporation.  The mercury cell, an  older process,
utilizes a stable metal or graphite anode and a moving mercury cathode.   It
utilizes a solid salt feed to produce chlorine and hydrogen gas,  as well  as
a concentrated caustic stream which needs virtually no further processing.

     The energy requirements for the diaphragm cell range from 2,400  kWh  to
approximately 3,000 kWh/ton of chlorine produced, depending upon the  specific
cell-type and electrode configuration utilized.  In addition,  approximately
10,OUO-12,000 Ib of steam/ton of caustic are required to concentrate  the
caustic stream to, commercially usable 50% NaOH.  Mercury cells require  3,000-
3,500 kWh/ton of chlorine, but do not require any further steam for concentra-
tion of the caustic stream.  Electricity for electrolysis is purchased
from local utilities  as  well as generated on-site in conjunction with  steam
raising for caustic concentration.

     Air pollution problems resulting from either the mercury  cell or the
diaphragm cell are relatively minor, being comprised primarily of miscellane-
ous fugitive chlorine and hydrogen emissions.  Water and solid waste  pollu-
tants include miscellaneous brine treatment waste and caustic  concentration
waste streams, as well as a semi-liquid brine sludge residue  from the origi-
nal brine feed.  In addition, the mercury cell faces potentially severe water-
pollution problems from free mercury discharges, although manufacturers have
developed effective know-how in the'last ten years to control  mercury dis-
charges.  Also, the disposal of spent asbestos diaphragms represents  a  problem
which currently is generally met simply by storing them on the plant  site.

(2)  Soda Ash

     The Solvay synthetic process utilizes- salt, limestone, and coke  as its
raw materials and produces a sodium bicarbonate which must be  calcined  to
produce soda ash (^2003) .  Most of the U.S. Solvay plants are extremely old
and several have shut down recently as a result of deteriorating economic and
environmental conditions.  1974 was the first year in which natural soda  ash
production exceeded that from Solvay production, and represents the continua-
tion of a trend toward greater reliance on natural production due to  better
process economics and less severe environmental problems.  The production of
soda ash from natural Trona ores or brines is a relatively straightforward
purification process which separates naturally available sodium carbonate
from unwanted materials contained in the ore.

     Energy requirements for Solvay production range from 12,000-14,000 Btu/
ton of product, depending upon the age and efficiency of the plant in question,
and is largely utilized in steam raising and for calcining.  Natural  produc-
tion on the other hand, requires only 6,500-7,000 Btu/ton of  finished product,
depending upon fuel type, and is primarily required in the calcining  of raw
Trona ore.
                                     109

-------
      Pollution problems  are most  severe with  the  Solvay process which produces
 byproduct  calcium chloride, an  extremely hygroscopic material which is diffi-
 cult  to collect and  purify via  normal evaporation techniques.  Arrangements
 for calcium chloride disposal vary from plant to  plant, and range from dumping'
 in a  local salt marsh, in the case of PPG's Corpus Christi plant, to reinjec-
 tion  into  a salt formation, in  the case of Allied's Syracuse plant.  The
 natural process at Green River, Wyoming incurs virtually no environmental
 problems other than  miscellaneous tailing streams and washing or concentration
 stream  effluent.

 c.  Process Changes

 (1)   Chlorine/Caustic

      Due to the potentially catastrophic environmental damage resulting from
 a mercury  spill, we  do not expect any new mercury cell plants to be built in
 the United  States  over the period of study.  Hence, we would not look for
 major process  changes in mercury cell technology.  For diaphragm cells how-
 ever, a number  of  changes are currently underway or likely to occur over the
 next  fifteen years.   The most important changes are enumerated below:

 (a)   Dimensionally Stable Anodes (PSA)

      This concept is well-advanced currently,  with approximately half of the
 industry having switched to DSA technology already.   DSA involves metal elec-
 trodes  coated with a  special electrolytically conductive material to reduce
 over-voltage and extend1electrode life.   We would expect the industry to be
 entirely on DSA diaphragm cells by 1980.

 (b)   Synthetic Diaphragms

     With improvements in electrode technology, the asbestos diaphragm has
become  the most inefficient element of a diaphragm cell and research is cur-
rently underway to develop suitable synthetic  substitutes.   A joint Hooker-
DuPont program is currently testing a commercial-sized perfluorosulphonic
acid membrane, which reduces electricity consumption and produces a caustic
 stream of higher concentration than that available from cells utilizing
asbestos diaphragms.   We expect commercialization of this technqlogy beginning
five years hence.

 (c)   Changes in Cell Geometry

     A newly developed bi-polar cell is available which is reputed to reduce
 electricity consumption by approximately 5% over the currently prevalent mono-
polar designs.  This process,  though commercially available, is currently used
only  on a limited basis,  but we expect it to increase its penetration of total
 chlorine capacity over the next 5-10 years.
                                     110

-------
(d)  HC1 Oxidation

     The newly developed Kel-Chlor® process, along with the older  oxychlorina-
tion technology, represent processes which utilize waste HC1 from  chlorocarbon
manufacture to produce make-up chlorine.  We expect increasing use of  these
processes, but together they will probably not account for more than 10%  of
total chlorine production by 1985.

(2)  Soda Ash

     Due to the complexity of the process and its comparatively high energy-
intensity, we do not anticipate any further Solvay plant openings  in the
United States.  In fact we anticipate further Solvay closings over the next
five years, as increased Green River capacity is opened; hence, we do  not
expect major process changes in Solvay soda ash production.  Green River
natural production capacity is expanding drastically, and by the end of the
decade we expect it to predominate.  We do not, however, anticipate process
changes in the Green River plants, except for the development of multi-fuel
firing capabilities for steam-raising and process heat.  Hence, process
change in the manufacture of soda ash will take the form of gradual disappear-
ance of the old synthetic process in favor of the newer, more economical,
natural processes.

d.  Pollution Effluent Consequences of Process Change

(1)  Chlorine/Caustic

     The process changes which we anticipate in the electrolytic production
of chlorine and caustic all involve evolutionary developments of current  tech-
nologies.  We expect the electrolytic process to remain the dominant process
with no basic change in effluent types or levels from those currently  experi-
enced.  The further development of the Kel-Chlor® process could have direct
pollution impacts in that it utilizes waste HC1 which otherwise would  be
neutralized or dumped.

(2)  Soda Ash

     With the anticipated gradual disappearance of the Solvay process, the
problem of calcium chloride effluent control will likewise gradually diminish.
Since the Green River Trona process is virtually pollution free, its emergence
as the predominant source of soda ash will thus result in the reduction,  over
time, of calcium chloride as a source of pollution from soda ash manufacture.
We expect that the transition to completely natural production will occur by
1985.

e.  Energy Consequences of Process Changes

(1)  Chlorine/Caustic

     The major process changes outlined earlier have the potential of  signifi-
cant energy savings in the manufacture of chlorine.  Practical experience with
DSA operations indicates an energy saving of 5-10% is possible in diaphragm


                                      111

-------
cell operation.  However, much of the industry is already utilizing DSA tech-
nology, hence, further implementation will result in an industry energy sav-
ings of less than 5%.  The use of synthetic diaphragms is expected to reduce
electric power requirements by about 5%, and since a caustic solution of
higher concentration is produced, steam requirements for caustic concentration
could be reduced by as much as 80%.  Bi-polar diaphragm cell designs are
claimed by their manufacturer to reduce power requirements by 5-10%, although
this saving is not fully proven as yet.  Overall, process changes expected to
occur within the next 15 years could potentially reduce energy consumption in
chlorine/caustic manufacture by 10-20% from current levels.

(2)  Soda Ash

     Since the Green River process utilizes approximately half as much energy
per ton of finished product, we expect that the gradual disappearance of the
Solvay process will result in a net energy reduction for soda ash production.
It should be pointed out however, that this reduction will be the result of
the continued emergence of Green River as the source of soda ash production
and not specific process changes designed to reduce energy consumption.

14.  INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS N.E.C. (SIC 2819)

a.  Introduction

     Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, N.E.C., historically has been one of the
highest energy using industries.  This high energy usage, however, is par-
tially attributable to the large number of inorganic chemicals assigned to
this SIC category.  The leading energy users are sulfuric acid and oleum,
aluminum oxide, sodium tripolyphosphate, and elemental phosphorus.  Because
many of the processes for producing inorganic chemicals are based either on
purification of naturally occurring compounds or chemical reactions for which
a limited number of process options are available, we have chosen to consider
only the four leaders as potential candidates for in-depth analysis.

     Of these four, the production of sulfuric acid and oleum was removed
from further consideration as it is usually a net producer of energy.  Slightly
over 1 x 106 tons of sodium tripolyphosphate were produced in 1971, but the
estimated energy required for production (13.9 x 10^ Btu/ton, for a total
energy use of 0.014 x 10^5 Btu in 1971) was relatively low, so sodium tripoly-
phosphate was also removed from further consideration.

     The third large volume inorganic chemical is alumina.  However, since the
major portion of this chemical is used in the production of primary aluminum,
we have chosen to combine alumina production with primary aluminum production
and have discussed it more fully under primary aluminum.

     The fourth leading inorganic chemical is elemental phosphorus and phos-
phoric acid, the production of which is discussed below.
                                     112

-------
b.   Phosphorus and Industrial Phosphoric Acid

(1)  Background

     In the United States, almost all industrial phosphoric acid  and  all  indus-
trial phosphates are derived from elemental phosphorus.   The small  plant  oper-
ated by the Tennessee Valley Administration is not included in Table  B-8  since
closedown of the operation is planned as soon as its production can be with-
drawn from the United States market without affecting the adequacy  of phos-
phorus supply.

                                 TABLE B-8

                CURRENT U.S. ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PRODUCERS


                                                           Annual Plant
                                                             Capacity
   Company                        Location                 Tons Phosphorus

   FMC                            Idaho                         134,000

   Monsanto                       Idaho                         100,000

                                 Tennessee                    140,000

   Hooker                         Tennessee                    70,000

   Stauffer                       Tennessee                    63,000

                                 Montana                      42,000

                                 Florida                      21,000

   Mobil                          Florida                        5,300

   Holmes                         Florida                       16.000
                                                               591,300
     Elemental phosphorus is produced in an electric furnace by the thermal
reduction of a prepared charge of phosphate rock, coke and silica.  The elec-
trothermal reduction requires in the range of 12,500 to 13,000 kWh/ton of
phosphorus produced.  Preparation of the furnace burden, usually by sintering,
involves an average net heat input of approximately 7 million Btu/ton of phos-
phorus produced.  Some plants require no net heat input while others require
more than this amount.  All of the larger operations utilize carbon monoxide
emitted from the electric furnace as a source for some of the heat required
to dry and prepare the furnace charge.  The average coke input into the
process is about 1-1/2 tons of coke per ton of elemental phosphorus produced.
Based upon these inputs, the industry, if operating at capacity, as is the
current and expected situation, would consume on an annual basis the amounts
of energy listed in Table B-9.
                                     113

-------
                                 TABLE B-9

                             ENERGY CONSUMPTION
                                               Annual at Industry Capacity
   Form

   Power

   Fuel

   Coke
  Per ton P,

  13,000 kWh

  7 x 106 Btu

42 x 106 Btu
   kWh
7.7
(1012 Btu)
                       (2)
   (1)   14,000 Btu/lb, 1.5 tons

   (2)   10,400 Btu/kWh
(2)  Process Change

     Certain end uses require elemental phosphorus or materials derived from
elemental phosphorus such as phosphorus trichloride and oxychloride.  For
most materials produced from phosphorus it is technically possible to substi-
tute phosphoric acid derived from phosphate rock by the so-called wet process.
This process is used to produce phosphatic fertilizers and involves the diges-
tion of phosphate rock with sulfuric acid, separation of the gypsum, and con-
centration of the weak acid produced to a marketable strength.  Wet-process
acid, however, contains many impurities including heavy metals, fluorine com-
pounds, sulfates, and many trace materials which are found in the rock used
as a raw material.  Purifying this acid to meet industrial and food grade
specifications is difficult but it can be done through techniques such as
solvent extraction and ion exchange.  In Europe some of these processes have
been utilized but the quality of the product is not up to United States com-
mercial standards.  Research is continuing on these techniques and it is highly
probable that a viable process will evolve.  In fact, one producer of indus-
trial phosphate materials, the Olin Corporation at Joliet, Illinois, does pro-
duce phosphate salts, but not the acid, using wet-process acid as the raw
material.

     Assuming that the wet-process phosphoric acid plant is operated in con-
junction with a captive sulfuric acid plant, as is the normal case in the
industry, the amount of energy required per ton of equivalent phosphorus is
                                     114

-------
approximately 380 kWh/ton-.  The steam necessary for concentration of the acid
is produced as a byproduct in the sulfurlc acid plant.  This low energy con-
sumption provides a significant incentive to the industry to seriously consider
the use of wet-process acid as the base for at least some industrial phosphate
production.

     United States demand for phosphorus and industrial phosphates is shown in
Table B-10 projected to 1983.  Although growth in the industry is not expected
to be major, there could be some replacement of elemental phosphorus by wet-
process techniques.  The incentive for this is the more than doubling of power
rates for many of the electric furnace phosphorus producers.

                                 TABLE B-10

                    PROJECTED U.S. DEMAND FOR PHOSPHORUS
                        (103 tons of Equivalent P,)
                                                    1972     1978      1983

   Phosphorus and non-acid derivatives                71       81       89

   Sodium Tripolyphosphate                           260      270       315

   Phosphoric acid and other acid derivatives        268      269       281

         Total                                       599      620       685

   Non-P4 derived                                     39       39       ?

   Phosphorus demand                                 560      581

   Installed Capacity                                591
(3)  Pollution Consequences

     The utilization of wet-process acid for industrial phosphate production
will create waste disposal problems.  The purification process produces siz-
able amounts of sludges which contain heavy metals and other impurities
present in the phosphate rock.  Not only is disposal of these sludges a prob-
lem, but the sludge represents an appreciable portion of the phosphatic values
present in the feed rock.  Therefore, an economical means of recovering the
value of these phosphates would be highly desirable.  It. appears that the
industry would benefit from research on utilizing these sludges.  In some
parts of the world the sludges can be sold as phosphatic fertilizer materials.
A major part of the phosphate values are water insoluble, however, and fertil-
izer regulations in the United States do not permit such materials to be sold
as commercial fertilizers.
                                     115

-------
     Should there be a conversion of the industry to the use of wet-process
acid, it is not likely that the production would take place at the same geo-
graphical locations as the bulk of elemental phosphorus production which
is in the intermountain area of Idaho, Montana and in central Tennessee.
These are not well suited either by raw material source or by product markets-
for processes other than the electric furnace production of phosphorus.  As a
result, there are socio-economic implications should elemental phosphorus pro-
duction cease in these areas.

15.  FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS (SIC 209)

     The total energy consumption of the Food and Kindred Products sector of
the SIC Codes places it among the largest consumers of energy.  Since the
trend in marketing of foods and associated products is toward the sale of
products involving a greater degree of processing, fuels use has grown at a
rate higher than total food consumption.  Table B-ll lists the quantities of
various foods consumed in the United States, selected because of the substan-
tial quantities of fuel they consume.

                                 TABLE B-ll

                     U.S. CONSUMPTION OF SELECTED FOODS
                                (106 Ib/yr)
          All Foods                                            265,000
          Milk Equivalent,  Dairy Products,  excluding Butter     69,000
          Flour and Cereal                                       26,000
          Malt Liquors                                           24,000
          Meats,  excluding  Fish and Poultry                     23,000
          Sugar                                                 20,000
          Bread and Related Products                             15,000
          Canned Fruits  and Vegetables                           14,000
          Condensed—Evaporated Milk                              2,500
          Dried Milk                                             1,200
          Commercially Processed Egg                                600
Table B-12 reports the fuel consumption of the corresponding portions of the
food processing industry.
                                     116

-------
                                 TABLE B-12

                             FUEL CONSUMPTION -
                    SELECTED FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES
                                 (1013 Btu)
         Total for Food and Kindred Products                      860
         Bread and Related Products                               104
         Meat Packing                                              88
         Fluid Milk                                                84
         Cane Sugar Refining, Beet Sugar                           79
         Wet Corn Milling                                          49
         Malt Liquors                                              40
         Canned Fruits and Vegetables                              37
         Condensed and Evaporated Milk                             28

         Source:  Bureau of Census

     In 1971, even at  the 4-digit  SIC level, six of Food and Kindred Products
are subsections within the 40 major energy consuming industries.

     The diversified nature of the food-processing industries is illustrated
in part by the data tabulated-  The classifications listed account for about
60% of the total fuel  consumption  for food processing; the remaining 40% is
divided among an additional 36 classifications.

     Food operations requiring significant expenditures of energy include
soaking, washing, peeling, blanching, cooking, concentrating, drying,  vacuum
processing, retorting, and pasteurizing.

     In addition to direct processing requirements, supplementary and prepara-
tory procedures need energy for sterilization and cleaning of equipment and
containers.  Waste treatment and disposal, and the recovery and treatment of
byproducts also account for significant increments of fuel usage.
                                  i
     In commercially processed foods there has been a trend toward a greater
degree of processing and therefore more extensive .applications of the opera-
tions enumerated above.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture has classified
foods by the degree of processing applied; the first stage is assigned to
relatively unprocessed foods (e.g., fresh meat, fluid whole milk); the second
to processed single commodities (frozen meat, peanut butter); the third to
components of mixed foods that have been on the market for many years (ingre-
dients in ice cream, potato chips); and the fourth to newer mixed foods (cake
mixes, frozen dinners).
                                      1.17

-------
     A prominent example of an indirect fuel use derives from the extensive
refrigeration requirements in the food industry.  Technological advances in
refrigeration have a beneficial impact upon the food industry and are there-
fore of great interest to the industry.  It is estimated, for example, that the
removal of field heat in the handling of freshly picked produce requires
approximately 3 million tons of refrigeration (0.9 x 1012 Btu) per year.
Many commodities are iced (SIC 2097) for this purpose.

     The application of heat pumps to food processing requirements is another
example of indirect fuel usage, as exemplified by the large quantities of
dairy products consumed in the United States.

     The overall growth of the food industry is keyed rather closely to the
population growth in the United States, but it is skewed somewhat towards
slightly reduced per capita consumption.  Within the overall structure,
changing patterns of food consumption are evident.  From the low figures of
the mid-1930's, for example, per capita consumption of meats and poultry has
shown a steady increase.  The growth "in this area has been in part at the
expense of the processing of flour and cereal products, for per capita con-
sumption of these foods has declined to less than half the quantity used in
1910.  The growth trend for meat and poultry is of consequence because meat
packing is a major fuel-consuming sector of the food-processing industry.

     The amount of energy used to process food at a central location is
related to the fuel used to serve lesser processed food.  The oversimplified
example is that prepared breakfast cereals are served essentially without any
energy input while cereals not ready to serve must be cooked with the ineffi-
cient domestic or institutional cookstoves.  Similar situations arise for
"TV" dinners versus unprepared meals, and canned fruits and vegetables versus
fresh counterparts.

     As is seen, the industry is a large energy user where much of its energy
use is in the transfer of heat for the purposes of heating, drying, refriger-
ation and so on.  Based on the wide experience of our staff in the Food and
Kindred Products industry we do not see the immediate development of signifi-
cant energy-conserving process changes except, perhaps, in the production of
cane sugar.  In the cane sugar industry an increasing trend toward the use of
lower energy-using processes in order to release large amounts of bagasse,
now combusted for steam generation, to be available for other uses.  However,
most of the energy conservation will be based on the application of well
established techniques which will not change the basic manufacturing process.

16.  LIME (SIC 3274)

     The main product of commerce in the lime industry is quicklime, which is
simply calcium oxide, being the product of the thermal decomposition or cal-
cination of limestone.  This is conducted, on an industrial scale, in rotary
kilns, vertical or shift kilns, and fluidized-bed reactors.  The industry has
favored the rotary kiln since it permits larger single installations than do
the other two types of calcining units.
                                      118

-------
     Lime ranked 24th in the category of total purchased  energy in  1971.   Over
the period 1947-1967, this industry has produced lime with steadily decreasing
fuel energy requirements per unit of product (despite the slightly  higher
energy requirements of burning limestone in a rotary kiln compared  with the
other two types of calcining units).  During this twenty  year period,  the
gross energy required to produce lime has decreased from  8.4 to 4.2 x  106  Btu/
ton of lime produced.  This decrease was most rapid in the forties  and early
fifties.  Presently, the rate of decrease of energy requirements for lime  pro-
duction has been slowing considerably since the limits are being approached
for thermal efficiency of today's state-of-the-art and materials of construc-
tion in lime burning facilities.

     Since lime burning is a single and relatively simple chemical  reaction,
and since there is only one main processing step (thermal decomposition of
calcium carbonate), the prospects appear poor for any technological process
innovation in lime burning which would significantly reduce energy  consumption.

     Furthermore, one of the significant trends in the lime industry has been
the rather rapid increase in the use of gas as fuel.  This has been brought
about by the demand for increasing purity of the burned lime product,  necessi-
tating the use of a clean fuel, since the products of combustion contact the
lime material being produced.

     In summary, we expect the lime industry to continue a minor and gradual
decline-in the quantity of fuel energy required to produce a unit of lime
product over the next 10-15 years.
                                      119

-------
                                 APPENDIX C

                              LITERATURE SOURCES
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories.  Development of an Approach to Identification
of Emerging Technology and Demonstration Opportunities.  Grant No. R-802291.
EPA 650/2-74-048 Environmental Protection Agency.  May 25, 1974.

Battelle-Columbus Laboratories.  Potential for Energy Conservation in the
Steel Industry.  Contract No. CO-04-51874-00.  Federal Energy Administration.
May 30, 1975.

Berry R.S. and M.F. Fels.  The Production and Consumption of Automobiles:  An
Energy Analysis of the Manufacture, Discard and Reuse of the Automobile and
Its Component Materials.  Summary of a Report to the Illinois Institute for
Environmental Quality.  1972.

Berry R.S. and H. Makino.  Energy Thrift in Packaging and Marketing Technology.
Technology Review.  February 1974.  pp. 33-43.

Bravard J.C., H.B. Flora II, and C. Portal.  Energy Expenditures Associated
with the Production and Recycle of Metals.  ORNL-NSF-EP-24.  Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.  1972.

Bureau of the Census.  Census of Manufactures, 1971, 1967, 1962, 1958, 1954,
Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Mines, Mineral Yearbook, Annual, Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Problems, 1970, Washington, D.C.

The Conference Board.  The Economics of Clean Water, Vol. III.  Industry
Expenditures for Water Pollution Abatement.  January 1972.

The Conference Board and the National Science Foundation.  Energy Consumption
in Manufacturing.  1974.

Davis, T.A. and D.B. Hooks.. Study of the State-of-the-Art of Disposal and
Utilization of Waste Kiln Dust from the Cement Industry.  EPA-670/2-75-043.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.  1975.

Delex Systems, Inc.  The Economic Impact of Energy Shortages on the Logging,
Sawmills, Paper and Allied Product Industries, Vol. I and II.  Contract No.
14-01-0001-1653.  Department of Interior.
                                                                               /
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.  Discussion Paper, Chemical and Allied/
Products.  Federal Energy Administration.

Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.  Discussion Paper on Energy Conservation
in Paper and Allied Products.  Federal Energy Administration.  October 1974.
                                     120

-------
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.  Energy Conservation in Petroleum
Refining.  Federal Energy Administration.

Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.  Discussion Paper:   Energy Conservation
in the Steel Industry.  Federal Energy Administration.  July 1974.

Elliott, J.F.  Uses of Energy in the Production of Steel.  Paper presented at
the C. C. Furnas Memorial Conference, State University of New York, Buffalo,
N.Y.  1973.

Furnas, C.C.  Background and Future of Energy Conversion.  Paper presented at
the Pacific Energy Conversion Conference, San Francisco, California.  1962.

Gordian Associates, Inc.  Potential for Energy Conservation in Nine Selected
Industries.  The Data Base.  Volume 1.  Federal Energy Administration, Office
of Energy Conservation and Environment.  April 1974.

Gray, W.R., J.D. Fekete and M.I. Tarkoss.  A Steel Plant Energy Model.  Iron
and Steel Engineer.  November 1974.  pp. 54-59.

Gyftopoulos, E.P., L.J. Lazaridis and T.F. Widmer.  Potential Fuel Effectiveness
in Industry.  Ford Foundation, Energy Policy Project.  1974.

Hardison, L.C., and Carroll A. Greathouse (Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute).
Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas.  Contract
No. EPA-68-02-0301.  Environmental Protection Agency.  September 1972.

Herendeen, R.A.  Use of Input-Output to Determine the Energy Costs of Goods
and Services.  Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Document No. 69.  ORNL-NSF-EP-58.  October 1973.

Institute of Environmental Sciences.  Conference on Energy and Environment.
April 13-16, 1975.

Institute of Gas Technology.  Study of Industrial Uses of Energy Relative to
Environmental Effects.  EPA-450/3-74-044.  PB-237 215.  Environmental Protection
Agency.  July 1974.

Interagency Task Force on Energy Conservation, Under Direction of Council on
Environmental Quality.  FEA Project Independent Blueprint Final Task Force
Report, Volume 3.  November 1974.1

International Research and Technology Corporation.  Industrial Energy Study
of the Industrial Chemical Group.  IRT-342-R, Contract No. 14-01-0001-1654.
Department of Commerce and Federal Energy Office.  August 1974.

Kaplan, S.I.  Energy Demand Patterns of Eleven Major Industries.  ORNL-TM-4610.
Contract W-7405-eng-26.  September 1974.

Kellogg, H.H.  Energy Consumption in Beneficiation and Grinding,  to be
published.
                                     121

-------
Kellogg, H.H.  Prospects for the Pyrometallurgy of Copper.  Proceedings of the
Latin American Congress on Mining and Extractive Metallurgy.  Santiago, Chile.
August 1973.

Landsberg, H.H., L.L. Fishman, and J.L. Fisher, (Resources for the Future, Inc.).
Resources in America's Future.  1963.

Landsberg, H.H.  (Resources for the Future, Inc.).  Natural Resources for U.S.
Growth.  1964.

Lincoln, G.A.  Energy Conservation.  Science, Vol. 180.  April 13, 1973.
pp. 155-180.

MacLean, Robert D. (President, Portland Cement Association).  Energy Use and
Conservation in the U.S. Portland Cement Industry.  Testimony before Senate
Committee on Commerce.  June 1974.

Makhijani, A.B. and A.J. Lichtenberg.  An Assessment of Energy and Materials
Utilization in the USA.  Memorandum No. ERL-M310 (revised).  Electronic Research
Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.  September 22, 1971.

Makhijani, A.B., and A.J. Lichtenberg.  Energy and Well-Being.  Environment.
Vol. 14, No. 5.  June 1972.  pp. 10-16.

Mathematica, Inc.  A Techno-Economic Model of Fuel Requirements for the Chemical
Industry.  Presented at National Meeting of American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.  March 1974.

Office of Emergency Preparedness.  The Potential for Energy Conservation.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  Statistics of Energy,
1956-1970.  Paris.  1972.

Portland Cement Association.  Energy Conservation in the Cement Industry.
Draft Report.  Contract No. 14-01-0001-1858.  Federal Energy Administration.
January 10, 1975.

Schurr, Sam H., and Bruce C. Netschert.  Energy in the American Economy 1850-
1975.  1960.

Snell, Foster D., Inc.  Discussion Paper on Energy Conservation in the Baking
Industry.  Contract No. C-04-50090-00.  Federal Energy Administration, Office
of Energy Conservation and Environment.  March 1975.

Snell, Foster D., Inc.  Discussion Paper on Energy Conservation of the Copper
Industry.  Contract No. C-04-50090-00.  Federal Energy Administration, Office
of Energy Conservation and Environment.  March 1975.

Snell, Foster D., Inc.  Discussion Paper on Energy Conservation in the Glass
Industry.  Contract No. C-04-50090-10.  Federal Energy Administration, Office
of Energy Conservation and Environment.  March 1975.
                                     122

-------
Snell, Foster D., Inc.  Discussion Paper on Energy Conservation in the Meat
Packing Industry.  Contract No. C-04-50090-00.  Federal Energy Administration,
Office of Energy Conservation and Environment.  March 1975.

Sobotka and Company.  Industrial Energy Study of the Petroleum Refining
Industry.  Contract No. 14-01-0001-1656.  Bureau of Mines.  May 1974.

Stamford Research Institute.  Patterns of Energy Consumption in the United
States.  Office of Science and Technology. 1972.

The Economics of Clean Water.  Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 (Data and Technical Appendices),
Environmental Protection Agency.  1972.

Thermo Electron  Corp.  Potential for Effective Use of Fuel in Industry.
Rpt. TE 5357-71-74.  April 1974.
                                      123

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/7-76-034b
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
a. TITLE AND SUBTITLE  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF
  SELECTED ENERGY CONSERVING MANUFACTURING PROCESS
  OPTIONS. Vol. II. Industry Priority Report
            5. REPORT DATE
             December 1976 issuing date
            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Arthur D. Little, Inc.
  Acorn Park
  Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

             EHE624B      	
            11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

             68-03-2198
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Office of Research and  Development
 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                Final
            14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
             EPA-ORD
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Vol. III-XV, EPA-600/7-76-034c through 034o, refer to
 studies  of specific industries as  noted below; Vol. I EPA-600/7-76-034a, is the
 Industry Summary Report.
16. ABSTRACT

  This study assesses the  likelihood of new process  technology and new practices  being
  introduced by energy intensive industries and explores  the environmental  impacts of
  such 'changes.

  Specifically, Vol. II, prepared early in the study,  presents and describes  the  over-
  view of the industries considered and presents the methodology used to select
  industries.  Vol. III-XV deal with the following 13  industries:  iron and steel,
  petroleum refining, pulp and paper, olefins, ammonia, aluminum, copper, textiles,
  cement, glass, chlor-alkali, phosphorus and phosphoric  acid, and fertilizers in terms
  of relative economics and environmental/energy consequences.  Vol. I presents  the
  overall summation and identification of research needs  and areas of highest overall
  priority.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                         c.  COSATI Field/Group
  Energy; Pollution;  Industrial Wastes
Manufacturing Processes
Energy Conservation
13B
 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
  Release to public
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReportf
                                                unclassified
                                                                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                             124

-------