Background Information on Hydrocarbon Emissions from Marine Terminal Operations Volume II: Appendices


1
EPA-450/3-76-038b
November 1976
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ON HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS FROM MARINE
TERMINAL OPERATIONS
VOLUME II: APPENDICES
&
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
EPA-450/3-76-038b
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ON HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM MARINE TERMINAL OPERATIONS
VOLUME II: APPENDICES
by
C E Burklin, J D Colley, and M.L. Owen
Padn-.n Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek BJvd.
P O. Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78766
Contract No. 68-02-1319
Task No 56
EPA Project Officer: William L. PoJglase
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
November 1976

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library Services Office (MD-35) , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Radian Corporation, 8500 Shoal Creek Blvd. , P.O. Box 9948, Austin,
Texas 78766, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1319, Task No. 56.
The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from
Radian Corporation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-038b
li

-------
TABLE 07 CONTENTS
VOLUME I
? 2.2 6
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION		I
1.1	Objectives		1
1.2	Approach		1
1.3	Report Contents		3
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY		5
2 .1 Results		5
2.1.1	Background Information on Marine
Terminals in the Kouston-Galveston
AQCR		5
2.1.2	Background Information on Marine
Terminals in the Los Angelas AQCR		9
2.1.3	Emissions		10
2 .1. ^ Emission Control Technology 		12
o *
2.1.5 Economics of Emission Control 		13
2.2	Conclusions		15
2.3	Recommendations		16
3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON MARINE TERMINALS ...	13
3.1	Relative Quantities of Crude Oil and Gasoline
Transported by Marine Terminals in the United
States		18
3.2	Marine Terminals Transferring Crude Oil and
Gasoline in the Houston-Galveston Instrastate
AOCR		20
3.2.1. Exxon Baytown Refinery Marine Terminal 2&
3.2.1.1	Gasoline Loading System.	2'-
3.2.1.2	Crude Oil Loading/Unloading
System		31
iii

-------
TA3LZ OF CONTEXTS (Cor.tir.uac)
3 2.2 Shell Deer Park Refinery Marine
Terminal		34
3.2.2.1	Gasoline Loading System		34
3.2.2.2	Crude Oil Unloading System...	36
3.2.3	AMOCO Texas City Refinery Marine
Terminal		38
3.2 3 1 Gasoline Loading System		38
3 2.3.2 Crude Oil Unloading System.	40
3.2.4	ARCO Houston Refinery Marine Terminal.	43
V2.4.1 Gasoline Loading System..	43
3.2.4.2 Crude Oil Unloading System...	43
3.2.5	Texas City Refining Texas City Refinery
Marine Terminal		46
3.2.5.1	Gasoline Loading System... .	46
3.2.5.2	Crude Oil Unloading System. .	49
3.2.6	Crown Central Houston Refinery Marine
Terminal		^9
3.2.6.1 Crude Oil Unloading System...	49
3.2.7	Charter Oil Houston Refinery Marine
Terminal		51
3.2.7.1	Gasoline Unloading System ...	51
3.2.7.2	Crude Oil Unloading System..	51
3.2.8	Marathon Texas City Refinery Marine
Terminal		51
3.2.8.1	Gasoline Loading System		53
3.2.8.2	Crude Oil Unloading System...	53
3.3 Shipside Equipment and Transfer Procedures	53
3.3.1	Crude Oil and Gasoline Loading of Ships	53
3.3.2	Crude Oil and Gasoline Loading Onto
Barges		58
iv

-------
T.-oLZ 0? ccy?z::rs (Ccr.tmued)
Pare
3 3.3 Cruce Oil and Gasoline Unloading
from Tankers. ... 		59
3. £• Quantities of Crude Oil and Gasoline Trans-
ferred in the Houston-Galvescon Area 	 63
3.5	Projected Quantities of Crude Oil and Gasoline
Transferred in the Hous ton-C-alves tor. Area
Through 1985	 	 67
3.6	Cruise History Information for Ships and
Barnes which Transferred Crude Oil or Gasoline
in the Houston-Galveston Area During 19 75 . . 7 3
3 6.1 Zffects of Cruise History on Hydro-
carbon Zmissions from Marine Loading
of Gasoline and Crude Oil	 74
3.c.2 Types of Marine Vessels Used in Trans-
ferring Crude Oil and Gasoline in the
Houston-GcIves ton Area ...	. .76
3.6 2.1 Marine Tankers	 76
3.6.2.2 Intercoastal Barge	 77
3 6.2.3 Ocean Barge	 77
3.6 3 Vessels Servicing Houston-Galveston
Marine Terminals	 77
3.6.4	Hydrocarbon Zrcissions From a Gasoline
Tanker Cruise	 80
3.6.5	Analysis of Tank Arrival Conditions for
Vessels Loading Gasoline and Crude Oil
in the Houston-Galveston Area	 82
3 7 Marine Terminals Transferring Crude Oil and
Gasoline In the Metropolitan Los Angeles Area 8«-
v

-------
TA3LE OF CONTESTS (Continued)
3.7.1	Background Ir.fcrr.auior. cn Marine
Terminals Transferring Crude Oil
and Gasoline ir. the Southern
California Area	 S4
3.7.1.1	Shores ice Equipment and Trans-
fer Procedures-Gasoline	 36
3.7.1.2	Shoreside Equipment and Trans-
fer Procedures-Crude Oil .... 67
3.7.2	Shipside Equipment and Transfer Pro-
cedures for che Los Angeles AQCR	 89
3.7.3	Quantities of Crude Oil and Gasoline
Transferred ir. the Los Angeles AQCR.. . . 90
3.7.4	Projected Unloading of Alaskan Crude
Oil in the Los Angeles AOCR	 91
3.7.4.1	Port Site for Unloading Alaskan
Crude Oil in the LA AQCR	
3.7.4.2	Types and Sizes of Tankers De-
livering Alaskan Crude Oil
from Valcez to the Los Angeles
AQCR	 94
3.7.4.3	Projected Quantities of Alaskan
Crude Oil to be Unloaded in the
Los Angeles AQCP«.	 97
3.7.4.4	Characteristics of Alaskan
Crude Oil	 97
3.7.5	Similarities and Differences in Marine
Terminals Located in the Los Angeles
AQCR and the Houston-Galveston AQCR .. 100
3.7.5.1	Los Angeles County	 100
3.7.5.2	Ventura County	 10 2
vi

-------
TABLE 07 CONTENTS (Continued)
yase
3.7.5.3 San"a. Barbara County	 1C3
4.0 MARINE TERMINAL EMISSIONS		105
l
4.1	Emission. Characteristics		105
4.1.1	Source and Mechanism		105
4.1.2	Effects of Loading Rate		110
4.1.3	Effects of TV?		113
4.1.4	Effects of Cruise History		114
4.1.5	Composite Vapor Profiles		115
4.1.6	Chemical and Physical Properties		113
4.2	Source Testing Results		126
4.2.1	Industry Testing		126
4.2.2	Radian Testing		131
4.2.3	Conclusions		132
5.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY		13 3
5.1	Vapor Control Unit		134
5.1.1	P.efrigeration		134
5.1.2	Absorption		139
5.1.3	Incineration		143
5.1.4	Alternative Vapor Recovery Units. . .	147
5.1.5	Vapor Control Unit Installation		143
5.1.6	Inerting		148
5.1.7	Composite Vapor Profile		149
5.2	Shoreside Vapor Collection 		151
5.2.1	Design		151
5.2.2	Efficiency		155
5.2.3	Cost		155
5.2.4	Safety		155
5.2.5	State of Develooment		156
vii

-------
TA3LZ 07 C0>:T"XTS (Cor.v.r.uad)
Pase
5.3	Shipsice Vapor Collection 		156
5.3.1	Design		15 7
5.3.2	Efficiency		159
5.3.3	Cose		159
5.3.4	Safety		150
5.3.5	Salient: Considerations		150
5.4	Alternative Control Strategies 		161
5.4.1	Ullage Hatch Condensers		161
5.4.2	Ship 3oiler Incineration		161
5.4.3	Foam		162
5.4.4	Product Cooling		162
5.4.5	Controlled Loading		162
6.0 ECONOMICS 0? EMISSION CONTROLS		164
6.1	Establishment of Cases-		154
6.2	Methodology		170
6 . 3 Results		172
6.3.1	Fase Case 		172
6.3.2	Sensitivity to Cost Inputs		174
6.3 3 Sensitivity to Unit Size		176
6.3.4 Sensitivity to Vessel Mix		17 7
7.0 TEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT		179
7.1	Objective		179
7.2	Approach		181
7.2.1	Results Format		181
7.2.2	Parameters		132
7.2.3	Required Level of Sampling		134
7.2.4	Test Program - Instrumentation 		185
7.2.5	Hydrocarbon Analysis		136
viii

-------
TA3LZ OF COST1ST5 (Cor.-i
•:ed)
?£££
7.3 Sampling Procedure	 192
7.3.1	Test Measurements	.*. . . 192
7.3.1.1 Vented Vapor Concentration
'	Profile	 192
7.3.2	Recorded Information - Data Sheets.... 197
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CONVERSION FACTORS
ix

-------
TA3LE CF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX I	VESSELS TRANSPORTING CRUDE OIL AND C-ASQLINE
IN THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA ...	I-L
APPENDIX II VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEM COST DATA	II-I
APPENDIX III RESULTS FROM INDUSTRY TEST PROGRAMS .	III-l
APPENDIX IV INDUSTRY TEST DATA . . 		IV-1
APPENDIX V RADIAN EMISSION TESTING RESULTS ....	V-I
APPENDIX VI RADIAN EMISSION TEST DATA AND TRIP REPORTS.	71-1
APPENDIX VII INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF VAPOR RECOVERY
SYSTEM COSTS	VII-I
x

-------
LIST Or TABLES
3.2-1	Marine Terminals Transferring Crude Oil or
Gasoline in the Hous con-Galves con AQCR . . . . 22
3.2-2	Gasoline Pumping Syscem Lineups. 	 26
3.2-3	Lines and Pumps for Marine Loading of Gasoline -
AMOCO Texas Cicy			.... 33
3.2--	Maximum Gasoline Loading Race a: Texas Cicy
Refining's Marine Docks	.... ... -^6
3.4-1	Quancicy of Gasoline Loaded ac Marine Terminals
m "he Houscon-Galvescon Area.		 54
3.--2	Reid Vapor Pressure of Gasolines Loaded ac
Marine Terminals in che Houscon-Galvescon Area . 55
3.4-3 Quancicy of Crude Oil Loaded ac Marine Terminals
in che Houscon-Galvescon Area.	. . ... 55
3.4-1	Quancicy of Crude Oil Unloaded ac Marine
Terminals in che Houscon-Galvescon Area . .	68
3.4-5	Average RV? of Crude Oil Unloaded ac Marine
Terminals in che Houscon-Galvescon Area	. . 59
3.5-1	Projecced Quancicies of Gasoline co be Loaded
ac Marine Terminals in che Houscon-Galvescon
xi

-------
.3.5-2
3.5-3
3.6-1
3 . 6-2
3.7-1
3.7-2
3.7-3
3.7-4
3.7-5
3.7-6

c "1 z ir.'-2c i
Projected Quantities of Crude Oil Loaded a:
Marine Terminals in the Hous ton-C-alves :cn
Area Through 1985 .. . . . ...	71
Projected Quantities of Crude Oil Unloaded at
Marine Terminals in the Hous:or.-Galveston
Area Through 19 35	'	7 2
Effect of Ship Cruise History on Arrival Hydro-
carbon Concentration Prior to Gasoline Loading	75
Emission Factors for Gasoline and Crude Oil
Loading by Tank Arrival Condition	33
Marine Terminals Transferring Crude Oil or
Gasoline in the Metropolitan Los Angeles AQCR. . 35
Quantity of Gasoline Loaded at Marine Terminals
in the Los Angeles AQCR	 	 . 92
Quantity of Gasoline Unloaded at Marine Terminals
in the Los Angeles A.QCR	 	 92
Quantity <~>f Crude Oil Loaded at Marine Terminals
in the Los Angeles AQCR. 	 93
Quantity of Crude Oil Unloaded at Marine Terminals
in the Los Angeles AQCR.. . . . 	 93
Projected Alaskan Crude Oil Tanker Fleet	96
xii

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Pase
3.7-8 Compos ir ion of Vapor in Equilibrium vith
North Slope Crude Oil			99
1-1	Chemical Composition of Gasolene Loading Vapors . 123
4 1-2 Composition of Vented Vapors, Vol. % Crude Oil
Loading Test, 5-8-76, Avila Terminal, Tanker
Lion of California			124
4.1-3	Chemical Composition of Aviation Gasoline
Vapor	125
4.2-1	Summary of Petroleum Industry Testing Programs
on Marine Loading Emissions . . . .... 127
4.2-2	Summary of Results Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Marine Loading Motor Gasoline. . . ...	129
4 2-3	Summary of Results Hydrocarbon Emissions fror.
Marine Loading Aviation Gasoline	. .	13Q
6.1-1	Statistics on the Proposed Houston-Galvescon
Vapor Recovery Systems ...	.	. .	165
6.1-2	Summary of Cost Data for Marine Terminal Controls 157
6.1-3	Summary of Case Parameters	159
o 2-1	Results of Study on Vapor Recovery Economics	171
xiii

-------
LIST 07 7ZG':?ZS
Pasre
3.1-1 Transportation of Crude Oil, 197- 	 ...	19
3.1-2	Transport; of Gasoline		21
3.2-1	Location of Marine Terminals in the Houston-
Galveston AO CP.		23
3.2-2 Exxon 3aycovn Refinery Marine Terminal 		25
3.2-3 Gasoline Loading Lines To Docks 1 and 2		27
3.2-4 Gasoline Line Manifolding at Dock 1		23
3.2-5 Gasoline Line Manifolding at Dock 2		29
3.2-6 Crude Oil Lines To/Frotr. Docks 2 and 5 		32
2.2-7 Crude Line Manifolding at Docks 2 and 5 		33
3.2-3 Shell Deer Park Manufacturing Complex Marine
Terminal		35
3.2-9 Gasoline Loading Lines to Shell's Marine Docks	37
3.2-10 AMOCO Texas City Refinery Marine Terminal		39
3.2-11 Gasoline Lines to AMOCO Texas City Marine
Terminal		41
xiv

-------
LIST OF FIG'JRz.5 (Continued)
Paze
3.2-12 Crude Oil Unloading Lines - AMOCO Texas Cicy ..	42
3.2-13 ARCO Houston Refinery Marine Terminal 		44
3.2-14 Gasoline Loading Lines To Docks A and B ARCO
Houston Marine Terminal 		45
3". 2-15 Crude Oil Loading Lines for ARCO Houston
Marine Terminal 		47
3.2-16 Texas Cicy Refining Marine Terminal 		48
3.2-17 Crown Central Houston R.efinery Marine Terminal.	50
3.2-18	Charter Oil Houston Refinery Marine Terminal .	5 2
3.3-1	Tank Capacities and Manifold Arrangement of the
S.S. "Pasadena" 		36
3.3-2 Grade A Cargo Tank Vent System 		57
3.3-3 Single Skin Tank Barge 		60
3.3-4 Grade B Cargo Tank Vent System 		61
3.7-1 Offshore Terminal 		83
4.1-1 Example Profile of Gasoline Loading Emissions .	107
4.1-2 Example Profile of Gasoline 3allascing Emissions 109
xv

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cor.tir.uec)
Paze
4.1-3	Effect of Initial "ill Rare on Vapor 3lanka~
Profile	 	 Ill
4.1-4	Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Ballasting an
Empty Tank 	 115
4.1-5	Hydrocarbon Profile of a Ballasted Tank 		115
4.1-6	Hydrocarbon Profile of an Empty Tank After
3allast Discharge 	 115
4.1-7	Example Composire Vapor Profile for Loading
Sequential 	 119
4.1-8	Example Composite Vapor Profile for Simultaneous
Loading 	 119
4.1-9	Vapor Pressures of Crude Oil 	 121
4.1-10 Vapor Pressures of Gasolines and Finished
Petroleum Products 	 122
5.1-1	Refrigeration Vapor Recovery Unit 	 135
5.1-2	Absorption Vapor Recovery Units 	 140
5.1-3	Incineration Vapor Control Unit .. 	
5.1-4	Vapor Profiles of the Feed and Product of a
Vapor Recovery Unit 	 150
xvi

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cor.rir.uec)
Page
5.2-1	Typical Vapor Collection System... . .	153
5.3-1	Ship-Side Vapor .Collection System		158
7.3-1 Location of Sample Probe 		193
7.3-2 Sample Points P.elative to True Ullage (Concen-
tration) and Vapor Profile (Composition)	194
xvii

-------
APPENDIX I
VESSELS TRANSPORTING CRUDE OIL
AND GASOLINE IN THE HOUSTON-
GALVESTON AREA
1-1

-------
VESSELS TRANSPORTING CRUDE OIL AND GASOLINE
IN THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA
Appendix I contains information supplied by owners of
the larger marine terminals in the Houston-Galveston area concern-
ing the marine tankers which visited their docks to transfer crude
oil or gasoline. The responses were not consistent in the type
of information presented. Data on vessel names, DWT, ownership,
service, quantity loaded in 1975, number of cargo tanks, and
number of visits in 1975 were obtained in different responses.
Very little information was obtained on the specific barges that
transferred gasoline and crude oil in 1975 in the Houston-Galveston
area.
1-2

-------
TABLE 1-1
SHIPS UNLOADING CRUDE OIL
AT EXXON'S
BAYTOWN
REFINERY IN
1975
Vessel Name
DWT
Owner shiD
Alchiba
28,315
Foreign
Argolis
53,520
Foreign
Buckeye
46,194
Foreign
Carcape
76,996
Foreign
Capetan Mathios
30,200
Foreign
Capto
62,150
Foreign
Caspain Trader
75,669
Foreign
Carolyn Jane
NA
NA
Ekaterini
69,119
Foreign
Esso Torino
70,324
Foreign
Esso Stuttgart
50,420
Foreign
Esso Lorraine
51,628
Foreign
Esso Phillipines
69,742
Foreign
Esso Puerto Rico
33,581
Foreign
Esso Antwerp
76,209
Foreign
Esso Bremen
50,900
Foreign
Esso Koln
50,640
Foreign
Esso Karachi
20,987
Foreign
Esso Albany
22,367
Foreign
Esso Lincoln
50,769
Foreign
Esso Stockholm
52,425
Foreign
Esso Everett
NA
Foreign
Esso Roma
37,698
Foreign
Esso Brasilia
38,154
Foreign
Esso Milano
70,310
Foreign
Esso Castellon
76,290
Foreign
Esso Mukaishima
22,500
Foreign
Esso Coral Bagles
NA
Foreign
Esso Guam
22,360
Foreign
1-3

-------

TABLE 1-1 (Continued)

SHIPS
UNLOADING'CRUDE OIL AT EXXON
'S

BAYTOWN REFINERY IN 19 7 5

Vessel Name
DWT
Ownership
Exxon Baltimore
51,926
Exxon
Exxon Lexington
40,910
Exxon
Exxon Jamestown
40,872
Exxon
Exxon Philadelphia 75,649
Exxon
Farah Pahlavi
56,800
Foreign
FFM Matarangi
38,200
Foreign
Global Hope
38,275
Foreign
Gherania
58,543
Foreign
Gheres tos
62,281
Foreign
Grete Maersk
31,500
Foreign
George Vergb'ttis
59/412
Foreign
King Cadmus
56,023
Foreign
Mo stun Sanko
70,983
Foreign
Manhattan Baron
NA
NA
Olympic Glory
77,874
Foreign
Onoha
52,600
Foreign
Romelia
34,300
Foreign
Tamarita
74,883
Foreign
Slavisa Vajner
69,874
Foreign
Vasiliki
69,119
Foreign
World Beauty
49,751
Foreign
NA - Not Available

-------
TA3LE 1-2
SHIPS LOADING GASOLINE AT EXXON'S
BAYTOlvN REFINERY IN 197 5
Vessel Nane
Exxon Bangor
Exxon Bacon Route
Exxon Boscon
Exxon Gettysburg
Exxon Houston
Exxon New Orleans
Exxon Philadelphia
Exxon San Francisco
Exxon Chester
Exxon Jamestown
American Trader
Anj a
3ald Butte
Sealift Atlantic
Sealift Mediterranean
Shenandoah
Sealift Caribbean
William J. Fields
Tampici.
Eagle Transporter
Wilke
Hess Voyager
Gulf Solar
Mobil Aero
Texaco Florida
Texaco California
Texaco Maryland
Shoshone
Service
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Dedicated
Multiple
Dedicated
Dedicated
Dedicated
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Dedicated
Multiple
Dedicated
Dedicated
Multiple
Dedicated
Ownership
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
American Charter
Hess Shipping Co
Blackships, Inc.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Domestic Tankers
Military Sealift
Command
1-5

-------
TA3LE I-2 - (Continued)
SHIPS LOADING GASOLINE'AT"EXXON'S"
BAYTOWN "REFINERY" "IN" I9T5
Vessel Name
Millicoma
USNS Yukon
Sealift Arctic
Sealift Indian Ocean
Service
Dedicated
Multiple
Dedicated
Mu11 i pIe
Owners hi"?.
Military, Sealift
Command
Mili'tary S'ealift
Command
Military Seali'ft
Command
Military Sealift
Command
1-6

-------
TABLE 1-3
SHIPS LOADING CRUDE OIL AT EXXON'S
3AYT0WN REFINERY IN 19 7 5
Vessel Name
Exxon Baltimore
Exxon Jamestown
Exxon Lexington
Exxon Philadelphia
Ownership
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Exxon
Quantity Loaded (103bbl)
1,457 3
835 .1
1,447.8
3,120 .1
Vessel Name
Key Tanker
Perrv^ ille
Tullahoma
Colorado
Pasadena
Seabulk Challenger
Valley Forge
TABLE 1-4
SHIPS LOADING GASOLINE AT SHELL'S
DEER PARK REFINERY IN 197 5
Gross Capacity (103bbls) Number of
156
204
207
260
230
320
322
Cargo Tanks
33
27
27
30
24
18
27
TABLE 1-5
TYPICAL SHIPS CHARTERED BY SHELL FOR
DELIVERING CRUDE OIL TO DEER PARK
Vessel Name	DWT	Number of Cargo Tanks Ownership
Oliva	55,000	21	German
Michael Carras	59,000	33	Greek
Helfrid Billner	47,000	15	Swedish
1-7

-------
TABLE 1-6
SHIPS LOADING GASOLINE AT AMOCO'S
TEXAS CITY REFINERY IN 19 7 5
Number of Visits
Vessel Name	Ownership	At Texas City in 1975
AMOCO Delaware
AMOCO
20
AMOCO Connecticut
AMOCO
20
AMOCO Virginia
AMOCO
7
Mobile Gas
Mobil
1
Mobile Fuel
Mobil
1
Mobil Power
Mobil
1
Hess Petrol
Amerada Hess
3
Hess Voyager
Amerada Hess
2
E.M. Quenny
Keystone Shipping
3
American Eagle
American Foreign Steamship
1
Exxon Florance
Exxon
11
Trinity
NA
2
F. Hoskins
NA
1
LaGetty
NA
2
Corsair
NA
2
TOTAL	7 7
NA - Not Available
1-8

-------
TA3LE 1-7
SHIPS UNLOADING CRUDE OIL AT AMOCO'S
TEXAS CITY REFINERY IN 19 7 5
Number of Visits
Vessel Name	Ownership	to AMOCO Texas City
Kini
Foreign
9
Maria
Foreign
8
Pella
Foreign
2
Baraolla
Foreign
1
Adreana Fassio
Foreign
1
Thomas Q
Foreign
1
Verconella
Foreign
1
Donold
Foreign
3
Perikem
Foreign
1
Pers epolis
Foreign
4
Cr:nis
Foreign
2
Conqueror
Foreign
7
Exxon Munchen
Exxon
1
Alvega
Foreign
9
Alkes
Foreign
6
Exxon Ghent
Exxon
1
Tamba Mara
Foreign
4
Triposis
Foreign
4
Varanger
Foreign
1
Tasso
Foreign
2
Desert Song
Foreign
4
Ocean Challenger
Foreign
1
Sally II
Foreign
2
Petro Pan
Foreign
1
Attica
Foreign
1
Texaco Alaska
Texaco
2
1-9

-------
TA3LZ 1-7 (Continued)
SHIPS UNLOADING CRUDE OIL AT AMOCO ' S
TEXAS CITY REFINERY IN 19 7 5
Vessel Name
OwnershiD
Number of Visits
to AMOCO Texas Citv
Dauntless Colocotronas
Fearless Colocothronas
St. Thomas
Cosrnor.af tis
AMOCO Yorktown
Foreign
Foreign
Foreign
Foreign
AMOCO
2
2
2
2
2
TABLE 1-8
OCEAN BARGES LOADING GASOLINE
AT AMOCO TEXAS CITY IN 197 5
Number of Visits
Vessel Name	Ownership	to AMOCO Texas City
Esther Moran	Moran Towing Co.	32
Clipper	NA	1
M. Ingram	Ingram Barge Co	1
NA - Not Available
1-10

-------
TABLE 1-9
INTERCOASTAL BARGES WHICH LOADED GASOLINE
AT AMOCO'S TEXAS CITY TERMINAL
Number of Visits
Vessel Name	Ownership	to AMOCO Texas City
Duncan L-. Hines
Hines,
Inc .
10
James R. Hines
Hines,
Inc .
29
Thomas W. Hines
Hines,
Inc .
6
Billy Waxier
Waxier
Towing
14
Ray Waxier
Waxier
Towing
10
Achilles
Sabine
Towing
1
Apollo
Sabine
Towing
1
Atlas
Sabine
Towing
14
Poseidon
Sabine
Towing
28
Zephyr
Sabine
Towing
12
Lady Kimberly
Inland
Oil 51 Trans.
1
Lady Linda
Inland
Oil & Trans.
7
Lady Patricia
Inland
Oil & Trans .
2
Exxon 3aytown
Exxon

13
Exxon Bayport
Exxon

1
Exxon Brownsville
Exxon

3
I-1L

-------
TABLE I-LP
SHIPS LOADING GASOLINE AT ARCO'S
HOUSTON REFINERY IN 19 7 5
ARCO or Time or Not Controlled
Vessel Name	Company Charter Trip Charter 	By ARCO
Atlantic Prestige	/
Atlantic Heritage	/
Atlantic Enterprise	/
Edgar M. Queeny	/
Monmouth	/
Phillips Washington	/
Texaco Illinois	/
Texaco Montano	/
TABLE 1-11
BARGES LOADING GASOLINE AT ARCO'S
HOUSTON REFINERY IN 19 7 5
ARCO or Time or Not Controlled
Vessel Name	Company Charter Trip Charter 	By ARCO
GDM-60	-	/
Exxon 119	/
Ellis 2003	/
Petrochem	/
REB 2202	/
AD 315	/
T10-500	/
Patco 507	/
SITI 416	/
1-12

-------
TABLE 1-12
SHIPS UNLOADING CRUDE OIL AT ARCO'S
HOUSTON REFINERY IN L9 7 5
ARCO or	Time or	Not Controlled
Vessel Name	Company Charter Trip Charter	By ARCO
Kenai Peninsula
/


Clairhall

/

Ibeaux -


/
El Steininger
/


Atlantic Challenger
/


Vardis V


/
Capetan Mathios

/

Esso Jamestown


/
Esso New Haven


/
Apollonian Wave

/

Grigorcusa


/
Esso Karachi


/
Tassos


/
Romelia


/
Sc. Thomas


/
Mikton

/

World Promise


/
V
Zar ia

/

Afran Neptune

/

Llangorse


/
Coranado

/

Albisola

~

Lady Clio

/

Cepheus

/

1-13

-------
APPENDIX II
VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEM COST DATA
II-l

-------
VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEM COST DATA
The cost data presented in Appendix II represent "best
estimates" and are based upon the best cost information available.
There are no marine loading vapor control systems currently in
use for gasoline transfers from which" to draw cost information.
Although tanktruck loading emission control systems are in
operation, they are much smaller and are designed to cope with
a different set of problems.
II-2

-------
EXXON COMPANY
System Information
System: Refrigeration
Size: 50,000 bbl/hr
Shoreside Costs
Ship to shore connection	$1,920,000
Vapor collection system	$2,280,000
Installed vapor recovery	unit $4,030,000
Off sites	$1,460,000
$9,690,000
Vessel Modification Costs
Ship $350,000/ship
3arge $ 85,000/barge
All Exxon	Vessels $4,000,000
Operating Costs (annual)	35xl05 bbl/yr
(shoreside)
Depreciation	$1,607,000
Labor	$ 393,000
Maintenance	$ 260,000
Utilities	$ 30,000
Overhead	$ 331,000
Taxes	$ 170,000
$2,791,000
II-3

-------
Operating Costs (annual) (Continued)
(vessel)
Depreciation
Retrofitting
Maintenance
Loading Delay
$	42^,000
$	147,000
$	343;000
$	750,000
$1,664,000
Recovered product credit
Total
$ 134,000
$4,321,000/yr
Reference 13
II-4

-------
AMOCO OIL COMPANY
Svstem Information
System: Refrigeration
Size: 18,000 bbl/hr
Shoreside Costs
Labor	$1,360,000
Contengencies	$ 325,000
Engineering	$ 300,000
Dock platforms	$1,200,000
Piping & Supports	$ 500,000
Water seals	$ 150,000
Vapor hoses	$ 45,000
Instrumentation	$ 90,000
Pressure storage syst&m	$ 30,000
Vapor recovery unit	$1,000,000
$5,000,000
Ship Modification Costs
3 ships at 300,000	$ 900,000
35 barges at 50,000 '	$1,750,000
1 ocean barge	$ 150,000
$2,800,000
II-5

-------
Operating; Coses (annual)	20x10' bbl/yr
Electric power	$ 64,000
Labor	$ 35,000
Maintenance	$ 200,000
Chemicals	$ 1,000
Recovered product credit	$ -75,000
$ 225,000
Reference 4
II -6

-------
ARCO
Svstem Information
System: Refrigeration
Size: 16,000 bbl/hr
Shoreside Costs
Vapor collection system
Installed vapor recovery unit
Off-sites
$2,400,000
$2,100,000
$1,200,000
$5,700,000
Shio Modification Costs
'•Icdification of two ships
$ 300,000
Reference 6
II -7

-------
EDWARDS ENGINEERING
Svstem Information
System: Refrigeration
Size- 20,000 bbl/hr
Shoreside Costs
Vapor collection system	$ 200,000
Installed vapor recovery unit	$ 700,000
Reference 10
II-8

-------
MARATHON OIL COMPANY
System Information
System-. Absorption
Size: 30,000 bbl/hr
Shoreside Costs
Vapor collection system	$ 450,000
Installed vapor recovery unit	$ 850,000
$1,300,000
Reference 15
II-9

-------
SHELL OIL COMPANY
System Information
System: Absorption
Size: 25,000 bbl/hr
Shoreside Costs
Onsite Capital
Offsite Capital
Non-capital Expense
Ship Modification Costs
Cost for 7 vessels $800,000 to	$1,200,000
Operating Costs
Electricity	$	36,000
Water (supply & waste treatment)	$	12,000
Fuel	$	92,000
$	140,000
Reference 18
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
500,000
$5,000,000
11-10

-------
PeFea3man&nfoBti&it>£snsdM6ri'tftMe3)e%etovevere~'ifiMed'U!fcmgngh-bh9ep6££od
FeBetamayrjh Ai9I97Tot5'eBetaEngr£838}.9I977
An&mmanmem6nt ArAceofof ApAfiplicAnt SoSouEcefof
'JiTi'teJ.e SeSerte& SrQradeolKiAa'biion NnMfarober Cofland&ieafc&t'iion SeSelfeetied A^ggitotot^
inBATtaMBgafeB&aJEriljigjfneer MTMDAD EFEP£3BTF#f&23?22 EPEPAT4HMe D.DSefleBaifett
)SGSedQL^07
CSCSegeg.
CSCSegeg.
MTMDAD EPW&ZKSZ&J&QiOS EPEMCNC V.WiWiiMams Va¥adnAm!ict
j]rJhiTt!iMaBn6B.taIngTigfrneer MEMDAD EPBPfi5ETF4T6-S£28 EPBPAT49tde D.DLaJiiylidnd
!BGS«a0D?07
SeSeetefcgx^Statieiio)
>SGSiSl&i+OU
3ePeDBflmieSpSpec. PMEMD EPSgfifffffF&f&SisU EPBPJtfiHMe A.ABofdyd
;SSS4201S12
VaVadnAmict
3nBnv±iiOHm6Bt.aBcSc±iMt±stESESED EPEPfi^ETF^fX-?l7 EPERATiHtde V/ .WMaMSoDevell CSCSegeg.
1SGS..3D30K07
vhghfemtdaTlnlngraeer
^GS^S9^?07
ESESED EPEPS5BT?&F65121 EPBPAT4WMe H. HDaDarviBiipOrt CSCSegeg.
'ePeEEOE aeEtStftfffieiipSpec PMEMD EFBPfi5BTF^??^27 EPEMSNC B.BPiRfcJrey
Va^adnAmict
PePersmBrle11&t"tf i fi&ngpSpec PMEMD EPEPfiSETF^T?27 EPEPffCNC D. DtfeWfesitanofreMnd VaWa&uAmlict
GS£24212^11
ChSh-gmtfl aTngrig; fencer
GSG&9S93-313
rieBeaeahcEhfitremtst
3S6a-3P3eQl513
GSG&9892-313
rVi^/tTnT)^ a TMgri gtw-pr
GSG§S®93-313
IEEERL EPlPfi5KTF^XS12	IEEERL	S.SRaRafees
IEEERL EPBPfi5ETFTf7513	IEEERL	L.LJoffobiiBon
IEEERL EPBF£«B?F^fX^lU	IEEERL	J.JJo^enes
IEEERL EPEPfi?B?F^?X^lU	IEEERL	N.NKa^apian
VaVadnAxnlict
VaTJa&nAmiict
VaVadn&raict
VaVa&nAmict

-------
Announcement Area of	Applicant
le, Series & Grade Location Number Consideration Selected
earch Chemist
1320-13
logical Lab Tech
U0U-5
logical Lab Tech
1+0U-5
logical Lab Tech
U0U-5
logist
1+01-7
iputer Aid
335-3
HERL	EPA-RTP-77-3	EPA-NC	J. Huisingh
HERL	EPA-RTP-77-2	EPA-NC	E. Rogers
HERL	EPA-RTP-77-2	EPA-NC	M. Bercegeay
HERL	EPA-RTP-77-1	EPA-NC	S. Carter
HERL	EPA-RTP-76-133	EPA-NC	M. Daniel
HERL	EPA-RTP-77-8	EPA-NC	B. Hodges
Source of
Applicant
CS Reg.
Vac Annct
CS-^ Rest.
CS Reg.
Vac Annct
CS Reg.

-------
APPENDIX III
RESULTS FROM INDUSTRY TEST PROGRAMS
III-l

-------
RESULTS FROM INDUSTRY TEST PROGRAMS
The tables and figures presented in Appendix III
summarize the emission test data collected by the petroleum
industry concerning hydrocarbon emissions from marine terminal
operations. Test data collected by the petroleum industry are
presented in Appendix IV.
III-2

-------
CURVE A - AVERAGE OAS FRE' D CONDITION
CURVE B - TOTALLY GAS FREED CONDITION
CURVE C - NOT GAS FREED
CURVE D - DIRTY BALLAST TANK (PRE-LOADING
VAPOR CONC~3% BY VOLUME)
M
I
U>
r '•«
- 1.6
- 1.4
¦ «.2
1.0
•0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
LIQUID ULLAGE, m
FIGURE m- 1 B.P. TEST DATA
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LOADING A 215.000 DWT TANKER
REFERENCE 7

-------
CURVE A
CURVE B
CURVE C -
AVERAGE GAS FREED CONDITION
TOTALLY GAS FREED CONDITION
AND DIRTY BALLAST TANKS
(NEGLIGIBLE PRE-LOADING VAPOR)
NOT GAS FREED
-1.6
1.4
- 1.2
i.O
0.8
h 0.6
0.4
0.2
LIQUID ULLAGE, m
FIGURE m-2 B.P. TEST DATA
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LOADING A 54,000 DWT CRUDE TANKER
•FERENCE 7
III -4

-------
TABLE III-l
AMOCO GASOLINE LOADING TEST RESULTS
PERCENT GASOLINE VAPOR IN AIR EMITTED FROM TANKERS DURING LOADING
Ship
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Delaware
Delaware
Connecticut
Connecticut
Virginia
Delaware
Date
(1974)
2/26
2/26
3/14
3/26
3/26
March
3/9
3/13
4/8
Port
U
W
W
TC
TC
TC
TC
TC
TC
Previous
Cargo
Gasoline
Half Ballast
Gasoline
Gasoline
Half Ballast
Gasoline
Ballast
Gasoline
Gasoline
BuLterworth
Ambient
Temp
41
/, i
-» X
46
57
57
82
70
66
77
RVP
Present
Cargo
% Vapor in Air Compartment
11
11
10.5
11.5
13.5
11
Lmpty
9
14
6
7
4
4
1.1
0
2.8
Half Full
6.5
9.4
.5
3.4
Almost Full
24
27
4.6
Wisconsin	5/31
Virginia	6/5
Wilm. Getty	6/26
Connecticut	8/2
Indiana	8/13
Barj;e St 132	8/13
W
TC
TC
TC
W
TC
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
67
86
78
80
68
11.3
11
9.2
19
1.2
7.4
19
2.9
7.4
11.4
7
1.2
64
6.8
25
40
47
50
Reference 4

-------
TABLE III-2
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
VARIOUS EMISSION EFFECTS RATED ACCORDING TO EMISSION MAGNITUDE
Group	Lifting/Compartments
A	1./7C, 5P
B	3./1C, 4C, 7C, 11C
C	2./IS, 9S
D	2./5S, 7S, 8S
Comment
Fast Loading, Low TVP,
Clean Compartments
Fast Loading, Medium TVP
Clean Compartments
Slow Loading, High TVP
Clean Compartments
Slow Loading, High TVP,
Partially Clean Compartments
Average
Emission Factor
lb/1000 gal
0.40
0.52
0.92
1.51
Average
Percent Hydrocarbon
	Volume	
2.1
2.6
4.2
6.9
Reference 6

-------
Test No.
TABLE III-J
SHELL OIL TEST DATA
MARINE LOADING VAPOR EMISSIONS (MOTOR GASOLINES)
DEER PARK, TEXAS
Ship
Valley Forge Valley Forge Valley Forge Valley Forge Valley Forge
Compartment
Sampled
Month
6S
Oct.
4S
Oct.
1C
Oct.
6S
Oct.
IS
Nov.
RVP (PSI)
12.0
12.0
13.5
12.0
13.3
remperature(°F)	77
79
77
75
54
True Vapor
Pressure (PSI)
8.6
8.9
9.7
8.3
6.3
Previous Cargo Gasoline	Gasoline	Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline
Compartment
Capacity
(bbls (5 987! Full) 15,435
11,653
33,264	15,485
13,020
Cleaning Method
None
Initial HC
Concentration
1.1%
0.1%
0.9%
4.3%
8.2%
Emitted Hydrocarbons
Max. Concentration 67.4%
59.2%
65.3%
50.1%
59.5%
Avg. Concentration 6.3%
6.9%
7.0%
8.3%
16.6%
Avg. Molecular Wt. 64
65
63
67
61
Lb/1000 Gallons
Loaded
1.38
1.52
1.50
1.90
3.61
Tons HC/Ton
Loaded	.00023
(Assuming 6 lb/gallon)
0.00025
.00025
.00032
.00060
a - hand hosing for 20 minutes
Reference 19
III-7

-------
TABLE II1-4
EXXON TEST .DATA
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM TANKERS AND BARGES
DURING MOTOR GASOLINE LOADINC AT BAYTOWN (1975)
I
00
Vebsel
Tank
Condition
Volume Z
llyd rocarbon
Volume Z
l.oaded Into
Vessel and
Tank Type
Weighted
Average
Z Hydrocarbon
(As Butane)
Annual Amount*
Loaded, M Gal
Annual
Emission,
M Lb
Emission factor
(Lb/1,000 Gal)

Effectively
Cas-Preed
3.24
50.4




Tanker
Ballasted
6.96
8.8
6.43
1,134**
(81.3Z)
1.67+
1.47

Bnpty, Not
Cleaned
10.26
40.8





Effectively
Gaa-Preed
5.69
11.2




Barge
(Port
Everglades)
Ballasted
9.08
32.3
11.71
146**
(10.5Z)
0.39+
2.66
Empty, Not
Cleaned
14.40
56.5




Barge
Bnpty, Not
Cleaned
18.35
100.0
18.35
114**
(8.2Z)
0.48+
4.14
Total - 2.54
* Numbers In parentheses ° volume Z of total 1975 motor gasoline marine loading; M = 1,000,000.
** Average 1972, 1973, and 1974 loadings:
Tanker loadings » 1,198 M gullona (82.3Z).
Port Everglades loadings = 188 M gallons (12.9Z).
Other barge loadings = 70 M gallons (4.8Z).
+ Average 1972, 1973, and 1974 emissions:
Tanker emissions	= 1.76 M pounds/year.
Port Everglades emissions = 0.50 M pounds/year.
Oilier barge emissions *= 0.29 M pounds/year.
Total = 2.55 M pounds/year.
Reference 13

-------
TABLE II1-5
EXXON TEST DATA
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM TANKERS AND BARGES
UURINC AVIATIOH GASOLINE LOADING AT BAYTOWN (1975)
t—I
M
M
t
vO
Veubel
Tank Condition
Volume X
Hydrocarbon
Volume X
Loaded (nto
Vessel and
Tank Type
Weighted
Average
X Hydrocarbon
(As Butane)
Annual Amount*
Loaded, K Cal
Annual
Emission,
M ll>
Emission Factor
(Lb/1,000 Cal)
Exxon
Tanker
Effectively
Gas-Freed
1.63
50.2
5.35
22.7**
(40.5X)
0.027+
1.47
Empty, Uncleaned;
Previous Cargo:
Avgas
6.66
19.2
Eulpty, Uncleaned:
Previous Cargo:
Mogas
10.64
30.6
Orher
Tanker++
Effectively
Gas-Freed
1.63
50.2
4.13
21.1**
(37.6X)
0.020+
1.13
Empty, Uncleaned;
Previous Cargo:
Avgas
6.66
49.8
Uarge
Empty, Uncleaned;
Previous Cargo:
Mogas
18.35***
100.0
18.35
12.3**
(21.92)
0.052+
4.25
Total ° 0.099 « 0.10
* Nuubera In parentheses = volume X of total 1975 aviation gasoline marine loading;
M = 1,000,000.
** Average 1972, 1973, and 1974 loadings:
Exxon Tanker Loadings ¦» 23 H gallons (36,51).
Other Tanker Loadings » 33 M gallons (52.41).
Barge Loadings - 7 H gallons (11.1Z).
*** Barge assumed same as motor gasoline.
+ Average 1972, 1973, and 1974 emissions:
Exxon Tanker Emissions <• 0.03
Oilier Tanker Emissions = 0.04
Harge Emissions ¦» 0.03
Total = 0.10
++ "Other Tanker" category represents tankers owned or leased by the Military Seallft
Command to transport primarily Jet tuel and aviation gasoline.
Reference 13

-------
TABLE III-6
EXXON LOADING EMISSION CORRELATION
[p • A • (G-U)]
where
E is the total volume of pure HC emitted in ft3 at the loading
conditions,
C is the appropriate arrival HC concentration (70) selected from
the table below
V	is	the volume of cargo loaded in ft3,
P	is	the true vapor pressure (TVP) of the cargo in psia,
A	is	the surface area of the cargo in ft2,
G	is	the HC generation coefficient value of 0.36 ft3/(ft2* psia),
U is the final true ullage correction in ft3/(ft2 • psia), from
Figure III-3.
The Exxon correlation is based principally upon gasoline loading
data.
Cargo Tank Arrival	Average Arrival	Range of Arrival
Condition Category	HC Concentration (Vol 70) HC Concentration (V
Cleaned	2.5	0-5.0
Dirty	5.0	2.0-8.0
Empty and Undisturbed	8.0	2.5-13.5
Reference 12
111-10

-------
0.40
CO
H
U.
CO
a.
CM
H
UL
»-
a
iij
a:
a:
o
o
UJ
3
0.30 —
0.20 —
0.10
0.00
10
25
50
FINAL TRUE ULLAGE (FT)
FIGURE IH-3 HYDROCARBON GENERATION COEFFICIENT,
FINAL ULLAGE CORRECTION TO THE
EXXON CORRELATION
REFERENCE '3
III-ll

-------
TABLE III-7
WOGA TEST PROGRAM
CALCULATED HYDROCARBON -EMISSION VALUES
CRUDE OIL LOADING TEST, 5-8-76,
AVILA TERMINAL, TANKER: LION OF CALIFORNIA
Cargo Tank
Gallons
Oil
Loaded
Total Vapor
Vented, SCF
Volume Hydrocarbon
Hydrocarbon Vented, SCF
Molecular
Weight
of HC
HC Emission
Lb/1000 Gal.
3P 164,262
3S 164,262
7P 157,080
7S 157,080
21,811
21,640
20,850
20,714
3.4
3.8
2.1
2.1
742
822
438
435
53.5
57.5
55.3
63.1
0.64
0. 76
0.40
0.46
Wing Tanks 642,684
85,015
2.9
2437
56.9
0. 57
3C 365,652
7C-0VA 354,732
47,989
46,562
5.3
5.9
2543
2747
70. 3
62.3
1.28
1.27
Center Tanks 720,384
94,551
5.6
5290
66.1
1.28
Centers and Wings 1,363,068
179,556
4. 3
7727
63.2
0.94
3C 365,652
7C-Gascope 354,732
47,989
46,562
5.3
7.4
2543
3446
70.3
62. 3
l.?8
1.60
Center Tanks 720,384
94,551
6.3
5989
65.7
1.44
Centers and Wings 1,363,068
179,556
4.7
8426
63.2
1.03
Reference 22

-------
TAHI.Ii IT 1-8
AMOCO TKST l .6
20.6
1.7
3.2
8.0
2.5
5.4
A .0
.7
24.8
58.7
15.8
Reference 2

-------
APPENDIX IV
INDUSTRY TEST DATA
AMOCO
ARCO
EXXON
SHELL
IV-I

-------
INDUSTRY TEST DATA
Appendix IV presents a cross section of the test data
collected by the petroleum industry concerning hydrocarbon
emissions from marine terminal operations. The test daca were
supplied by Arco, Amoco, Exxon, and Shell.
IV-2

-------
AMOCO TEST RESULTS
(Reference 3)
IV-3

-------
VAPOR BLANKET HEIGHT vs DEPTH OF FILL
AMOCO ILLINOIS - NOV.6,1974
WHITING. INDIANA
NORMAL FILLING RATE - FIRST FOOT 3-4 MINUTES
AMBIENT TEMP. 55° - VAPOR TEMP. 73°
40 -
30 |—
cc
O
0.
<
>
LU
! 20 h™
o
CO
<

1
I
4	3	2
FEET ABOVE SURFACE
FIGURE 1
IV~4

-------
VAPOR BLANKET HEIGHT vs DEPTH OF FILL
AMOCO ILLINOIS - NOV.6.1974
WHITING, INDIANA
SLOW INITIAL FILL - 1 FOOT IN 20 MINUTES
THEN NORMAL FILL RATE
AMBIENT TEMP. 55 - VAPOR TEMP. 62
40
30
oc
o
o.
<
>
UJ
Z 20
o
CO
<
o
10
0 1* OF LIQUID
X 50% FULL
V 2' FROM FULL
COMPOSITE
OF DATA
FROM FAST
INITIAL
FILL
1
3	2
FEET ABOVE SURFACE
FIGURE 2

-------
GASOLINE VAPOR EMITTED DURING FILLING
AMOCO ILLINOIS NOV.6, 1974
30
GE
o
a.
< 20
@ NORMAL INITIAL FILL RATE
X SLOW INITIAL FILL RATE
~
16
1
1
_L
I
12	8	4	0
ULLAGE FROM TOP OF TRUNK
FEET
FIGURE 3
£

-------
GASOLINE VAPOR EMITTED DURING LOADING
AMOCO CONNECTICUT
TEXAS CITY - NOV.21,1974
AMOCO REGULAR
0 NORMAL FILL RATE - 2 HOURS 20 MIN. TO FILL
X SLOW INITIAL FILL RATE - 6 INCHES IN 6 MINUTES
THEN NORMAL FILL - 2 HOURS 20 MIN. TO FILL
% FULL
100
FIGURE 4

-------
GASOLINE VAPOR EMITTED DURING LOADING
AMOCO WISCONSIN - WHITING. INDIANA
NOV.22.1974
FILLING RATE 4300 BPH
AMBIENT TEMP. 41° - FUEL TEMP. 42°
0 NORMAL FILL RATE
X SLOW INITIAL FILL - 6" IN 6 MINUTES
cr
O
Q.
<
>
1X1
Z
Zi
O
CO
<
o

10(^^0
12	8	4	2
ULLAGE FROM TOP OF TRUNK
FEET
FIGURE 5

-------
EFFECT OF SLOW FINAL LOADING
GASOLINE VAPOR EMITTED DURING LOADING
AMOCO WISCONSIN - WHITING. INDIANA
DEC.5.1974 - NORMAL LODING RATE 4200 BPH
AMBIENT TEMP. 37° FULL TEMP. 42°
RVP 11.8 PSIA
0FILL FIRST FOOT IN 15 MINUTES - THEN NORMAL FILL
X FILL FIRST FOOT IN 14 MINUTES - THEN NORMAL-
FILL LAST 2 FEET IN 16 MINUTES
CC
O
CL
<
>
lli
± 10 —
o
-------
GASOLINE VAPOR EMITTED DURING LOADING
AMOCO INDIANA - DEC.27,1974
WHITING. INDIANA
AMBIENT TEMP. 36° - FUEL TEMP. 36°
FILL RATE 4400 BPH RVP 12.8 PSIA
O NORMAL FILL
X FILL FIRST FOOT IN 8 MINUTES - THEN NORMAL -
LAST 2 FEET SLOWLY
V PILL FIRST 2 FEET IN 20 MINUTES - THEN NORMAL -
LAST 2 FEET SLOWLY
30
0 1 i ' 1
12 10 8 6 4 2 FEET
ULLAGE-BELOW TOP OF TRUNK
FIGURE 7
IV-10
-------
ARCO TEST RESULTS
(Reference 6)
IV-11
-------
2,
±E=£:
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO.
FIGURE:
S/S ATLANTIC ENTERPRISE
GASOLINE LOADING, NOV. 13,
1974,TANK 7C
MOL PERCENT HYDROCARBON
VS. PERCENT FULL

1-
LOAPING DETAILS:
AMOUNT: 11,200 BARRELS
LOADING TIME: 3 HOURS/
20 MINUTES
MATERIAL: 11 RVP GASOLINE
TEMPERATURE: GASOLINE 68°F
AMBIENT, 7 5°F
TOTAL DEPTH OF COMPARTMENT:
50'
PREVIOUS CARGO: FURNACE OIL=
PRETREATMENT: BUTTERWORTH
iyuiijiDmui'i ir
-------
i--
-3~~
LOADING DETAILS
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO.
FIGURE Z.
S/S ATLANTIC ENTERPRISE
GASOLINE LOADING, NOV.~TJ,
19 74, TANK 5P
MOL PERCENT HYDROCARBON VS.
PERCENT FULL
Z
o
03
(X
<
u
o
OS
Q
Eh
Z
w
u
K
w
CL
J
o
s
AMOUNT: 76 64 BARRELS
LOADING TIME: As 3 HOURS
MATERIAL: 11 RVP GASOLINE
TEMPERATURE: GASOLINE 68°F
AMBIENT 7 5°F
TOTAL DEPTH OF¦COMPARTMENT:
«;n'
PREVIOUS CARGO: FURNACE
OIL/BALLAST
PRETREATMENT: -
EQUILIBRIUM CONCENTRATION-
45%
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION: 2.3%
0 -MEASURED BY OXYGEN METEP
ESTIMATED BY EXPLOSI
-METER
1 "

30 e:

20 E

' —-LT.t.
y
c

10 £

H—4-
~

:c_:j

EfiH-r;

. r

—-

2C
3=

¦r -\ -i -

- -I
- 1

-T
20 40
PERCENT FULL
tv_i 1
60
' r
.£

---- ^

-------
ATLANTIC RICHFTFrrt COMPANY
TABLE I
S/S ATLftOTIC ENTERPRISE, FEBRUARY 13, 1975
VOLATILE PRODUCT LOADING A1)1D EMISSION DATA
COMPARTMENT
LOADING INFORMATION
AMDINT, BARRELS
TIME, HOURS
CARGO
PREVIOUS CARGO
PRETREATMENT
TEMPERATURE, CARGO,°F
AMBIENT,°F
FINAL HEIGHT OF LIQUID,FT.
HVP, PSIA
Is
5 s
IF
4,401
17.2
Clear Gasoline
Furnace Oil
Flood Bottom
Strip Dry
70
45-70
44
13.5
7,590
16.0
Clear Gasoline
Regular Gasoline
Butte rworth
Strip Dry
70
45-70
46
13.5
7,573
15.7
Clear Gasoline
Clear Gasoline
Strip Dry
70
45-70
46
13.5
8s
7,493
17.6
Clear Gasoline
Premium Gasoline
Butterworth
Strip Dry
70
45-70
46
13.5
9s
7,272
17.9
Clear Gasoline
Furnace Oil
Flood Bottom
Strip Dry
70
45-70
46
13.5
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS
EQUILIBRIUM VAPOR, M3L PERCENT 58.5
AVERAGE EMISSION*:
MDL PEnam 4.95
PARTIAL PRESSURE, PSIA 0.73
58.5
5.5
0.81
58.5
7.0
1.0
58.5
8.2
1.2
58.5
3.4
0.50
*FROM FIGURES 1-5 INCLUSIVE
PYMilk
3/7/75
(Z3
-------
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
FIGURE 1
S/S ATLANTIC ENTERPRISE
GASOLINE LOADING
FEBRUARY 1?. 1975. CCMPA
MDL PERCENT HYDROCARBON VS. PERCENT FULL
AVERAGE PERCENT HYDROCARBCN=4.95
KEY
+ MEASURED WITH OXYGEN METER
O ANALYZED WITH MASS SPECTROMETRY
.Tfc:
'd
PERCENT FULL
t~T
TV-1 5
-------
_~1 —

• - r
i'I"
- i
. _L _i
U ;¦

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
FIGURE 2
S/S ATLANTIC ENTERPRISE
GASOLINE LOADING
FEBRUARY 13/ 197?
COMPARTMENT 5S

= MDL PERCENT HYDROCARBON IN EMISSIONS VS. PERCENT FULL:
AVERAGE HYDROCARBCN PERCENT=5.5
KEY
+ I-EASURED WITH OXYCSM METER
O ANALYZES BY MASS SPECTROMETRY
4(
; inn
- PERCENT FULL
T T 1 c
-------
•. I

!-'—u. _J „:-i" -1 ~ TT
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD* COMPANY
FIGURE 3

S/S ATLANTIC EOTERPRISE
GASOLINE LOADING
FEBRUARY 13, 1975
COMPARTMENT 7S

:M3L PERCENT HYDROCARBON IN EMISSIONS VS. PERCENT FULL
AVERAC2 HYDROCARBON CCNCENTRATION =
KEY
3
+ MEASURED WITH OXYGEN METER
O ANALYZED WITH MASS SPECTROMETER
A ANALYZED WITH GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
i
"¦n'H—u-
~-T-
£

¦M

zlsiz

: J

r^O=
—^ —i

rrrtr
IHSl

:j" I
r.
.-d
I. .L=:3.i.i.:

•Lk4

U 33—-----l 1

as
PERCENT FULL
IV-17
tgu:
~ ~— -I*-—

i:--
r~~ --=rpz

-------
TT=r
¦ i
I

:r.~zz
ATLAM7C RICHFTFII? COMPANY
FIGURE 4
S/S ATLANTIC ENTERPRISE
GASOLINE LOADING
FEBRUARY 13, 1975
COMPARTMENT 8S
M3L PERCENT HYDROCARBON IN EMISSION'S VS. PERCENT FULL
AVERAGE HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION=8.2

KEY
+ MEASURED WITH OXYON METER
O ANALYZED WITH MASS SPECTRCMETER
i
PERCENT FULL
IV- 18
-------

.-_:jr\rhtr |

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
FIGURE 5
! '-IZHEH,'
rtr
IE
MDL
S/S ATLANTIC ENTERPRISE =
GASOLINE LOADING ^
FEBRUARY 13y 1975 =
COMPARTMENT 9S 5
PERCENT HYDROCARBON IN EMISSIONS VS. PERCENT FULL F

AVERAGE HYDROCARBON PERCENT=3.4
KEY
+ MEASURED WITH OXYGEN METER
O ANALYZED WITH MASS SPECTROMETRY
^ ANALYZED WITH GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
=^=l ..I
i 111 • • *i
-tzi

cn
i

^30=
=^==f=

IT —

Erb-T
rrr(r.-

I"
:: +""!
_t
•4--

:rr:."-"
¦ i -;2C
!-:i

—€(¦
in PERCENT FULL
IV-19
ir~B3
¦ra

z:. ;£rbi;
-------
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
TABLE I
VOLATILE PRODUCT LOADING AND EMISSION DATA
S/S ARCO PRESTIGE, APRIL 28, 1975
<
i
ro
O
LOADING INFORMATION
Amount, Barrels
Tiitie, Hours
Average Fill Rate
BPH
GPM
Cargo
Previous Cargo
Pretreatment
COMPARTMENT
Temperature, Cargo °F
,Ambient °F
Final Height of
Liquid, Feet
KVP, PSIA
TVP, PSIA
1C
Toon
1.7
5889
4122
Clear Gasoline
Furnace Oil
Flood Bottom
Strip Dry
87
80-84
45.7
9.7
8.0
4C
12974
3.8
3414
2390
Clear Gasoline
Leaded Gasoline
Butterworth
Hot Wash
Strip Dry
Ballasted
87
80-84
45.7
9.7
8.0
7C
12974
3.5
3707
2595
Clear Gasoline
Leaded Gasoline
Butterworth
Hot Wash
Strip Dry
Ballasted
87
80-84
45.7
9.7
8.0
11C
8912
2.0
4456
3119
Clear Gasoline
Furnace Oil
Flood Bottom
Strip Dry
87
80-84
45.7
9.7
8.0
HYDROCARBON OCNCENTRATIONS
Equilibrium Vapor
Mol Percent
Average Dnissian*
Mol Percent
Partial Pressure PSIA
54.4
2.8
0.41
54.4
3.0
0.44
54.4
1.8
0.43
54.4
2.6
0.38
*Based on "mol percent hydrocarixin versus percent full" curves.
*
GJZ:lk
-------
ATLANTIC RICHTT-?.!) COMPANY
TABLE II
SUWREy OF SAMPIE DATA. FROM UNLEADED GASOLINE
LOADING TEST-S/S ARCO PRESTICS
APRIL 28, 1975
PERCENT HYDRDCAEECN
COMPAKIV
TIME
PERCENT
MASS
GAS

f-ENT
P.M.
FULL
SPEC.
QCRCM.
MDL. WEIGHT
7C
2:45
2
0.03
0.03
58.13
7C
3:20
28
0.04
0.06
56.66
7C
4:52
71
0.13
0.16
57.01
7C
5:22
88
0.22
0.63
55.03
7C
5:55
96
17.44 .
24.0
57.86
7C
6:05
98
39.07
33.0
56.67
4C
2:48
3
0.02
—
58.11
4C
3:30
22
0.03
-
58. U
4C
5:00
65
0.24
-
51.38
4C
6:15
92
8.78
-
55.26

6:26
97
34.20
-
56.78
4c
6:32
99
38.73
—
56.95
1C
6:35
4
0.98
—
65.99
1C
8:00
96
25.76
-
55.03
1C
8:05
98
23.69
—
55.16
lie
6:10
5
0.13
_
65.95
lie
7:50
96
24.84
-
59.90
lie
7:54
99
24.68
-
56.01
GTZ: lk
8/22/75
IV-21
-------
FIGURE 1
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD OCMPANY
S.S. ARQO PRESTIGE
LNIZAEED GASOLINE LOADING
APRIL 28, 1975
COMPAKIMEST 1C
M3L PERCENT HYDROCARBON IN EMISSIONS
VERSUS PERCENT FULL
AVERAGE HYDFOCARBCN PERCEOT=2.8
KEY: © ANALYZED BY MASS SPECTROMETRY
+ MEASURED WITH OXYGEN METER
-------
.^5Hi
FIGURE 2
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
S.S. ARCO PPESTICS
LNIEACED GASOLINE LOADING
APRIL 28, 1975
OOf^AKINENT 4C
MOL PERCENT HYDROCARBON IN EMISSIONS
VERSUS PERCENT FULL
AVERAGE! HYDROCARBON PEFCENT=3.0
KEY: ©ANALYZED BY MASS SPECTROMETRY
+ MEASURED WITH OXYGEN MEIER
IV-23
-------
FIGURE 3
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
S.S. ARCO PFESTIGE
LNIZAEED GASOLINE LOADING
APRIL 28, 197?
CCMPARIMENT 7C
M3L PERCENT HYDROCARBON IN EMISSIONS
VERSUS PERCENT FULL
AVERAGE HYDROCARBON PERCENT=1.8
KEY: 0 ANALYZED BY MASS SPECTROMETRY
£ MSSfB BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
-------

.'li :j~-
FIGURE 4
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD OCMPANY
S.S. ARCO PRESTIGE
INI£AEED GASOLINE LOADING
APRIL 28, 1975
OOMPAKTMENT 11C

_i 1

M3L PERCENT HYDROCARBON IN EMISSIONS
VERSUS PERCEOT FULL
AVERAC2 HYDROCARBCN PERCEOT=2.6
KEY;Q ANALYZED BY MASS SPECTROMETRY
+ NFASTTEra wrm nwrs-M mtoi
^4
1
-------
EXXON TEST RESULTS
(Reference 13)
IV- 26
-------
MRRINE LOADING VAPOR. EMISSIONS
PRODUCT «• N0T0R GASOLINE
ARRIVAL L3NDITI0N « TANKER.. EFFECTIVELY GA5 FREED
EQUATIONS DESCRIBING REGflE55I0N
PCT HC = -1.-32 "ULLAGE- + 36.81 ( .40 * ULLAGE* 8.14 )
PCT HC = -.03 hULLAGE + 1.90 t B.11 i ULLAGES 56.00 )
a
¦
** J
I
=1
iiiU
¦ ttv—U
i , i, i: , f , ii
¦ MM. 1—|.B
56.0
TRUE ULLAGE'(FEET.)
-------
MARINE LOADING VAPOR. EMISSIONS
PRODUCT «. MOTOR GASOLINE
RRRIVRL CONDITION s TANKER. BALLR5TE0
EQUATIONS DESCRIBING REGRESSION
PCT HC = -2.17 *ULhflGE + 31.1
FCT HC = -.09 mULLRGE + 7.29
i ULLAGE* 11.18 )
O
flQ
H OC
00 C
&N* CO
t, CH
O

Hit
56.0
TRUE ULLAGE(FEET)
-------
MRRINE LORDING VAPOR EMISSIONS
PRODUCT J MOTOR GASOLINE
RRRIVRL CONDITION i TRNKER. EMPTY. UNCLERNED
EQUATIONS DESCRIBING REGRESSION
PCT HC = -3.46 "ULLAGE + 113.96
PCT HC = -.10 xULLAGE +¦ 10.11
.10 i ULLflGEs 10.09 )
10.09 £ ULLAGES 56.00 )
a
OQ
ac
ro
MMN
MM
O
Mm
56.0
(Ml
TRUE ULLAGE(FEET)
-------
MARINE • LOADING- 'VAPOR .EMISSIONS
PRODUCT. -»• MOTOR. GASOLINE
RRRIVRL CONOnrUN-J- •GCERN-BRRO&* . EFFECT P/Etr OAS.FREED
EQURTrONS "DESCRIBING- REGRESSION
PCI HC- c. -6.-51 *ULtRGe ¦+- 56.416
PC-I.HC-c.--vn. mULLRGE- -t- -5/B1
MOvO
( 2^00 £ ULLAGES B.-30 .)
I 8/30 * ULLAGE-* UO^OOJ'
—i
M
<
CL
TRUE'ULLAGE CFEETO
-------
MARINE - LOAO-raG- VAPOR .EMISS TOWS
PRODUCT -I .MOTOR. GASOLINE
nRRIVHL'LONOnrON-t -OCEflN-Bflftoe. BHLtHSTEO
EQURirONS DESCRIBING- REGRESS ION
PCt .HC-c--3/13 xULLflGE +- 30.4W I 2,00
KlILLflOt-t-16/U I B.-57
S ULLROE * 8.-5? . J
S ULLR06S 110.00. J
PC-T J1C- n- .-v!H
M
u»
II: i|
TRUE ULLAGE (.FEET.)
-------
MARINE - LOADING- 'VAPOR .EMISSIONS
H
<
u>
N>
UJOXJ
!-*•
<2
n
CO
B
a
CC §j
£ !e>
~rJ c£)
-1—i i
^ 22
Li—I S
v J
3
o.-d
PRODUCT a -MOTOR- OHSOtniE
ARRIVAL" CONO nittl i -OCEAN - BARG6.. EMPTTr UNCtERNEO
EQUfli rows - describing- regress eon
PC-I HC C. ^3vt3 . xl/LtflOE- -+- -3!iv73 I 2. 00 * ULLAGES 0,-09.)
PCt .HC ^ .-%-}3 wULLflOE- ¦+- -H5^!iU I 8.-03- 3 ULLAGES HO^OO O

«. *
K
«
imi
M
* * *
~d
R
DJ
o
i
-t—•
s&vo
TRUE ULLAGE (.FEETJ
-------
MARINE - LORDING- 'VAPOR EMISSIONS
PREJOUOT >. MOTOR GASOLINE
HRRIVHL' LJNOn.rON i BRRO&. EMPTV.- UNCLEfltlEO
Et3LfRT IDN3 DeSCaTSTOt}- REOfiESSlDN
KtJC.fc.ROfr ¦+- - 33 .-6H
wULLROt -t~ • t3^9B
100--0
* ULLAGE * 7,03 .)
* ULLRGE3 12^-00. J
POT -HC- c. .-2^97
PC-! .HD c. .-vl7
H
m
*
-u
TRUE ULLAGECFEETJ
-------
MRRINE LORDING VRPOR EMISSIONS
<
i ug
w c
+ (B
DO
lOOvO
O
CQ
az
5 uj
o z
rr cn
o \—
:E &
^ on
uj £
o
>
o-.o
PRODUCT s AVIATION GASOLINE
ARRIVAL CONDITION « TANKER> EFFECTIVELY GA5 FREED
EQUATIONS DESCRIBING REGRESSION
PCT HC = -1.91 "ULLAGE + 17. 21 (1.00 s ULLAGE * 8.23 )
PCT hC = -.01 mULLAGE + 1.80 I 8.23 i ULLAGES 56.00 ]
a
~C
g
$
us
(*>
o
o
Is

O.U
58.0
TRUE ULLAGE(FEET)
-------
MARINE LORDING VRPOR. EMISSIONS
100.0
a
co
cc
< cc ^
-a HI
" £ o ^
2 CO CC
vo O
^—: —)
x: QQ
£n! C/3
LLl 5
X5
ID
O
>
0.0
0.4
PRODUCT *. AVIATION GASOLINE
ARRIVAL CONDITION s TANKER. EMPTY. UNCLEANEDCPREV, CARGO AVGA5)
EQURTI0N5 -DESCRIBING-REGRESSION
PCT HC = -*95 *ULtflGE- + 22.23 ( 2,00 * ULLAGE-£ 17,45 )
PCT MC = -,0B ^ULLAGE + 7.08 ( 17.45 £ ULLAGE £ 56,00 J
K
u
-+-H
56.0
TRUE ULLAGE (FEET.)
-------
MARINE LORDING VAPOR EMISSIONS
<
i "i
u> H-
* «a
1
n>
100*0
O
QQ
0C
^ n
CJ uJ
O g
QC CC
s o tr
y— 3
n CQ
^ C/3
LLJ S
S
3
O
CKO
M M
o.i
PRODUCT i RVIRTI0N GASOLINE
RRRIVRL CONDITION « TRNKER. EMPTY. UNCLERNEDtPREV. CRRGO MOGRS)
EQURTI0N5 DESCRIBING REGRESSION
PCT HC = -1.70 xULLflGE + 30.16 ( 1.50 =£ ULLAGE* 10.52 )
PCT HC = -.17 *ULLRGE + 11.10 t 10.52 S ULLRGEi 56.00 )
M
f?
~a
n
£3
n
Ld
H—t
56,0
TRUE ULLAGE(FEET)
-------
SHELL TEST RESULTS
(Reference 18)
IV-37
-------
S. S. VfiLLEY /=aftc>£.
C.Of* Pf* /\ Ti»£.sj V (a S
/o//?/7f
loo
\ Be
«
K
o
0
or
Q
>» o
>

r—rrrrr
J-———— i————• T ' ^

VJ
<1 Vo
Pv

• -T- * — |

• I - - t • -
' -v;
, 4 --- .

iO £>0
~PC-1 . S"~ t~ • "1 4-1.5 +- ^2—1_ i ^ %
E.F--- (>-g>3 fan iu'^
' (f4S1t11'
1*7- [b
S1!4'
-------
S'.S'. VfrLU&Y /=oRG&
Co/Vj T/yin-AJ-r t-/S
'oft*?/ 7W
{OQ
\
p?
PC
H:
u
0
CC
.
k
) + (.iK^) v-[.^)C33) -- b.^) ^.3
Tc.Fx -
.(<*&+fT
sV
-------
£ S. Wi-c&Y /Zoza/z
C C?AiP T-/>rG:Aj-r~ /C
/c//? />y
/oa
\ Be
v 3
J oc>
GrfiSa l/*j£ ^ - £^(3) ^ (.o5)(l) Vl.o^) ^v) Vt'OCtf0) ~ 2.<-| + .*5" + -k +
^ --1^7*
l3.S~TtvP
7-7^/= U(? T.
0>ooo
<*
(>s "V W/, %
-------
S-S. I/Ai.L£. \
C o /Yi PA/1 TrrteT'/JT" (# S
/ofzt /7y
loo
\ Be
v>
K-
K
o
0
fC
<3
>»
s.
¦»»
*y
vj
(
£.c

• - • t - - -1— 1 — '—
—...

r-H

-T-

=T—
i——i~

- ^ j— ¦ ¦ . 1''" — * 1 | —
- —- «— > • I — • — • - t • — • — • -
• •'«•••{ <1 • • S( > *«M • «

l:o

~Vo c>o-
7*G.-rzc£LA.*r f-uuu
f=/c, s~
too

GrA So L.//UcL
{.2.0 /?l/P
7^^ Uq r.
•S^^od Ce3l.//-f^
-- (r) (^o)+ (,\) y (3 o) (.i) -- <4 v 1 v- \ 1
H.P® - Q(Q
51^
I
- U7 \WfAv.
TU-A1
-------
S. S. VfiLi-B y £artc>a_
C O /,i Vfr/Z-rntG/JT' ts
/l /iZ /7y
(oc
\ Bo
c
p?
o
0
or
>»
*
£0

~:r-~ J:

••••••»•

—I" |

—U - -* —1 * **' "...7^

(
.. i—
i • • •«

r^-:rJ: — v~-i
—T Z.J
— -1 •} ——-i —• - J

«U
Vj
J vo
&
/*P
—;:——-:4"T ""i - • -/ " "
•• i ; 1

—I ¦ | c ""| •~:ri ¦ ~j~~ 'j • i "•'——• 7

i- —•«•

AO
Yo co
"PG-TKLOMT F'Ht+i-
£-/& c,
IOO
Grfi So i-//l>
13.3 «vP
/Vr *-Sf
(2) (yd) v[-0(_i>) *" W v ~~

f \,-U f \v0 +• 1.^ -V 0-*%-

5"l>- 7 /
X.OOO B<$£- Jrtrl
Tt£--ri~/ri/u£. b As CsajloA& £ & - fijo 5/?£^/?-rT, fr 0/z
-------
APPENDIX V
RADIAN EMISSION TESTING RESULTS
V-l
-------
RADIAN EMISSION TESTING RESULTS
The figures in Appendix V graphically present the test
data collected by Radian on hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline
loading onto ships, barges, and ocean barges and on hydrocarbon
emissions from crude ballasting. Sampling trip reports which
detail the test procedures applied and the testing conditions
are presented in Appendix VI.
V- 2
-------
50 t
40
30 ¦
20-
10-
V
FIGURE V-1
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: SHELL - PASADENA
OPERATION: GASOLINE LOADING
TANK: ic
PREVIOUS CARGO: kerosine-cleaned
RVP: 10.2
DATE: 5/3/76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 3 VOL*
-r-
-i i i 1 r-
10 20 30 40 50
ULLAGE (FT.)
50
40-
30-
20"
FiGURE Y-2
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: SHELL - PASADENA
OPERATION: GASOLINE LOADING
tank: 7 c
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE - CLEANED
RVP: 10.2
DATE: 5/3/75
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 4.5 vol*
10 -

T-
10 20 30 40
ULLAGE (FT.3
—1~"
30
—I—
50
V-1
-------
50
40 ¦
30 ¦
20
FIGURE Y-3
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: SHELL - PASADENA
OPERATION: GASOLINE LOADING
TANK: 7 S
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE
RVP: 10.2
DATE: 5-3-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 3 VOL. %
10-
±23*.
r
10
i
20
i
30
40
ULLAGE (FT.)
50
50
40
30-
20 -
10 -
FIGURE
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP:
OPERATION:
TANK:
PREVIOUS CARGO:
RVP:
DATE:
AVG HC CONCENTRATION:
—r—
10
I
20
T-
30
40
ULLAGE (FT.)
50
V-4
-------
50
40 -
30 -
20 -
10-
S.
FIGURE Y-4
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - OCEAN CHALLENGER
OPERATION: BALLASTING
TANK: 6C
PREVIOUS CARGO: TRINIDAO CRUDE
RVP: 2.8 PSIA
DATE: 5/27/76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 20 VOL%
- NOTE: THIS TANK ARRIVED ONLY 1/2 FULL
I I i ' i
10 20 30 40 SO
ULLAGE (FT.)
50
40
30
20-
10- V
FIGURE Y-5
RADIAN TES." RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - OCEAN CHALLENGER
OPERATION: ballasting
TANK: 4C
PREVIOUS CARGO: ESSIDER CRUDE
RVP: 6.4 PSIA
DATE: 5/27/76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 7 VOL*
-i 1 1 1 r-
10 20 30 40 50
ULLAGE (FT.)
V-5
-------
*
50 n
40
30 i
20
FIGURE 7-6
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - OCEAN CHALLENGER
OPERATION: BALLASTING
TANK: 3C
PREVIOUS CARGO: ESSIDER CRUDE
RVP: 6.4 PSIA
t * ,
DATE: 5-27-76
-AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 8 VOL. %
10-
3—O-
fill'
0 10 20 30 40
ULLAGE (FT.)
50
50
40-
30-
20 -
FIGURE Y-7
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - OCEAN CHALLENGER
OPERATION: BALLASTING
TANK'- SP
PREVIOUS CARGO: TRINIDAD CRUDE
RVP: 2.8 PSIA
DATE: 5-27-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 6 VOL. %
10 -
—r-
50
10
—r-
20
—T—
30
40
ULLAGE (FT.)

-------
50 -i
40 -
30 -
20
FIGURE 7-8
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - OCEAN CHALLENGER
OPERATION: BALLASTING
TANK: 7C
PREVIOUS CARGO: TRINIDAD CRUDE
RVP: 2.8 PSIA
DATE: 5-27-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 8 VOL. %
10-
-i i 1 r-
10 20 30 40
ULLAGE (FT.)
50
50
40 -
30-
20
10 -
FIGURE 7-9
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - OCEAN CHALLENGER
OPERATION: BALLASTING
TANK: 10C
PREVIOUS CARGO: TRINIDAD CRUDE
RVP: 2.8 PSIA
DATE: 5-27-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 14 VOL %
NOTE:
10
~r~
20
—r-
30
—i—
40
—r-
50
THIS TANK WAS USED TO COLLECT
STRIPPINGS BEFORE THEY WERE
PUMPED TO SHORE.
ULLAGE (FT.)
V-7
-------
o
>
z
o
p
<
CE
t-
Z
Ui
o
z
O
o
z
O
m
cr
<
o
o
(X
Q
>
X
50 i
40 -

30
20
10-
FIGURE 7-10
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO-VIRGINIA
OPERATION: LOADING GASOLINE
TANK: 3C
PREVIOUS CARGO: DIESEL - CLEANED
RVP: 9.1
DATE: 5-28-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 5 VOL. %
I
10
i
20
—I—
30
40
50
ULLAGE (FT.)
O
>
z
o
K
<
CE
H
Z
Ui
o
z
o
o
z
o
CO
cc
<
o
o
cr
Q
>
z
50
40 -
30 -
20
10 -
\
FIGURE 7-11
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - VIRGINIA
OPERATION: LOADING GASOLINE
TANK: 4C
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE - CLEANED
RVP: 11.1
DATE: 5-28-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 4 VOL. %
10
i
20
30
aT-
40
—r-
50
ULLAGE (FT.)
-------
50 -
40
30 -
20- '
10-
FIGURE 7-12
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - VIRGINIA
OPERATION: LOADING GASOLINE
TANK: 4P
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE - CLEANED
RVP: 11.1
DATE: 5-28-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 3 VOL. %

T
f
30
10 20 30 40
ULLAGE (FT.)
50
50
40
30 -j
20 -
10 -
FIGURE Y-13
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO - VIRGINIA
OPERATION: LOADING GASOLINE
TANK: 5C
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE - CLEANED
RVP: 11.1
DATE: 5-28-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 10 VOL. %
boo
-i 1 1 1 r-
10 20 30 40 50
ULLAGE (FT.)
V-9
-------
50 -
40 -
30 -
20-
\
FIGURE Y-14
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: AMOCO-VIRGINIA
OPERATION: LOADING GASOLINE
TANK: 8C
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE - UNCLEANED
RVP:
DATE: 5-28-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 25 VOL. %
10-
o 1 1 1 1 1 r-
0 10 20 30 40 50
ULLAGE (FT.)
50 t
40-
30-
20 -
FIGURE
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP:
OPERATION:
TANK:
PREVIOUS CARGO:
RVP:
DATE:
AVG HC CONCENTRATION:
10 -
i | i i i
10 20 30 40 50
ULLAGE (FT.)
V-1 0
-------
50 -
40
30
20-
10-
F1GURE Y-1S
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: PORT EVERGLADES
OPERATION: GASOLINE LOADING
TANK: 1S
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE - BALLASTED
RVP:
DATE: 6-3-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 11 VOL. %
*0000
—I—
40
1
10
i
20
i
30
i
50
ULLAGE (FT.)
*
50
40-
30-
20 "
FIGURE "7-16
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: PORT EVERGLADES
OPERATION: GASOLINE LOADING
TANK: 3P
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE BALLASTED
RVP:
DATE: 6-3-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 8.7 VOL. %
10 - o
*00-
—I 1 1 I 1""
10 20 30 40 50
ULLAGE (FT.)
V-ll
-------
FIGURE V-17
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP: PORT EVERGLADES
OPERATION: GASOLINE LOADING
TANK: 3S
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE BALLASTED
RVP:
DATE: 6-3-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 13 VOL. %
ULLAGE (FT.)
FIGURE
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP:
OPERATION:
TANK:
PREVIOUS CARGO:
RVP:
DATE:
AVG HC CONCENTRATION:
t 1 1 r ¦ i
10 20 30 40 50
ULLAGE (FT.)
V-12
-------
*
50 t
40 -
30 -
20-
10 -

BOTTOM
FIGURE Y-18
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP' EXXON BARGE 119
OPERATION: GASOLINE LOADING
TANK: 2 P
PREVIOUS CARGO: GASOLINE - UNCLEANED
RVP:
DATE: 6-15-76
AVG HC CONCENTRATION: 27 VOL. %
10
i
20
i
30
40
50
ULLAGE (FT.)
*
O
50 t
40-
30
20 -
FIGURE
RADIAN TEST RESULTS
SHIP:
OPERATION:
TANK:
PREVIOUS CARGO:
RVP:
DATE:
AVG HC CONCENTRATION:
10-
20
—I—
50
—J—
10
30
40
ULLAGE (FT.)
V-13
-------
APPENDIX VI
RADIAN EMISSION TEST DATA
AND TRIP REPORTS
VI-1
-------
13 May 1976
JDC:swm
Project No. 200-045-56
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Distribution
J. D. Colley
SUBJECT: Sampling trip to Shell, Deer Park, meeting notes with
Exxon, Crown Central Petroleum, and Charter International
Oil.
On May 3, Milton Owen and myself left for Houston to
sample a gasoline loading operation at Shell's Deer Park marine
facility. On May 4, we visited with Shell's Shipping Coordinator,
Don Lanning, and toured the Shell tank farm and dock areas.
Wednesday, May 5, we met with Lee Fuller, John Bentz, and Bruce
Nichols of Exxon's Environmental Group and toured their terminal.
Then on Thursday, we visited Crown (Bill Warnement) and. Charter
(Bill Miles) and inspected their marine facilities. The remainder
of this memorandum summarizes the results of the testing at Shell
and presents an outline of the meetings and tours between Radian
and Shell, Exxon, Charter, and Crown personnel.
Plans had been made with Shell Oil to sample the loading
of Super Shell and Shell Regular into the tanker "Pasadena" on
Tuesday, May 4. Monday morning Don Lanning notified Radian that
the tanker was a day early and was expected to arrive at their
docks by noon Monday. Milton Owen and I loaded the equipment and
left for Deer Park as soon as possible. We arrived about an hour
SHELL
VI- 2
-------
13 May 1976
JDC.swm
Page 2
before the tanker was to be loaded and set up our equipment for
testing.
After talking with the Chief Mate of the "Pasadena",
Mr. Knox, we decided that it would be possible to sample the
loading of three carge tanks with Super Shell (1C, 7C, and 7S)
The test runs went smoothly and we sampled tank 1C beginning at
7:50 p.m. and finished with tank 7C at midnight. Although the
data have not been fully processed at this time, a preliminary
examination indicates a vapor concentration profile similar to
that seen in the test results from the literature. The "Pasadena's"
cargo tanks 1C, 7S, and 7C had a less than 1 percent uniform
hydrocarbon concentration prior to the loading. The final hydro-
carbon concentration was 43 percent for tank 7S; 45.5 percent for
tank 1C; and 47 percent for tank 7C. The primary reason for the
difference in the final vapor concentration is thought to be the
loading rates. Tank 7S was loaaed the fastest, while tanks 7C
md 1C took over twice as long to load.
Th~ RVP of the gasoline was 10 2 psi and its initial
loading temperature was 73°F.
Tuesday, Milt and I met with Don Lanning, Shell's
Shipping Coordinator. He showed us around the Shell tank farm
and the dock site. We discussed with him the dockside equipment
at their terminal and the operating procedures there. We traced
with him to path of the Shell gasolines from storage to blending
to pumping of the product either to the bulk pipeline or to the
marine dock. The pumps which deliver the gasoline to the docks
are located within the tank farm area. These pumps are of the
VI- 3
-------
centrifugal type and they can deliver gasoline at the rate of
nearly 6,000 barrels per hour each. They operate at 150 psi.
At the terminal itself, there are four docks either of
which they can each load gasoline. Also, the Shell refinery
receives approximately one-half of its crude oil from ships and
barges.
Mr. Lanning indicated that approximately twelve tankers
are chartered by Shell to serve the Deer Park refinery on a reg-
ular basis. The collection system for Shell's proposed vapor
recovery unit will consist of flexible hoses which would transfer
the vented gasoline vapors from these ships to four recovery units
located next to each of the four docks. He claimed that the
system has been designed to be compatible with the Exxon ships
which must mate with the Exxon vapor recovery system. He said
the two systems are somewhat different. Mr. Lanning agreed to
supply a rough schematic of the piping which transfers gasoline
to the docks from the refinery and crude oil from the docks to the
tank farm. Additional information concerning Shell's marine
terminals (which will be supplied to Radian by Shell personnel in
the near future) will describe the facility and the operations
in more detail.
In summary, this sampling visit and tour should be very
valuable in completing the program. The data we gathered on the
loading operation appear to agree with data observed from p.ast
tests by other companies. Shell's Deer Park marine facility is
one of the largest of its kind. The sampling and tour along with
further cooperation by Shell personnel in providing Radian with
more detailed information on their terminal will go a long way
toward achieving the objectives of this program.
VI-4
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet I
Survey of Shore-Side Information
General Information
Dace M&jj / 3 7 (-
Name of vessel 5 S
Terminal "Sic. 1/ O /*- tt-1 pa Ui-ni/?/
Product (s) loaded *5 ,rJ^ 5[ajl// /
Terminal Information
Storage tank number
Storage tank size
Type of robf
Length of time stored
Tank color; age , _
Storage temperature
Pump type
Pumo size
Pump nominal rate _y. tT f- C Lhl/^r
Ambient Conditions
Air temperature /r j - 7f 9F"
Weather conditions j / 'U fas-U/ ''(ftdr/ . / C iy/l,
it> i
Prepared by
: Qit-i-- > :t {f
VI-5
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet II
Survey of Vessel Information
General Information
Date /f/f ay ~3; I R 7 b
Name of vessel 5..5 4
Type of vessel: ship barge
Total number of cargo tanks 7
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date Mn/ 3 IQ7C. Product Loaded Su/?S.p- 3Lf.il ,
Cargo Tank No / C- Loading Rate ^ ?)Cr hltl/ltr
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading

% LEL
% Gas
Bottom

— /
Middle

(
Top (deck level)

< /
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
Tine
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
L Gas
VaDor T("F)
Liquid T(°F)

B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
/a Gas
VaDor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date /jj ,-( / ^ / Ct 7 C? Product Loaded *5 u tW 5 . fl. \J P ^ /C'.Z.
Cargo Tank No (_ z7 (' ^ Loading Rate frWL 'r.Tf " 4gr frb//irs
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL % Gas
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
Tiine
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Ga's
Vapor T(nF)
Liquid T(°F)

B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

VT-8
1
4
± j=1l
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Ddta
Date flf{ n. j 3 1 -? 1 (~ Product Loaded > iZ^P^ IS. Z_
Cargo Tank No 7 S Loading Rate -2-1 tTr, lr,hl/l.r
I. Hydrocarbon Pr
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
Tine
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

•

B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

ile Prior to Loading
% LEL % Gas
_±
VI-9
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III (Cont.)
Recorded Data
Date /1/\ ft // ^ itf 7 (- Product Loaded ^Ll/7 '<-J 9 - 1 ¦£
Cargo Tank No / C , Loading Rate C/ J ,fl p f/liol/h /•
III. Hydrocarbon Concentration on Vented Vapors
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T (°F)

Empty

n-rc
&*+%'(*"
3
1
?9
7 3fF
1 t>' c c
45

^ /
<7 9

40
z-
^1

irv-r
35
z

/<* CH
30
2.
<- 1 '
S /-

l^sr-
25
2.
^ ,
t

i^-rc
20
Z
C/
? /

XC cr
18
7
^1
U-

Z-G 6"^
16
"5

2 0 f/,
14
7
<)
<5?

z
12
/ 2.

S 1

Z'Z~b^
10
/V
"Z.

Z £ 3S?
9
^ 7
2.
.Y:T

Z^cf ?
8
7 &
¥
8V

7
>iQ0

~2^r TZ
6

2. 6
y?

^ r s£
5

40
tf-3

4't, ''

5
y ^

VI-10
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III (Cont.)
Recorded Data
Date

Cargo Tank No
¥-
ivt.
m.
Product Loaded *5
Loading Rate j/^
I
ieA. £iM
SULJLvEzic.
^/v
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III (Cont.)
Recorded Data
Date M-'u, "3. / ^ 71 Product Loaded S'Lu^Z R'Jfi = lr.7^
Cargo Tank No "7 Loading Rate 2- 75T /><¦¦}-
III. Hydrocarbon Concentration on Vented Vapors
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL 1 % Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T (°F)

Empty

-
35

"2.2-/7-
30
7

ZSZJZZT
25
/ /

1 7

2^Z-<+2
20

/
77c

iST ! S~

/
7r

2-3cr
9 i 3

/
TH-

/"3
m_ i /

z-
1 ^

•
10

Z-3; 5"
9
4 (c
-2-
7 3

i 7
8
>i rn
4
77

Z-"3z 1
7

rv
7 ?

Z.3 Z-f
6

¦z-4
7t

ZrSZ.*
5

3 7
71

2-T^7
A ' / "
«» u

7?
77

VI-12
-------
21 June 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Distribution
FROM: J. D. Colley
SUBJECT: Trip Report - AMOCO Oil Company, Texas City, Texas
May 26-28, 1976
I. Purpose
The purpose of this trip was to measure and record the hydro-
carbon emissions from the ballasting of a crude oil tanker and the
loading of gasoline onto a tanker at AMOCO Oil Company docks and
Marathon Oil Company docks in Texas City, Texas.
II. Place and Date
AMOCO Texas City refinery marine dock No 40, May 27 (crude
ballasting), AMOCO dock No. 32, May 28 (gasoline loading), and
Marathon dock No. 22, May 28 (gasoline loading).
III. Attendees
AMOCO: Captain Larkin
Captain Park (M/V Ocean Challenger)
Captain Skibba (S.S. AMOCO Virginia)
Bill Bulger, N Y. Office (M/V Ocean Challenger)
Howard Husa, Engineer
Jim Ross
VI-13
-------
Radian: David Colley
Clint Burklin
EPA: Bill Polglase, ESED
IV. Discussion
A. M/V Ocean Challenger
The M/V Ocean Challenger is a Class A tanker of approxi-
mately 53,000 DWT. It is owned by AMOCO Petroleum Corporation,
has a Korean crew, and sails under the Liberian flag. Currently
the ship is in service between the Caribbean and the AMOCO Texas
City refinery. On this particular voyage, the ship had arrived
at Dock 40, a ¦dock used exclusively by AMOCO to handle crude oil,
on Tuesday May 25, to unload Trinidad (Galeota crude-RVP 2.8) and
Essider (Lybian crude-RVP 6.4). The average unloading rate was
approximately 14,000 barrels per hour. The tanker had nine center
tanks and seven port and starboard wing tanks.
Prior to taking hydrocarbon measurements on the tanker's
ballasting operation, a meeting was held with Captain Park and his
first mate to discuss the purpose of our visit. Communication was
difficult with them, however, we determined that 40 percent of the
ship's capacity would be ballasted and we obtained a ballasting
diagram showing the final ullage of each tank to be ballasted.
From this information a preliminary sampling strategy was decided
upon. Data was to be taken on the hydrocarbon concentration pro-
file of as many tanks as possible prior to ballasting. Then the
probe would be positioned near the open ullage hatch and the
rented vapor concentrations recorded for a selected tank.
VI -14
-------
At 4:00 a.m. all the crude oil had been discharged from
the tanks. We began taking measurements at this time with our
MSA Gascope, Model 53. Simultaneous readings were taken by
AMOCO using a similar type measuring instrument which was cali-
brated to read hydrocarbons as percent butane. Their readings
were generally lower than our readings since our gascope was
calibrated to read in percent methane.
Because of interference with internal structures in certain
cargo tanks, we were able to drop the sampling probe to the bottom
of only six cargo tanks, before ballasting operations began. Access
to each tank was through the 10% inch diameter ullage gauging
opening which was located 40 inches above deck level and atop the
tank manhole hatch cover. Measurements recorded from our gascope
are presented on data sheets at the end of this report.
Several points worth noting are.
Higher concentrations were observed in tanks
6C and 10C than in the other tanks sampled.
This was because 6C had arrived only half full
of crude thereby providing a large vapor space
above the crude for light hydrocarbons to evapor-
ate into. Also it was reported that the steam
coils in the tank were in poor repair and
possibly leaking steam. The reason tank 10C
had higher than average hydrocarbon concen-
trations is that strippings from the bottoms of
all the other cargo tanks were pumped to this tank
and collected before being pumped ashore.
A hydrocarbon concentration versus depth analysis
was run on tank 4C at two times which were separated by
VI-15
-------
several hours. Data taken prio'r to ballasting on
this tank showed a vapor blanket of about 2-3
feet thick ranging in concentration from 6 to 40
percent. After about 5 or *6 hours another test
was made. The tank had been ballasted to a 34
foot ullage by then. The measurements indicated
that the blanket was now about 6-7 feet thick
ranging in concentration from 7 to 36 percent.
Several factors could account for this: (1) ini-
tial ballast water inlet agitating and dispensing
the vapor blanket in the bottom of the tank,
(2) evaporation of volatile hydrocarbons from
the crude oil heel left in the tank, and" (3)
vertical diffusion of these vapors into the empty
compartment.
Forty percent of the cargo space was ballasted.
This is a larger amount than was expected.
Various sources estimate the amount of ballast
typically taken on at dock for crude tankers to
be 20 to 30 percent.
Ship personnel mentioned that the crude cargo
tanks are washed with oil (similar to butter-
worthing with water) to remove the heavy ends
(waxes, paraffins, tars, etc.) which stick to the
tank walls. More information about this operation
is needed since little detail was obtained during
the discussion. Hydrocarbon concentrations in a
tank "cleaned" in this manner could increase sub-
stantially due to this operation.
VI-16
-------
Ballast water was pumped into each tank at
a relatively slow rate. Rough calculations
indicate the water was pumped in at 2,000-
3,000 barrels per hour.
The M/V Ocean Challenger is classified as a type
"A" tanker. For this class of ships the dis-
placed vapors from the cargo tanks can be vented
through a manifold system which includes a P/V
valve and a flame arrestor at masthead level
(approximately 55 feet above deck). All tanks,
however, were vented not through this system, but
through their ullage measuring hatches during
ballasting.
The residual hydrocarbon concentration in the
cargo tanks did not appear to be a function of
crude RVP.
B. S.S. AMOCO Virginia
This ship is owned by AMOCO Oil Company, has an American
crew and sails under the American Flig. The ship is approximately
20,000 DWT and has 27 cargo tanks - 9 center tanks and 9 port and
starboard tanks. The Virginia had just returned from a trip to
Wilmington, N C. and Savannah, Georgia. The return trip took 4
days. The cargo unloaded at those ports was fuel oil (1, 2, 3,
and 9 tanks across) and gasoline (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 across).
Deballasting operations were completed at approximately 2:45 a.m.
VI-17
-------
Points worth noting include:
A full range of arrival conditions were found
in the tanks. Tanks 1, 2, 3 and 4 wings had a
less than 1 percent arrival hydrocarbon concen-
tration, tank 5C had a 9 percent concentration,
and tanks 7C and 8C had a 20-21 percent concen-
tration. The differences were due to the prior
cargo and degree of cleaning each tank had had.
Tanks 1, 2, and 3 across had all previously carried
a non-volatile product fuel oil. Number 4 port
and starboard wing tanks had been gas freed so
the crew could enter them for necessary repair
work. Tank 5C had carried gasoline on the pre-
vious voyage but had been ballasted, vented and
washed on the return trip. Tanks 7C and 8C had
carried gasoline previously but had been left
uncleaned.
The typical loading sequence used to fill three
tanks across with the same product was discussed
with one of the mates onboard the Virginia. He
said that all three tanks are brought up roughly
at the same level until an ullage of 15 to 20 feet
is reached in the center tank. Then flow to it is
shut off and the two wing tanks are topped off
(filled to their final height). After they are
finished, loading is resumed into the center tank
until it too is topped off. The mate said this
sequence is followed for two reasons. It is more
difficult to top off three tanks than two and
should any problem arise while topping the wing
tanks, flow can be easily diverted into the larger
center tank until the problem is worked out.
VI-18
-------
While talking to the Chief Mate onboard the
Virginia, the ballasting of the ship1 on its return
voyage was discussed. He said that the ship is
ballasted once at the port that it discharges its
cargo, but that it usually dumps this ballast
(if over 100 miles from shore) and takes on a fresh
ballast. This operation, he explained, cleans the
cargo holds and also allows the ship to discharge
ballast into port waters rather than return them
to the refinery for disposal. This aids the ship
in reducing its turnaround time in port since the
slop line at most docks can handle only a small
discharge rate.
Measurements taken during the loading of the Virginia are
presented at the end of this trip report.
V. Conclusions
From observations made during this sampling trip, several
conclusions may be drawn.
(I"1 Factors which cause higher residual hydrocarbon
concentrations in crude oil cargo tanks prior
to ballasting are: (a) partially loaded tanks;
(b) pumping strippings from the ships tanks
into a designated tank prior to final unloading
causes higher concentrations in that tank; and
(c) washing crude cargo tanks with oil.
(2) Based on the data taken onboard the M/V Ocean
Challenger, the RVP of the crude oil unloaded
has no effect on the residual hydrocarbon con-
centration of the empty tanks.
VI-19
-------
(3) Factors which cause higher emission levels
for gasoline loading onto a tanker include:
(a) prior cargo, (b) extent of cleaning
(ballasted once or twice, vented, blown dry,
butterworthed, stripped); (c) initial loading
rate; (d) product RVP and temperature; (e)
ambient temperature; and (f) fill time.
(4) The hydrocarbon emissions from the loading
of gasoline onto a tanker can be substantially
reduced by ballasting, washing, and venting
cargo tanks on the return voyage.
VI-20
-------
MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ABOARD
M/V OCEAN CHALLENGER AND
SS AMOCO VIRGINIA
VI-21
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet I
Survey of Shore-Side Information
General Information
Date A W 3 ~
- ' /
Name of vessel / . *
Terminal /^ 'I: .. " < .
Product (s) loaded
Terminal Information
. •" ' I
Storage tank number
Storage tank size
Type of roof tr „ ->
Length of time stored
Tank color; age
Storage temperature
Pump type
Pump size
Pump nominal rate
Ambient Conditions
Air temperature ¦*,>

Weather conditions /•• /
Prepared by:
VI-22
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet II
Survey of Vessel Information
General Information
Date
Name of vessel ^~.'r > V/ •-*
Type of vessel: ship barge
Total number of cargo tanks ^ 7,
Vessel size (DWT) S"2. "r~r ? O *T
3BB ¦vrc o. -
Prior Cargo Information
Prior cargo -*. ^ .-•*¦¦ ¦>' /— -'•» -
Prior cargo RVP 77-^. - r.g ' P" - / - * - - -• J-
Where unloaded
Date unloaded
Does cargo tank have stripper lines y_-v
#
Vessel In-Tra.jit Conditions
Type cleaning and/or ballasting for each tank
Open or closed hatches
Ratings on PV valve
Time at sea
Prepared by:
\7T _ 9 "}i
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROCRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date
/ : •/ J 7
Product Loaded-
Cargo Tank No
Loading Rate -r> •- <~/sr '~/:—:
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
II.
/£ CO 0 4*J/ _
/o Gas
•Vapor- Blanket DfeftCS o\r r- & ©

- >

~~ c;

- -

, f

jr
,/f
B. AcrtTfrftar taTyp-t-^crf Tank *:p /"*>¦
Time
^X2fee (ft)
% LEL
^ Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

-rr

~ —

VI - 24
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROCRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date
2:
Product Loaded
Cargo Tank No
Loading Rate
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)

% Gas
II. v.a^oT"'uianfrni.. fiypTTTx J "

' i '* i
-. t
1

5. .? "

2 D

-/ "

?¦*

' : -
' <¦

'r- I "

<- r> **

-7

I i ' '*/
B. ftgH^<^LuvuF.'Ig Tank SC. 3"/-;rT'
Time
"OSia^S; (ft)
% LEL
/a Gcis
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

VI-25
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROCRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Dat-a
Date

Product Loaded
Cargo Tank No
II.
Loading Rate . ~ ~/ ~ ~ t-y,- r
/ ',ij ,v ,-vd
- /
~ ' "v,;
Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
/o Gas
v-ayirg1-' Blanket DSftfck -tv -I & --
A. Tank o" ?
! /
_ - r

Tine"
0£S3fci "(ft)"'"
-% LEL~
'% "Gas
Vapor T(nF)
Liquid T(°F)

— -
v < •»

— . -

B. Ati0gp^U^tfrU^4Jg5k 7- z-
Time
UlTSfte (ft)
% LEL
I Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

—

VI-26
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date
Cargo Tank No
Product Loaded
Loading Rate
Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
% Gas
11 • v^rnr-:.R-Xanke6-ftegcjr ,f?.' ' V-w c
C r'' /
r SrtvyZf'/ j. r' Jr/'C.
c
i— •
Tine
TTTViyw (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

—> —

. z-

—

_ „

--r

.* A-

, .,iC — J'/.C.
- •• '.A.' s."- <¦'
. /C
/ • «
' • ¦)
~ y
* ,-** ' ¦: *j> 4 * ** *
B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

VI-27
-------
SHIP INNAGE/ ULLAGE REPORT
ro*n M0-6A n-«r
VESSEL M/T rf I'll HTILlTHOTB voyage no DATE?taj ggiU, 1976
PORT ttiVr TERMINAL gp<40
TANK

PORT ,
BAftftCll /
W
T

CENTER •
•AftHCLt
w
T

STARBOARD,
•

1
1-49
2688*1
esf

1-49
2688.1

2
>12
2893.4

»T/

W*
2867-9
t*"1
O^P
3
L-50
1690.7
ess

1-49
3471.9
ess •

1^49
1691.9

4
1-53
1687*2

1-62
^465.1

c.5^
1-^
1687.2

S
1-52
1688*4
-rri^
oAP

1^52
1688.4

^r>
6
1-49
3383*1
e**'
xST2-
*-13
1741.4

i-*q

£S>''

7
1-54
3143.0

1-A9
5471.9
-rn**0'

1—49

g'^i
,3'*-
8
•/) 4

1—4?

9
1 M

1-M4

. c
C?»"
IP5'1
•

1-09
*,•^7. A

• ' ' r
£ J1J
•?
~ « 0 »r> ^ 1
j c r1

« —

y-"" ' * ' /
.~ r
' .J w' v 1

/ -1 .

CARGO COMPUTATION
PRODUCT
TANKS
GROSS
BARRELS
TEMP
CORR.
NET
BARRELS
A.P 1
BARRELS
PER TON
NET TONS

ORAFT
e a mo :
• TAUT
FINISH
Forword

Mean

MI0SHIPS

MOO/SAG

HOC/SAC ALL*

Sal in It v

F. W. A

M S W

DEADWEIGHT DETERMINATION
(AFTER LOa - •CFOKC 0ISCHAA8EI
Corqo

Fuel

Woltr
<•
Stores

Total

All0woD1 e Owl

Over/ Short

SUtGCA.
OFFICE*.
Note: Hog/Sag Allovance (inches) = 2/3 Hog/Sag (inches) _
For Hog, Allowance is subtracted from Draft Vl-Zo
Cn rp All i e r a ¦FM-
-------
/£>¦&
—6ZL2y
j(3c'-e/ /„ f*#?er-er±^
"7'C Clf
r / -
S,?s/o~
£Z.
• /
fyO~
/> ' -.
• -» j ^ . wv
5/iOCfry OG/.-jUrecli .
VI-29
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet I
Survey of Shore-Side Information
General Information
Date A,''i// 2^?'f
Name of vessel ' '//?'/^J
Terminal T/' ~~ /"V'fs.'
Product(s) loaded , A-'-
7
Terminal Information
Storage tank number
Storage tank size
Type of roof ___
Length of time stored
Tank color; age ,
Storage temperature
Pump type
Pump size
Pump nominal rate
Ambient Conditions
' •*" " J /
Air temperature cr. / -• r .. • -> . -» u
Weather conditions ¦ / y ¦.^ .
Prepared by: ^
VI-30
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet II
Survey of Vessel Information
General Information
Dace S/z /~ ^
Name of vessel /tyx /*?/ £*. -L6.
c
Type of vessel: ship barge
Total number of cargo tanks 2
Vessel size (DWT) 7 7
Prior Cargo Information
Prior cargo C-> V y -// r- ^
Prior cargo RVP _
Whore unloaded //
-
^ ft -
Date unloaded /*' Z".
Does cargo tank have stripper lines
/ .

Vessel In-Transit Conditions
Type cleaning and/or ballasting for each tank
Open or closed hatches
Ratings on PV valve
Time at sea
Prepared by:
VI-31
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PKOCRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date
23>
* o
Cargo Tank No ^ 1 .
Product Loaded
Loading Rate

I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
/o G 3 S
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Levels of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
%-Gas | Vapor T(°F). ; Liquid T(°F)
.5".41
-L ~

^ - I 7:

S V"

s
Z-7 -
-
i 7L.
-

/n
. •,

—*

/—J-n'-C -t j
I
, /
/
-» /
B. At Upper Level of Tank
/ • • *
»tr- u' <-*
Time
Ullage (ft)
Z LEL
/o Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(° F)
-I'.ZC
?'

"V £?
7^"
i * '

?'(»"

t<±

-r

VI - 32
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date ^ ? Product Loaded .
Cargo Tank No Loading Rate

I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL % Gas
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
II. Vapor Blanket Depth

A. At Lover Level of Tank
V /t/
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL 1% Gas Vapor T("F) ; Liquid T(°F)
6.-4-

1 J 7
1
1
?:/o

->
J
1
2.

3 e
5

' * 4
I -»
-f.%
3 c
2.

„

i tr -
v
V *
f, , > •
'
B. At Upper Level of Tank
: CCij
/Z

? .'.'3
/. '£¦'

p ~
i

•:.r
, ' ¦'

T * • &

•>
, ^
4

- ;
/ 0'

-r 9
*!'F
.•) 3
3-

•7
1

/ "
I

w
/'J*'

S '•

'
7 %,'/•>, /
*
- /
- ~
/'
-) /
VI
-33
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded"Data
Date
Cargo Tank No
4P
Product Loaded
Loading Rate
r
. i

Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
% Gas
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% -fcEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F) [Liquid T(°F)

> "

F:z o
r-. /' i
/

• "5 «**
—i *'
* »

*?
- V

~ 7

, " t

/ '
B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)
t7- -¦ i-
/• ^ -
1 ~

72 %
7/

y.-f-r

^ /'

n • ^

/ '
T - ->
" i «

VI - 34
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date ~/L 6s Product Loaded ' . .
Cargo Tank S~ (Z, Loading Rate
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL % Gas

c! f ^
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
Tine
Ullage (ft)
% LEL | % Gas |Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

4-c
1 "2. 1 7?-

# ^ -
y
' r "*
i

' r~*
t •

B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
VI-35
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date 2. S> / 1
Lz.
Cargo Tank No 'J
& C.
Product Loaded
Loading Rate
I.
II.
Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
Z LEL
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
% Gas
1/
Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
CL sW - S-
Tine
Ullage .(ft)
% LEL
% Gas |Vapor T(°F) ;Liquid T(°F)

43'3 " -
-
-Zl /CS

—_t?_-
\
2
/'O

?.•• V-

2^
J/-U

7/.n.

2 to
//*

2 ^
/#&

c
v r"

^ s

37
/ "* /¦
^ — •
I
7- '.r
.*+'

->
*
J

- -

•»

" 7
" /

- ¦"* /

- •

; -
; r- *

1' -

2 -'
• *
#

. ~ *
• *

~ 'r"~
s s "
#
/ '

- ¦

!r v r r "
c:/? .:-r *
f" r" . ~ .
VI -36
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date X/;> / -? Ut Product Loaded
Cargo Tank No "7C- Loading Rate
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
Tine
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T("F)
Liquid T(°F)

B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
/a Ga s
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

VI-37
% Gas
ZA-

-------
///-] 'iQ/TP/sS j
/ /
v<
/
/
A . 0
1 ,
\
1
t
i d d
: |
i (
1 P i
1 |
!
! P
1 j
1
; /4 ;4
. 1
1
. A
\
l 4-
i
I E 1 S
, >
; b ;
i ;
¦r
» )
1
; 12. ; &
i
! B ;
¦ \
,>
!
' C j B
1
; c ;

c?0Lu,y*.
/= - £>cW
< J y-/>1/
•?/
//. /
V
r?
VI- 38
-------
V/CU>] / n,b
/¦
/
/a,*.
i
1
(
¦4.x
\
\
\.
4,x
2
A X
M

3
AX

C,X
1
+
ex
E X
)
e~x
/
ex
1
1
:£.
\
f* | e-x
!
J
Fx'
/
1'
tD.* \ c,y
•
1
1
/.o.s
!
! >
1 ^-,y i y, c-.s S c /
1 ! 1
E>x
i\ '
7 j
E-x j 5.x
A
/8
c
z>
£"
f
'¦0/c>SzJ
*4/77CCG Su/oe^ /<-C
y^meco 71 t**>k+*/ec/
• AcctAe. t>A&4*c/
TB>zi //qs^^ cJuaas>2J ~^*~yo
C. -
OUA IcSi-C* "-1^J/ec£ / s~r.mc
/7o / ^/jJAa/<9c{
VI-39
-------
SAMPLING TRIP REPORT
Gasoline Loading - Exxon's Port Everglades
On 3 June 1976 David Colley and Clint Burklin visited
the Exxon port facilities in Baytown, Texas for the purpose of
measuring hydrocarbon emissions during the loading of Exxon's
ocean barge; the Port Everglades. The Port Everglades is a
barge in that it is pushed by a detachable tugboat, however it
is as large as many tankers. Its tanks have 43 ft ullages, and
the barge's size is 30,000 DWT
The Port Everglades had just returned from a delivery
of motor gasoline to Tampa, Florida. Tanks 1 center, 3 port, and
3 starboard were ballasted on the return voyage. The return
voyage took 4 to. 5 days. None of the empty cargo tanks had
been cleaned. Because of limited crew availability, tank
cleaning and vapor freeing is not a standard practice on ocean
barges.
Products were loaded onto the Port Everglades in much
the same manner as tanker loadings Ballast water was completely
discharged prior to taking on products. The ship to shore con-
nection was made with 8"-10" rubber hoses. Three products were
loaded simultaneously at individual pumping rates of 10,000 bbl/hr.
The Port Everglades is equipped with automatic ullage
gauges, all of which were in good working condition. Each gauge
window was equipped with an internal windshield-wiper for re-
moving condensate. These ullage gauges worked well, and were
used by the crew for monitoring tank levels. However, each tank
was topped of visually by sighting through the ullage caps.
The sampling data taken by Mr. Colley and Mr Burklin
are presented on the following data sheets.
VI-40
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet I
Survey of Shore-Side Information
General Information
Date 7J J lV(o
Name of vessel Fir->cc^ hZ I
Terminal b-X' ;C,T>^ tchu/U^^ Oap/s
Product (s) loaded i?y-xWi 5 Mi/4 ^ iLui&iM/{ ^ fi(y&%<{&(£
Terminal Information
Storage tank number f if ^ ^ / U j 7~*) I
Storage tank size
Type of roof
Length of time stored
Tank color; age ,
Storage temperature
Pump type
Pump size
Pump nominal rate ^ M/kr
Ambient Conditions
Air temperature ^ — ^0£t~
Weather conditions \()'t ,xJUj ID-IS t-y; j
Prepared by: .¦ , A &tr ((U/
VI -41
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet II
Survey of Vessel Information
General Information
Date J LusJ, "3 I 4 7 (o
Name of vessel jcdjL'i
Type of vessel: \u4-?yj barge
Total number of cargo tanks / "2-
Vessel size (DWT) "5 £ £/T/?
Prior Cargo Information
Prior cargo } *
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date Ji^a; 1 r,
Cargo Tank No
T
Product Loaded
Loading Rate
-'-a*
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
% Gas
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level)
II-
Vayor S.1 -i nlrr r fry cLs~?c^bnr^ f.-t> y'l I £. )'V«£r- <4~c !—
A-.—Al Luu/biv Level of? Taak "fc^-U. I C-
ftr-
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL 1 % Gas
Vapor T(°F) !Liquid T(°F)

i (o
1

/ <~~
1 ^
l

2.Z 'fc "
/2_

J4:

7.7 Y, *
^ 7

-r
1 3^

3
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date
J.V:

^ M7(.
Cargo Tank No
Product Loaded
Loading Rate
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading — TcUa.^ ! P
it- LLjH
7
(Tf+)
Bottom
Middle
Top (deck level) ^ v5~
It 11 3~eyt
2-sr
% LEL
(2.
11
% Gas
II. Vapor PlauUeL 1 Dtipttv 'f\y Jj-a>r

2,2-

2-2-

B. At Upper Lovol of Tonic "T~lc 1— P
Time
Ullage (ft)
X LEL
^ Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

¦r

"2- (

1 5"

2- ^

VI-44
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date
4? G
Cargo Tank No
Product Loaded
Loading Rate
I.
R 5 Luy. CLflcd'?
Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading TWc
,, % LEL % Gas
(,(. 1 (
Bottom
Middle
41
"3 r
I ~3~
Top (deck level) tf
>- ICC
>T"cr
y f O r
Irr
! C
! f
> I 0 C
( r
II.
Vapor Blanket npprh trw frt"A ( e. f VI ^v- V-s eo-^i 'ciy
At—-At: LuwtiJ.' Level uE Tank f
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

^T
1
2_

-l C O

~=> s
>\ V c
t> ^

Q 7.
>iho
i

VI -45
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date
J 1 I 4 7 G
Cargo Tank No
Product Loaded
Loading Rate
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading - ^C-
j( | [ q-^d C ^ Gas
Bottom 7-
Middle Z-*5~
Top (deck level) b
2- C

II.
-^pnr BlaaVpr Pppr>i P^cf-l/c p^t 7

1 2-

1 2.

^•=r

2- 7

I C
57?
Z-

BT~-~At Unpei LSVal Of Tank 1^
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
/o CclS
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

<4 f

-r

"?fr

7^ C

i <=r

/•r

l c

/ c

-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date 5. I17&
Cargo Tank No
JJL
Product Loaded
CXcnA. y ulz-

r Gz-tf

-=?r
55- 7

ircm
Ttf

* ?

1-r?
3.f

9- i

* (

(TP 4

1 1

Q i \ Z
¦»i 7,

1&.
Iff)

lT 1 i 7
^ 1

T-i
7?

Pr-cCijg
hi d. i Cj h-'f' j&il ,
J l~tW
I7./
/ C
4
?
7
6
£_
/
B. Ai: Upper Level of Tank
5k Jr 6ff.
iH_
j ^ (. isu! dL VuX-c | r- .
/I/e
r iouk
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)
02./ 0
'2-2-

IZ.

.'9

/tf

1 L

•?«/

C?TG>0
lr„

•r 6

srr,

V 2-

<*
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Dacn
Dace T0- 1^1/,-
Cargo Tank No
1^.
Product Loaded ^ f? v.(jUs
Loading Race / f C :f P Lh j~>//,s
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior co Loading
% LEL
Boccom
Middle
Top (deck, level)
% Gas
II. Vapor Blankec Depch
A. Ac Lower Level of Tank
Time

£<4lT
C
Ullage (ft)

ST
¦J2±.
J3Jl
^l2L
_2_
% LEL
% Gas ] Vaoor _T("F) 1 Liquid T(°F) ,4v-. /^, 5
4 Z-
f
6
r
¥-
J
2.
/
B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
Z LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

VI -48
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PRPCRAM
Daca Sheet III
Recorded Daca
Dace T i.i 6
Cargo Tank No 3 F"*
Produce Loaded cT
Loading Rate
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
,t' y C&T 1
4z.
Bottom
Middle ff
Top (deck level) 5"~
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
> • C tT
% Gas
/' 2-
Tine
Ullage (ft) | % LEL !% Gas ! Vapor T(nF) ; Liquid T(°F)

1 1

1
1
i i

1 1
B. At Upper Level of Tank

Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F) | Liquid T(9F)
F 1 ? 2
i 9

H
7S" 1
fiis-
!
-------
RADIAN1 MARINE TERMINALS T!IST PRCCRxMt
Data Sheet III (Cone.)
Recorded Daca
Dace J (44/f P. M~ / f 7 k Product Loaded g"vv
i
Cargo Tank No *3 S Loading Rate
III. Hydrocarbon Concentration on Vented Vapors
Time 1 Ullage (ft) | % LEL
% Gas | Vapor T(°F) | Liquid T (°F)

Empty |

30-

rz-vo
a i a
S~c

22 / sr

~Z-

ezrr
32 |tf

Z-

CZT?
» n

C15QC
& ) 2

r -3 €-3
s //

nrf
10

/ "2-

C^C7
9

fi 3 ic
8

cbiz*
7

5 3/5-
6

5~(

VI-50
-------
SAMPLING TRIP REPORT
Gasoline Loading - Exxon Barge No. 119
On 15 June 197 6 David Colley and Clint Burklin visited
the Exxon port facilities in Bavtown, Texas for the purpose of
measuring hydrocarbon emissions from the loading of gasoline
onto barges.
The Exxon Barge No. 119 is a typical product barge with
6 cargo tanks 12 ft. deep. At the time, E.B. 119 was in
dedicated service delivering gasoline to facilities along the
Houston Ship Channel. For these gasoline loading tests, the
E.B. 119 had returned from unloading gasoline just two hours
previously. The short elapse time between unloading and loading
operations for EB-119 have potentially lowered its loading
emissions.
The sampling data taken by Mr Colley and Mr. Burklin
are presented on the following data sheets.
VI-51
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet I
Survey of Shore-Side Information
General Information
Date ) f 5"; I ^ 7 6
Name of vessel /i'
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet II
Survey of Vessel Information
General Information
Date J I ST I4 7G?
~
Name of vessel KWw.g, //c . LiS,
Type of vessel: ship barge
Total number of cargo tanks iK-^w ... - I 2-*
Vessel size (DWT)
Prior Cargo Infomation
Prior cargo kA^r
Prior cargo SV?
Where unloaded ,4Ctc3'{'Z^- . I
Date unloaded Ju^ t>> \U ) #1 &
Does cargo tank, have stripper lines
Vessel In-Transit Conditions
Type cleaning and/or ballasting for each tank
M.C hUj
Open or closed hatches
Ratings on PV valve ,
Time at sea ^ k SLur "S
Prepared by: J. (ldh~;i
VI-53
-------
RADIAN MAR IKE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III
Recorded Data
Date T1 Product Loaded
Cargo Tank No j p? Loading Rate
I. Hydrocarbon Profile Prior to Loading
% LEL
Bottom i2^(txUc^€.
Middle
Top (deck level)
II. Vapor Blanket Depth
A. At Lower Level of Tank
Tine
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
/o Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T(°F)

B. At Upper Level of Tank
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
% Gas
Vapor T(°F)
LiauiJ T(°F)

% Gas
VI-5*
-------
RADIAN MARINE TERMINALS TEST PROGRAM
Data Sheet III (Cont.)
Recorded Data
Date J ! Tj 1^7 (o Product Loaded
Cargo Tank No I"13 Loading Rate _
III. Hydrocarbon Concentration on Vented Vapors
Time
Ullage (ft)
% LEL
7o Gas
Vapor T(°F)
Liquid T (°F)

Empty

« /I
¦>iCC
6?
<£/

nr
10
>ies
*
*1

P3I
7¥

VI-55
-------
APPENDIX VII
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM COSTS
VII-1
-------
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the course of conducting this program to investigate
the control of hydrocarbon emissions from marine terminal oper-
ations it has become evident that cost is a major issue in eval-
uating the feasibility of available emission control technology.
Vendor and oil company cost estimates differ significantly on the
cost to install a safe reliable vapor control system. In an
attempt to place these wide cost ranges in perspective, the EPA
has contracted Radian to conduct an independent analysis of vapor
control system cost data.
Radian's approach to the cost analysis was to prepare
a detailed design of each of the .marine transfer vapor control
systems likely to be installed in the Houston-Galveston area, and
to have these designs costed by a cost estimating consultant ex-
perienced with the installation of hydrocarbon processing equipment
in the Houston-Galveston area.
The two vapor control systems most likely to be installed
in the Houston-Galveston area are the refrigeration system and the
absorption system. The refrigeration system recovers by conden-
sation at cryogenic temperatures. The absorption system recovers
hydrocarbons from marine transfer vapors by absorption into a lean
oil. This lean oil is normally a refinery product stream.
Because several sizes, types, and arrangements of equip-
ment may be used to construct vapor control systems, the systems
to be costed in this study were separated into basic components or
modules which were costed individually. These modules represented
the most common sizes and processing configurations expected to be
VII- 2
-------
encountered in the Houston-Galveston area. Radian was able to
investigate the economic impact of size, equipment selection,
and processing configuration by investigating the individual
contribution of each module to the total system cost.
The engineering-construction firm selected by Radian
Corporation to estimate the cost of marine vapor control systems
was Ref-Chem Corporation of Odessa, Texas. Ref-Chem Corporation
is widely experienced in the engineering, construction, and main-
tenance of chemical and petroleum processing units in the Texas
Gulf Coast area.
Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this appendix discuss the design
and cost results of a refrigeration vapor recovery system and of
an absorption vapor recovery system.
VII- 3
-------
2.0 REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS
2.1 Cost Basis
This section presents the refrigeration unit design
which provided the basis for the cost estimates generated by
Ref-Chem Corporation.
Refrigeration vapor recovery systems recover hydrocarbons
from marine loading vapors by condensation at cryogenic tempera-
tures and at atmospheric pressure. Figure 2.1-1 presents the
flow diagram of a typical refrigeration vapor recovery system.
For simplification the refrigeration vapor recovery system has
been^divided into six distinct components termed modules. Module
I 1
A consists of the equipment required to transfer hydrocarbon vapors
collected onboard marine vessels to the shoreside vapor recovery
system. This ship-to-shore connection is normally effected by
the use of either a large diameter hose or by a marine loading arm.
Module B consists of the vapor collection lines which convey hydro-
carbon vapors from the ship-to-shore connector to the vapor con-
denser unit. Module C is the vapor condenser. In the vapor con-
denser, hydrocarbons and moisture are condensed from the hydro-
carbon vapors yielding a purified air stream containing less than
5 volume percent hydrocarbons. Recovered hydrocarbons and water
are returned to the refinery. The lines conveying refrigerant
brines and fluids from the refrigeration unit to the condenser
compose Module D. Module E is the package refrigeration unit
which provides the refrigeration capacity for the condensers.
Module F comprises all of the utilities required to operate the
vapor recovery system.
Each of these vapor recovery system modules has also
been separated into several cost cases which address the cost of
VII-4
-------
MODULE A
SHIP-TO-SHORE
CONNECTION
MODULE B
VAPOR COLLECTION
LINE
MODULE C
CONDENSOR
UNIT
MODULE D
REFRIOERENT
LINES
MODULE E
REFRIGERATION
UNIT
MODULE F
SYSTEM
UTILITIES
AIR VENT
GASOLINE VAPOR
ti
REFRIGERENT LINES
CONDENSER
r~r
CD C5"
REFRIGERATION
UNIT
UTILITIES
RECOVERED RECOVERED
WATER TO PRODUCT TO
SEWER REFINERY
FIGURE 2.1-1 REFRIGERATION VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM
-------
different module sizes or module configurations. These cost
cases are characterized by the following module discussions.
Module A: Ship to Shore Connection
Module A consists of the equipment required to transfer
hydrocarbon vapors collected onboard marine vessels to etloreside
vapor recovery units. In cost cases Al, A2, and A3, a 50 ft.
long flexible (yet not collapsible) hose is used for the ship-to-
shore connection. The hose is constructed of a gasoline vapor
resistant material and terminates on each end with a standard
SCH 40 flange. The hoses for cost cases Al, A2, and A3 are sized
for ship loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph,
respectively. The cost of an air driven hoist for hose handling
is also included in each of these three cost cases.
Cost cases A4, A5, and A6 are the cases employing a
hydraulic-actuated loading arm to achieve the ship-to-shore con-
nection. Loading arms for the three cases are sized for ship
loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph respectively.
The cost cases include the costs associated with construction on
crowded existing marine loading docks
Module B: Vapor Collection Line
Module B investigates the cost of the equipment required
to convey hydrocarbon vapors from the ship-to-shore connector
(Module A) to the vapor recovery unit (Module C). Cost cases Bl,
B2, and B3 address the cost of installing short runs of vapor
collection piping from the ship-to-shore collector to dock mounted
vapor condensers. Pipe fittings, pressure alarms, and safety
equipment are included in the cost. The three cases are sized
for ship loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph,
respectively.
VII-6
-------
Cost cases B4, B5, and B6 address the cost of installing
1000' runs of vapor collection piping from the ship-to-shore con-
nector to centrally-located, shared vapor condensing units. Pipe
fittings, pressure alarms, safety equipment, and condensate drains
are included in the cost. The three cost cases are sized for ship
loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph respec-
tively.
Module C. Vapor Condensing Units
Cost case CI, C2, and C3 investigate the cost of install-
ing dock mounted vapor condensing units for ship loading rates of
12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph, respectively. Costs include
purchase, transportation, and mounting of the units on crowded
existing docks. It was assumed that a barge mounted crane was
needed for the construction work.
Cost cases C4, C5, and C6 investigate the cost of install-
ing centrally-located, shared condensing units located inland from
the docks. These cases are sized for ship loading rates of 12,500
bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph respectively.
Module D- Refrigeration Lines
Module D investigates the cost of installing refrigerant
and defrost fluid piping between the refrigeration unit and the
condensation units. The piping materials were selected to with-
stand exposure to methylene chloride, glycol-water, and trichloro-
ethylene fluids at temperatures down to -100°F. Pipe insulation
specifications met the requirements provided by the refrigeration
unit manufacturer. Two additional pipelines were included in the
Module D design for conveying condensed water from the condenser
to the refinery wastewater systems and for conveying condensed
VII- 7
-------
hydrocarbons from Che condenser to refinery produce storage tanks.
Cost case D1 represents the cost case for centrally-located,
shared condensers and specifies pipe lengths of 100 ft.
Module E: Refrigeration Units
Module E investigates the cost of purchasing and in-
stalling the refrigeration units which supply the cooling capacity
for the vapor condensers. Costs included in Module E are purchase
and transportation of the refrigeration units, preparation of the
refrigeration unit site, removal of the units from transport trucks
to their foundation, and connection of utilities and piping to the
units The refrigeration unit sites consist of curbed concrete
foundations, sidewalks, lighting, fire water supply, and spill
drains. Cost cases El, E2, and E3 represent refrigeration units
sized to control ship loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and
50,000 bph respectively.
Module F: Utilities
Module F comprises several miscellaneous utility items
which will be necessary in the installation of a refrigeration
vapor recovery system. Cost case F1 addresses the cost required
to install sumps, drains, and sewers for the removal of spills,
runoff, and wastewater. Process water lines are included in this
cost case. The length of the utility lines in Cost case F1 are
3000 ft.
Cost case F2 addresses the cost for expanding the local
electrical substation capacity by 2 megawatts. The voltage re-
duction was assumed to be from 12.8 kv down to 480 v.
VII- 8
-------
2.2
Cose Estimates
Table 2.2-1 presents the cost estimates generated by
Radian Corporation for the installation of a completely operable
refrigeration vapor recovery system in the Houston-Galveston area.
These cost estimates are based on the refrigeration vapor recovery
system design basis developed by Radian Corporation which was out-
lined in Section 2.1. In developing the cost estimates for each
cost case, Ref-Chem Corporation considered four cost centers.
These cost centers were.
Direct costs
Indirect costs
Contingency allowances
Contractor fee for overhead and profit
Direct costs include expenditures for labor, materials,
equipment and subcontractors used in constructing the various
modules. Indirect costs include equipment rentals, consumable
supplies, temporary facilities, support labor, and move in - move
out. A contingency cost was added to the estimate to provide
allowances for cost items not considered elsewhere.
A major cost item not included in the cost estimates
is engineering and design. Consultation with several industrial
sources indicate that engineering and design work on chemical
processing facilities will characteristically cost approximately
10 percent of the construction costs.
VII-9
-------
TABLE 2 2-1
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR THE
REFRIGERATION VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM COMPONENTS (19 76)

It
em
Cost (3;
Module
A
Snip-to-5hore Connection

Case
1
Ruooer hose 12,500 oon
19 000
Case
2
Ruober nose 25,000 bpn
20,000
Case
3
Ruober nose 50,000 bpn
21,000
Cas e

Loaair.- arm 12,500 bon
53,000
Case
5
Loading arti 25,000 bon
77,000
Case
6
Loading arzi 50,000 oon
34,000
'locule
3
Vapor Collection Line

Case

Cn "he doc< concenser 12,500 son
3,000
Case

On me dock condenser 25,000 bon
13,000
Case
3
On the aoc'< condenser 50,000 opn
2-,000
Case
4
Central condenser 12,500 bph
96,000
Case
5
Central concansar 25,000 bph
175,000
Case
6
Central concenser 50,000 opn
253,000
Module
C
Vapor Condensing Units

Case
L
Located on the cock 12,500 oon
35,000
Case
2
Located on the cock 25,000 bpn
153,000
Case
3
Located on the cock 50,000 opn
324,000
Case
4
Located cencrally 12,500 bpn
37,000
Case
5
Located centrally 25,000 opn
155 ,000
Case
5
Locatec centrall/ 50,000 bph
324,000
.-locule
D
Refngarent Lines

Case
L
On tne dock concenser
193,000
Case
2
Central condenser
34,000
Module

Refrigeration Unit

Case
i
12 , 500 bpn
445.000
Case
2
25,000 oph
339,000
Case
3
50,000 opn
1,623.000
Module
IT
Utilities

Case
1
'I'ater, wastewater, ana product
lines to the refinery
91,000
Case
2
Electric saostation
26.000
VIl-10
-------
2.3
Cost Analysis
The cost of candidate refrigeration vapor recovery
system arrangements for construction in the Houston-Galveston
area can be analyzed by compiling the appropriate cost estimates
for refrigeration system modules presented in Section 2.2.
Table 2.3-1 presents the construction costs for five candidate
refrigeration systems. A comparison of the costs for System I
and for System II indicate that the impact of minor equipment
substitutions such as the use of rubber loading hoses instead of
automatic loading arms has very little overall impact on the
total cost for a refrigeration vapor recovery system. In addition,
a comparison of costs for individual dock mounted condensers
(System I) and costs for centrally located common condensers
(System III) indicate that the individual condensers are approx-
imately 107o more expensive. It has been suggested that individual
condensers are much safer than common condensers.
Table 2.3-2 compares the cost of five potential refrig-
eration systems on a relative size basis. As expected, the costs
for larger vapor recovery systems are lower on a unit capacity
basis than the costs for smaller systems The 12,500 bph system
is projected to cost $806,000 per 10,000 bph and the 50,000 bph
system is projected to cost $775,000 per 10,000 bph. However,
the estimated cost range between the least expensive and most
expensive refrigeration vapor recovery system applicable to the
Houston-Galveston area on a capacity basis is approximately 107o.
The cost of all of these systems can be approximated as $800,000
per 10,000 bph of capacity.
VII-11
-------
TABLE 2.3-1
COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR REFRIGERATION VAPOR
RECOVERY SYSTEMS
System I. Two individual dock located condensers with a
capacity of 25,000 bph each and a central re-
frigeration unit with a capacity of 25,000
bph Automatic loading arms.
Item
Unit
Cost

No.
Cost
A-5
77,000

2
154,000
B-2
13,000

2
26,000
C-2
163,000

2
326 ,000
D-l
193,000

2
386,000
E-2
839,000

1
839 ,000
F-l
91,000

1
91,000
F-2
26,000

1
26,000

TOTAL
LESS ENGINEERING
1,848,000

GRAND
TOTAL
$2,033,000
System II: A 25,000 bph system with individual dock condensers
identical to System I except for the use of rubber
hoses on the ship-to-shore connection.
VII-12
-------
TABLE 2.3-1 (cont'd.) COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR REFRIGERATION
VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Unit
Item Cost No. Cost
A-2
20,000
2
40,000
B-2
13,000
2
26,000
C-2
163,000
2
326,000
D-1
193,000
2
386,000
E- 2
839,000
1
839,000
F-l
91,000
1
91,000
F-2
26,000
1
26,000

TOTAL
LESS ENGINEERING
1,734,000

GRAND
TOTAL
$1,907,000
System III Central 25,000 bph condenser and refrigeration unit
servicing two docks. Automatic loading arms.
Unit
Item Cost No. Cost
A-5
77,000
2
154,000
B-5
175,000
2
350,000
C-5
165,000
1
165,000
D- 2
34,000
1
34,000
E- 2
839,000
1
839,000
VII-13
-------
TABLE 2.3-1 (cont'd.) COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR REFRIGERATION
VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
F-1 91,000 1 91,000
F-2 26,000 1 26,000
TOTAL LESS ENGINEERING 1,659,000
GRAND TOTAL $1,825,000
System IV: Four individual dock located condensers with a
capacity of 25,000 bph each and a central refrigera-
tion unit with a capacity of 50,000 bph. Automatic
loading arms
Unit
Item Cost No. Cost
A-5
77,000

4
308,000
B-2
13,000

4
52,000
C-2
163,000

4
652,000
D-l
193,000

4
772,000
E-3
1,623,000

1
1,623,000
F-l
91,000

1
91,000
F-2
26,000

1
26,000

TOTAL
LESS ENGINEERING
3,524,000

GRAND
TOTAL
$3,876,000
VII-14
-------
TABLE 2.3-1 (cont'd.) COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR REFRIGERATION
VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
System V: One individual dock located condenser and a refrigera-
tion unit each with a capacity of 12,500 bph.
Automatic loading arm.
Item
Unit
Cost
No .
Cost
A-4
B-l
C-l
D-l
E-1
F-l
F-2
68,000
8,000
85,000
193,000
445,000
91,000
26,000
TOTAL LESS ENGINEERING
GRAND TOTAL
68,000
8,000
85,000
193,000
445,000
91,000
26,000
916,000
$1,008,000
VII-15
-------
TABLE 2.3-2
SUMMARY OF EXAMPLE REFRIGERATION VAPOR
RECOVERY SYSTEM COSTS
Cost Capacity Relative Cost
Sys tern $ bph $/10,000 bbl
System I 2,033,000 25,000 813,000
System II 1,907,000 25,000 763,000
System III 1,825,000 25,000 730,000
System IV 3,876,000 50,000 775,000
System V 1,008,000 12,500 806,000
VII-16
-------
3.0
ABSORPTION SYSTEMS
3.1 Cost Basis
This section presents the absorption unit design which
provided the basis for the cost estimates generated by Ref-Chem
Corporation.
Absorption vapor recovery systems remove hydrocarbon
vapors from marine loading vapors by absorbing the hydrocarbons
into a lean oil stream. The system selected by Radian Corporation
for detailed cost analysis utilizes a tray absorber for the oil/
vapor contactor. The system operates at near atmospheric pressure
and boosts the lean oil absorptivity by chilling the lean oil to
40°F. Figure 3.1-1 presents the flow diagram of an absorption
vapor recovery system.
For simplification the absorption vapor recovery system
has been divided into eight distinct components termed modules.
Module A consists of the equipment required to transfer hydrocarbon
vapors collected onboard marine vessels to the shoreside vapor re-
covery system. This ship-to-shore connection is normally effected
by use of either a large diameter hose or by a marine loading arm.
Module B consists of the vapor collection lines which convey hydro-
carbon vapors from the ship-to-shore connector to the vapor absorp-
tion column. The lean oil absorber and directly associated equipment
compose Module C. Module D consists of the piping, valves, and
pumps required to transport lean oil from the refinery storage area
to the vapor recovery system. Module E is the refrigeration unit
which is used to chill the lean oil prior to its introduction to
the absorber. The air eductor and associated air compression
equipment required to draw ship loading vapors through the absorber
compose Module F. Module G comprises the piping, valves, and pumps
VII-17
-------
used to return rich oil effluent from the absorber to the refinery
product blending area. Module H comprises all of the utilities
required to operate the vapor recovery system.
Each of the vapor recovery system modules has also been
separated into several cost cases which address the cost of differ-
ent module sizes or configurations. These cost cases are character-
ized in the following module discussions.
Module A: Ship-to-Shore Connection
Module A consists of the equipment required to transfer
hydrocarbon vapors collected onboard marine vessels to shoreside
vapor recovery units. In cost cases Al, A2, and A3, a 50 ft long
flexible (yet not collapsible) hose is used for the ship-to-shore
connection. The hose is constructed of a gasoline vapor resistant
material and terminates on each end with a standard SCH 40 flange.
The hoses for cost cases Al, A2, and A3 are sized for ship loading
rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph respectively. The
cost of an air driven hoist for hose handling is also included in
each of these three cost cases.
Cost cases A4, A5, and A6 are the cases employing a
hydraulic-actuated loading arm to achieve the ship-to-shore con-
nection. Loading arms for the three cases are sized for ship
loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph, respectively.
The cost cases include the costs associated with construction on
crowded existing marine loading docks.
Module B: Vapor Collection Lines
Module B investigates the cost of the equipment required
to convey hydrocarbon vapors from the ship-to-shore connector
(Module A) to the vapor recovery unit (Module C). Cost cases
VII-18
-------
AIR
EDUCTOR
- VENT TO
ATMOSPHERE
r lAme
ARRESTOR
AIR COMPRESSOR
REFRIGERATION
SYSTEM
ABSORBER
LOADING VAPOR
FROM VESSEL
LEAN OIL FROM STORAGE
LEAN OIL
CHILLER
LEAN OIL
PUMP
RICH OIL PUMP
RICH OIL TO STORAGE
FIGURE 3.1-1 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PROPOSED ABSORPTION VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM
-------
Bl, B2, and B3 address Che cost of installing short runs of vapor
collection piping from the ship-to-shore collector to dock mounted
vapor absorbers. Pipe fittings, pressure alarms, and safety
equipment are included in the cost. The three cases are sized
for ship loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph,
respectively.
Cost cases B4, B5, and B6 address the cost of installing
1000 ft runs of vapor collection piping from the ship-to-shore
connector to centrally-located, shared vapor absorber units. Pipe
fittings, pressure alarms, safety equipment and condensate drains
are included in the cost. The three cost cases are sized for ship
loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph, respec-
tively .
Module'-C: Lean- Oil Absorber
The lean oil absorber is a valve tray tower fabricated
out of carbon steel and equipped with a water seal below the bottom
tray. The absorber control system regulates lean oil flow rates
and tower pressure from inputs including effluent hydrocarbon con-
centrations, tower temperature profiles, and tower pressure. An -
automatic N2 purge system is also - associated with the absorber
for purging the tower and vapor collection lines after each ship
loading operation. Auxiliary piping for Module C includes a
water purge line for the absorber water seal and a waste water
drain for the water seal overflow. Cost cases CI, C2, and C3
address the cost for installing absorber towers and associated
equipment sized to control loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph,
and 50,000 bph, respectively.
VII-20
-------
Module D: Lean Oil Piping
Module D consists of the piping, valves, and pump
required to transfer lean oil from the refinery storage area
to the absorber. Although the refrigeration system employed
to chill the lean oil is positioned along this piping, it has
been established as Module E. Cost cases D1, D2, and D3 address
the cost for constructing long lengths of insulated piping re-
quired to transfer chilled lean oil from a central refrigeration
unit to individual dock mounted absorbers. These three cost
cases are sized to control ship loading rates of 12,500 bph,
25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph, respectively. Cost cases D4, D5, and
D6 address the cost of lean oil piping from the refinery to a
central absorber located adjacent to the central refrigeration
unit. These three cost cases are sized to control ship loading
rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph, respectively.
Module E: Refrigeration Unit
The refrigeration unit used to chill the lean oil to
40°F prior to contacting gasoline vapors in the absorber comprises
Module E. Heat exchangers, refrigeration units, and a temperature
recorder-controller system are included in the lean oil refriger-
ation unit. Cost cases El, E2, and E3 address the cost of refrig-
eration units sized to control ship loading rates of 12,500 bph,
25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph, respectively
Module F: Compressor-Eductor System
Module F contains the equipment used to motivate gasoline
vapors collected onboard the ship through the vapor control equip-
ment. An air eductor provides the motive force using compressed
air from a dedicated system. The vacuum at the suction of the
VII-21
-------
eductor is approximately -40 inches of water. An air compressor,
air cooler, and air supply lines are also included in Module F.
The discharge pressure of the air compressor is 50 psia. Cost
cases Fl, F2, and F3 represent the construction cost for compressor-
eductor systems on dock-loaded absorbers with ship loading capac-
ities of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph. Cost cases F4,
F5, and F6 represent the construction costs for compressor-eductor
systems on centrally-located common absorbers with ship loading
capacities of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph. The air
compressors for all of the cost cases are centrally located ad-
jacent to the refrigeration system. However, Cost cases Fl, F2,
and F3 require long air supply lines and greater air compressor
capacity to supply compressed air to the distant dock located
eductors. Eductors in Cost cases F4, F5, and F6 are located ad-
jacent to the compressor.
Module G. Rich Oil Piping
Module G consists of the piping, valves, and pumps used
to transfer rich oil from the absorber to the refinery blending
and storage area. Also included in the rich oil piping system is
a system for injection of an anti-oxidant into the rich oil stream
to inhibit any oxidation of the oil by absorbed air. The rich oil
pumping rate is controlled by a level controller in the bottom of
the absorption column. Cost cases Gl, G2, and G3 estimate the
cost of rich oil piping systems which return rich oil to the re-
finery from distant dock located absorbers sized for ship loading
rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph, respectively.
Cost cases G4, G5, and G6 estimate the cost of rich oil piping
systems which return rich oil to the refinery from centrally
located, shared absorbers of the same capacity.
VII-22
-------
Module H. Utilities
Module H consists of the utility connections required
for the operation of the absorption system. These utilities
include electricity and instrument air. Cost cases HI, H2, and
H3 address the cost of utility systems sized to control ship
loading rates of 12,500 bph, 25,000 bph, and 50,000 bph, respec-
tively.
3 . 2 Cost Estimates
Table 3.2-1 presents the cost estimates generated by
Ref-Chem Corporation for the installation of a completely oper-
able absorption vapor recovery system in the Houston-Galveston
area. These cost estimates are based on the absorption vapor
recovery system design basis developed by Radian Corporation
which was outlined in Section 3.1. In developing the cost
estimates for each cost case, Ref-Chem Corporation considered
four cost centers. These cost centers were:
Direct costs
Indirect costs
Contingency allowances
Contractors' fee for overhead and profit
Direct costs include expenditures for labor, materials,
equipment, and subcontractors used in constructing the various
modules. Indirect costs include equipment rentals, consumable
supplies, temporary facilities, support labor, and move in -
move out. Contingency cost was added to the estimate to provide
allowances for cost items not considered elsewhere.
A major cost item not included in the cost estimates
is engineering and design. Consultation with several industrial
VII-23
-------
TABLE 3.2-1
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR THE ABSORPTION
VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM COMPONENTS (1976)
Item
Cost $
Module A: Ship to Shore Connection
Case
1.
Rubber Hose
12,500
bph
19,000
Case
2.
Rubber Hose
25,000
bph
20,000
Case
3.
Rubber Hose
50,000
bph
21,000
Case
4.
Loading Arm
12,500
bph
68,000
Case
5.
Loading Arm
25,000
bph
77,000
Case
6.
Loading Arm
50,000
bph
84,000
Module B:
Vapor Collection Line

Case
i:
On the Dock Absorber -
-12,500
bph
8,000
Case
2.
On the Dock Absorber
25,000
bph
13,000
Case
3.
On the Dock Absorber
50,000
bph
24,000
Case
4.
Central Absorber
12,500
bph
85,000
Case
5.
Central Absorber
25,000
bph
158,000
Case
6.
Central Absorber
50,000
bph
245,000
Module C

Lean Oil Absorber

Case
l.
12,500 bph Capacity

48,000
Case
2.
25,000 bph Capacity

60,000
Case
3.
50,000 bph Capacity

66,000
Module D:
Lean Oil Piping

Case
1.
On the Dock Absorber
12,500
bph
30,000
Case
2.
On the Dock Absorber
25,000
bph
44,000
Case
3.
On the Dock Absorber
50,000
bph
64,000
Case
4.
Central Absorber
13,500
bph
15,000
Case
5 o
Central Absorber
25,000
bph
23,000
Case
6.
Central Absorber
50,000
bph
33,000
VII-24
-------
TABLE 3.2-1 (cont'd.) CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR THE
ABSORPTION VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM COMPONENTS (1976)
Item Cost $
Module E
1.
Refrigeration Unit

Case
1.
12,500 bph Capacity

84,000
Case
2.
25,000 bph Capacity

165,000
Case
3.
50,000 bph Capacity

302,000
Module F

Vacuum Assist Unit

Case
1.
On the Dock Absorber
12,500
bph
92,000
Case
2.
On the Dock Absorber
25,000
bph
129,000
Case
3.
On the Dock Absorber
50,000
bph
177,000
Case
4.
Central Absorber
12,500
bph
71,000
Case
5.
Central Absorber
25,000
bph
101,000
Case
6.
Central Absorber
50,000
bph
140,000
Module G
r •
Rich Oil Return to Refinery

Case
1.
On the Dock Absorber
12,500
bph
30,000
Case
2.
On the Dock Absorber
25,000
bph
43,000
Case
3.
On the Dock Absorber
50,000
bph
64,000
Case
4.
Central Absorber
U,500
bph
19,000
Case
5.
Central Absorber
25,000
bph
27,000
Case
6.
Central Absorber
50,000
bph
37,000
Module H.
Utilities

Case
1.
12,500 bph System

18,000
Case
2.
25,000 bph System

24,000
Case
3.
50,000 bph System

29,000
VII-25
-------
sources indicate that engineering and design work on chemical
processing facilities will characteristically cost approximately
10 percent of the construction costs.
3. 3 Cost Analysis
The cost of candidate lean oil absorption vapor
recovery system arrangements for construction in the Houston-
Galveston area can be analyzed by compiling the appropriate cost
estimates for absorption system modules presented in Section 3,2.
Table 3.3-1 presents the construction costs for four candidate
absorption systems. A comparison of the costs for System 1 and
System II indicate that the cost of constructing individual
absorbers on each dock is not appreciably higher than the cost
of constructing central shared absorbers. The cost difference
is approximately 5X of the total construction cost. Individual
absorbers are considered much safer than common absorbers because
they isolate one vessel from another.
Table 3.3-2 summarizes the cost differences between
several absorption systems relative to system capacity. Compari-
son of Systems I, III, and IV indicate that the cost of
absorption systems per unit capacity does not differ significantly
between 12,500 bph capacity units and 50,000 bph capacity units.
The economic impact of absorption systems is similar for both the
smaller and the larger installations. The construction cost for
the design basis absorption systems studied in the program total
approximately $400,000 per 10,000 bph vessel loading capacity.
The data presented in Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 indicate
that the cost of absorption units is approximately 50 percent of
the cost of refrigeration units. However, the absorption unit
design basis developed by Radian Corporation assumed that a large
VII-26
-------
TABLE 3.3-1
COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR ABSORPTION VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
System I: Two individual dock located absorbers with a
capacity of 25,000 bph each and a central re-
frigeration and vacuum system with a capacity
of 25,000 bph. Automatic loading arms.
Unit
Item Cost No. Cost
A-5
77,000
2
154,000
B- 2
13,000
2
26,000
C-2
60,000
2
120,000
D-2
44,000
2
88,000
E-2
165,000
1
165,000
F-2
129,000
2
258,000
G-2
43,000
2
86,000
H-2
24,000
1
24,000

TOTAL LESS ENGINEERING
921,000

GRAND TOTAL
$1,013,000
System II Central absorber and refrigeration system each
with a capacity of 25,000 bph.
Unit
Item Cost No. Cost
A-5 77,000 2 154,000
B-5 158,000 2 316,000
C-2 60,000 1 60,000
D- 5 23,000 1 23,000
E-2 165,000 1 165,000
VII-27
-------
TABLE 3.3-1 COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR ABSORPTION VAPOR RECOVERY
SYSTEMS (cont'd.)
F-5 101,000 1 101,000
G-5 27,000 1 27,000
H-2 24,000 1 24,000
TOTAL LESS ENGINEERING $870,000
GRAND TOTAL $957,000
System III: Four individual dock located absorbers with a
capacity of 25,000 bph each and a central re-
frigeration and vacuum system with a capacity
of 50,000 bph.
Item
Unit
Cost

No.
Cost
A-5
77,000

4
308,000
B-2
13,000

4
52,000
C- 2
60,000

4
240,000
D-2
44,000

4
176,000
E-6
302,000

1
302,000
F-2
129,000

4
516,000
G-2
43,000

4
172,000
H-3
29,000

1
29,000

TOTAL
LESS ENGINEERING
$1,795,000

GRAND
TOTAL
$1,975,000
VII-28
-------
TABLE 3.3-1 COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR ABSORPTION VAPOR RECOVERY
SYSTEMS (cont'd.)
System IV: One 12,500 bph absorber located on the dock with
a centrally located 12,500 bph refrigeration and
vacuum system.
Item
Unit
Cost
No.
Cost
A-4
B-l
C-l
D-l
E-l
F-l
G-l
H-l
68,000
8,000
48,000
30,000
84,000
92,000
30,000
18,000
68,000
8,000
48,000
30,000
84,000
92,000
30,000
18,000
TOTAL LESS ENGINEERING
GRAND TOTAL
$378,000
$416,000
VII-29
-------
TABLE 3.3-2
SUMMARY OF EXAMPLE ABSORPTION VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM COSTS
Cost Capacity Relative Cost
System ($) (bph) $710,000 bbl
System I 1,013,000 25,000 405,000
System II 957,000 25,000 383,000
System III 1,975,000 50,000 395,000
System IV 416,000 12,500 333,000
VII-30
-------
lean oil supply source was available within the refinery, The
lean oil rate required by the design basis absorption system is
125 gpm per 10,000 bph loading rate. A loading operation which
involves loading two tankers at a combined loading rate of
50,000 bph will require a lean oil flow rate of 600 gpm. The
logistics of deferring such a major portion of a refinery's
lean oil production to the absorption system is a significant
operation change and is likely to be considered impractical.
Without system modifications, the design basis absorption system
is primarily applicable to small marine operations at large re-
fineries where the lean oil demand of the absorption system is
small relative to the refinery lean oil production rate.
A system modification which would make larger absorp-
tion systems compatible with refinery operations is the addition
of lean oil storage capacity dedicated for use in the vapor
recovery system. This lean oil storage capacity can be filled
and emptied at the refinery convenience with minimal disruption
of normal operations. Storage capacity costs are approximately
$0.15 per gallon. A 100,000 bbl storage tank installed with
associated equipment will cost approximately $600,000, The cost
of lean oil storage capacity will very likely place the cost of
lean oil absorption systems in the jame range as the cost for
refrigeration systems: approximately $800,000 per 10,000 bph
of marine loading capacity.
VII-31
-------
BI3LI0GRAPHY
1. American Petroleum Institute, Basic Petroleum Data
Book, Petroleum Industry Statistics, Washington, D.C.,
Oct. 1975.
2. Amoco File, EPA Region, VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support Section,
Dallas, Texas, 1976.
3. Amoco Correspondence, L V. Durland, Refinery Manager,
Amoco Oil Company, Texas City, Texas, June 15, 1976.
4. Amoco Correspondence, J. G. Huddle, Coordinator, Air
and Water Conservation, Amoco Oil Company, Chicago,
Illinois, July 9, 1976.
5. Arco File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support
Section, Dallas, Texr.s, 1976.
6. Arco Correspondence, H. J Grimes, Manager, Environmental
Engineering, Atlantic Richfield Company, Harvey, Illinois.
J ne 21, 1976.
7 Botros, M., Private Communication, Marine Terminal
Operations Survey, Air Pollution Control District,
County of Los Angeles, Feb. 1976.
8. British Petroleum Correspondence, Gordon Wanless, British
Petroleum Company, New York City, New York, July, 1976.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
9. Bryan, R.J., et al., Air Quality Analysis of the Unloading
of Alaskan Crude Oil of California Ports , Final Report
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1405, Task 10. Santa Monica, CA,
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Nov. 1976.
10. Charter File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support Section,
Dallas, Texas, 1976.
11. Crown Correspondence, W L. Warnement, Manager Environ-
mental Engineering, Crown Central Petroleum Co.,
Houston, Texas, July 28, 1976.
12. Edwards Engineering Correspondence, Ray Edwards, President,
Edwards Engineering Corp., Pompton Plains, New Jersey, 1976.
13. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd ed. with supplements,
AP-42, Research Triangle Park, N C., 1973.
14. Exxon File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support
Section, Dallas, Texas, 1976.
15. Exxon Correspondence, L. 0. Fuller, Supervisor of
Environmental Engineering, Exxon Company, Baytown,
Texas, June 14, 1976
16. "Federal Energy Administration Hands Off N. Tier Supply
Problem", Oil Gas J. 1976 (Aug. 9), 36.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
17. Hare, Lawrence, Private Communication, County of Santa
Barbara, Health Care Services, Air Pollution Control
District, Aug. 1976.
18. Kilgren, K., A Program for the Measurement of Hydro-
carbon Emiss ions During Tanker Loading o f Crude Oil in
Ventura County, Chevron Research Company, California,
April 15, 1976.
19. Marathon Correspondence, L. M. Echelberger, Environmental
Coordinator, Marathon Oil Company, Texas City, Texas,
April 22, 1976.
20. Marathon File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support Section,
Dallas, Texas, 1976.
21. Monsanto File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support Section,
Dallas, Texas, 1976.
22. Rauge, Jim, Private Communication, Ventura County APCD,
July 1976.
23. Shell Correspondence, R. V. Mattern, Superintendent,
Environmental Conservation, Shell Oil Company, Deer
Park, Texas, May 18, 1976.
24. Shell File, EPA Region VI, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Air Programs Branch, Technical Support
Section, Dallas, Texas, 1976
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
25. Texas City Refining Correspondence, P. D Parks, Environ-
mental Coordinator, Texas City R'ef-ining Co., T-exas City,
Texas, 1976.
26. Texas - lity-'Refining' F-ile ,¦ EPA ^Region VI-, A-xr and Hazardous
Materials Division, Air Programs" Brarfch,' Technical Support
Section, Dallas, Texas, 1976.
27. "Two Oil "Lines from West Seen Needed", Oil "Gas .J1976
(Aug. 16), 58.
28. Union Oil Correspondence, R. Y. Salisbury, Senior
Environmental Engineer, Union Oil'Company, Los-Angeles,
California, July'8, 1976".
29. U. S. Bureau of Mines, Div. of Fuels Data, Crude
Petroleum, Petroleum Products, and Natural Gas Liquids
19 74-, final •summary, Washington-, D-. C.v> April 19 76.
30. Uilson, Howard M., "Beefed-up Tanker Fleets Readied for
N. Slope Oil", Oil Gas J. 1976 (June 14), 23.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
tPlease read luurucrions on the re\ene before com^Uang'
1 RE*ORT NO 2
tfPA-J,^0A*-76-0?8b
3 RECIPIENT S ACCE55ICN»NO
4 TlTLs A.NO SU8TIT'_S
Volume II
Appendices - Background Information on Hydrocarbon
Emissions from Marine Terminal Operations
S REPORT OATE
November 19 76
S PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7 AUTHOR(S)
C. E. Burklin, J. D. Colley and M. L. Owen
S PERFORMING ORGANIZATION RE3ORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS
Radian Corporation
8300 Shoal Creek Boulevard
P. 0. Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78766
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
68-02-1319, Task 56
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COV6REO
7-fnAT Rennrf
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
18. ABSTRACT
This report presents results of a study to develop background information necessary
for the accurate assessment of hydrocarbon emissions from ship and barge loading and
unloading of gasoline and crude oil. The report assesses marine terminal facilities,
marine terminal operations, cruise history and product movement statistics, hydro-
carbon emission rates and characteristics, control technology state of the art, safety
considerations of marine terminal control technology and economics of controlling
marine terminal emissions. The report also includes the results of a detailed cost
analysis for a refrigeration and an absorption marine terminal vapor recovery system.
Data gathering activities focused on the Houston-Galveston area; however, information
was also assembled on hydrocarbon emissions from marine terminal operations in the
metropolitan Los Angeles area generated by handling of gasoline and crude oils,
including Alaskan north slope crude.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENOEO TERMS
c. COSATi Field/Croup
Air Pollution
Control Equipment
Hydrocarbons
Marine Terminals
Ships & Barges
Gasoline Loading & Unloading
Crude Oil Loading & Unloading
Air Pollution Control
Mobile Sources
Hydrocarbon Emission
Control
Organic Vapors

13 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
Unclassified
2' \0 OF PAGES
181
20 SECURITY CLASS /This page)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prommentl> Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise'subordinate it to mam title When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a dale indicating at least month and year Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e g, date of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc )
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank
7 AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R Doe, J Robert Doe. etc ) List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code Ljst no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as Prepared in cooperation with. Translation of. Presented at conference of.
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained ui the report If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
fa) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidiscipUnary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment?;) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s)
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and pnce
19 & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any
22. PRICE
Insert the pnce set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
-------