THE ALASKAN OIL DISPOSITION STUDY:
POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF A MAJOR
OFF-LOADING TERMINAL IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
March 1977
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
265e«
This report was prepared by EPA, Region X in response to a request
for assistance from the Federal Energy Administration, Regions IX and X.
Mr. David C. Bray of the Air Programs Branch, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division was the principle author of the report. Assistance was provided
by the following persons and agencies:
Robert Boldt, Deputy Regional Administrator, Federal Energy Administra-
tion, Region IX
Frank Brown, Study Coordinator for the environmental portion of the
Federal Energy Administration study
The State of Washington Department of Ecology
The Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority
The Northwest Air Pollution Control Authority
2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary 4
1. Introduction 10
2. Scope of Study
3. The Northwest Scenarios 10
4. Site Evaluations 13
5. Emission Calculations 1?
(a) Oil Storage and Transfer Emissions
(b) Tanker Operation Emissions 21
6. Scenario Emissions 27
7. Comparison of Emissions 30
8. Air Quality Modeling 31
(a) Modeling Approach 31
(b) Air Quality Impact Predictions 32
9. Conclusions 37
References 40
Figures and Tables 42
Appendix I - Methodology 93
Appendix II - Modeling Study 101
3
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was performed by EPA Region X at the request of the Federal
Energy Administration (FEA). The study entails three parts: an evalua-
tion of specified sites with regard to present emissions and air quality;
the determination of the potential emissions associated with a major crude
oil offloading facility; and a preliminary modeling analysis to assess the
potential air quality problems which might be associated with the opera-
tion of such a port.
In all, nine sites were evaluated in this study; seven in Washington -
Cherry Point (Ferndale), March Point (Anacortes), Burrows Bay, Port Angeles,
Offshore Copal is Beach, Copal is Beach and Grays Harbor - and two in Oregon -
Offshore Clatsop County and Astoria.
Two basic scenarios were evaluated; the first based on a daily through-
put of 1,000,000 barrels, the second based on a daily throughput of 1,350,000
barrels. Scenario I would require 379 port calls annually and eleven 650,000
barrel capacity storage tanks. Scenario II would require 517 port calls
annually and fifteen 650,000 barrel storage tanks. In addition, two sub-
scenarios, based on limiting tanker size to less than 125,000 dead weight
tons per current Washington State Law, were evaluated. This would increase
the annual port calls required to deliver the crude oil to 654 for Scenario
I and 1,033 for Scenario II.
Of the nine sites evaluated, six still have relatively clean air and
are considered to be in compliance with all federal, state and local ambient
air quality standards. Three sites, however, already have significant
emission sources and are known or suspected of experiencing violations of
applicable ambient standards. These sites are Cherry Point for sulfur
dioxide (S02)> March Point for S0£ and Port Angeles for S0£ and total
suspended particulates (TSP).
4
-------
The emissions from the storage tanks were calculated using the Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute method for floating roof tanks. These emissions,
when combined with fugitive emissions from other sources such as pump seals,
valves and routine spills, result in a range of annual hydrocarbon emis-
sions for storage and transfer operations as shown in the Summary Table.
The range of emissions is caused by differences in the average annual wind
speeds for the various sites.
The emissions resulting from the combustion of residual oil with a
1.5 percent sulfur content by the tankers were calculated using fuel com-
bustion rates provided to the FEA by oil companies. These calculations
revealed that the most significant pollutants from combustion would be SC^,
nitrogen oxides (NO ) and particulates. The total annual emissions of
X
these pollutants for each scenario are shown on the Summary Table. The
use of a residual fuel oil with the more common 2.5 to 3.0 percent sulfur
content would as much as double the^SO^ emissions.
There are fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from the tankers which are
associated with tanker operations such as fueling, ballasting and purging.
In addition there are hydrocarbon emissions which result simply from
evaporative venting from the cargo cells. Emissions from refueling with
residual oil are insignificant and venting emissions are generally small.
However, the emissions associated with ballasting and purging operations
are quite significant. The ranges of annual fugitive hydrocarbon emis-
sions from tankers, depending upon whether ballasting or purging occurs
in the port vicinity, are shown on the Summary Table. The low end of the
range is for no purging or ballasting emissions; the high end includes
purging and frequent ballasting emissions.
A model was developed to simulate port operation for a period of ten
years to provide the frequency of occurrence of different emission levels.
From this, the average and worst case emission rates were determined.
5
-------
These emissions were then modeled to evaluate the potential for adverse
air quality impact as measured by short-term standards (less than 3-hours).
The impact of tanker combustion emissions were evaluated by the use of
Gaussian point source models such as "PTMAX" and the "EPA Valley model",
whereas the fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from the tank farm and tankers
were evaluated using a volume source model.
The results of the modeling analysis indicated that tanker combustion
emissions have the potential to produce significant short-term SC^ concentra-
tions, possibly in excess of ambient standards when interaction with
elevated terrain becomes a factor (the impact of an elevated source varies
with topography). At those sites with existing SC^ air quality problems,
the contribution by a new source of this magnitude would compound the
situation and possibly hinder the attainment and maintenance of the
standards. Also, the use of a higher sulfur content fuel would increase
the probability of standards violations.
The modeling analysis also showed that the short-term NO concentra-
A ¦
tions could be significant although there are currently no short-term NO
A
ambient standards which apply. Also, an additional source of particulates
in Port Angeles could compound the existing TSP problem and affect attain-
ment of the annual state and local standards.
The modeling of the tanker fugitive hydrocarbon emissions indicated
that purging would likely cause massive violations of the Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for hydrocarbons under any meteoro-
logical conditions. The modeling also indicated that the hydrocarbon
emissions associated with ballasting could result in hydrocarbon concentra-
tions many times in excess of the NAAQS in the vicinity of the berths. In
addition, it was found that the evaporative venting emissions alone could
6
-------
possibly produce concentrations in excess of the NAAQS for hydrocarbons for
relatively short distances under stable conditions.
The combined hydrocarbon emissions from tankers and tank farm and N0x
emissions from the tankers in conjunction with any existing emissions could
create the potential for a photochemical oxidant problem. However, the
hydrocarbon/oxidant relationship for the Pacific Northwest environment is
not yet well understood and further study would be required to assess the
nature and magnitude of any potential problem.
The adverse impact of an off-loading facility could be reduced by the
use of several mitigating measures. SC^ emissions could be reduced by at
least a factor of three by the use of low sulfur distillate fuel oil at
berth during offloading. Since purging is an optional procedure deter-
mined by the tanker master and not currently required for safety, it could
be regulated so as not to be permitted at or near the port. Hydrocarbon
emissions from ballasting can be eliminated entirely by the use of fully
segregated ballast tanks. Evaporative venting emissions can be minimized
by the employment of inert gas blanketing systems. Emissions from the
storage tanks can be reduced by the use of a vapor recovery system in
place of floating roofs. In general, the technology exists to minimize
the impact of an oil offloading terminal and consideration should be
given to the application of the best available technology for any pro-
posed facility. However, further studies are needed to determine other
available mitigating measures and to assess the effectiveness of each for
minimizing the impact of a terminal.
In conclusion, oil transfer facilities of the sizes evalauted in this
study have the potential for significantly impacting air quality. The
actual impact would depend on the meteorological and geographical aspects of
7
-------
the chosen site, the actual design of the facili'ty and the air pollution
control technology employed. There appear to be several mitigating mea-
sures which have the potential to substantially reduce the air quality
impact of a terminal facility. Once an oil transfer facility is proposed
for a specific site, a much more extensive, detailed analysis of the impact
of the project would be required to define the extent of the air impact
and the specific mitigating measures that would be needed in that situa-
tion. The specifics of the project, such as berth and tank farm location,
expected tanker fleet, number of storage tanks and annual port calls, as
well as site-specific meteorology, terrain and existing emissions need to
be evaluated before a complete assessment of the impact of that project
could be made.
8
-------
SUflARY TABLE
ANNUAL miSSIOr^S (TONS)
POLLUTANT
STORAGE vi TRANSFER
TANKER COMBUSTION
TANKER FUGITIVE
SCBJAIUO I-
SO2
('articulates
Hydrocarbons
632 - 974
-SUB-SCENARIO IA-
SQ,
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
SCENARIO II-
SO,
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
SUB-SCENARIO IIA-
so,
L.
NO,
-974
861 - 1328
x
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
861 - 1328
1699
795
194
2196
1020
247
2463
1146
277
3198
1500
361
101 - 6630
450 - 3186
195 - 3537
637 - 3939
9
-------
Introduction
The Federal Energy Administration was asked by the President's Energy
Resource Council to investigate the problems associated with siting a mar-
ine oil transfer terminal for Alaskan oil. One portion of this study
involves an evaluation of the air quality impact of such a terminal. EPA
Region X was asked by FEA to perform this evaluation of the air quality
impact of a terminal upon several possible sites in the Pacific Northwest.
Scope of Study
The Region X study has three major objectives. The first is an evalua-
tion of each site in relation to existing air quality and future air quality
requirements. The second is the determination of the pollutant emissions
associated with all aspects of the proposed marine oil transfer terminal.
The third is an evaluation of the air quality impact of a terminal at each
designated site. This evaluation involved modeling the various types of
emissions associated with shipping and oil transfer and storage operations.
The Northwest Scenarios
The Northwest portion of the study involves nine sites for which there
are two scenarios, each with one sub-scenario. The governing criteria for
the scenarios are the daily crude oil throughput rate and current Washington
State regulations concerning permissible tanker size. These criteria re-
sult in different tanker fleets and oil storage requirements. All informa-
tion and unreferenced assumptions for this study including tanker fleet
mixes, operating parameters and oil storage requirements were provided by
the Federal Energy Administration.^
The nine sites are named and described below and are shown on Figures
1 through 1-9.
10
-------
(1) Cherry Point (Ferndale), Washington
This is the northernmost site and is located in the Strait of
Georgia, Puget Sound approximately 10 miles south of the Canadian
border. The marine terminal would be located at Cherry Point
with the storage tanks located between the INTALCO Aluminum Com-
pany and the ARCO refinery.
(2) March Point (Anacortes), Washington
This site is located at the north end of Fidalgo Island, east of
Anacortes in Fidalgo Bay, Puget Sound. The marine terminal would
be located at the northern tip of March Point with the storage
tanks located near the southern end of the point.
(3) Burrows Bay, Washington
Burrows Bay is located at the west side of Fidalgo Island. The
marine terminal would be located near Allan Island and the stor-
age tanks would be at the same location as for the March Point
site.
(4) Port Angeles, Washington
Port Angeles is located at the north side of the Olympic Pennin-
sula on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The marine terminal would
be located in Port Angeles Harbor on the south side of EdizTlook
The storage tanks would be located near the conjunction of Ediz
Hook and the mainland.
(5) Offshore Copal is Beach, Washington
Copal is Beach is located on the Pacific Ocean on the Olympic
Penninsula and is approximately 10 miles north of the entrance
to Grays Harbor. The marine terminal would be located approxi-
mately two miles offshore and the storage tanks located near
Copal is Beach.
11
-------
(6) Copalis Beach, Washington
This site would be the same as the Offshore Copal is Beach except
that the marine terminal would be located in a dredged, inland
harbor.
(7) Grays Harbor, Washington
Grays Harbor is located in the Pacific Ocean at the south end of
the Olympic Penninsula. The marine terminal would be located off
of Damon Point at the south end of Point Brown. The storage tanks
would be located on the north side of North Bay.
(8) Offshore Clatsop County, Oregon
This site would be between Seaside and the Clatsop Spit, south
of the Columbia River. The marine terminal would be approxi-
mately two miles offshore with the storage tanks located east of
Warrenton.
(9) Astoria, Oregon
Astoria is approximately eight miles upstream from the mouth of
the Columbia River. The site would be located approximately two
miles east of Astoria at Tongue Point.
Scenario I is defined by a daily throughput rate of 1,000,000 barrels.
This and a seven day storage requirement result in eleven 650,000 barrel
storage tanks. A tanker fleet which would be required in order to deliver
this oil is shown in Table 1. The berthing requirements would be either
two berths for 165,000 dead weight ton (dwt) tankers and two for 120,000
dwt tankers or three for 165,000 dwt tankers.
Sub-scenario IA is defined by a tanker size limitation. Current
Washington State law limits the size of tankers entering Puget Sound and
hence the Cherry Point, March Point and Burrows Bay sites, to less than
125,000 dwt. The tanker fleet required in order to deliver oil to these
12
-------
sites is shown in Table 1. The berthing requirements for this sub-scenario
would be either two berths for 120,000 dwt tankers and four berths for
80,000 dwt tankers or four berths for 120,000 dwt tankers. The number of
oil storage tanks remains the same as that for Scenario I.
Scenario II is defined by a daily throughput rate of 1,350,000 barrels
of which approximately 80,000 barrels would be foreign. This throughput
rate will result in the requirement of fifteen 650,000 barrel storage
tanks. The tanker fleet which would be required in order to deliver the
oil is shown in Table 1. The berthing requirements would be either three
berths for 165,000 dwt tankers and two berths for 120,000 dwt tankers or
four berths for 165,000 dwt tankers.
Sub-scenario IIA is also defined by the Washington State tanker size
laws. The tanker fleet required in order to deliver the oil to the Puget
Sound sites is shown in Table 1. The berthing requirements for this sub-
scenario would be either two berths for 120,000 dwt tankers, four berths
for 80,000 dwt tankers and two berths for 65,000 dwt tankers or two berths
for 120,000 dwt tankers and five berths for 80,000 dwt tankers. The number
of oil storage tanks remains the same as that for Scenario II.
The tanker fleet of sub-scenario IIA requires practically all U. S.
tankers of less than 120,000 dwt and greater than 50,000 dwt to be used to
deliver the North Slope Alaskan crude. Likewise, sub-scenario IA requires
a large portion of these tankers. It is unlikely, then, that either of
these sub-scenarios would ever be implemented.
Site Evaluations
The ambient air quality standards applicable to the sites involved in
this study are summarized in Table 2. The following is a brief descrip-
tion of the existing air quality situation at each site. All emission
data is from the August 1976 NEDS report.
13
-------
Cherry Point
There are three significant sources of emissions in the vicinity
of the proposed site. These are the ARCO and Mobil Oil refineries
and the INTALCO Aluminum Company. The combined annual emissions
of these three facilities have been estimated to be 16,000 tons
of SO2, 2,700 tons of N0x, 1,600 tons of particulates, 6,000 tons
of hydrocarbons and 91,000 tons of CO.
The only pollutants that have been monitored extensively in the
Cherry Point area are S0£ and total suspended particulates. State
and local short term SO^ standards have been exceeded several
times in late 1975 and 1976. In addition, the 1975 annual aver-
3
age for SO^ was less than 1 ug/m below the local annual standard.
March Point
There are six significant sources of emissions in the Anacortes-
March Point area. These are the Texaco and Shell Oil refineries,
the Scott Paper Company, the Allied Chemical Company, Publishers
Forest Products and Northwest Petrochemical. The combined annual
emissions of these facilities have been estimated to be 17,000
tons of S0£, 2,700 tons of N0x> 1,900 tons of particulates, 4,900
tons of hydrocarbons and 2,500 tons of CO.
Ambient SO^ and total suspended particulates have been extensively
monitored in the Anacortes vicinity. The federal, state and local
short-term S0^ standards have been exceeded several times in 1975
and 1976 but the area is in compliance with the annual standards.
March Point is approximately 50 miles from the Northern Cascades
National Park and emissions from a marine terminal could possibly
affect air quality within the park.
14
-------
Burrows Bay
There are no significant sources of emissions in the vicinity of
this site. Although Burrows Bay is less than three miles from
Anacortes it is separated from the city by a ridge which reaches
an elevation of over 1,200 feet above sea level. There has been
no ambient monitoring in this area as it is primarily either
residential or undeveloped. The existing air quality is con-
sidered to be good in view of the geographical location and lack
of development.
Port Angeles
There are three major sources of emissions in Port Angeles in addi-
tion to numerous wigwam burners which are principally sources of
particulates. These sources are the ITT Rayonier pulp mill, the
Crown Zellerbach pulp mill and the Penninsula Plywood Corpora-
tion. The combined annual emissions of these three facilities
have been estimated to be 4,900 tons of SO2, 1,000 tons of N02>
2,000 tons of particulates, 100 tons of hydrocarbons and 4,000
tons of CO.
Total suspended particulates and SO^ have been monitored exten-
sively in Port Angeles. The area presently exceeds the state and
local annual standards for total suspended particulates. The
short term local, state and federal S0£ standards were also
exceeded several times in 1975 and the area is classified as
non-attainment for SO^.
The proposed terminal site at Port Angeles is approximately 6
miles from the Olympic National Park and would be expected to
have an impact upon air quality within the park. Port Angeles
15
-------
is also only 13 miles from Vancouver Island, Canada so the air
quality impact in Canada must also be considered.
Copal is Beach and Offshore Copal is
There are no significant sources of emissions in the vicinity of
these sites as this area is primarily resort and recreation ori-
ented. Little if any ambient monitoring has been done in this
area and the air quality is considered to be quite good.
This site is only 25 miles from the Olympic National Park and air
quality within the park could be affected by emissions at the site.
In addition, the site is less than 10 miles from the Quinault
Indian Reservation and air quality within the reservation may be
affected.
Grays Harbor
There are no significant sources of emissions in the vicinity of
the Grays Harbor site as this area is also primarily resort and
recreation oriented. Little if any ambient air monitoring has
been done in this area and the air quality is considered to be
good.
Offshore Clatsop County
There are no significant sources of emissions in the vicinity of
this site as this area is primarily resort and recreation oriented.
Little if any ambient monitoring has been done in this area and
the air quality is considered to be good.
Astoria
There are no significant sources of emissions in the vicinity of
this site. Total suspended particulate and S02 have been monitored
16
-------
for several years and the area is reported to be in compliance
with national secondary and state ambient air quality standards.
Table 3 summarizes the current air quality situation at each site.
Emission Calculations
Oil Storage and Transfer Emissions
For the purpose of calculating worst case hydrocarbon emissions from
the storage tanks and other sources of fugitive emissions it is assumed
that the true vapor pressure of the stored crude oil is equal to 9.5 pounds
per square inch absolute (psia). The temperature of the oil as delivered
to the Northwest sites is assumed to be 97° F. Both of these values are
consistent with oil company projections for the North Slope Alaskan crude
oil as delivered to the West Coast.
There is some controversy concerning the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) and
hence the true vapor pressure, of North Slope Alaskan crude oil. The range
of RVP's for different crudes is from greater than 14 psia for lighter
(2)
crudes to less than 4.5 psia for heavy crudest ' North Slope Alaskan
crude oil is generally considered to be a light crude and a molecular
weight of 48.4^ for its vapors substantiates this assumption. The range
of RVP's for North Slope crude which have been claimed by everybody from
the oil companies to the Coast Guard is from 2.9 psia to 21.2 psia. There-
fore, the RVP of 8.0 used for this study appears reasonable but could be
either high or low by up to a factor of two. The volume of emissions is
dependent upon the RVP and increases with increasing vapor pressure. The
weight of emissions is dependent upon the molecular weight and increases
with molecular weight. However the relationship between RVP and molecular
weight of the vapors is not clear. Thus a lower RVP would decrease the
volume of emissions but if the associate molecular weight was greater this
would increase the weight of emissions and somewhat offset the decrease in
17
-------
volume. Therefore because the value for the RVP of 8.0 (true vapor pres-
sure of 9.5) was the only one for which an associate molecular weight was
available, it has been used for this study.
Because of the rapid storage tank turnover rate of once per week and
the enormous volume of each tank it was also assumed that neither the
temperature nor the true vapor pressure would change appreciably during
storage.
The oil storage tanks are assumed to have a 650,000 barrel effective
working capacity and are 270 feet in diameter and 65 feet in height. The
tanks are assumed to be new, welded, floating roof tanks with pan or pon-
toon roofs and modern single or double metallic or tube seals. The roof
and shell would be painted white. No additional emission control techni-
ques will be assumed.
The density of North Slope Alaskan crude oil in storage is assumed to
be 312.5 pounds per barrel at 60° F. However, for the purposes of emis-
sion calculations the American Petroleum Institute recommends the use of
(4)
the density of the condensed vapor for crude oil. ' For North Slope
Alaskan crude oil, Standard Oil of Ohio (S0HI0) has calculated that the
density of the condensed vapors is equal to 185.6 pounds per barrel.^
The standing storage evaporation emissions for a storage tank can be
computed using the following equation:
-------
Ly = Kt (150) K5
D
P
(150)
(14.7 - P)
0.7 v 0.7 K K K (6)
w s c p
Where:
L = standing storage evaporative emissions, barrels per year (bbl/yr)
y per tank
Kt = tank factor for welded tank = 0.045
D = tank diameter, feet = 270
P = true vapor pressure of stock at its average storage temperature,
psia = 9.5
Vw = average wind velocity, mph
K = seal factor for modern metallic or tube seals = 1.00
s
K = stock factor for crude oil = 0.75
c
K = paint factor for white = 0.90
P
Figure 2 provides a graph of the "standing storage evaporative emissions
-vs- wind velocity" for a 270 feet diameter tank. "" ,
The withdrawal emissions for a storage tank can be calculated using
the following equation:
W = 22,400 - (C/D) ^
Where:
W = withdrawal emissions, bbl per million bbl throughput
2
C = 0.02 (based on barrels of clingage per 1000 ft of shell surface)
D = tank diameter, feet = 270
19
-------
Using these values W = 1.66 bbl per million bbl throughput. The annual
throughput for each storage tank is 33,000,000 barrels which result in
annual withdrawal emissions equal to 55 barrels per year per tank. Be-
cause of the random nature of the port operations it is probable that at
any given time there will be as many storage tanks being emptied as being
filled. Therefore, an average hourly emission rate computed by dividing
the annual loss by the number of hours per year is reasonable.
Table 4 provides the annual storage tank emissions for each site. The
annual storage tank emissions are the sum of the standing storage evapora-
tive emissions at the average annual wind speed and the withdrawal emis-
sions.
There are several sources of fugitive hydrocarbon emissions associated
with the transfer and storage operations (fugitive emissions from the tank-
ers will be considered later). The most important of these sources are
pump seals, valves and spillage. Losses from pump seals and valves have,
been estimated by the Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District to be 4.2
(8)
pounds per day per seal and 0.1 pounds per day per valve. The U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that the spillage associated with
oil offloading facilities is approximately 0.5 barrels per one million
barrel throughput, a portion of which will evaporate and contribute to the
(9)
fugitive hydrocarbon levels. Assuming only two pump seals and six
valves per storage tank and appropriate throughputs, the total losses are
approximately 300 barrels per year for Scenario I and approximately 400
barrels per year for Scenario II.
The total annual hydrocarbon emissions due to storage and transfer
operations for each scenario, by site, are shown in Table 5. These values
20
-------
are computed by summing the storage tank emissions of Table 4 for the
appropriate number of storage tanks and the fugitive emissions.
Tanker Operation Emissions
The emissions from shipping operations are of two types: tanker and
tugboat combustion emissions and fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from tanker
operations such as ballasting, fueling, venting and purging. Combustion
emissions are dependent upon engine fuel combustion rate, sulfur content
of the fuel and the type of engine. Tanker engines are assumed to be steam
turbines burning low viscosity fuel oil which is 1.5 percent sulfur by
weight. Tugboat engines are assumed to be diesels burning diesel fuel which
is 0.25 percent sulfur, by weight. The fuel consumption rates for the
tankers and tugboats by operating mode are shown in Table 6.
The emission factors for tankers that are used in this study were
taken from the Maritime Administration Office of Research and Development
(MARAD) study. The values derived in the MARAD study were the most
conservative of those which were considered and therefore were adopted for
this study. These emission factors, corrected for 1.5 percent sulfur, are
shown in Table 7. The emission factors for tugboats were calculated from
the paper "Ships as Sources of Emissions" by James R. Pearson.These
emission factors, based on 0.25 percent sulfur in fuel, are also shown in
Table 7. Tables 8A through 8G show the hourly emission rates by operating
mode for the tankers and tugboats.
There are two distinct types of tankers which are being utilized in
this study. The first are tankers which are equipped with inerting systems
and fully segregated ballast. The second are tankers without inerting sys-
tems and which have only approximately 15 percent segregated ballast. The
21
-------
inerting tankers will arrive in port, offload their cargo while inerting
the atmosphere in the cargo tank and at the same time be taking on ballast.
Sometime after offloading is completed the cargo tanks may be purged with
inert gas. The non-inerting tankers will arrive at port, offload their
cargo and at the same time take on what ballast they can into their segre-
gated tanks. After offloading is completed, further ballast may or may
not be loaded into the cargo tanks.
There are four major sources of fugitive hydrocarbon emissions asso-
ciated with tanker operations. These are (1) emissions resulting from the
filling of non-segregated ballast tanks, (2) emissions resulting from fuel-
ing operations, (3) the natural venting which occurs on non-inerting
tankers after offloading is completed and (4) the purging operations of
inerting tankers.
In order to compute the hydrocarbon emissions associated with the
ballasting operation, one can simulate the situation of an empty tanker
being filled with water as that of a fixed-roof storage tank being filled
with crude oil. In both cases, hydrocarbon vapors are displaced by the
incoming liquid and forced out of the tank through either pressure relief
valves or open vents. The equation for computing the emissions would then
be:
F = 2.25 PV . Ka
co (10,000) 1
Where:
= emissions, bbl
co '
P = true vapor pressure, psia = 9.5
V = volume pumped into tank, bbl
= turnover factor = 0.23
22
-------
The turnover factor K is determined by the following rationale. Because
the tanker is emptied and ballasted in approximately one day, a one day
turnover rate (365 turnover per year) can be assumed. Therefore from
Figure 486^13\ K = 0.23.
It is common practice to ballast tankers to approximately 35 percent
of their dead weight tonnage. This is usually done in two stages with 10
percent to 15 percent ballasted in berth and the remainder when the tanker
is underway. However, in times of severe winds or high seas, all ballast-
ing may be completed in berth. For purposes of this study it has been
assumed that tankers with non-segregated ballast will also have some
segregated ballast to the order of 15 percent of their dead weight tonnage.
In this case the fugitive emissions will be associated with the ballasting
of 20 percent of the dead weight tonnage which occurs only in times of
severe winds or high seas. It is also assumed that the ballasting rate is
5 percent of the dead weight tonnage per hour. Table 9 shows the emissions
associated with ballasting for tankers with non-segregated ballast.
Fugitive emissions from fueling operations will occur at all sites
except the Offshore Copalis and Clatsop sites. The Reid vapor pressure of
(14)
residual oil is approximately 0.0004 psia.v ' The maximum fuel require-
ment for a round trip to Valdez from any of the Northwest sites would be
(15}
approximately 1600 tons. ' Even when assuming that loading 1600 tons of
fuel displaces an equal volume of gas containing hydrocarbons at equilibruim
concentration the resulting emissions would be less than 1 pound of hydro-
carbons for the entire fueling operation. These emissions are so small as
to be negligable and will not be considered in the remainder of this study.
In order to calculate the fugitive emissions during the venting and
purging operations, the hydrocarbon concentration in the empty tank immedi-
23
-------
ately after offloading must first be computed. This can be done by
calculating the average concentration of the ballasting emissions and assum-
ing that this concentration is uniform throughout the tank. This is a
reasonable technique because the gas mixing rate is high during offloading.
Using the emissions per volume of gas displaced determined for ballasting,
the ideal gas law and a molecular weight for Alaskan crude vapors of 48.4,
the concentration is found to be approximately 12 percent.
Recent studies of hydrocarbon concentrations in empty tanker holds
show that the vapors are usually stratified. There is a dense layer of
vapors, usually less than 2 meters in depth, at the bottom of the tank
where the concentration approaches equilibrium. Above this layer the con-
centration is lower and generally uniform throughout the tank. A British
Petroleum Company study^^ measured a range of average concentrations for
vapors above the dense layer of 1 percent to 9 percent for crudes with
lower TVP than North Slope crude. Therefore, a concentration of 12 per-
cent is not unreasonable but should most likely be considered as a worst
case with regard to emissions.
In order to calculate the venting emissions for tankers without inert-
ing systems it is also necessary to calculate an evaporation rate for crude
oil from the sides and bottom of the emptied tanker. This can be done
using the following procedure:
Assumptions:
1) 80,000 dwt tanker
2) V = volume of tanker = 560,000 barrels
3) (J = volume of ullage space = 18,000 barrels (ullage space is
defined as the difference in volume of tanker and volume of
oil in tanker)
24
-------
4) Temperature in the tanker is assumed to be equal to the de-
livery temperature of 97°F.
5) C. = initial hydrocarbon vapor concentration in ullage space =
60 percent (slightly below equilibrium concentration)
6) = final hydrocarbon vapor concentration in emptied tanker =
12 percent
7) = average evaporative rate in barrels per hour, which is
assumed to be constant over time and equal for the walls and oil
surface.
8) Time required to offload the oil, or to increase the initial vol-
ume U to the final volume V, is 24 hours.
The final volume of hydrocarbon vapors in the emptied tanker, W^, can be
calculated by using the formula
Wf = VCf
The initial volume of hydrocarbons in the ullage space, W., can be calcu-
lated by using the formula
W, = uc,
A simple equation can then be written which will allow the calculation of
the hourly evaporative rate Er
Wf = W. + 24 Er
That is, the final volume, in barrels, is equal to the initial volume, in
barrels, plus the evaporative rate, in barrels per hour, times 24 hours,
the time required for offloading.
Solving this equation for the evaporate rate Er it is found that
E = Wf " Mi = 2350 bbl/hr
r 24
This then is the volume of gas that will be expelled from the empty tanker
per hour due to continuing evaporation within the tanker. The concentra-
tion of the gas being expelled will be approximately 12 percent immediately
25
-------
after offloading and will increase with time. After eight hours the con-
centration in the tanker will be approximately 15 percent. Using the ideal
gas law, the average hourly emission rate can be computed for this eight
hour period. For this case it would be 240 pounds per hour. Noting the
fact that, in this case, the evaporation rate is approximately 0.4 per-
cent of the tanker volume per hour and assuming that the other tankers
should behave similarly, the evaporation rate and average hourly emission
rate for the first eight hours can be computed for each tanker. Those
values are given in Table 10.
Purging emissions are associated with tankers equipped with inerting
systems. The purging operation efficiently flushes the empty oil tank with
scrubbed combustion gas in a short time. For large oil tankers a complete
atmosphere change for each cell can be accomplished in approximately 80
minutes.For the purposes of this study it will be assumed that the
purging rate is equal to the maximum inerting rate of 10,000 cubic feet
per minute (cfm). A normal purging operation encompasses three complete
atmospheric changes and hence for the tankers in this study will require
between 24 and 32 hours depending on the size of the tanker.
The hydrocarbon emissions associated with purging can be calculated
by simulating the situation as a simple dilution. Scrubbed flue gas from
the inerting system is pumped in at a rate of 10,000 cfm which displaces
an equal volume of gas containing hydrocarbons at a constantly decreasing
concentration. Calculating the concentration in the tanker at different
times during the purge and hence the total emissions up to that time it
becomes apparent that the concentration follows an e~at relationship. It
was found that the emissions could be calculated by using the equation
Et = 0.12269VCq(1 - e"^R/V)t)
26
-------
Where
Et = emissions from the beginning of purge to time t, lbs
3
V = volume of cell or cells being purged, ft
Cq = initial hydrocarbon concentrations in cell, percent
R = inert gas input rate, ft /hr
t = time, hours
0.12269 = constant from ideal gas law converting volume of emissions
to pounds of emissions
which fits the theoretical situation and the calculated values extremely
well.
A problem arose in determining whether the available inert gas was
diverted to an individual cell in the tanker or dispersed evenly through-
out all cells in the tanker. As this problem has not been resolved the
purging emissions have been calculated for both situations. Table 11A
contains the emissions for simultaneous purging of all cells and Table 11B
contains the emissions for sequential purging of cells in which the volume
of the largest cell is considered to be approximately 16 percent of the
volume of the tanker. In both cases the initial concentration C was
o
assumed to be 12 percent and the inert gas input rate R to be 600,000 cubic
feet per hour.
The situations in which purging will actually occur are thought to be
few. Purging must be done prior to drydocking or manual inspection. How-
ever, it has not been ascertained as to whether purging will be done routinely
to minimize the possibility of explosion and fire hazard. At present it
must be assumed that purging would be an infrequent operation.
Scenario Emissions
In order to model the air quality impact of the tanker operations it
must first be determined what the most probable average and worst case
27
-------
tanker conditions are to be. Therefore, the procedures of tankers in the
vicinity of port must be defined and the emissions associated with these
procedures must be determined. Tables 12A and 12B outline the operating
procedures of tankers with and without inerting systems and segregated
ballast and detail the type of sources of emissions for each procedure.
During the maneuvering modes at inland water ports and during off-
loading at offshore ports there will be tugboat activities associated with
tanker operations. The offshore ports will use one tug per tanker and in-
land water ports will use several tugs per tanker as follows:
tankers less than 80,000 dwt - 2 tugs
120,000, 130,000 and 150,000 dwt tankers -3 tugs
165,000 dwt tankers -4 tugs
Using Table 12A and 12B the total emissions per port call can be com-
puted for each tanker. These emissions are given in Table 13. Using Table
13 and the appropriate tanker fleet, the total annual emissions can be
computed for each scenario and sub-scenario. These values are given in
Table 14. Since the tankers will arrive in port in a random pattern with
respect to time it is reasonable to obtain an average hourly emission rate
for tanker operation at a port by dividing the total annual emissions by
8760, the number of hours per year. These average hourly emission rates are
given in Table 15 for each scenario and sub-scenario.
Associated with each scenario and sub-scenario is an average weekly
tanker arrival rate. These are for Scenario 1-7 tanker arrivals per week,
for Sub-scenario IA-13 tanker arrivals per week, for Scenario 11-10 tanker
arrivals per week for Sub-scenario IIA-20 tanker arrivals per week. The
situation in which all the tankers scheduled to arrive in a given week are
in port at the same time can be expected to occur at least once or twice
-------
a year. This would result in all berths being occupied and the remainder
of the tankers waiting at idle in the vicinity of the port. However the
tankers waiting at idle would have little impact upon the port due to the
low emission rates and distance from the anchorage to the port. Thus the
situation in which all berths are occupied will be considered to be the
"worst case" tanker situation. This will occur somewhat more frequently
than the situation mentioned above and is expected to occur approximately
once every week in two weeks. This "worst case" tanker situation would
result in worst case emissions for periods up to 24 hours.
In the modeling of the impact of tanker operations the average hourly
emissions of Table 15 will be used for the normal or representative case
emissions for both short and long term standards. The emissions associated
with the "worst case" tanker situation, shown in Tables 16 and 17, will be
used as worst case emissions for short term standards up to 24 hours. As
there are no worst case emissions which could be associated with a long
term standard the representative case emissions must suffice.
In order to determine the frequency of occurrence of the various tanker
emission situations a computer model was developed. This model simulates
tanker activities between the loading port at Valdez, Alaska and a receiv-
ing port in the Pacific Northwest for a period of 10 years. The model
provides the frequency of occurrence of berth occupation and the frequency
of occurrence of emission values for each time period of interest. The
frequency of occurrence for Scenarios I and II of 1-hour, 3-hour and 24-
hour SO^ emissions are shown in Tables 18A through 18F. A more detailed
description of the tanker simulation model is contained in Appendix I.
29
-------
Comparison of Emissions
It is useful at this poirtt to compare the total annual emissions of
the marine terminal with the total annual emissions from the significant
sources in the vicinity of the port site.
Cherry Point
For the Cherry Point site the increase in SC^ emissions would be
between 11 percent and 20 percent of the current emissions depend-
ing on which scenario or sub-scenario is implemented. The increase
in N0x emissions would be between 29 percent and 56 percent,
particulates, 12 percent to 23 percent and CO would increase
imperceptibly. Hydrocarbon emissions would increase by between
13 percent and 158 percent depending upon whether or not the
tankers purged or ballasted near the port.
March Point
For the March Point site the increase in SO^ emissions would be
between 10 percent and 19 percent, NO , 29 percent to 56 per-
X
cent, particulates, 10 percent to 19 percent and CO, 1 percent
to 2 percent. The increse in hydrocarbons would be between 17
percent and 195 percent depending on whether or not the tankers
purged or ballasted near the port.
Port Angeles
For the Port Angeles site the increase in S0£ emissions would be
between 35 percent and 50 percent, NO , 80 percent to 115 per-
X
cent, particulates, 10 percent to 14 percent and CO less than 1
percent. The increase in hydrocarbons would be between 856 per-
cent and 9565 percent depending on whether or not the tankers
30
-------
purged or ballasted near the port. (The large percentage in
creases for hydrocarbons result from the low level of present
hydrocarbon emissions in the Port Angeles area.)
It appears then, that for all pollutants except CO and possibly particu-
lates, there would be a substantial increase in emissions above the existing
at the vicinity of these three sites.
Air Quality Modeling
Modeling Approach
K
In order to assess the impact of the emissions from the tankers and
storage tanks, a screening level modeling analysis was performed. The
impact of tanker stack emissions were evaluated using gaussian plume dis-
persion models for point sources. The impact of tank farm and fugitive
hydrocarbon emissions were evaluated by use of the Gifford* turbulent wake
flow method for volume sources.
In order to obtain a preliminary indication of the meteorological
conditions which could lead to high concentrations as a result of tanker
stack emissions, the EPA computer model PTMAX was run. This model utilizes
stack parameters and an array of stability classes and wind speeds to pre-
dict the final plume height, the maximum concentration and the distance to
the maximum for each stability/wind speed combination. The input stack
parameters and the results of this model for a normalized emission rate of
1 gram/second (gm/sec) are included in Appendix II.
In addition, the EPA computer model PTDIS was run for several of the
stability/wind speed cases which showed the greatest impact over the 2 to
* Gifford, F. A., 1975: Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Environmental
Pollution Applications, in Lectures on Air Pollution and Environmental
Impact Analysis, American Meteorological Society, 29 September - 3
October 1975,.Boston, MA, pp. 49-50.
31
-------
5 km range. This was done in order to better understand the relationships
of plume heights and conpentrations with downwind distance. Results of
these runs are also included in Appendix II.
A quick comparison of the final plume heights and the terrain in the
immediate vicinity of the sites shows that in many cases the receptor eleva-
tion is equal to or greater than that of the plume. This indicates that a
terrain interactive model would be necessary in order to assess the impact
of the tanker emissions. Therefore, the EPA valley model was utilized for
stable conditions and low wind speeds in order to estimate the impact of
plume impingement upon hillsides near several of the sites. The input
parameters and results of this modeling are summarized in Appendix II.
The emissions from the tank farm and the fugitive hydrocarbon emis-
sions from the tankers were treated as volume sources and evaluated using
the Gifford turbulent wake flow method. Because this method is dependent
upon the cross-sectional area and in order to account for various tank
farm or tanker configurations, three basic formations were evaluated:
in-line across wind, in-line along wind and clustered formation. The
input parameters and results of this modeling are also included in
Appendix II.
Air Quality Impact Predictions
Before discussing the impact of an oil transfer facility upon air
quality at the various sites, it must first be pointed out that this model-
ing approach is diagnostic in nature and serves only to indicate for which
pollutants and sites, potential air quality problems may exist. Because
no attempt has been made to evaluate the meteorology of each site, the
actual concentrations which might be expected to occur, the locations, or
the frequency of occurrence cannot be predicted. Therefore, this modeling
32
-------
evaluates the short term impact of a terminal under meteorological condi-
tions which might reasonably be expected to occur in the area. Only the
distances and elevations of receptors used in the terrain interaction
modeling are site specific. In addition, no attempt has been made to evalu-
ate the impact at the offshore sites because of uncertainties in tanker
spacing and location.
The discussion of the air quality impact will be limited to certain
meteorological conditions and distances. Because of the sea/land interface
and the influence of a large water body upon local meteorological patterns,
extremely stable and extremely unstable conditions will occur infrequently.
Therefore, only the impacts under stabilities B, C, D and E have been
evaluated. In addition, the average distances from the tanker berths to
land (with the exception of the offshore sites) and from the storage tanks
to the property line are about 0.5 kilometers (km). Therefore, no discus-
sion of the impacts of less than 0.5 km has been included.
The flat terrain modeling approach for tanker stack emissions indicates
that the greatest impact would occur under stability B with 5 m/sec winds
at a distance of 0.7 km. The predicted concentrations of the various pollu-
tants for short term worst case emissions are shown in Table 19. With the
exception of SO^, all other pollutant concentrations resulting from tanker
stack emissions are well below applicable standards. However, SO^ con-
centrations are approximately one half of the state and local primary
hourly standard and 80 percent of the state and local secondary hourly
standard. It should be noted that these concentrations are the result of
a simplification that all emissions are from a single point source. In
reality, the tanker berth spacing is such that at so close a distance as
0.7 km, concentrations would normally be lower than those shown in Table
33
-------
19. Table 20 shows the predicted concentrations at a distance of 2.3 km
for stability D and 7 m/sec winds. In this case the predicted S0£ concen-
trations are approximately one third of the primary hourly and one half
of the secondary hourly standard.
The results of the terrain interaction modeling, however, indicate
that the potential exists for higher concentrations due to plume impinge-
ment upon the steep terrain in the vicinity of some sites. As a result,
concentrations of NO and TSP, in addition to S0o, would become substan-
x 2'
tial. Table 21 shows the maximum predicted concentrations for the four
sites evaluated by the terrain interaction modeling. This modeling shows
that the state and local primary hourly standard for SO,, could be violated
at the Burrows Bay and March Point sites as a result of tanker emissions
alone. In addition, the state and local secondary hourly standard for S0£
could be violated at the Port Angeles and Cherry Point sites. However,
there currently exists substantial SO^ emissions near the Port Angeles,
March Point and Cherry Point sites as well as known ambient SO2 violations.
A contribution by new tankers of the magnitude found by this modeling -would
compound the existing problem and likely increase the probability of viola-
tions of SO2 standards at these three sites. Also, an additional source of
particulates in Port Angeles could compound the existing TSP problem and
hinder attainment of the annual state and local standard.
In summary, this modeling indicates that tanker stack emissions have
the potential to produce significant short term SO^ concentrations. A more
detailed modeling analysis which looks at such situations as the offshore
fumigation and limited mixing cases in addition to plume inpingement, arid
which utilizes site specific meteorology to evaluate frequency of occurrence
and 24 hour and annual averaging times, will be necessary in order to
34
-------
accurately assess the impact of tanker stack emissions at a terminal site.
In addition, at those sites which have existing sources of a multiple
^source modeling study will be required in order to evaluate the incremental
impact of the tankers upon existing air quality. In addition, it should
be noted that the SO^ concentrations could be as much as twice as great
as those predicted herein if a residual fuel oil with the more common
sulfur content of 2.5 to 3.0 percent is used.
The volume source modeling for fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from
the tankers indicates that the greatest impact would occur under Stability
E with 2.5 m/sec winds. Table 22 shows the predicted maximum concentra-
tions for short term worst case emissions. The modeling shows that for
stable conditions, purging would result in concentrations many times in
•excess of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under any
tanker configuration. Even without purging, venting emissions alone could
result in concentrations in excess of the NAAQS for relatively short dis-
tances from the berths.
Table 23 shows the predicted concentrations for good dispersion condi-
tions of Stability D and 10 m/sec winds. These results show that even in
a good dispersion situation, purging could cause hydrocarbon concentrations
much greater than the NAAQS. Venting could also have a significant impact
for short distances from the berths.
Although it has been assumed that ballasting would generally occur
only during high winds and rough seas which indicates good dispersion
conditions, the high emission rate associated with ballasting could still
produce significant HC concentrations. Table 24 shows the predicted hourly
concentrations as a result of ballasting emissions for Stability D and 20
35
-------
m/sec winds. The results show that ballasting could result in concentra-
tions in excess of the NAAQS within short distances of the berths.
In summary, the modeling indicates that purging emissions have the
potential to create hydrocarbon concentrations which would exceed the
NAAQS under any meteorology. Therefore, since purging is an optional pro-
cedure which may be regulated, it should be prevented from occurring
wherever it could adversely affect air quality over land. Ballasting
emissions also have the potential to cause hydrocarbon concentrations in
excess of the NAAQS and hence should be prevented from occurring as much
as possible. The use of fully segregated ballast tanks can reduce ballast-
ing emissions to zero. Since venting emissions may also result in high
concentrations near the berths, adequate control technology should be
developed in order to reduce these emissions. Finally, all of the model-
ing predictions herein are directly proportional to the hydrocarbon
concentration in the tanker holds which in turn is directly proportional
to the true vapor pressure of the crude oil. Therefore, should any
further information regarding the concentrations in empty tanker holds or
regarding the vapor pressure of North Slope crude become available, all
values can be simply linearly scaled to give new predictions.
The predicted concentrations for the volume modeling of a tank farm
in clustered formation are shown in Table 25. This modeling shows that
under most meteorological conditions the tank farm emissions could result
in hydrocarbon concentrations above the NAAQS within a kilometer of the
tank farm. For Stabilities D and E, significant concentrations could
result for distances of several kilometers. It is apparent that further
consideration need given to the use of vapor recovery systems rather than
floating roofs as the emission control device for storage facilities of
36
-------
this magnitude. A more detailed, site specific analysis would also need
to account for the combined impact of tank farm and fugitive tanker emis-
sions.
The significant HC and N0x emissions from a transfer terminal and the
predicted concentrations discussed above lead to the question of photo-
chemical oxidants. The hydrocarbon/oxidant relationship for the Pacific
Northwest environment is not yet well understood. However, the massive
HC emissions associated with purging and ballasting could create the
potential for a photochemical oxidant problem. Further study is required
to determine the hydrocarbon/oxidant relationship and to predict the photo-
chemical oxidant concentrations which could result from the operation of
an oil transfer facility and tank farm.
Conclusions
1) The air at the Burrows Bay, Copalis Beach, Grays Harbor, Off-
shore Clatsop County and Astoria sites is still relatively clean. However,
existing pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the Cherry Point,
March Point and Port Angeles sites are close to exceeding or actually
exceeding applicable ambient standards with regards to SO^ and in the case
of Port Angeles with both S02 and TSP.
2) SO^ emissions from tankers are substantial due to the high fuel
consumption rates required for offloading and would result in a significant
increase in SC^ emissions above that already existing at all of the sites.
3) The fugitive hydrocarbon emissions associated with tanker opera-
tions such as purging and ballasting are substantial and would greatly
increase the existing hydrocarbon emissions in the vicinity of a site.
4) The hydrocarbon emissions from a tank farm could be substantial
and would add a continual source of emissions to the vicinity of a site.
37
-------
5) Due to uncertainties in the Reid vapor pressure of North Slope
Alaskan crude and in the hydrocarbon concentrations in empty tanker cells,
the hydrocarbon emissions calculated herein are only first order approxima-
tions. However, any reasonable corrections would likely not change the
nature of the conclusions regarding hydrocarbons.
6) The SO^ emissions from tankers have the potential to create air
quality problems, especially for sites with elevated terrain and/or exist-
ing SO^ emission sources. In addition, the use of a residual fuel oil
with a higher sulfur content than the 1.5 percent assumed in this study
could greatly increase the potential for adverse impact.
7) The fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from purging or ballasting
operations if done near port without mitigating measures would cause
massive violations of the NAAQS for hydrocarbons and could likely create
a photochemical oxidant problem.
8) The hydrocarbon emissions from the tank farm and tanker activities
other than purging and ballasting could cause violations of the NAAQS for
hydrocarbons and could contribute to a photochemical oxidant problem.
9) The direct impact of an oil transfer facility upon NO and CO
A
air quality should be minimal. However, NO could be a factor in in-
X
creased potential for oxidant formation.
(10) The particulate emissions from tugs and tankers could compound
the TSP problems at sites such as Port Angeles at which applicable air
quality standards are currently exceeded.
(11) In general, an oil transfer facility of the size evaluated in
this study would have a significant adverse impact upon air quality and a
strong potential for causing and/or contributing to violations of ambient
air quality standards.
38
-------
(12) Purging emissions and ballasting emissions, both of which can
be prevented from occurring with available technology, should be pre-
vented from occurring wherever air quality over land could be adversely
affected.
(13) Methods of reducing SC^ emissions from tankers during off-
loading such as the use of low sulfur fuel or the application of emis-
sion control equipment should be investigated.
(14) Further studies need to be done with regards to quantifying
fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from tanker operations and to adequately
describe the hydrocarbon/photochemical oxidant relationship for the
Pacific Northwest.
(15) Further studies are needed to determine the extent of mitigating
measures which are currently available and to evaluate the effectiveness
of each for reducing the air quality impact of a terminal. In addition,
the economics of and timetable for implementing any mitigating measures
must be addressed. The cost and feasibility of retrofitting existing
tankers with segregated ballast, inerting systems or other necessary
emission control equipment and the economics of only permitting tankers
equipped with certain emission control technologies to use the port must
be evaluated with regard to the reduction of air quality impact which
could be achieved.
(16) A much more extensive, detailed analysis of the air quality
Impact of a transfer facility upon the vicinity of a site will need to
be done if and when a specific project is proposed.
39
-------
References
(1) "Draft - Marine Terminal Evaluation Scenario #1: All Port Regions",
Federal Energy Administration Region IX, May 21, 1976, and further
correspondence with Frank Brown of FEA.
(2) "Risk Analysis of the Oil Transportation System" Oceanographic
Institute of Washington, Seattle, Washington, September 8, 1972.
(3) "Purpose to Present Background for and Basis of Vapor Loss Estimate
Calculations for SOHIO Proposed Tankage", Bright, Don Dr., Port of
Longbeach to the California State Taskforce on Air Quality, March
1976.
(4) "Petrochemical Evaporation Loss from Storage Tanks", API Bulletin
2523, American Petroleum Institute, November 1969.
(5) Bright
(6) "Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition", AP-40, Danielson,
John A., edition, Air Pollution Control District, County of Los
Angeles, May 1973, p. 632.
(7) Ibid. p. 634.
(8) Ibid, pp 635 and 691
(9) "Preliminary Air Quality Impact Studies of the SOHIO TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY CRUDE OIL TERMINAL PROPOSED FOR THE PORT OF LONGBEACH", pre-
pared by Socio-Economic Systems, Inc., February 26, 1976.
(10) "Survey of Ship Discharges, Final Report on Task I, Sub-Task 2",
Goodrich, R. R. and Shewmaker, J. E., Contract No. C-l-35049,
July 1974, prepared by Esso Research and Engineering Co. for U. S.
Department of Commerece, Maritime Administration, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
(11) "Ships as Sources of Emissions", Pearson, James R., Paper No 69-AP-
18, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Seattle, Washington,
November 1969.
(12) Danielson, p. 642.
(13) Ibid., p. 642.
(14) Verbal Information from Clint Burklin, RADIAN Corporation.
(15) "First Draft - Air Quality Analysis of the Unloading of Alaskan Crude
Oil at California Ports", Bryan, R. J., Drivas, P. J., Sakaida, R.,
and Tanzman, A., Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., June 1976.
i
(16) "Hydrocarbon Vapour Concentrations in Sea-Tankers after Discharge of
Crude Oil and Motor Gasoline Cargoes", Technical Memorandum No. 131
487/M, Project No. 140, 7.12.72, British Petroleum Company Limited,
Research Centre, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex.
40
-------
"The Development and Operation of an Inert Gas System for Oil Tank
ers", Day, C. F., Piatt, E. H. W., Talfer, I. E., and Tetreau, R.
Transactions, Institute of Marine Engineers, Volume 84, Part 1,
London, 1972.
"CIimatological Handbook - Columbia Basin States - Hourly Data,
Volume 3 Part A", Meteorology Committee - Pacific Northwest River
Basins Comiission, June 1968.
"Air Pollution Impact of Maritime Shipping Operations in the Port
of Houston", Cooper, B. H. Jr., and Mahdi, Ghassan M., Tesax A&M
University, Civil Engineering Department, College Station, Texas
November 5, 1973.
-------
VANCOUVER ISLAND
CANADA
- -PORT
OLYMPIC
NATIONAL
VANCOUVER
CANADA
t CHERRY POINT
Pbellingham
rim
„ ... \ \Vrn9 lift ] MARCH POINT
VICTORIAN X, BURRCfo/S
/ BAY
EVERETT
SEATTLE
QlilNALT
INDIAN
RESERVATION
/£>
TACOMA
COPALIS •
GRAYS
HARBOR
WASHINGTON
OFFSHORE •
CLATSOP
1
FIGURE 1
SCALE
c
0 10 20 30 40
MILES
• MARINE TERMINAL
X OIL STORAGE
NATIONAL PARK
NATIONAL
WILDERNESS
NATIONAL
RECREATION
AREA
CANADIAN PARK
VANCOUVER
£j PORTLAND
42
-------
U/ht{C.horft
Point
¦lank: fowl
Figure l-l Specific Locations of
the Proposed Marine Oil Transfer
Terminal Facilities at
Cherry Point (Ferndale), Washington
0
1
B ire n
&
Ch&rru
fomv
r-tpiNT
N
XM0*
o
AluiTiinJtv) Rout
f^lobil Oil
*200'
3 MILES
J
/W
Lummi
B«
7
43
-------
I
I
uc mess
0
An<*oorU$
SCjrff fkfW
fM^XS'o
$«./H i
Ttyirch /V.
KloHhuViy J
jtorxkew'6*
n
Ai Ucd
Chci/Mw
PoJtl/a Ba
jtrj)tlk
i
N
z
A MILCS
MA&-H Vo\ NT
Figure 1^2 Specific Locations of
the Proposed Marine Oil Transfer
Terminal Facilities at
March Point, Washington
44
-------
bay
Nl
Figure 1-3
Specific Locations of
Proposed Marine Oil Transfer
Terminal Facilities at
Burrows Bay, Washington
0
Uland
Goeme*
AnacoriCJ
PAPP?
Htod
rr.
burrows
-rink frrv^
)
2 MILES
_i
-------
5/rait of
Juan dc F~u co
?0W AN^L-E^
N
Amtki h.*\
T- Btr^h Area
^CrcuW
f 7d\C/hxU
£jiz Ypo*-
WQtks Herb or
Tank Farm
ITT lUu°rv£r'
rmurcl-4 Specific Locations of
ite Proposed liar 1110 Oil transfer
Terminal Facilities at
Port Angeles, Washington
ZISO
MIS'
f Olympic Nfi+mji. ^ArV.
(V
I ) ltQjx&t(! fl\rL
i I AdJitton
( r"1
\
"S S
±L
'2U1B'
OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
0
_J_
3 MILES
46
-------
OFFSUOX& COfAUS
O
Figure 1-5 Specific Locations of
the Proposed Marine Oil Transfer
Terminal Facilities at
Offshore Copal is Beach, Washington
3 MILES
47
-------
co?ali5
riquro 1-6 Specific Lnr.ilion of
NORTH 0Ay
Grays Harbor, Washington
48
-------
GfKAVS V4AK0OR. j
sd>J7,
T/^WK
f
r^ure ^
thC 7«!S^.l /.Cities at
Grays Harbor, Washington
Point Bro^n
Parrf
Chi ha
W«s+p"T
MILES
-------
fv||LllAK^
the Pr°PosSoc/P,J;,f'c o°?Cdtl°" Of
Teninna? fac,]7?'? Tra"sfer
0ff—C,atsop'&'« «ewn
50
-------
Figure 1-9 Specific Locations of
the Proposed Marine Oil Transfer
Terminal Facilities at
Astoria, Oregon
M
CO LUMBIA KlVEP?
TANK
A5fCKIA
-------
SCENARIO
SCENARIO I
SUB-SCENARIO
IA
SCENARIO II
SUB-SCENARIO
I IA
TABLE 1
TANKER FLEET REQUIRED
TATJKER SIZE
NUPBER REQUIRED ANMUAL PORT CALLS
~ -j __ __ ^ ^
165,000 dwt
6
| 207
120,000 Dtr/T
3
103
i
SOvOOO DWT
2
69
120,000' dwt
5
172
80,000 dwt
5
172
76,000 dwt
3
103
70,000 Dvrr
6
207
165,000 ewt
6
207
150,000 dwt
2
69
130,000 dwt
; 2
69
120,000 dwt
; 3
103
80,000 dv/t
>
2
69
120,000 dwt
5
172
80,000 dwt
5
172
76,000 dwt
; 3
103
70,000 dot
10
345
62,000 dwt
3
103
53,000 dwt
1
35
52,000 dwt
1
34
50,000 dwt
1
35
49,000 DWT
1
34
52
-------
TABLE 2
APPLICABLE AffilEfT STANDARDS
ug/m3
STANDARD
NATIONAL
NATIONAL
WASH
OLYMPIC
NORTHWEST
OREGON
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
STATE
APCA
APCA .,(
STATE.
SULFUR DIOXIDE
ANNUAL AVERAGE +
80
60
60
53
60
24"HOUR MAXIMUM $
365
260
260
260
260
i
3-hour maximum #
B00
1300
I
1-HOUR MAXIMUM # i
1048
1048
1048
(twice per week) j
655
655
655
5-minltte maximum #
f
2096
TOTAL SUSPENDED PMTCUU1E ¦
ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAT>I + :
75
60
60
60
60
24-hour MAXIMUM #
| 260
1
150
150
150 I 150
| 100
(15% per month) :
CARBON ITOXIBE
1
3-hour maximum #
10*
I
10*
10*
¦¦ 10*
10*
1-hour maximum #
40*
1
40*
40*
40*
40*
"photochemical OXIUNT
;
I
*
\
i
i
1-hour maximum #
- nvnonrflDRDjq
; i6o
i
i
160
160
i 160
i
[
160
n T Uf\UL/if\DUi io
. 3-hour maximum #
]
(6:LX)am to 9:00am)
i 160
>
160
160
j 160
160
NITROG&I DIOXIEE J
i
? ANNUAL AVERAGE+ j
A
100
100
100
100
100
+NEVER TO BE EXCEEDED
* mg/m3
#NOT
TO BE EXCEEDED MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR
53
-------
TABLE 3
AIR QUALITY MONITERING SUFHARY BY SITE
1975-1976
\ POLLUTAT IT/STAi ©ARD
! TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE
24-1IOUR MAXIMUM
ANNUAL
i SULFUR DIOXIDE
5-MirtnE maximum
1-mUR MAXIMUM
3-HOUR MAXIMW
24-HOUR riAXIMUM
ANNUAL
NUMBER OF TIMES STANDARD EXCEEDED
CHERRY POINT
(1) STATE AND LOCAL
W LOCAL
(^NATIONAL PRIMARY
^4 ^ T^IAT I Or^lAL SECONDARY
LESS THAN
1 UG/M?
6(2)
1(1)
MAROI POINT
4Qf(2)
g(D. 5(2)
2(i»3)
PORT ANGELES
3(i)
X
(1)
24(1)
2(4)
7(0. 3(3)
ASTORIA
-i
BELOW THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARD
54
-------
2000 -
2500 -
H
I
1000 +
CO
&
I
s
t
+
500 +
FIGURE 2
STANDING STORAGE
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
WIND ^LOCITY
TANK DWETER: 270 FEET
0
10
+
+
20 30
WIND VELOCITY (mph)
KJ
50
55
-------
SITE
CHERRY POINT
i MARCH POIiJT
i
!
«
i BURRMS BAY
| PORT ANGELES
1 'OFFSHORE COPALIS
i
COPALIS BEAQI
GRAYS rlARBOR
! OFFSHORE CLATSOP
ASTORIA
TABLE q
ANNUAL STORAGE TANK EMISSIOPIS
BARRELS PER YEAR PER TANK
HYDROCARBONS
1
AVERAGE ANNUAL
WIND SPEEDS
7
8
3
8
12
12
10
12
I 6
STANDING STORAGE
EMISSIONS
598
657
657
657
872
872
768
372
537
WITHDRAWAL
EMISSIONS
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
TOTAL
EMISSIONS
653
712
712
712
927
927
G23
927
592
Estimated fR°m Climatological Handbook data( 1q)
56
-------
TABLE 5
ANNUAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FOR STORAGE AND TRANSFER OPERATIONS
f]
SITE
..v
GIERRY POINT
MARCH POINT
BURROWS BAY
PORT ANGELES
OFFSHORE COPALIS
COPALIS BEACH
GRAYS HARBOR
OFFSHORE CLATSOP
ASTORIA
bbl7year
7433
3132
3132
3132
10497
10497
9353
10497
6182
SCENARIO I
tons/year
694
755
755
755
974
974
868
974
632
SCENARIO II
bbl/year tons/year
10195
11080
11081
11080
14305
14305
12745
14305
9280
9
-------
TABLE 6
FUEL CONSUMPTION RAfES (BBL7H0UR)*
VESSEL
165,, OOO dwt
150,000 dwt
130,000 dwt
120,000 dwt
30,000 dwt
76,000 dwt
70,000 dwt
62, UOJ dwt
53,000 dwt
52,000 dwt
50,000 dwt
49,030 dwt
CRUISE
33 .4
40.0
38.7
37.3
30.2
27.1
26.6
25.9
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.6
OPERATING rmDE
MANEUVER ! IDLE
20.6
24.7
23.9
23.0
18.1
16.2
15.9
15.5
14.9
14.9
14.8
14.7
4.4
5.0
4.8
4.4
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0FL0AD
37.3
39.1
37.8
31.2
18.4
16.5
16.2
15.8
15.2
15.1
15.0
15.0
AVERAGE
TUGBOAT 1.3
(offshore sites) 1.0
"based on a density of 344.4 lb/bbl (19>)
58
-------
TABLE 7
EMISSION FACTOR (lb/bbl fuel fired)
POLLUTANT
SULFUR DIOXIDE (S%)
NITROGEN OXIDES (NO*)
PARTICULATES (PART)
HYDROCARBONS (HC)
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
ALDEHYDES (HCHO)
ORGANIC ACIDS (OA)
TANKER
10,05 *
4.36
0.966
0.134
0.084
0.084
HO DATA
VESSEL
TUGBOAT
1.73 +
9.31
4.61
5.70
2.53
0.425
1.30
* Based on 1.5% sulfur in fuel
+ Based on 0.25% sulfur in fuel
59
-------
TABLE 8A
SO2 EMISSION RATES (lb/hour)
VESSEL
OPERATING MODE
!
!
ig
! W
»
1
MANEUVER
IDLE
OFFLOAD
165,000 dot
150,000 dot
130,000 dot
120,000 dot
30,000 dot
76,000 dot
70,000 dot
62,000 dot
53,000 dot
52,000 dot
50,000 dot
49,000 dot
335.7
*«2.0
388.9
374.9
303.5
272 .4
267.3
260.3
j 250.2
1 249.2
j
! 218.2
J
i 247.2
1
;
i
207.0
248.2
240.2
231.2
131.9
162.8
159.8
155.8
149.7
149.7
148.7
147.7
•
j
i
1 CN CM C\ CM 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 <—1 '—1 '—1 >—1
i !
1 1
1 1
1 !
318.7*
334.0*
380.0
Mb)
184.9
165.8
162.8
158.8
152.8
151.8
150.8
150.8
1
t
AVERAGE
TUGBOAT
(offshore sites)
1
j
1
{
i
2.18
1.65
"reduced BY 15% - INERTING SYSTEM IN OPERATION
( ) NON-INERTING 120^000 DOT TANKER
60
-------
TABLE SB
NOx EMISSION RATES (lb/hour)
VESSEL
OPERATING MODE
CRUISE
mNEUVER
IDLE
OFFLOAD
165,0U0 dwt
145.6
89.8
19.2
138.2*
150,000 dwt
174,4
107.7
21.8
144.9*
130,000 dot
168,7
104.2
20.9
164.8
120, OD dwt
80,000 dwt
162.6
131.7
100.3
78.9
19.2
10.5
115*6*
(136.0)
80.2
76,000 dwt
118.2
70.6
9.6
71.9
70,000 dwt
116.0
69.3
9.2
70.6
62,000 dwt
112.9
67.6
9.2
68.9
53,000 dwt
108.6
65.0
8.7
66.3
52,000 dwt
108.1
j
65.0
8.7
65.8
50,000 dwt
| 107.7
> 107.3
i
>
i
;
64.5
8.7
65.4
49,000 DWT
64.1
8.7
65.4
| AVERAGE
TUGBOAT
!
j 11,75
1 3.87
(offshore sites)
"REDUCED BY 15% - INERTING SYSTEM IN OPERATION
( ) NON-INERTING 120,000 DWT TANKER
61
-------
TABLE 8C
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES (lb/hour)
VESSEL
OPERATING MODE
CRUISE
MANEUVER
IDLE
OFFLOAD
165,0U0 dwt
150,000 dwt
130,000 dwt
120,030 DIYT
80,000 dwt
76/000 dwt
70,000 dwt
62,000 dwt
53,000 dwt
52,000 dwt
50,000 dwt
49,000 DWT
32.3
38.6
37.4
36.0
29.2
26.2
j 25.7
J 25.0
| 24.1
! 24.0
»
23.9
; 23.8
i
i
i
>
19.9
23.9
23.1
22.2
17.5
15.6
15.4
15.0
14.4
14.4
14.3
14.2
4.3
4.8
4.6
4.3
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
30.6*
32.1*
36.5
25.6*
i£p
15.9
15.6
15.3
14.7
14.6
14.5
14.5
i
!
AVERAGE
TUGBOAT
(offshore sites)
1
5,82
4.39
"reduced BY 15% - INERTING SYSTEM IN OPERATION
^ ^ NON-fNERTING 120^0(X) DWT TANKER
62
-------
TABLE &D
HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES (lb/hour)
VESSEL
OPERATING MODE
CRUISE
MANEUVER
IDLE
OFFLOAD
165,0U0 dot
150,000 dot
130,000 dot
120,030 dot
80,000 dot
76, '300 dwt
70,030 dwt
62,000 dot
53,000 dwt
52,000 dwt
50,000 dot
49,000 DVfT
4.5
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.3
»
3.3
1
i
2.8
3.3
3.2
3.1
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
4.2*
4.4*
5.1
3.6*
(4.2)
2,5
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
*
AVERAGE
TUGBOAT
(offshore sites)
i
i
i
1. . ....
7.19
5.43
t
"REDUCED BY 15% - INERTING SYSTEM IN OPERATION
( ) NON-INERTING 120,000 DWT TANKER
63
-------
TABLE 3E
CO EMISSION RATES (lb/hour)
VESSEL
OPERATING MODE
CRUISE
MANEUVER
IDLE
OFFLOAD
165,01)0 dwt
2.8
1.7
0.4
2.6*
150,000 dwt
3 .4
2.1
0.4
2.8*
130,000 dwt
3.3
2.0
0.4
3.2
120,000 dwt
3.1
1.9
0.4
2.2*
r6)
J. • D
80,000 dwt
2.5
1.5
0.2
76/300 dwt
2.3
1.4
0.2
1.4
70,000 dwt
2.2
1.3
0.2
1.4
62,000 dwt
2.2
1.3
0.2
1.3
53,000 dwt
2.1
1.3
0.2
1.3
52,000 dwt
2.1
1.3
0.2
1.3
50,000 dwt
2.1
1.2
0.2
1.3
49,000 DWT
2.1
t
i
1.2
0.2
1.3
| AVERAGE
TUGBOAT
1
j 3.19
(offshore sites)
| 2.41
f , ,
"REDUCED BY 15% - INERTING SYSTEM IN OPERATION
( ) Non-inerting 120,000 dw tanker
-------
TABLE 8G
ORGANIC ACID EMISSION RATES (lb/hour)
VESSEL
OPERATING MODE
LU
GO
E?
i
!
}
MANEUVER
IDLE
OFFLOAD
165, OUO mr
-
-
-
-
150,000 dwt
-
-
-
-
130, U00 dwt
-
-
-
-
120, COO dwt
-
-
-
-
80,000 dv-zt
-
-
-
-
76,000 dwt
-
-
-
-
70,000 dwt
-
-
-
-
62,000 dwt
-
-
-
-
53,000 dwt
-
-
-
-
52,000 dwt
>
;
-
-
50,000 dwt
j
i
i
-
-
^49,00J dwr
»
l
t
i
-
S AVERAGE
TUGBOAT
i
j 1,64
(offshore sites)
j 1.24
i
66
-------
TABLE 9
BALLASTING EMISSIONS
HYDROCARBONS
TANKER SIZE
TOTAL EMISSIONS +
Emission rate
lbs/hr
(BBL)
(UBS)*
130,000 dwt
89,5
16607
4152
120,000 dwt
82,6
13330
3332
80,000 dwt
55,1
10220
2555
76,000 dwt
39.9
7405
1851
70,000 dwt
36.3
6729
1682
62,000 dwt
32.9
6105
1526
53,000 dwt
29.4
5464
1366
52,000 dwt
28.7
5329
1332
50,000 dwt
26,8
4981
1245
49,000 dwt
26,1
4846
1212
"based on 185,6 lbs/bbl
+F0R BALLASTING 2Q% OF THE DEAD WEIGHT TONNAGE
67
-------
TABLE 10
EVAPORATION RATES AND HOURLY VENTING EMISSION RATES
FOR NON-INERTING TANKERS
HYDROCARBONS
TANKER SIZE
130,000 dw
120,000 DV7T
80,000 dwt
76,000 dwt
70,000 dwt
62,000 dwt
53,000 dwt
52,000 dwt
50,000 dwt
49,000 DWT
EVAPORATION RATE
(bbl/hour),(volume of gas),
3819
3525
2350
1700
1550
1400
j 1255
J 1225
1145
i
1115
EMISSION RATE
(lb/hour)
390
360
240
174
158
143
128
125
117
114
68
-------
TABLE HA
PURGING EMISSIONS (uss)*
CELLS PURGED SIMULTANEOUSLY
HYDROCARBONS
VESSEL SIZE
165,000 dwt
150,000 dw
120,000 dwt
FIKST HOUR
8,437
8,399
8,295
THREE HOURS
23,141
22,837
22,030
StVB^J HOURS
45,516
,
44,226
40,937
*INERT GAS INPUT AT 10,000 CFM
69
-------
TABLE I1B
PURGING EMISSIONS (lbs)#
CELLS PURGED SEQUENTIALLY
HYDROCARBONS
165,000 dwt
VESSEL SIZE
150,000 jmt
120,000 dwt
FIRST HOUR
6,779
6,611
6,179
THREE HOURS
12,903
12,150
10,401
SEVEN HOURS
21,153
23,984
21,428
I
«!
i
*INERT GAS INPUT AT 10,000 CFM
70
-------
TABLE 12A
OPERATION PROCEDURES FOR TANKERS WITH
INERTING SYSTEMS AND SEGREGATED RALLAST
POWER riODE
sh-'-
IDLE
TIPt
SOURCE OF
EMISSIONS
.SERVICING
IDLE
DEBERTHING j
AND DEPARTING i MANEUVER
"i" "
up to 8 hours i COMBUSTION
flANEUVERING
AND MOORING i MANEUVER
i OFFLOADING I: OFFLOAD
i r ^
' 5 HOURS
24 HOURS
3.5 HOURS
COMBUSTION
COMBUSTION
OTHER ACTIVITIES
WHICH MIGHT OCCUR
INERTING, BALLASTING
-i --
COMBUSTION ! INERTING, BALLASTING, !
FUGITIVE ! FUELING, PUKGING i
t
3,5 HOURS
COMBUSTION
FUGITIVE
INERTING, BALLASIING,
PURGING
71
-------
MANEUVERING
AND MOORING
OFFLOADING
SERVICING
TABLE 12B
OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR TANKERS WITHOUT
INERTING SYSTEMS AND COMPLETELY SEGREGATED BALLAST
r '
I
SOURCE OF
PROCEDURE
POWER'MODE
TIFE
EMISSIONS
DELAY
!' IDLE
UP TO 8 HOURS
COMBUSTION
MANEUVER
OFUOAD
IDLE
5 HOURS
! 24 HOURS
*
(
: 3,5 HOURS
COMBUSTION
COMBUSTION : BALLASTING
OTHER ACTIVITIES
WHICH MIGHT OCCUR
i COMBUSTION 1 BALLASTING, FUELING, i
: FUGITIVE ; VENTING i
DEBERTHING
AND DEPARTING i, MANEUVER
: 3.5 hours
COMBUSTION : BALLASTING, VENTING
FUGITIVE i
72
-------
TABLE 13
EMISSIONS PER PORT CALL (lbs)
TANKER SI2E
POLLUTANT
165,000 dwt
150,000 dwt
130,000 dwt
120,000 dwt
INLAND
OFSHORE
INLAND
OFFSHORE
mm
OFFSHORE
. wi-?1
INLAND
-tfc
DFFSHORE
SO2
9814
9779
10558
10542
11579
11563
8751*
(9879)
8735*
(9863)
NOx
4624
4437
4856
4770
5298
5211
%£>
3984*
(4474)
PART
1134
1041
1158
1115
1255
1212
QQ/l*
Q042)
W
(lSfe)
HC
373
<
1
259
322
269
337
284
H)
247*
(261)
CO
! 188
t
1 •
138
169
146
178
155
®0)
HCHO
; 98
89
102
98
111
106
^2
UR6A1WIC
ACIDS
55
1
30
42
30
42
30
42
30
FUGITIVE
HC
\m
1
X
44226*
23984+
Mi
2730
2730
40937*
llo )
40937*
^±428 +
FUGITIVE
HC
EXCLUDING
BALLASTING
A'.in
| 0*+
1
i
Q»+
Q*+
o»+
2730
1
2730
0+
(2520)
Q*+
(2520)
pift; 1
i
"EQUIPPED WITH INERTING SYSTEM - SIMULTANEOUS PURGING ( ) non-INERTING
-Equipped with inerting system - sequential purging £®,{jOO dwt tanker
-------
TABLE 13 (cont)
EMISSIONS PER PORT CALL (lbs)
TANKER SIZE
POLLUTANT
80,000 dwt
76,000 dot
70,000 dwt
DWT
__
INLAND
OFSHORE
INLAND
OFFSHORE
INLAND
OFFSHORE
INLAND
•* *.+ lC~A
DFFSHORE
SO2
6202
6204
5566
5568
5461
5463
5331
5333
NOx
2874
2887
2598
2611
2552
2565
2497
2510
PART
692
i
698
629
635
619
625
609
615
HC
205
f
213
196
204
195
205
192
200
CO
j 104
f
1
108
101
105
100
104
98
102
HCHO
i
¦ 59
1
60
56
57
55
56
53
54
ORGMIC
ACIDS
t
; 28
1
30
28
30
28
30
28
30
FUGITIVE
HC
1680
1680
1218
1218
1106
1106
100]
1001
FUGITIVE
HC
EXCLUDING
BALLASTING
I
! 1680
j
1
>
j
1680
1218
1218
1106
1106
1
1001
1001
74
-------
TABLE 13 (cont)
HUSSIONS PER PORT CALL (lbs)
POLUL/TANT
SO2
NOx
PART
HC
CO
HQIO
TANKER SIZE
53,000 dot
JNLAND
5127
2409
588
189
98
53
ORGANIC '•
ACIDS !•
FUGSIV£
FUGITIVE
HC
EXCLUDING
BALLASTING
28
896
OFFSHORE
5129
2422
594
197
102
54
30
896
896
52,000 dot
INLAND
5103
2397
586
189
98
53
28
875
875
OFFSHORE
•»' *• *&¦
5105
2410
592
197
102
54
30
875
875
50,000 dot _
INLAND lOFFSHORE
5071
2383
583
189
97
52
28
819
819
5073
2396
589
197
101
49,U00 dot
¦m m- *• «
dffshdre
53
30
INLAND
* •"* * m ¦> *4.
5062
2380
582
189
97
52
319
819
28
793
798
75
-------
TABLE 14
TOTAL ANNUAL SHIPPING EMISSIONS (tons)
POLLUTANT
SO2
NOv
PART
HC
CO
HQ-IO
ACIDS
SCENARIO I
INLAND
1699
795
194
61
31
17
FUGITIVE i!
HC |i
n*
+
FUGITIVE
I HC I
EXCLUDING i
' PU$P 1
bALLASTING 1
1
101
I
OFFSHORE
1695
772
182
47
25
16
101
SUB-SCENARIO
IA
2196
1020
247
75
38
21
10
1864*
1191 +
450
SCENARIO II
INLAND
2463
1146
277
84
42
24
12
7844 *
4262 +
195
SIMULTANEOUS PURGING
"•"SEQUENTIAL PURGING
7fi
OFFSHORE
2457
II17
262
66
35
22
8
7844*
4262 +
195
SlIB-SCENARK
1 IA
3198
1500
361
111
56
31
15
2050 *
1377 +
637
-------
TABLE 15
AVERAGE HOURLY EMISSION RATES (lbs/hour)
FOR SHIPPING OPERATIONS
POLLUTANT
SCENARIO I
iUB-SCENARIO
SCENARIO II
;UB-SCErlARIC
INLAND
OFFSHORE
IA
INLAND
OFFSHORE
1 IA
SO2
388.0
387.0
501.0
562.0
561.0
730.0
NOx
182,0
176.0
233.0
261.5
255.0
343.0
PART
44.0
41.0
56.0
63.5
60.0
82.0
HC
14,0
10.5
17.0
19.0
15.0
25.0
CO
7.0
j
5.5
8.5
9.5
8.0
13.0
HCHO
i
J 4.0
i
i
3.5
5.0
5.5
5.0
7.0
ORGA'IIC
ACIDS !
1
1
i 2.0
1
\
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
3.5
M
FUGITIVE |! 1421*
HC Si 763+
1
14S *
78 +
*
272 +
1791*
973+
1791*
973 +
P*
314+
.
• FUGITIVE i
HC
• EXCLUDING
1 *
feALLASTING
i
23.0
t
)
\
i
23.0
103.0
44.5
44.5
145.5
1
"SIMULTANEOUS PURGING +SEQUENTIAL PURGING
-------
TABLE 16
SHORT TERM WORST CASE MISSIONS (ujs/hour)
FOR AT-BERTH SHIPPING OPERATIONS
POLLUTANT
SCENARIO I
;UB-SCENARIO
SCENARIO II :
>1 IB-SCENARIO
INLAND
OFFSHORE
IA
INLAND
OFFSHORE
I IA
SO2
1265
1271
1348
1583
1592
1660
NOx
549
584
585
687
731
720
PART
121
139
129
152
174
159
HC
17
38
18
21
48
22
CO
t
1
i
11
20
11
13
25
14
HCHO
f
i
11
12
11
13
15
14
ORGANIC
ACIDS
»
1
i
•t
I
1
i
1
-
5
-
-
6
1
1 '
FUGITIVE h
HC
'S;
ill
m
Hi
1
; FUGITIVE
1 EXCLUDING
! PURGING
i AND
TOIASTING
1
j
;
350
360
720
390
390
720
i
'SIMULTANEOUS PURGING +SEQUENTIAL PURGING 0 LBS PER 3-HOURS
-------
TABLE 17
24-HOUR TOT CASE EMISSIONS (ubs/24 hours)
FOR AT-BERTH SHIPPING OPERATIONS
POLLUTANT
SO?
NO
'X
PART
HC
CO
HCHO
ORSAiMIC
ACIDS
FUGITIVE
HC
SCENARIO I
INLAND
26579
11905
605
330
237
57
j 172906*
91162+
I FUGITIVE
I
' EXCLUDING i
j PURGING 3
| Af0 a
'.BALLASTING !j
1 i4
I
5040
OFFSHORE
26628
12167
2878
766
401
249
94
172906*
91162+
5040
MB-SCENARIO
IA
28739
12832
2952
630
345
254
56
88132*
49114*-
11298
SCENARIO II
INLAND
32280
14539
3380
787
424
291
82
172906*
91162+
5040
OFFSHORE
32320
14750
3484
916
481
300
U2
172906*
91162+
5040
MB-SCENARIQ
I IA
33303
15096
3504
820
441
304
85
504b
12683
SIMULTANEOUS PURGING
~SEQUENTIAL PURGING
79
-------
TABLE ISA
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRETJCE OF SO2 EMISSIONS
HOURLY EMISSIOTJS
SCENARIO I - mm PORT
EMISSIONS (lbs/hr)
0
1-99
100-199
200-299
300-399
WI99
SOO-5'99
600-699
700-799
800-899
900-999
1000-1099
1100-1199
1200-1299
1300-1399
1100-1199
1500-1599
OCCURRENCES (hrs/yr)
1120
285
653
1119
1919*
591
Ml
687
372
327
131
37
37
o+
FREQpCf_(%)
12.8
3.2
7.5
13.1
21.9*
6.8
16.5
7.8
1.3
3.7
1.5
0.1
0.1
Q.Q94"
"average case
+WORST CASE
80
-------
TABLE 13B
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SO2 ET1ISSIQNS
3-HOUR AVERAGE EMISSIONS
scenario i - mum PORT
EMISSIONS (lbs/hr)
0-9
10-99
100-199
200-299
300-399
400-499
500-599
600-699
700-799
800-399
900-999
1000-1099
1100-1199
1200-1299
1300-1399
1400-1499
1500-1599
OCCURRENCES fer year
943
325
871
1092
1811 *
872
m
729
421
264
125
42
19
2+
FREQUENCY(%)
10,8
3.7
9.9
12.5
20.7*
10.0
14.2
3.3
4.8
3.0
1.4
0.5
0.2
0.02+
AVERAGE CASE
+VIORST CASE
81
-------
TABLE 18C
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SQ2 EMISSIONS
24-HOUR AVERAGE EMISSIONS
SCENARIO I - INLAND PORT
EMISSIONS (lbs/hr)
0-9
10-99
100-199
200-299
300-399
4U0-499
500-599
600-699
700-799
800-899
900999
1000-1099
1100-1199
1200-1299
1300-1399
1400-1499
1500-1599
OCCURRENCES per year
233
572
m
1567
1599*
1450
1078
680
365
137
49
6+
FREQUENCY CO
2.7
6.5
11.7
17.9
18.2*
16.6
12.3
7.8
4.2
1.6
0.6
0.07+
AVERAGE CASE
"ty/ORST CASE
82
-------
TABLE 18D
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SO2 EMISSIONS
HOURLY EMISSIONS
SCENARIO II - INLAND PORT
JSIONS (lbs/hr)
OCCURRENCES (hrs/yr)
FREQUEJ1CY
0
;
401
4.6
1-99 !
i 191
2.2
100-199
i 322
3.7
200-299
! m
r
1
8.8
300-399
!
1158
16.6
«LM99
567
t
6.5
530-599 1
1196*
17.1 *
GJU-699
1229
1
14.0
700-799
577
6.6
800-899
; 700
t
8.0
900-999 Ji 489
5,6
1000-1099
; 249
2.8
1100-1199
164
1.9
1200-1299
99
1.1
1300-1399
25
0.3
14U0-1499
i 13
0.15
15001599
1 6 +
1
0.06 +
"average case
+WORST CASE
83
-------
TABLE 18E
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SO2 EMISSIONS
3-HOUR AVERAGE ETIISSiaJS
SCENARIO II - INIM) PORT
EMISSIONS (lbs/hr)
AVERAGE CASE
+WORST CASE
OCCURRENCES per year
0-9
i 314
3.6
10-99
I 183
2,1
100-199
! 478
5,5
200-299
; 662
7,6
300-399
1330
15,2
400-499 i; 922
.10,5
500-599 j; 1394 *
15,9 *
600-699
i 1052
12,0
700-799
826
9,4
800-899
658
7,5
900-999
; its
4,8
1000-1099
251
2,9
1100-1199
; 118
1.7
1200-1299
76
0.9
1300-1399
1
1 25
0,3
1400-1499
; 12
1
0,14
1500-1599
! 6 +
1
t
*
0,07+
FREQUENCY (%)
84
-------
TABLE 18F
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SO2 EMISSIONS
24-HOUR AVERAGE EMISSIONS
SCENARIO II - IfM'JD PORT
EMISSIONS (lbs/hr)
0-9
10-99
100-199
200-299
300-399
400-499
500-599
GQ0-699
700-799
800-899
900-999
U00-1399
1100-1199
1200-1299
1330-1399
1-400-1^99
1500-1599
OCCURRENCES per year
1416 *
894
AVERAGE CASE
+WORST CASE
85
-------
TABLE 19
MAXIMUM PREDICTED HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS ug/m5
TANKER STACK EMISSIONS
FLAT TERRAIN fDUELING
STABILITY B; 5 m/sec; 0,74 km
POLLUTANT
SCENARIO I
SUB-SCENARIO
SCENARIO II
SUB-SCENARIO
INLAND
IA
INLAND
I IA
CO
442
471
553
580
192
204
240
251
PART
42
45
53
55
HC
6
6
7
8
CO
4
4.
4
5
HCHO
4
4
4
5
HIC
i
i
—
i
—
EMISSION RATES FROM TABLE B - APPENDIX II
86
-------
TABLE 20
PREDICTED HOURLY COfJCOfTRATIOfJS ug/m3
TANKER STACK EMISSION
FLAT TERRAIN!DUELING
STABILITY D; 7 h,/sec; 2.3 km
POLLUTANT
SCEInIARIO I
SUB-SCENARIO
SCENARIO II
SUB-SCENARIO
INLAND
IA
INLAND
I IA
SO,
269
2c46
336
353
Mx
11/
123
146
153
PART
26
27
32
34
HC
4
4
n
5
CO
2
2
3
I
3
I1CH0
2
2
1
i 3
3
Wc
i
—
!
—
EMISSION RATES FROM TABLE B - APPENDIX II
87
-------
1ABLL Zi
MAXIMUM PREDICTED HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
TANKER STACK EMISSIONS
TERRAIN INTERACTIOT^ MODELING
STABILITY E; 2,5 m/sec
Site
Pollutant
Scenario I
IA
Scenario II
I IA
Port Angeles
(2.7 KM)
SO2
NOx
TSP
817
355
78
—
1023
444
98
—
Burrows Bay
(1,0 km)
SO2
5403
2346
5755
2498
6762
2936
7091
3074
ISP
515
552
651
678
Burrows Bay
(2,6 KM)
SO2
NOx
1094
475
1166
506
1370
595
1436
623
TSP
104
112
132
137
March Point
(2.^ km)
SO2
NOx
1299
564
1384
601
1626
706
1705
739
TSP
124
133
156
163
Cherry Point
(2,1 km)
SO2
771
335
821
356
964
419
1011
438
TSP
f
73
79
93
97
Emission rates from Table B- appendix ii
88
-------
TABLE 22
MAXIMUM PREDICTED HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS ug/m5
FUGITIVE TANKER EMISSIONS
HYDROCARBONS
STABILITY E; 2.5 m/sec
EMISSIONS
TAT
CONFIGl
R^flON
0,5 KM
1,0 KM
5.0 KM
10.0 m
FUGITIVE
in-line along
144177
55940
5471
1911
HC*
IN-LINE ACROSS
19107
15804
4382
1758
(542 gm/sec)
GROUPED ALONG
100059
47768
5381
1900
GROUPED ACROSS
35677
25661
4905
1837
FUGITIVE HC
IN-LINE ALONG
12077
4686
458
160
EXCLUDING
IN-LINE ACROSS
1600
1324
367
i—1
PURGING &
GROUPED ALONG
8381
4001
451
159
BALLASTING
GROUPED ACROSS
2988
2149
411
154
(45,4 gm/sec)
t
1_
1
1
i
EMISSION RATES FROM TABLE B — SCENARIO I ~ INLAND
* 3-HOUR AVERAGE EMISSION RATE FOR SEQUENTIAL PURGING
89
-------
TABLE 23
PREDICTED HOURLY HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS ug/m5
FUGITIVE TANKER EMISSIONS
STABILITY D; 10 m/sec
EMISSIONS
TANKER
CONFIGURATION
0,5 KM
1,0 KM
5.0 m
10.0 KM
Fugitive
IN-LINE ALONG
22016
7622
648
239
hc*
IN-LINE ACROSS
4405
3197
580
229
(542 gm/sec)
GROUPED ALONG
17345
6971
643
239
GROUPED ACROSS
7705
4639
615
235
fugitive HC
IN-LINE ALONG
1844
638
54
20
excluding
IN-LINE ACROSS
369
268
49
19
PURGING &
GROUPED ALONG
1453
584
54
20
BALLASTING
GROUPED ACROSS
645
389
51
20
(45,4 gm/sec)
-
EMISSION RATES FROM TABLE B: SCENARIO I - INLAND
* 3-HOUR AVERAGE EMISSION RATE FOR SEQUENTIAL PURGING
90
-------
TABLE 24
PREDICTED HOURLY HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS ug/m5
FROM BALLASTING EMISSIONS
STABILITY D; 20 m/sec
TANKER SIZE
0,5km
1.0 KM
5,0 KM
10.0 M
mooo
8369
3364
310
115
120,000
6720
2701
249
92
30,000
5152
2071
191
71
76,000
3728
1498
138
51
70,000
3392
1363
126
47
62,000
3072
1235
114
42
53,000
2752
1106
102
38
52,000
2688
1080
100
37
50,000
2512
1010
93
35
49,000
2488
984
91
34
NOTE: TANKERS ARE GROUPED ALONG WIND
EMISSION RATES FROM TABLE D- APPENDIX II
91
-------
TABLE 25
PREDICTED HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS ug/m3
FOR TANK FARM IN CLUSTERED FORMATION
SCENARIO I
METEOROLOGY
0.5 km
1.0 km
5.0 km
10.0 km
Stability
Wind Speed
B
2m/sec
361
122
6
—
B
4m/sec
280
95
4
—
C
3m/sec
538
239
19
5
C
5m/sec
448
200
16
—
C
lOm/sec
355
158
13
—
D
3m/sec
775
491
70
27
D
5m/sec
646
410
58
22
D
10m/sec
512
326
46
18
D
20rti/sec
410
260
37
14
E
2.5m/sec
937
702
147
56
E
4m/sec
794
595
124
47
Emission rate from Table E- APPENDIX II
92
-------
APPENDIX I
Methodology
93
-------
Methodology - Table 13
Emissions per Port Call
Use the number of hours of each operation procedure from Tables 12A and
12B in conjunction with emissions rates from Tables 8A-8G, 9, 10, 11A and
11B.
The combustion emissions for any size tanker would be that associated with
the following algorithm:
(4 hours of idle) + (5 hours of maneuvering) + (24 hours of offload-
ing) + (3.5 hours of idle) + (3.5 hours of maneuvering)
In addition there would be tugboat emissions as follows:
for inland ports (8.5 hours of emission) x (number of tugs) for off-
shore ports (24 hours of emissions for one tug)
The fugitive HC emissions would be as follows:
For inerting tankers - (7 hours of purging)
For non-inerting tankers - (7 hours of venting)
The fugitive HC emissions excluding both ballasting and purging would be
as follows:
For'inerting tankers - none
For non-inerting tankers - (7 hours of venting)
94
-------
Methodology - Tables 14 and 15
Total Annual and Average Hourly Shipping Emissions
Use the tanker fleets as outlined in Table 1 and the emissions per port
call of Table 13.
The total annual emissions for each scenario are the sum of the number of
annual port calls for a vessel times its emissions per port call over
all vessels utilized for that scenario.
Note that for Scenarios I and II, two of the 120,000 dwt tankers are
equipped with inerting systems and one is not. For Sub-scenarios IA
and IIA, two of the 120,000 dwt tankers are equipped with inerting systems
and three are not.
To obtain Table 15, divide each entry in Table 14 by 8760, the number
of hours per year.
95
-------
Methodology - Table 16
Short Term Worst Case Emissions
Use the emission rates from Tables 8A-8G, 10, 11A and 11B.
The object is to maximize emissions for a reasonably probable situation.
For combustion emissions, each berth is occupied by the largest available
tanker that the berth can accomodate. All tankers are offloading
simultaneously. The 120,000 dwt tankers are not equipped with inerting
systems. The situations then for each scenario are as follows:
Scenario I: 2- 165,000 dwt and 2- 120,000 dwt
Sub-scenario IA: 2- 120,000 dwt, 3 - 80,000 dwt
and 1-76,000 dwt
Scenario II: 2-120,000 dwt, 3-80,000 dwt, 1-76,000 dwt,
1-62,000 dwt and 1-53,000 dwt
The fugitive HC emissions are those associated with one tanker for Scenarios
I and II and with two tankers for Sub-scenarios IA and IIA. The specific
situations for each scenario are as follows:
Fugitive HC
Scenario I: 1-165,000 dwt tanker purging
Sub-scenario IA: 2-120,000 dwt tankers purging
Scenario II: 1-165,000 dwt tanker purging
Sub-scenario IIA: 2-120,000 dwt tankers purging
Fugitive IIC excluding purging and ballasting
Scenario I: 1-120,000 dwt tanker venting
Sub-scenario IA: 2-120,000 dwt tankers venting
Scenario II: 1-130,000 dwt tanker venting
Sub-scenario IIA: 2-120,000 dwt tankers venting
96
-------
Methodology - Table 17
24-Hour Worst Case Emissions
Use the number of hours of each operating procedures from Tables 12A
and 12B in conjunction with emission rates from Tables 3A-3G, 10, 11A
and 11B.
For Scenarios I and II, a tanker arrives every 5 hours until all berths
are occupied as follows:
Scenario I: 2-165,000 dwt and 2-120,000 dwt
Scenario II: 3-165,000 dwt and 2-120,000 dwt
For Sub-Scenarios IA and IIA, a tanker arrives every 3 hours until all
berths are occupied as follows:
Sub-scenario IA: 2-120,000 dwt, 3-80,000 dwt
and 1-76,000 dwt
Sub-scenario IIA: 2-120,000 dwt, 3-80,000 dwt, 1-76,000 dwt,
1-62,000 dwt and 1-53,000 dwt
For combustion emissions choose the 24-hour period which maximizes the
number of hours of offloading. Also, assume that 120,000 dwt tankers
do not have inerting systems.
For fugitive HC emissions choose the 24-hour period which maximizes the
number of hours of purging and venting. The specific situation for each
scenario is as follows:
Fugitive HC
Scenarios I and II: 2-165,000 dwt tankers purging and
2-120,000 dwt tankers purging.
Sub-scenario IA: 2-120,000 dwt tankers purging, 3-80,000 dwt tankers
venting and 1-76,000 dwt tanker venting.
Sub-scenario IIA: 2-120,000 dwt tankers purging, 3-80,000 dwt, 1-76,000
1-62,000 dwt and 1-53,000 dwt tankers venting.
97
-------
Tanker Activity Simulation Model
This simulation model increments time and moves each tanker forward
in the current stage of its journey by one hour. The program then deter-
mines where each tanker is in that stage of its journey and if appropriate,
starts it on the next stage.
The program is designed to use two separate tanker fleets. Tanker
fleet "A" operates between the Port of Valdez and a Northwest port. Tanker
fleet "B" operates between Valdez and any of several ports on the West
Coast. Both fleets are variable as to the number and type of tankers.
The round trip journey for tanker fleet "A" has four stages: port
time in Valdez, the trip to the Northwest port, port time at the North-
west port, and the return trip to Valdez. The round trip to and from a
West Coast port. For tanker fleet "A" the time required for the trips
between ports is a uniform random variable, the minimum of which is the
minimum trip time and the mean of which is such that the required number
of port calls per year is achieved. For tanker fleet "B" the time re-
quired for the round trip to the West Coast port is a uniform random
variable, the minimum of which is the minimum trip time to a Northwest
port and the maximum of which is an average trip time to a Southern
California port.
The program is written with three constraints upon moving a tanker
into a berth at port. The first and obvious one is that there must be an
empty berth available. It is assumed that there are five berths at Valdez.
The number of berths at a Northwest port is variable. The second con-
straint is based upon the supposition that only one tanker can be moving
at a time in the vicinity of the berths. Thus, one tanker cannot begin to
enter a berth if another tanker is moving into or out of another berth.
The third and final constraint is that tankers enter berth in order of
their arrival at the port.
-------
After moving each tanker forward in time by one hour, the program
checks to see if any tankers are at the Northwest port. If so, several
calculations can be made depending upon what was chosen on the initial con-
trol card. The number of berths occupied during that hour can be tabulated
and statistics generated as to the frequency of occupation of any number
of berths. The total emissions for all tankers in port during that hour
can be computed and statistics generated as to the frequency of emission
levels. Finally, running average emissions for any time period up to and
including the current hour can be computed and statistics generated as to
the frequency of occurrence of non-overlapping periods with emissions above
a specified level.
The specific inputs to the program are as follows:
First Card:
The number of tankers in fleet "A" = N; The number of tankers in
fleet "B" = M the number of berths at the Northwest port; The num-
ber of tanker types in fleet "A" the number of hours to run the
simulation; the number of hours for running average if desired;
quene for non-overlapping mode if desired; specified emission level
for non-overlapping mode.
Next "N" cards:
Initialization data for each tanker in fleet "A". Type of tanker;
state of its journey; current hour of that stage; final hour of
that stage; berth entrance priority for Valdez, berth entrance
priority for Northwest port.
Next "M" cards:
Initialization data for each tanker in fleet "B" stage of its jour-
ney; current hour of that stage; final hour of that stage; berth
entrance priority for Valdez.
99
-------
Final Cards:
Hourly emission date for each tanker type - 3 cards per tanker
type- Emission rate for each hour of port time at the Northwest
port.
100
-------
APPENDIX II
Modeling Study
101
-------
TTMAX'
TANKER MODELLING FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT
ANALYSIS OF CONCENTPATIOM AS A FUNCTION OF STABILITY AND HIND SPEEO.
1971 VERSION, 0. B. TURNER.
emission rate ig/seo = 1.00, °hy ht cm> = 35.00. stack temp (deg.ki = 440.00, STACK VEL (*/SEC> =
niAM (M) = 1.00. VOLUMF FLOW (CU M/SEC) = 40.50
WINO SPEFO (M/SEC)
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
51.60,
<>.0 S.O
STABILITY = 1
max CONC (G/CU Ml
DI ST OF MAX (KM!
PLUME HEIGHT (M)
2.100IE-06 2.4552E-06 2.6265E-06 2.9228E-06 3.1056E-06 3.2335E-06 3.3186E-06
1.164 0.944 0.958 0.722 0.643 0.58ft 0.542
744.9(2) 478.7(2) 390.0(2) 271.6(2) 212.5(2) 177.0 153.3
STABILITY = 5
MAX CONC (G/CU M)
OIST OF MAX (KM)
PLUMP HEIGHT (M)
fl.l327t-07 1.1277E-06 1 . 3067E-06 1.6753E-06 1.9604E-06 2.1H59E-06 2.3637E-0t> 2.6160E-06 2.7720E-06
4.<.00
74<. .9 (2)
2.936
4 78.7(2)
2.434
190•0(?)
1.750
271.6(2)
1.398
212.5(2)
1.183
177.0
1.038
153.3
0.853
123.7
0.740
106.0
STABILITY = 3
MAX CONC (G/CU M)
OIST OF MA* (KM)
PLUME HEIGHT (M)
1.5507E-06 1.7B43E-06 1.9786E-06 2.2737E-06 2.4756E-06
2.681 2.195 1.876 1.494 1.252
212.5(2) 177.0 153.3 123.7 106.0
stability = <.
"AX CONC (G/CU M)
01 ST OF Mix (KM)
DLUMF HEIGHT (M)
9.117 9t-0 3 l.91<.9E-07 P.6521E-07 4.4495E-07 6.2451E-07 7.8973E-07 9.3971E-07 1.1997E-06 1.4094E-06
96.??n
744 ,4(?)
4ft.575
478.7(2)
28.630
190.0(2)
15.141
271.6(2)
10.047
212.5(2)
7.447
177.0
5.902
153.3
4.171
123.7
3.246
106.0
O
ro
STABILITY = S
MAX CONC (G/CU M>
DIST OF MAX (KM)
°LUME HEIGHT (M)
1.9720E-06 1.8224E-06 1.7041E-06 1.5124E-06 1.3709E-06
6.982 6.381 5.939 5.341 4.936
110.e 105.4 101.2 95.2 90.9
STABILITY = 6
MAX CONC (G/CU m)
OI ST OF Max (KM)
PLUME HEIGHT (M)
»(lNn SPEFO (M/SFri
7.0
10.0
12.0
1S.0
1.5163E-06 1.4074E-06 1.3202E-06 1.1868E-06 1.0874E-06
14.345
97.9
20.0
12.970
93.4
11.970
90.0
10.5*>6
84.9
9.656
81.4
STABILITY = 1
MAX CONC (G/CU M)
OIST OF max (KM)
"LUMf height (M)
2.701<.c_-06 7927E-06 ?. 7727E-06 2.6877E-06
n.992 0.800 0.727 0.654
*15.7 70.5 64.6 5».7
ST ABILITY = U
MAX CONC (G/C" ~>>
OIST OF MAX (KM)
PLUME HEIr.HT (M)
l.S8S*t-06 1.8883E-06 1.9439t-0ft 1.9609t-06 1.9006E-06
?•3 ?3 1.713 1.495 1.2e7 1.091
85.7 70.^ 64.f, 58.7 52.7
(1) THE OISTA 'JCE TO THF POINT OF maximum CONCENTOa TI ON IS SO G»EAT THAT THE SAME STABILITY IS NOT LIKELY TO PERSIST
LONG FNOUGH FOP THE PLUMF TO TRAVEL THIS FAR.
(2) TmF Plume IS of SUFFICIENT HEIGHT THAT EXTREME CAUTION Should BE USED IN INTERHHEI[NG TrtIS COMPUTATION AS THIS
STABILITY TYPf may not EXIST TO THIS HEIGHT. ALSO WIND SPEED VARIATIONS WITH HEIGnT MAY EXERT A DOMINATING
I NFL1 IEnCF .
(1) NO COMPUTATION *AS ATTEMPTED FOP THIS HEIGHT AS ThE POINT OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION IS GREATER THAN 100 KILOMETERS
FROM THF SOURCE.
-------
FTDi$
tanker modelling
CONCENTRATION ESTIMATES. 08T43.
CARE SHOULD BE ElFRCISED IN ThE INTERPRETATION OF THESE CALCULATE!} CONCENTRATIONS. CONCENTRATION ESTIMATES HAY BE
EXPECTED TO BE WITHIN A FACTOR OF THREE FO° It ALL STABILITIES FOR DISTANCES OF TRAVEL OUT TO A FEW HUNOREO METERS*
?! NEUTRAL TO MODERATELY UNSTABLE CONDITIONS FOR DISTANCES OUT TO A FEW KILOMETERS. ANO 3) UNSTABLE CONDITIONS IN
THE LOKER 1000 METERS OF THE ATMOSPHERE WITH A MARKED INVERSION ABOVE FOR DISTANCES OUT TO 10 KILOMETERS OR MORE.
FOR OThpr CONDITIONS THE EST I Ma TES BECOME LESS RELIABLE FOR EXTREMES OF STABILITY ANO AS TRAVEL DISTANCE INCREASES.
O
CO
«]ND SPEED
= 0.5 M/SEC. STABILITY CLASS =
2.HEIGHT
OF MIXING
= 1000.
METERS.
EMISSION
PHYSICAL
STACK GAS
STACK GA5
STACK
STACK GAS
BRIGGS
HEIGHT
RATE
HEIGHT
TEMP
VELOCITY
0 t A METER
VOL FLO*
-F-
F INAL
-K V
(M/SEC)
(M>
(Mool/SEC)
(M
1.00
15.0
440.0
51 .60
1.00
40.50
43. 10
755.
OISTANCE EFFECTIVE CONCFNTWATION
SIGV
SIGZ
CHI • u /
o mdum
andum
KM HEIGHTC)
M.
SEC/moo3
o.5on
7*1 .a
n.o
82. 75
51.09
0.0
4
1.000
755.7
1 .57E-15
15a.12
109.30
7.85E-16
<.
1 .500
755. T
9.17E-10
221.31
170.53
4.59E-10
4
1 •
2.000
755.7
S.13E-03
285.80
233.82
2.57E-08
4
J •
2.500
755.7
2.50E-07
348•30
298.68
1.25E-07
4
1 •
3.000
755.7
5.12E-07
<•09.22
364.81
2.56E-07
4
1 •
3.500
755.7
7.30E-07
<•68.82
432.03
3.65E-07
4
2.
<.."00
755.7
8.80F-07
527.31
500.20
4.40E-07
4
2.
4.500
755.7
9.67E-"7
584•82
569.19
4.84E-07
4
P.
5.000
755. 7
I .0U-06
64 ] *<»7
638.94
5.03E-07
4
2.
6.000
755.7
9.85E-07
752.50
780.42
4.92E-07
4
2.
7.000
755.7
s.O JE-07
860.93
924.??
4.54F-07
4
2.
8.000
755.7
8.?lE-n7
967.15
1070.04
4.IOE-07
4
3.
9.000
755.7
7 .44F-0 1
1071.44
1217.64
3.72E-07
4
3.
10.000
755.7
6.80E-07
1174.01
1366.85
3.40E-07
4
3.
12.000
755.7
5•8OE-0 7
1374.67
1669.51
2.90E-07
i
0.
1ft.000
755. 7
5•OdE-07
1570.20
1977.14
2.54E-ri7
3
0.
1 IS.000
755.7
<-.53t-07
1761.33
2289.OH
'.27F-07
3
0.
18.000
755.7
<•. O^c -0 7
i M<.e.64
?604 • *} 3
2.05E-07
3
0.
20.000
755.7
1.74F.-1 7
2132.55
2924.02
].87E-07
3
0.
25.000
755.7
3.09E-07
2579.57
3735.08
1.55E-07
3
0.
30.000
755.7
2.65E-07
3011.28
4562.15
1.32E-07
3
0.
35.00"
755.7
?.33F-Q'
343P.31
5000.00
1.16E-07
3
0.
<•0.000
755.7
2.l)hf-07
3838.48
5000.00
1.0«E-07
3
0.
50.000
755.7
1 ,7^t-07
<~62 7 .46
5000.00
H.62E-08
3
0.
6o.0on
755.7
1 . «- '17
5386.08
5000.00
7.4lE-0^
3
0.
70.000
755.7
1 . 10E.-07
6119.50
5000.00
6.S2E-08
3
0.
HO•0 00
755.7
1 . 17E-07
68 31,37
5000.on
5.34E-08
3
0.
9o.ooo
755.7
1•06E-0 7
7524.43
5000.00
5.30E-08
3
0.
ioo.ooo
755.7
9.71E-08
M200.MO
5000.00
4.86E-08
3
0.
DIST OF
(KM)
0.515
-------
TTDI6
rflfJD SPEEO = 2.0 M/SEC. STABILITY CLASS
3.HEIGHT OF MIXING = 5000. METERS. AMBIENT TEMPERATURE « 290.0 OE6 K.
EMISSION PHYSICAL STACK GAS STACK GAS STACK STACK GAS 8«IGGS
RATE HEIGHT TEMP VELOCITY DIAMETER VOL FLOW -F-
(OEG-K)
(G/SEC1 (M)
-------
PTDIS
WINO SPEED = 2.0 l"/SEC. STABILITY CLASS = 4,HEIGHT OF MIXING = 5000.
EMISSION PHYSICAL STACK GAS STACK GAS STACK STACK GAS 6RIG6S
RATE HEIGHT TEMP VELOCITY DIAMETER VOL FLO* -F-
(G/SEC) CHI (DEG-KI (M/SEC1 (M> (M»«3/SEC)
1 .00
35.0
440. n
51 .60
1.00
40.50
<•3.10
distance effective concentration srof
KM HEIGHT( m ) g/m*»3 m.
SIGZ
M.
CHI ® U / Q
SEC/mo«3
mou
o
tn
0.500
1 .00(1
1.500
2.000
3.500
3.000
3.500
A.000
A.500
5.000
6.000
7.000
U.non
9.000
10.000
12.00(1
14.000
?1 1.7
215.2
215.2
215.2
215.2
215.2
215.2
215.2
21 b. 2
215.2
215.2
215.?
215.?
?! 5.2
215.?
215.2
215.2
0.0
1 .26E-14
6.27E-11
2.49E-09
1 .7&E-08
5.o3E-0«
1 . 13E-07
1 .82E-07
2.54E-07
3.23t-07
4.<.0E-07
5.?2F,-07
5.72E-P7
c;.gHe_07
6. Oot-07
1.91E-07
5.5HE-07
36.15
6*5. 1 3
98.55
127.95
156.60
194.64
212.19
239.32
266.07
292.40
344•45
395.«3
4U5.5S
491.9?
54 1.t>4
639.34
733.05
18.30
32.09
41 .67
50. 15
57.90
65.12
7 I . 4 A
77. 4U
-13.21
88.69
99.03
108.71
117.85
1?6.S6
134.Hfl
1*9.54
163.18
0.0
2.52E-14
1.2SE-10
4.99E-09
3.52E-08
1.13E-07
2.26F-07
3.63E-07
5.08E-07
6.476-07
8.8OE-07
1.04E-06
1.14E-06
1 .20E-0*
1 .22E-06
1.18E-06
1.12E-06
16.000 215.?
18.000 ?15.2
20.000 215.?
25.000 215.?
30.000 ?15.?
35.000 215.2
40."On 215.?
50.000 215.2
60.000 21^.?
70.000 215.2
90.000 2)5.?
90.000 215.?
100.000 215.2
5.19E-0 7 825.06
4 . 40E.-0 / 9JS.S9
<..<•<.£-0/ 1004.79
3.6ML-0/ 1222.*4
3.0n£-0 7 1434.92
2.61E —0 7 1642.05
2.'6E-07 ie44.92
1.75E-07 ?23«.97
l.4|f-(,7 2623.1 1
I . I 7- — 17 2996.34
Q. 9riE-(tn 3361.10
¦i.6
-------
PTDIS
WIND SPEtr = 5.0 ~"/SFC. STABILITY CLa-iS = -..HEIGHT OF MIXING = 5000. METERS. ANIENT TEMPERATURE = 290.0 OEG K.
EM]SSION
RATE
PHYSICAL
HEIGHT
STSCf fjAS STACK GAS
TtIP VELOCITY
O
O-I
STACK STACK GAS BR1GGS HEIGHT OF DIST OF
DZANETE" VOL FLOW -F- FINAL RISE FINAL RISE
(KM)
0.515
(G/SEC >
< M®«3/SEC)
(Ml
1 .00
35.
0 44ij.O
5 l .60
1 .00
40.50 43.10
107.1
01 ST ANCE
EFFECTIVF
("ONCF MTr<« I [ON
SI Or
SIGZ
cm • u / o moum
ANDUM
KM
HF1GHT ('•<)
M.
M.
SEC/M«®3
o.soo
105.7
5.4VH-12
36.15
in.30
2.75E-11 1
0.
1 .oon
107. 1
1. i lc-07
6«. 13
32.09
5.57E-07 1
0.
i .son
107.1
5.71t-07
•99.55
41.67
2.85E-06 1
0.
?.r>t>o
107.1
1.02E-06
12 7.15
50.15
5.08E-06 1
0.
2.500
107.1
I.27E-06
156.60
57.90
6.3SE-06 1
0.
3.000
107.1
1.37^-06
184.64
65. 1?
6.85E-06 1
0.
3.son
107. 1
1• 3 7E-0**
212.19
71 .48
6.83E-06 1
0.
4.000
10 7.1
1 .3?E-'is
?3«.32
77.49
6.61E-06 I
0.
4.^0'*
107.1
1 .?6t-06
266.07
63.21
6.28E-06 1
0.
5.000
107.1
1 • 1Bt- 06
?92.4rt
48.69
5.92E-06 1
0.
6.000
107. 1
1.04^-06
J44.45
99.03
5.20E-06 1
0.
7.O0O
107. 1
0.12F-n7
395.43
108.71
4.S6E-06 1
0.
n.non
107. 1
x.O?--il7
445.55
117.35
4.01E-06 1
0.
9.000
107.1
7 . 1 1 - 1) '
126.56
3.5SE-06 1
0.
10.000
1 07. ]
S4 3.64
134.AH
3.17t-06 1
0.
12.000
107.1
=-. l^t-07
639.34
149.54
2.58L-06 1
0.
14.000
107. 1
4.2^E-<)7
J33.0t
163.18
2.15E-06 1
0.
16.000
107. 1
3.6*+E-07
825.06
175.98
1.82E-06 1
0.
18.000
107. 1
3. 14E-D7
915.59
188.11
1.57E-06 1
0.
20.000
107.1
?. 7-.F-07
1004.79
1^9.67
1.37E-06 I
0.
25.000
107.1
?.n^t-07
1222.84
226.54
1.03E-06 1
0.
30.000
10 7.1
1 .Mr -07
14 34.V2
251 . 1*-
8.07E-07 1
0.
35. 00f*
107.1
1. 32>-_-U7
1642.05
271.70
6.60E-07 1
0.
40. OOO
107.1
1.1] E-li 1
1944.92
291.00
5.54E-07 1
0.
50.000
107.1
>1.26F-0~
2239.97
326.21
4.13E-07 1
0.
60.000
1 07. ]
2623.11
358.1 I
3.24E-07 1
0.
70.000
107.1
5. ?*£ -lis
^9Q6.34
3*7.bl
2.64E-07 1
0.
10.000
107.1
4.-»2t-0*
3361.10
4li>.-M
2.21E-07 I
0.
<30.000
107.1
t. 77r.- n
17M.45
440.69
1.89E-07 1
0.
100.000
1 n ^. i
}. ->u t - n a
406^.22
4 65•11
1.64E-07 1
0.
-------
PTDI5
WIND SPEED = 2.0 M/sEf. STABILITY CLASS = SPEIGHT OF MUHlO = 1000. METERS. AMBIENT TEMPERATURE a 290.0 OEG K.
emission physical stac* gas stac* gas stack stack gas dRiGGS height of oist of
PATE height temp VELOCITY DIAMETER VOL FLOW -F- FINAL RISE FINAL RISE
(G/SEC) (Ml (OEG-M (M/SEC) (M®»3/SEC) <*> (KM)
1 .00
3b.0
SI .60
OISTANCE EFFECTIVE CO'-CEM-at ION Sluf
KM HEIGHT!^) G/moo 3 M.
O.5O0
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.SO0
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
f.oon
7.POO
e.ooo
9.000
10.000
12.000
l4.non
16.000
18.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
<•0.000
50.000
60.00 0
70.000
po.ooo
90.000
loo.ooo
2¦05E-30
2.70E-1U
?. ai.E-iir>
?.03E-07
5.0JE-07
d.57E-07
1.1vF-06
1 .fc8t-0*,
1 .6nt'-06
1 • 7'#£ -0*>
1
1 .cifi^-06
1 .9tiE-06
1 .OIE-0*
1. e*»E-0fi
1 • 6rtF -n6
i
I . l"t-"n
1 • *>6(1-06
1 . l'-F-Oo
Q ,<:t-i7
>. .'nt-'i I
27.02
50. 94
73.70
95. /O
1 1 7. 14
138.13
158.75
17 9.06
l^Q.OS
21U.86
257.77
295.9<.
333.47
370.1*4
<.06.92
<•73.59
Safl.7rt
6 17.70
"-&S. 50
752.32
915.66
1074.54
I 229.71
1J«1.72
1*77.72
196<..H1
-------
Terrain Interaction Modeling
C/ . ML r.j, /
/Q t, ux exP L 2' r,' -1
Where:
- 3
C = time average (1 hour) concentration in grams/m
Q = source strenqth in grams/sec (in this case 1 gm/sec)
U"z = standard deviation of vertical plume diffusion in meters
Ul = mean transport wind speed m/sec
x = downwind distance to receptor, meters
h = height of plume centerline above receptor (calculated by h = H -
I where H is the effective plume height and I is the elevation
of the receptor. Note: minimum allowable value for h is 10
meters.
For the purpose of this study, Stability E with a wind speed of 2.5 m/sec
was used. Under these conditions the effective plume height H = 105 meters,
108
-------
RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TERRAIN INTERACTION MODELING
DISTANCE
EVEVATION
SITE
X
Z
DIRECTION
C/
/Q
Port
2700
70
SW
5.1272 x 10 "6
Angeles
3400
92
SW
4.9886 x 10 "6
3800
100
SW
4.3562 x 10 ~6
4300
105
SW,S,SSE
3.5650 x 10 "6
Burrows
800
82
SW
.
2.4926 x 10 "5
Bay
900
75
NNW
1.4645 x 10 "5
1000
105
NNW
i
3.3895 x 10 "5
2500
75
NE
; 6.1952 x 10 "6
2800
105
NE
I 6.8658 x 10 "6
March
2400
89
NNE
1 8.1482 x 10 "6
Point
C.
2400
61
S
' 4.5543 x 10 ~6
3200
61
WNW
3.4978 x 10 "6
4000
105
SW
. 3.9796 x 10 "6
4800
61
W
2.2477 x 10 "6
Cherry
2000
30
E
' 1.0481 x 10 "6
Point
\
2100
60
ESE
4.8340 x 10 "6
| 2800
45
1 NNW
2.4242 x 10 "6
! 3200
!
j—
j 65
i
<
' E
t
1
3.8149 x 10 "6
-------
Volume Source Modeling
% - [ (TTTjTi + ca)u ]"'
Where:
— 3
C = time average (1 hour) concentration in grams/m
Q = source strennth in grams/sec (in this case 1 gm/sec)
0"y = standard deviation of crosswind plume diffusion in meters
T = standard deviation of vertical plume diffusion in meters
z r
C = fraction of area over which the plume is dispersed by the wake
(a conservative value is 0.5) dimensionless
A = cross sectional area of obstacle normal to the flow
u = mean transport wind speed m/sec
110
-------
Input Parameters
Storage Tanks
Tank Height 19.8 m
Tank Diameter 82.3 m
Tank Farm Length (Square Formation) 600 m
Tank Farm Length (In-line Formation) 1850 m
2
Average Spacing of Tanks 1 tank/0.028 km
Tankers
Average Tanker Length 270 m
Average Tanker Deck Cross-Section Width 42 m
Average Tanker Deck Height Above Water 17 m
Length of 4-Berth In-Line Formation 1200 m
Length of 4-Berth Grouped Formation 580 m
Width of 4-Berth Grouped Formation 120 m
111
-------
RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR
A VOLUME SOURCE
0.5 km
1.0 km
Stability B Wind Speed 2 m/sec
Tank Farm
in-line along wind
3.3440 x 10"5
9.2213 x 10"6
3.9763 x 10"7
in-line across wind
1.5407 x 10"5
6.9714 x 10"6
3.9217 x 10"7
clustered formation
2.4904 x 10"5
8.4250 x 10"6
3.9602 x 10-7
Tankers -
in-line along wind
3.4497 x 10"5
9.2999 x 10"6
3.9777 x 10-7
in-line across wind
2.0545 x TO"5
7.8608 x 10"6
3.9468 x TO"7
grouped along wind
3.2988 x 10~5
9.1866 x 10"6
3.9756 x 10-7
grouped across wind
2.6223 x 10-5
8.5709 x 10"6
3.9633 x TO"7
5.0 km
10.0 km
112
-------
RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR
A VOLUME SOURCE
0.5 km 1.0 km 5.0 km 10.0 km
Stability _B Wind Speed 4 m/sec
- Tank Farm -
in-line along wind
1.6720
X
10"5
4.6106
X
10"6
1.9882
X
10"7
...
in-1ine across wind
7.7036
X
10-6
3.4857
X
10"6
1.9608
X
10-7
...
clustered formation
1.2452
X
10"5
4.2125
X
10"6
1.9801
X
10"7
—
¦ —
- Tankers-
in-line along wind
1.7248
X
10-5
4.6500
X
10-6
1.9888
X
10"7
...
in-1ine across wind
1.0272
X
10"5
3.9304
X
10"6
1.9734
X
10"7
grouped along wind
1.6494
X
10"5
4.5933
X
10"6
1.9878
X
10"7
grouped across wind
1.3112
X
10"5
4.6500
X
10"6
1.9816
X
10"7
Stability C^
Wind Speed
3 m/sec
4
-
- Tank Farm -
in-line along wind
5.1521
X
10"5
1.5933
X
10"5
1.0427
X
10"6
2.6509
X
10"7
in-1ine across wind
1.3906
X
10"5
8.6758
X
10"6
9.8857
X
10"7
2.6145
X
10"7
clustered formation
2.8748
X
10"5
1.2798
X
10"5
1.0262
X
10"6
2.6401
X
10"7
- Tankers -
in-1ine along wind
5.5446
X
10~5
1.6289
X
10"5
1.0442
X
10"6
2.6518
X
10"7
in-line across wind
2.1024
X
10"5
1.0999
X
10-5
1.0130
X
10"6
2.6312
X
10"7
grouped along wind
4.9939
X
10"5
1.5778
X
10"5
1.0420
X
10"6
2.6504
X
10"7
grouped across wind
3.1492
X
10-5
1.3314
X
10"5
1.0294
X
10"6
2.6422
X
1«"7
113
-------
RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR
A VOLUME SOURCE
Stability _C_ Win
0.5 km
1.0 km
5.0 km
10.0 km
d Speed 5 m/sec
- Tanker Farm -
in-line along wind
3.0912 x 10"5
9.5 b97 x 10"6
6.2561 x 10"7
1.5905 x 10"7
in-line across wind
8.3438 x 10"6
5.2045 x 10"6
5.9314 x 10"7
—
clustered formation
1.7249 x 10"5
7.6787 x 10"6
6.1574 x 10"7
—
- Tankers -
in-line along wind
3.3268 x 10"5
9.7736 x 10"6
6.2651 x 10"7
1.5911 x 10"7
in-line across wind
1.2614 x 10"5
6.5993 x 10"6
6.0777 x 10"7
—
grouped along wind
2.9963 x 10"5
9.4669 x 10"6
6.2521 x 10"7
—
grouped across wind
1.8895 x 10"5
7.9884 x 10"6
6.1766 x 10"7
—
Stability £ Win<
i Speed 10 m/sec
- Tanker Farm -
in-line along wind
1.5456 x 10"5
4.7798 x 10"6
3.1280 x 10"7
7.9525 x 10~8
in-line across wind
4.1719 x 10"6
2.6022 x 10"6
2.9657 x 10"7
—
clustered formation
8.6245 x 10"6
3.8394 x 10"6
3.0787 x 10"7
—
- Tankers -
in-line along wind
1.6634 x 10"5
4.8868 x 10-6
3.1326 x 10"7
7.9555 x 10"8
in-line across wind
6.3070 x 10"6
3.2996 x 10"6
3.0388 x 10"7
—
grouped along wind
1.4982 x 10"5
4.7334 x 10"6
3.1260 x 10"7
—
grouped across wind
9.4475 x 10"6
3.9942 x 10"6
3.0883 x 10"7
—
114
-------
RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR
A VOLUME SOURCE
0.5 km
1.0 km
5.0 km
10.0 km
Stability D Wind Speed 3 m/sec
- Tank Farm -
in-1ine along wind
1.1416 x 10"4
4.4037 x 10~5
3.9651 x 10"6
1.4684 x 10"6
in-1ine across wind
1.6324 x 10"5
1.3296 x 10"5
3.2819 x 10"6
1.3633 x 10"6
clustered formation
-5
4.1434 x 10
2.6258 x 10"b
3.7372 x 10"6
1.4359 x 10"6
- Tankers -
in-1ine along wind
1.3540 x 10"4
4.6873 x 10'5
3.9868 x 10"6
1.4713 x 10"6
in-line across wind
2.7090 x 10"5
1.9661 x 10"5
3.5669 x 10"6
1.4101 x 10"6
grouped along wind
1.0667 x 10"4
4.2876 x 10"5
3.9554 x 10"6
1.4670 x 10~6
grouped across wind
_5
4.7383 x 10
2.8528 x 10"5
3.7801 x 10"6
1.4422 x 10"6
Stability D Wind^Speed 5 m/sec
- Tank Farm -
in-1ine along wind
6.8496 x 10"5
2.6422 x 10'5
2.3790 x 10~6
8.8102 x 10"7
in-line across wind
9.7944 x 10"6
7.9778 x 10"6
1.9691 x 10"6
8.1796 x 10"7
clustered formation
2.4861 x 10"5
1.5755 x 10"5
2.2423 x 10"6
_
8.6160 x 10
- Tankers -
in-1ine along wind
8.1239 x 10"5
2.8124 x 10"5
2.3921 x 10"6
8.8280 x 10"7
in-line across wind
1.6254 x 10"5
1.1796 x 10"5
2.1401 x 10"6
-7
8.4604 x 10
grouped along wind
6.4003 x 10"5
2.5725 x 10"5
2.3733 x 10"6
8.8022 x 10"7
grouped across wind
2.8430 x 10'5
1.7117 x 10~5
2.2680 x 10"6
8.6533 x 10"7
115
-------
RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR
A VOLUME SOURCE
0.5 km
1.0 km
5.0 km
10.0 km
Stability D Wind Speed 10 m/sec
- Tank Farm -
in-line along wind
3.4248 x 10"5
1.3211 x 10"5
1.1895 x 10~6
4.4051 x 10"7
in-line across wind
4.8972 x 10'6
x 10"6
9.8455 x 10'7
4.0898 x 10"7
clustered formation
1.2430 x 10"5
7.8775 x 10"6
1.1212 x 10'6
4.3080 x 10"7
- Tankers -
'
in-line along wind
4.0620 x 10"5
1.4062 x 10"5
1.1960 x 10"6
4.4140 x 10'7
in-1ine across wind
8.1270 x 10"6
5.8980 x 10"6
1.0700 x 10'6
4.2302 x 10"7
grouped along wind
3.2002 x 10"5
1.2862 x 10"5
1.1866 x 10"6
4.4011 x 10"7
grouped across wind
1.4215 x 10"5
8.5585 x 10"6
1.1340 x 10"6
4.3267 x 10"7
Stability £ Wind Speed 20 m/sec
- Tank Farm -
in-1ine along wind
in-1ine across wind
clustered formation
- Tankers -
in-1ine along wind
in-1ine across wind
grouped along wind
grouped across wind
116
1.7124
X
10"5
2.4486
X
10"6
6.2152
X
10"6
2.0310
X
10"5
4.0635
X
10-6
1-.6001
X
lO"5
7.1075
X
lO"6
6.6055 x 10"6
1.9944 x 10"6
3.9388 x 10"6
7.0310 x 10"6
2.9490 x 10"6
6.4312 x 10"6
4.2792 x 10"6
5.9475
X
10"7
4.9228
X
10"7
5.6058
X
10"7
5.9802
X
10"7
5.3502
X
10"7
5.9332
X
10"7
5.6700
X
10"7
2.2026
X
10"7
2.0449
X
10"7
2.1540
X
10"7
2.2070
X
10"7
2.1151
X
10"7
2.2006
X
10"7
2.1633
X
10'7
-------
RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR
A VOLUME SOURCE
- Tank Farm -
in-line along wind
in-line across wind
clustered formation
- Tankers -
in-line along wind
in-line across wind
grouped along wind
grouped across wind
Stability £ Wi
- Tank Farm -
in-1ine along wind
in-line across wind
clustered formation
- Tankers -
in-1ine along wind
in-line across wind
grouped along wind
grouped across wind
0.5 km 1.0 km
5.0 km
r- ¦ —
10.0 km
Speed 2.5 m/sec
2.0391 x 10"4 ; 9.2302 x 10"5
9.9788 x 10-6
3.5115 x 10-6
2.0553 x 10-5 i l.8320 x 10"5
i
6.9463 x 10"6
3.0439 x 10-6'
5.6444 x 10~5 4.2290 x 10"5
1
8.8476 x 10"6
3.3603 x 10~6
1
2.6601 x 10"4 1 1.0321 x 10"4
1.0094x10-5
3.5256 x 10-6
3.5253 x 10-5 j 2.9158 x 10"5
8.0857 x 10-6
3.2442 x 10-6
1.8461 x 10"4 ! 8.8133 x 10"5
9.9280 x 10"6
1
3.5052 x 10"6
6.5825 x 10"5 4.7345 x 10"5
i
9.0498 x TO"6 i
(
3.3890 x 10-6
Speed 4 m/sec
1
1
1.2744 x 10"4 ! 5.7689 x 10"5
1
1
1
6.2368 xlO-6 ;
2.1947 x lO"6
1.2846 x 10-5 : 1.1450 x 10*5
4.3414 x 10"6 1
1.9024 x 10"6
, !
3.5277 x 10"5 J 2.6431 x 10"5
!
1
5.5298 x 10-6 !
2.1002 x 10"6
, 1
1 '
1.6626 x 10"4 6.4506 x 10"5
6.3088 x 10"6
2.2035 x lO"6
2.2033 x 10"5 6.4506 x 10"5 j
5.0536 x 10-6
2.0276 x lO"6
1.1538 x 10-4 t 5.5083 x 10"5 1
6.2050 x 10"6 j
2.1907 x 10"6
4.1141 x 10"5 _ 2.9591 x 10"5
5.6561 x 10-6
2.1182 x lO"6
117
-------
TABLE A
AVERAGE HOURLY EMISSION RATES gm/sec
(FROM TABLE 15)
POLLUTANT
SCENARIO I
SUB-SCENARIO
IA
SCBIARIO II
SUB-SCENARIO
I IA
INLAND
INLAND
SO2
48.9
63. l
70.8
92.0
NOk
22,9
29.4
32,9
43.2
PART
5.5
7.1
8,0
10.3
HC
1.8
2.1
2 A
3.2
CO
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.6
HCHO
0.5
0.6
0.7
.
0.9
ORGANIC
ACIDS
0.3
0.?
0.3
0.4
FUGITIVE
i
I
L
\Z
179*
54
226
59
9&-
3H
123
40
1
Bl
~JLIDING
DTTMT 0
i
nJ
BA
-LASTING
2.9
13.0
.
5.6
18.3
118
-------
TABLE B
SHORT TERM WORST CASE EMISSIONS gm/sec
(FROM TABLE 16)
POLLUTANT
SCENARIO I
INLAND
SUB-SCENARIO
IA
SCENARIO II
INLAND
SUB-SCENARIO
I IA
so2
NDbc
PART
HC
CO
HCHO
ORGANIC
ACIDS
FUGITIVE
HC
FUGITIVE
HC
EXCLUDING
PURGING &
BAIASTING
199.1
69,2
15,2
2,1
1.4
1,4
1063*
M)*
(542)+
45.4
169.8
73.7
16,3
2.3
1.4
1.4
(1850)*
(874)+
90,7
199,5
86,6
19,2
2,6
1.6
1.6
(972)*
(542)+
49.1
209,2
90,7
20,0
2,8
1,8
1.8
_7+
(87$+
90.7
119
-------
TABLE C
24-HOUR WORST CASE EMISSION RATE gm/sec
(FROM TABLE 17)
POLLUTANT
SCENARIO I
INLAND
SUB-SCENARIO
IA
SCENARIO II
INLAND
SUB-SCENARIO
I IA
so2
NOx
PART
HC
CO
HCHO
ORGANIC
ACIDS
FUGITIVE
HC
FUGITIVE
EXCLUDING
Urging &
BA1ASTING
139.5
62.5
14,4
3.2
1.7
1.2
0.3
908*
479+-
150.9
67.4
15.5
3.3
1.3
1.3
0.3
463*
258+
169.5
76.3
17.7
4.1
2.2
1.5
0.4
908*
479+
174.8
79.3
18.4
4.3
2.3
1.6
0.4
47CT
265+
26.5
59.3
26.5
66.6
120
-------
TABLED
BALLASTING EMISSIONS
(FROM TABLE 9)
TANKER SIZE
LBS/HR
GM/SEC
I30S000
4152
523
120,000
i
3332
I
i
420
80,000
l
2555
322
76,000
1851
i
i
233
70,000
1682
212
62,000
1526
i
i
192
53,000
i
1366
•
172
52,000
>
i
! 1332
i
i
j
i
168
50,000
f
1245
t
i
i
157
49,000
i
1212
153
121
-------
TABLE E
TANK FARM EMISSIONS
LBS/HR
GIVSEC
WIND SPEED m/sec
SCENARIO I
SCENARIO II
SCENARIO I
„ SCQMU1
2
114,7
156.4
14.5
19.7
2.5
131,9
179.9
16.6
22.7
3
148. L
202.0
18.7
25.5
4
178.3
243.2
22.5
30.6
5
205.3
i
281.3
26.0
35.4
10
i
j 327.1
336.1
41.2
56.2
1
1
20
j 523.4
i
i
!
i
\
*
i
i
i
i
:
713.7
!
i
65.9
i
i
89.9
122
------- |