GCA-TR-75-32-G (2)
ASSESSMENT OF METHYL ALCOHOL
AS A POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
VOLUME II
FINAL REPORT
Contract No. 68-02-1337
Task Order No. 8
Prepared For
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
January 1976
GCA TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730
-------
GCA-TR-75-32-G(2)
ASSESSMENT OF METHYL ALCOHOL
AS A POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
Volume II
by
Robert M. Patterson
Mark I. Bornstein
Eric Garshick
GCA CORPORATION
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Bedford, Massachusetts
January 1976
Contract No. 68-02-1337
Task Order No. 8
EPA Project Officer
Michael Jones
EPA Task Officer
Justice Manning
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
-------
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the
GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730, in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1337, Task Order No. 8. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not neces-
sarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or of the cooperating
agencies. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an
endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report is one of a series which assesses the potential air pollution
impacts of 14 industrial chemicals outside the work environment. Topics
covered in each assessment include physical and chemical properties,
health and welfare effects, ambient concentrati'ons and measurement meth-
ods, emission sources, and emission controls. The chemicals investigated
in this report series are:
Acetylene
Methyl Alcohol
Ethylene Bichloride
Benzene
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Cyclohexanone
Formaldehyde
Methyl Methacrylate
Ortho-Xylene
Maleic Anhydride
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Adipic Acid
Phthalic Anhydride.
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V
Volume VI
Volume VII
Volume VIII
Volume IX
Volume X
Volume XI
Volume XII
Volume XIII
Volume XIV
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract m
List of Figures v
List of Tables v
Sectiong
I Summary and Conclusions 1
II Air Pollution Assessment Report 3
Physical and Chemical Properties 3
Health and Welfare Effects 4
Ambient Concentrations and Measurement 8
Sources of Methyl Alcohol Emissions 10
Methyl Alcohol Emission Control Methods 13
III References 18
iv
-------
FIGURE
No.
Estimated Installed Cost of Methyl Alcohol Storage Tanks
(Equipment Costs Assumed to be the Same as Gasoline
Storage Tanks) 17
TABLES
1 Significant Properties of Methyl Alcohol 3
2 Chronic Exposure of Man to Methyl Alcohol Vapor 5
3 Acute Response of Animals to Methyl Alcohol Vapor 6
4 Methyl Alcohol Comsunption - 1974 H
5 Methyl Alcohol Sources and Emission Estimates 12
6 Methyl Alcohol Producers - 1974 13
7 Estimated Installed Costs of Adsorption Systems 14
8 Estimated Annual Operating Costs of Adsorption Systems 14
9 Estimated Installed Costs of Thermal and Catalytic
Incinerators 15
10 Estimated Annual Operating Costs of Thermal and Catalytic
Incinerators *
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Methyl alcohol is a clear, colorless, flammable liquid. Traditionally
it has been manufactured by the destructive distillation of wood. Modern
manufacture is based on the catalytic reduction of carbon monoxide or car-
bon dioxide with hydrogen. Some main uses of methyl alcohol are as a sol-
vent, an antifreeze, and as a starting material for formaldehyde and other
chemicals.
Methyl alcohol poisoning occurs through inhalation of the vapor, although
cases of poisoning through ingestion are not uncommon. Vapor concentra-
tions above 30,000 ppm at exposure times exceeding 30 to 60 minutes are
dangerous to man and may produce acute poisoning. Acute poisoning occurs
indirectly by metabolic oxidation of methyl alcohol in the body to poi-
sonous chemicals such as formaldehyde and formic acid. The current OSHA
standard for workers is a time weighted average of 200 ppm for an 8-hour
day. The photochemical reactivity of methyl alcohol is not significant.
Methyl alcohol emissions are estimated to be 1,242 million pounds/year,
with solvent usage producing almost 90 percent of the total. Methyl
alcohol is used as a solvent in many products including inks, dyes, water-
proofing formulations and windshield cleaners. In addition, it is used
throughout the chemical industry in extracting, washing, and crystallizing
operations. Therefore, methyl alcohol emissions are produced by many
small, geographically scattered sources. Methyl alcohol is produced at
12 locations, primarily in Texas and Louisiana, but only 5 percent of the
total emissions are associated with the production process. Production is
-------
estimated to have been 6,789 million pounds in 1974, and it is expected
to increase by 8 percent per year through 1978.
The literature does not report specific control equipment for methyl
alcohol emissions, but control devices for other similar hydrocarbons
are reported. Two types of control devices presently used extensively
by the industry to control hydrocarbon emissions are vapor recovery and
incineration. Both systems have reported efficiencies of 95 percent and
higher. Vapor recovery by adsorption on activated charcoal is usually
used at inlet concentrations above 2,500 ppm when recovery is economically
desirable. Incineration by direct oxidation and catalytic oxidation are
also used. Catalytic oxidation is used at low methyl alcohol concentra-
tions to minimize the amount of supplemental fuel required.
Simple diffusion model calculations place the expected maximum 1-hour
and 24-hour average ambient concentrations near production facilities
at 25 ppm and 14 ppm, respectively.
Based on available health effects studies and expected maximum ambient
concentrations presented in this report, it appears that methyl alcohol
in air does not pose a health hazard to the general population nor does
it pose other environmental hazards. It is, however, possible that
consumer misuse of methyl alcohol, such as use in confined spaces, could
cause untoward health effects on an individual basis.
-------
SECTION II
AIR POLLUTION ASSESSMENT REPORT
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Methyl alcohol is a clear, colorless, flammable liquid. Traditionally
it has been manufactured by the destructive distillation of wood. Modern
manufacture is based on the catalytic reduction of carbon monoxide or
carbon dioxide with hydrogen. Some main uses of methyl alcohol are as a
solvent, an antifreeze, and as a starting material for formaldehyde and
other chemicals. Selected physical and chemical properties are pre-
sented in Table 1.
Table 1. SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES OF METHYL ALCOHOL
Synonyms: methanol, carbinol, Columbian spirit, wood alcohol, wood spirit
Chemical formula
Molecular weight
Boiling point
Melting point
Specific gravity
Vapor density
Vapor prsssvire
Solubility
Explosive, limits
Auto ignition temperature
Flash point
At 25°C and 760 mm Hg
CH3 OH
32.042
64.5°C
-97.8°C
0.792 (20°/4°C)
1.11 (air - 1)
92 mm Hg at 20°C
Soluble in water, alcohols, ketones, esters,
and halogenaced hydrocarbons
6.0 to 36.5 percent by volume
470°C
>
12°C (closed cup)
1 ppm vapor = 1.309 mg/ra
1 mg/nr vapor - 0.764 ppm
-------
HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS
Effects on Man
Acute Poisoning - Acute exposure of man to methyl alcohol vapor has not
2 3
been well documented. There are early unquantified reports ' on workers
who suffered dizziness, nausea and various degrees of blindness when ex-
posed to methyl alcohol-based solvent fumes for several hours. Methyl
alcohol can induce a mild stupor in man, but its initial effect upon the
4
central nervous system is greater in animals. Its primary toxicity in
man is due to its metabolic oxidation products, formaldehyde and formic
acid. Acute poisoning causes severe acid imbalance with symptoms includ-
ing headache, nausea, and vomiting and eventually leading to delirium,
coma, respiratory collapse, and death. Optic nerve and retinal destruc-
tion leading to blindness may accompany acidosis. However, a single brief
exposure to the vapor at a high concentration usually only causes tempor-
ary blindness, mucous membrane irritation, and slight intoxication, with
recovery dependent on individual susceptibility and duration of exposure.
A concentration of 2000 ppm is barely detectable by odor and not irritat-
ing to man, and only at 50,000 ppm does exposure become unendurable.
Cases of death include a woman exposed to a calculated 4,000 - 13,000 ppm
for 12 hours and a man exposed to 40,000 ppm for part of a working day.
The symptoms of poisoning are delayed 6 to 36 hours due to the slow accu-
mulation of toxic metabolic products. Based primarily on extrapolation
of animal inhalation studies to man, it would be dangerous for a man to
be exposed to 30,000 - 50,000 ppm for 30 to 60 minutes.
The liquid and vapor will cause skin irritation and can be absorbed
through the skin, with poisoning possible but not likely. Using data
obtained with monkeys, it was estimated that 1 ounce of methyl alcohol
3
must be absorbed through the skin to affect man. The usual route of
acute poisoning is ingestion when methyl alcohol has been mistaken'for
ethyl alcohol. Death has resulted from ingestion of 340 mg/kg body
-------
weight. Methods of treatment for ingcstion include the administration
of ethyl alcohol which inhibits methyl alcohol oxidation, the administra-
tion of alkali to combat the acidosis, and h'emodialysis or filtration
of the blood.
Chronic Poisoning - Table 2 summarizes available dose-response data for
chronic exposure to methyl alcohol vapor. Early unquantified reports
have indicated chronic exposure could lead to complete blindness, in
addition to headache, mucous membrane irritation, and neuritis. Workers
who were working with a methyl alcohol-based ink in an enclosed area were
exposed to concentrations in the 300 - 800 ppra range and complained of
4
headaches. On the basis of human exposure, it' was calculated that re-
peated 8-hour exposures to 3,000 ppm will lead to increasing methyl al-
cohol concentrations inside the body that could cause an accumulation of
toxic metabolic products. However, severe injury due to chronic exposure
has not been a problem in recent years. On the basis of both human and
animal exposure, the NIOSH recommended 8-hour time weighted average is
200 ppm.
Table 2. CHRONIC EXPOSURE OF MAN TO METHYL ALCOHOL VAPOR
Concentration,
ppm
25
300
400-500
800
1,000-2,000
Exposure
Daily workday
Daily workday
Daily average
workday
Daily workday
Less than 30
minutes daily
Response
No effect
Headache
No effect
Headache
No effect
Reference
5
4
5
4
7
Effects on Animals
Acute Poisoning - Animal response to inhalation of methyl alcohol in air
varies with the species. Responses of different animals to lethal and
-------
intermediate concentrations arc presented in Table 3. Exposure to acute
concentration will generally induce the following responses in animals:
increased rate of respiration, a state of nervous depression followed by
excitation, irritation of the mucous membranes, ataxia (lack of muscular
coordination), partial paralysis, narcosis (stupor or unconsciousness),
convulsions, loss in weight, and death due to respiratory failure. The
distribution of methyl alcohol in the tissues of dogs was associated with
water content, with most of the methyl alcohol found in the blood, bile,
and urine. Death in nonprimates is not due to acid imbalance induced by
poisonous metabolic products, but rather to the narcotic action exerted
4 11
on the central nervous system. ' Autopsies have revealed considerable
central nervous system degeneration. While some investigators have found
optic degeneration in animals, blindness as found after human exposure is
unusual. As in man, poisoning through skin absorption is possible but
not likely.
Table 3. ACUTE RESPONSE OF ANIMALS TO
METHYL ALCOHOL VAPOR
Animal
Cat
Mouse
Rat
Dog
Monkey
Concentration,
ppm
132,000
65,700
18,300
72,600
48,000
10,000
60,000
50 ,000
22,500
8,800
4,800
3,000
13,700
2,000
40,000
10,000
1,000
Exposure,
hours
5-5.5
4.5
6
54
24
230
2.5
1
8
8
8
8
4
24
4
18 daily
41
Response
Narcosis
On side
None
Narcosis
Narcosis
Ataxia
Narcosis
convulsions
Drowsiness
Narcosis
Lethargy
None
None.
None
None
Illness
Outcome
Died
50% died
Death
Survived
Survived
Died
Survived
Death
Death
Death
-------
Chronic Poisoning - The few studies investigating animal chronic exposure
to methyl alcohol vapor indicate no effect except at high levels for most
animals. Dogs were exposed to 450 to 500 ppm for 8 hours daily for
379 days, and no ill effects such as unusual behavior, loss of weight, or
eye abnormalities were seen. Two dogs exposed to 10,000 ppm for 3 minutes
in 8 periods per day at hourly intervals for 100 consecutive days showed
no symptoms of poisoning. However, monkeys, rabbits, and rats exposed
to 10,000 ppm for 7 hours per day for several weeks died. The lowest
fatal concentration was for monkeys, some of which died after a few
18-hour exposures to 1,000 ppm. Susceptibility among animals has been
found to vary considerably even among individuals of the same species.
Effects on Vegetation
Methyl alcohol has not been implicated in vegetation damage as other
pollutants, such as ethylene, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and ozone,
have. However, a recent Russian study has indicated that plants may be
12
sensitive to methyl alcohol vapor in concentrations above 0.15 ppm.
Branches from eight different tree species were studied. The permissible
pollutant standard (0.15 ppm) was taken as the concentration which did
not produce a decrease in photosynthesis for 5 minutes. The significance
of this study is the finding that plants are mor= sensitive to lower con-
centrations of the vapors than are either man or animals.
Other Effects
Effects on Materials - Methyl alcohol as a solvent will attack some forms
of plastics, rubbers, and coatings. It may also react with metallic alu-
minum at high temperatures.
>
Effects on Photochemical Smog - Methyl alcohol is not a significant com-
ponent of photochemical smog. Furthermore, compared to the aromatics,
-------
aliphatics, aldehydes and ketoncs, the alcohols are the least active in
13
the formation of photochemical products upon irradiation.
AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS AND MEASUREMENT
Ambient Concentration Estimates
Although methyl alcohol emissions are greatest from the solvent usage
source category, these sources tend to be small and geographically scat-
tered. Production of methyl alcohol, however, occurs at a few locations
for which the emissions characteristics can be fairly well defined, and
which as single point or area sources have a la'rge emission density.
The largest installation for methyl alcohol production is located near
a city of about 100,000 population, and it has a capacity of about
1,500 million pounds per year. Assuming a 1 percent loss, this converts
to an emission rate of:
(0.01 emission factor) (1,500 x 1Q6 Ib/yr) (453.6 g/lb)
3.1536 x 107 sec/yr
= 215.8 g/sec of methyl alcohol.
Some assumptions must be made regarding this methyl alcohol release to
the atmosphere. First of all, the emissions do not all come from one
source location, but rather from a number of locations where methyl al-
cohol vapor leaks to the atmosphere. Thus, the emissions can be charac-
terized as coming from an area source which will be taken to be 100 meters
on a side. Secondly, the emissions occur at different heights, and an
average emission height of 10 meters is assumed.'
8
-------
Ground level concentrations can then be estimated at locations downwind
14
of the facility. To do this, a virtual point source of emission is
assumed upwind of the facility at a distance where the initial horizontal
dispersion coefficient equals the length of a side of the area divided
by 4.3. In this case:
0 = 100 m/4.3 = 23.3 m.
yo
Assuming neutral stability conditions (Pasquill-Gifford Stability Class D)
v?ith overcast skies and light winds, the upwind distance of the virtual
point source is approximately 310 meters. With consideration of the plant
boundary, it is reasonable to assume that the nearest receptor location
is thus about 500 meters from the virtual point source. Finally, taking
2 m/sec as an average wind speed, the ground level concentration may be
calculated from
UTT0 0
y z
H \2
0 I
z/
or
x ~
215.8
(2)17(36) (18. 5)
-h
18.5
4.456 x 10~2 g/m3
for a 10-rainute average concentration. Over a period of an hour this
23 -23
becomes (4.456 x 10 g/m ) (0.72) = 3.208 x 10 g/m or 25 ppm 1-hour
average concentration. Over a 24-hour period, the average concentration
might roughly be expected to be about 14 ppm.
-------
Measurement Technology
Two sample collection techniques are used in air sampling for methyl
alcohol. These are collection in distilled water in a bubbler or im-
pinger, and collection on silica gel. Analysis of samples collected
by the first technique is achieved by colorimetric methods, whereas gas
chromatography is used to analyze samples collected on silica gel.
Using the bubbler or impinger collection method, concentrations as low
as 10 ppm may be determined. The colorimetric determination is based on
the development of formaldehyde through oxidation of the methyl alcohol
with potassium permanganate. Thus, formaldehyde, or chemicals which
will form formaldehyde by oxidation by potassium permanganate, will
interfere with the determination.
The gas chromatographic technique has the advantage of not requiring the
handling of chemicals in the field, and is by far the more sensitive
(-0.01 ppra) of the two methods. Excess moisture in the air may prevent
efficient adsorption of methyl alcohol on the silica gel.
SOURCES OF METHYL ALCOHOL EMISSIONS
The production of methyl alcohol is estimated to have been 6,789 million
pounds in 1974 and is expected to increase at 8 percent per year through
1978. Methyl alcohol is primarily used to manufacture formaldehyde,
accounting for 39 percent of the methyl alcohol consumed. Methyl alcohol
is also used extensively in industry as a solvent and by the consumer in
cleaning agents. This second usage accounts for approximately 16 percent
of all methyl alcohol consumed. The consumption of methyl alcohol for
final products is shown in Table 4. This table also shows the expected
growth rate for each sector.
10
-------
Table A. METHYL ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION - 1974
18
Product
Formaldehyde
Exports
Industrial solvent usage
Dimethyl terephthalate
Methyl methacrylate
Acetic acid
Methylamines
Glycol methyl ethers
Inhibitor for formaldehyde
Miscellaneous
(50 percent miscellaneous solvent)
Total
Millions
of pounds
2,646
785
538
414
252
229
221
77
63
1,150
6,789
Annual
% growth
7.4
Variable
8.0
15.7
8.5
17.0
8.5
2.5
4.0
Expected to
increase
Unknown rate
8.0
Methyl Alcohol Sources and Emission Estimates
Emissions of methyl alcohol occur from miscellaneous solvent usage,
industrial solvent usage, methyl alcohol production, end product manu-
facturing and bulk storage and handling losses. Total emissions of
methyl alcohol are estimated to have been 1,242 million pounds in 1974
representing 18 percent of total production (see Table 5).
The largest source of emissions is the miscellaneous solvent usage cate-
gory. Methyl alcohol is used directly as a solvent for inks, dyes, cer-
tain resins and cements, the manufacture of wood and metal surface coat-
ings, waterproofing formulations, coated fabrics, and windshield cleaner
and deicer. All methyl alcohol used for these categories is assumed to
be lost in the atmosphere, resulting in emissions of 575 million pounds/
year
17,18
11
-------
Table 5. METHYL ALCOHOL SOURCES AND EMISSION ESTIMATES
Source
Miscellaneous solvent usage
Industrial solvent usage
Methyl alcohol production
End product manufacturing
Storage and handling
Total
Emissions,
million pounds/year
575
538
68
49
12
1,242
The next major source of emissions is industrial solvent usage. Methyl
alcohol is used extensively in the chemical industry as a solvent for
extracting, washing, drying, and crystallizing. It is also used in re-
fining gasoline and heating oil to extract mercaptan impurities. Emis-
sions from industrial solvent usage are estimated to be 538 million pounds
based on 100 percent loss of solvent.
Emission factors for methyl alcohol losses from production and final
product manufacturing are both estimated to be 0.01 pound of methyl
alcohol lost per pound of methyl alcohol produced or used (1 percent
loss). This figure is based upon the reported loss of methyl alcohol
19
from manufacturing formaldehyde, the major use of methyl alcohol.
The assumption was also made that losses from the production of methyl
alcohol (10 companies, 12 locations - see Table 6) would be similar to
losses from the manufacture of final products. Using this factor, emis-
sions from production losses are 68 million pounds and losses from the
manufacture of final products are 49 million pounds.
The last major source is from bulk storage and handling. Using the
90
factors available from AP-42 and assuming all tanks have fixed roofs,
emissions are 12 million pounds per year.
12
-------
Table 6. METHYL ALCOHOL PRODUCERS - 1974
Company
Air Products
Borden
Celanese
Ce lanes e
CSC
Dupont
Dupont
Georgia Pacific
Hercules
Monsanto
Rohm and Haas
Tenneco
Total
Location
Pensacola, Fla.
Geismar, La.
Bishop, Texas
Clear Lake, Texas
Sterlington, La.
Beaumont, Texas
Orange, Texas
Plaquemine, La.
Plaquemine, La.
Texas City, Texas
Deer Park, Texas
Houston, Texas
Capacity,
million Ib/yr
332
1,061
398
1,525
332
1,326
762
663
663
663
146
530
8,401
METHYL ALCOHOL EMISSION CONTROL METHODS
The literature does not report specific control equipment for methyl
alcohol emissions, but it does report control devices for other similar
hydrocarbons. Two types of control devices are presently used exten-
sively by the industry to control hydrocarbon emissions, vapor recovery
and incineration. Both systems have reported efficiencies of 94 percent
and higher.
Adsorption
Control of hydrocarbon emissions by adsorption on activated charcoal is
generally applied when recovery of adsorbed material is economically
desirable. Adsorption should be used when concentrations of hydrocar-
21
bons are greater than 2,500 ppm. Other applications are for the
13
-------
control of very low concentration hydrocarbons that are poisonous to
catalytic incinerators and for collection and concentration of emissions
for subsequent disposal by incineration. Cost data for the cases util-
izing adsorption are presented in Tables 7 and 8. The three cases pre-
sented are adsorption with solvent recovery, adsorption with incinera-
tion, and adsorption with incineration plus heat -recovery.
Table 7. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTS OF ADSORPTION SYSTEMS3
Adsorber capacity, SCFM
With solvent recovery, $
With thermal incineration/
no heat recovery, $
With thermal incineration/
primary heat recovery, $
1,000
74,000
89,500
101,500
10,000
162,300
2,02,000
255,000
20,000
280,000
344,000
431,000
Reference 22. Inlet concentration assumed to be 25 per-
cent of lower explosive limit. Costs updated to first
quarter 1975.
Table 8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF ADSORPTION SYSTEMS0
Adsorber capacity, SCFM
With solvent recovery, $/yr
With thermal incineration/
no heat recovery, $/yr
With thermal incineration/
primary heat recovery, $/yr
1,000
13,200
23,400
25,600
10,000
-10,479b
64,300
82,000
20,000
-37,200b
123,200
141,600
Reference 22. Inlet concentration assumed to be 25 percent of
lower explosive limit. Costs updated to first quarter 1975.
Indicates a savings as opposed to operating cost.
14
-------
Incineration
Control of methyl alcohol emissions by incineration or catalytic oxida-
tion involves oxidation of the combustible portion of the effluent, the
desired ultimate products being water and carbon dioxide.
The primary advantage of catalytic incineration is that extremely small
concentrations of organics can be oxidized with only small amounts of
supplemental fuel required. The main disadvantages are the higher capi-
tal cost and the fact that certain hydrocarbons may poison the catalyst.
Cost data for thermal and catalytic incinerators with and without heat
22
recovery are presented in Tables 9 and 10.
Table 9. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTS OF THERMAL AND CATALYTIC
INCINERATORS3
Incinerator capacity, SCFM
Installed costs, $
Catalytic without heat recovery
Catalytic with primary heat
recovery
Catalytic with primary and
secondary heat recovery
Thermal without heat recovery
Thermal with primary heat
recovery
Thermal with primary and
secondary heat recovery
1,000
43,500
54,100
68,300
27,200
40,300
54,400
10,000
272,000
306,000
361,800
92,500
144,200
200,000
20,000
504,600
573,900
666,400
137,400
232,600
322,300
Reference 22. Inlet concentration assumed
of lower explosive limit. Costs updated to
to be 25 percent
first quarter 1975.
15
-------
Table 10. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF THERMAL
AND CATALYTIC INCINERATORS3
Incinerator capacity, SCFM -
based on 25% lower explosive limit
Operating costs, $/yr
Catalytic without heat recovery
Catalytic with primary heat
recovery
Catalytic with primary and
secondary heat recovery
Thermal without heat recovery
Thermal with primary heat
recovery
Thermal with primary and
secondary heat recovery
1,000
16,200
16,400
19,300
12,000
11,500
14,400
10,000
102,800
78,500
108,700
54,300
36,300
50,800
20,000
195,000
177,900
203,700
96,700
59,200
84,500
Reference 22. Inlet concentration assumed
of lower explosive limit. Costs updated to
to be 25 percent
first quarter 1975.
Storage Tanks
Control of emissions from storage tanks will require the use of floating
roof tanks or venting the emissions to the previously mentioned adsorber
or incinerator. Emissions from fixed roof tanks can be vented to either
system without any major increase in cost. If these systems are not
available the fixed roof tanks should be converted to floating roof tanks,
resulting in a 90 percent reduction of emissions. Figure 1 provides
22
estimated costs of various gasoline storage tanks. These equipment
cost estimates can also be applied to methyl alcohol. As can be seen,
conversion of fixed roof to floating roof tanks by installation of in-
ternal floating covers is much more economical than installation of new
pontoon floating tanks•
16
-------
500
400
'o 300
x
>-*
O
Q
<
Z
200
Tolol Cost Cono Hoof Torvt Converted
wild Inlernol Flooling Roof
Pontoon Floating
Roof Tank
Inlernol Float Cover on ExisHng Cono
Roof Tank (Incremental Cost - Conversion]
100
lilt
50 100
CAPACITY, barrels
150
200
Figure 1. Estimated installed cost of methyl alcohol
storage tanks (equipment costs assumed to
be the same as gasoline storage tanks)22
17
-------
SECTION III
REFERENCES
1. Chemical Technology: An Encyclopedic Treatment. Volume IV.
Petroleum and Organic Chemicals. New York, Barnes and Noble Books,
1972. p. 275.
2. Zielgler, J. Wood Alcohol Poisoning. JAMA., 23:1160-66, 1921.
3. McCord, C. P. Toxicity of Methyl Alcohol Following Skin Absorption
and Inhalation. Ind Eng Chem. 23:931-36, 1931.
4. Henson, E. V. The Toxicology of Some Aliphatic Alcohols - Part II.
J Occup Med. 2:497-502, 1960.
5. Treon, J. F. Alcohols. In Patty, F. A. (ed) : Industrial Hygiene
and Toxicology. Volume II, Second Edition. Interscience Publishers,
New York, 1963. 1409-1422 p.
6. NIOSH/OSHA Draft Technical Standards: Methyl Alcohol. 28 February
1975.
7. American Industrial Hygiene Association: Hygienic Guide Series -
Methyl Alcohol. Am Ind Hyg Assoc Quart. 18:368-69, 1957.
8. Kane, R. L., W. Talbert, J. Harlan, G. Sizemore, and S. Cataland.
A Methanol Poisoning Outbreak in Kentucky. Arch Environ Health.
17:119-129, 1966.
9. The Toxic Substances List 1974 Edition. HEW Publication No.
(NIOSH) 74-134, 480 p.
10. Class, K. Methanol Poisoning and Its Treatment. Ind Med Surg.
40:20-22, 1971.
11. Roe, 0. The Metabolism and Toxicity of Methanol. Pharm Rev.
7:399-412, 1965.
18
-------
12. Nikolayevsky, V. S., A. T. Miroshnikova. The Air Pollution Levels
Permissible for Plants. (Dopustimyye Normy' Zagryazneniya Vozdikha
Dlya Rasteniy). Gigiena I. Sanit. 4:16-18, 1974.
13. Brunelle, M. F., J. E. Dickinson, W. J. Hamming. Effectiveness of
Organic Solvents in Photochemical Smog Formation (Solvent Project,
Final Report). Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles County,
California. Evaluation and Planning Division. July 1966.
14. Turner, D. Bruce. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report AP-26. January 1973.
15. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Analytical Abstracts.
16. OSHA-NIOSH Analytical Methods - Standards Completion Program.
17. U.S. Tariff Trade Commission - Preliminary Report, February 5, 1975.
18. Kirk and Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
19. Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petro-
chemical Industry. Volume 4: Formaldehyde Manufacture with the
Silver Catalyst Process. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Report No. EPA-450/3-73-006/-d. March 1975.
20. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Report No. AP-42. April 1973.
21. Lauber, J. The Control of Solvent Vapor Emissions, N.Y. State
Department of Health. January 1969.
22. Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Study, Volume 1. MSA Research Corp.
October 1972.
19
------- |