&EPA 

United.States Office of Air Quality EPA-450/3-80-025 

Environmental Protection Planning and Standards December 1980 

Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711 

Air 

Organic Chemical 

Manufactur.ing 

Volume 3: Storage, 

Fugitive, and Secondary 

Sources 

- - - - r - T 

-- ~ .... ~ .. ~.,_~~ ...... ~_,,...,.,:;>'I'Z'.,->• ,__....,....,......,...-•• - ~,....., ..... ~.~~,.._,., ""·--~·~-..... - - ~ 

"~.~ 
EPA-450/3-80-025 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Volume 3 : Storage# Fugitive" 

and Secondary Sources 

Emission Standards and Engineering Division 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

December 1980 
l. 

2 . 

3. 

INTRODUCTION 

Product Report 

STORAGE AND HANDLI NG 

FUGITIVE EMI SSIONS 

SECONDARY EMI SSIONS REPORT 

v 

CONTENTS 

vii 

1-i 

2- i 

3-i 
D20A 

1-i 

REPORT 1 

STORAGE AND HANDLING 

D. G. Erikson 

IT Enviroscience 

9041 Executive Park Drive 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37923 

Prepared for 

Emission Standards and Engineering Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

ENVIRONY~NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

September 1980 
I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

v. 

VI. 

1 - iii 

CONTENTS OF REPORT l 

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSION FACTORS 

CHARACTERIZATION AND DESCRIPTION 

A. Introduction 

B. Storage Tanks 

c. Loading and Handling 

D. References 

EMISSIONS 

A. Sources 

B. Calculations 

c. Industry Emissi ons 

D. References 

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 

A. Storage Tanks 

B. Loading and Handling 

c. References 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A. Envirorunental and Energy Impacts 

B. Control Cost Impact 

c. References 

ASSESSMENT 

A. Summary 

B. Supplemental Information 

APPENDICES OF REPORT 1 

A. EMISSION CALCULATION SUPPLEMENTS 

B. ALTERNATIVE FLOATING-ROOF-TAN~ EMISSION ESTIMATION EQUATIONS 

C. COST ESTIMATE DETAILS AND CALCULATIONS 

Page 

I - 1 

II-1 

II- 1 

II-2 

II- 10 

II- 12 

III-1 

III- 1 

III-3 

III-7 

III- 17 

IV-1 

IV-1 

IV-18 

IV-20 

V-1 

V-1 

V-12 

V-25 

VI-1 

VI-1 

VI-2 

A-1 

B-1 

C-1 

' ...,......--· ··--·~~-~~------~·-...... ··-· ~ 
V-1 

V. IMPACT ANALYSIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACT 

Storage Tanks 

To assess the impacts of the various control options, models that are representative of the industry storage tanks were devised; see Table V-1 for the parameters used in the evaluation. 

Fixed-Roof-Tank Emissions--- The quantity of VOC emitted from a fixed-roof tank 

is primarily a function of the capacity of the tank itself and of the vapor 

pressure of the chemical stored in the tank . Table V-2 shows the VOC emissions 

in Mg/yr that would be expected for the nine selected model- tank sizes at seven 

selected vapor pressures. 

3 3 The smallest tank selected was 40 m and the largest was 8330 m . The vapor 

pressures selected ranged from 1.0 kPa to 51.7 kPa. VOC emissions increase 

with increasing tank size and increasing vapor pressure. 

Emissions were calculated based on the fixed- roof breathing- and working-loss 

equations discussed i n Sect. III of this report. 

Interna l floating roofs used on fixed-roof tanks (new and retrofitted) sources---

Table V-3 shows t he VOC emission reduction that can be achieved by fitting a 

contact internal floating roof with a liquid primary seal and a continuous secondary 

s e al to a fixed-roof tank. 

A control efficiency of 85% was used to calculate emission reductions, which 

represents the average control efficiency that could be expected for the range 

of tank sizes (40--8330 m

3 ) and vapor pressures (1.0--51.7 kPa) evaluated. 

In operation, floating-roof storage tanks do not consume any raw materials or 

utilities and have no adverse environmental or energy impacts. 
':'ank 

:a::_:>city 

(m3) 

40 

75 

115 

150 

285 

660 

1420 

2840 

8 330 

* 

V-2 

Table V-1. Model Parameters Used for Assessing Impacts of 

Industry Storage Tanks * 

!'1odel 

Tank Ca~acity Dimensions (m) Turnovers 

(m ) Diameter Height Per Year 

40 4.5 2.4 200 

75 4.5 4.9 200 

115 4.5 7.3 200 

150 5.1 7.3 200 

285 7.0 7.3 100 

660 8.3 12.2 so 

1420 12.2 12.2 36 

2840 17 . 2 12.2 24 

8330 29.5 12.2 12 

* 3 Average liquid density of materials controlled 792 kg/ m . 

Table V-2. Uncontrolled VOC Emissions vs Absolute Vapor Pressures of 

Material Stored for Model Fixed-Roof Tanks* 

voc Emissions (Mg/yr) for Vapor Pressures of 

1.0 1.4 3.4 6 . 9 10.3 34.5 

kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa 

0.16 0.21 0.41 o. 72 1.07 2.33 

0. 30 0 .39 0.78 l. 39 2.06 4.51 

0.43 0.57 1.16 2.04 3.04 6.68 

0.58 0. 77 1.55 2.74 4.07 8.94 

0.86 1.12 2.23 3.91 5.80 12.65 

1.62 2.12 4.24 7.44 11.03 24.09 

3.24 4.25 8.50 14.92 22.12 48.34 

4.61 6 .02 11.88 20.71 30.60 66.51 

7.92 10.25 19.65 33.66 49.33 105.85 

calculated with equations discussed in Sect. III. 

51.7 

kPa 

3.52 

6 . 81 

10.06 

13 . 48 

19.11 

36.38 

72.99 

100.65 

160. 99 
Table V-3. VOC Emission Reduction from Replacing Fixed-Roof Tanks with Internal-FloatingRoof 'l'anks vs Absolute Vapor Pressures of Materials 

VOC Emission Reduction (Mg/yr) for Vapor Pressures a 

Model Tank 

Size 

1.0 kPa 1.4 kPa 3. 4 kPa 6. 9 kPa 10.3 kPa 34.5 kPa 51.7 kPa 

(m3) (Mg/;x:r) (M9:/yr) (Mg/yr) . (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) 

40 0.14 0.18 0. 35 0.61 0.91 1.98 2.99 

75 0.26 o. 33 0.66 1.18 1. 75 3.83 5.79 

115 0.37 0.48 0.99 1. 73 2.58 5.68 8.55 

150 0.49 0.65 1. 32 2.33 3.46 7.60 11.46 

285 0. 7 3 0. 95 1. 90 3.32 4.93 10.75 16.24 

660 1. 38 1.80 3.60 6.32 9.38 20.40 30 . 92 

1420 2.75 3.61 7.23 12.68 18.80 41.09 62.04 <: 

I 

w 

2840 3.92 5 . 12 101.10 17.60 26.01 56.53 85.55 

8330 6.73 B. 71 16.70 28 . 61 41.93 89.97 136.84 

ausing a control efficiency of 85%. 
• • I 

~ 

:c=~~ser ~=~ =~~ ~e ro tted sources)---Table V-4 shows 

~~ =~: ;ar~-~ ~=~ s sec =~~ assessi ng the impacts from addition of a refrige:-a::e::: ··e:::: ccr.;::e:::lser- to a f ixed-roof tank. Three model tank sizes (150, 660, 

~~ 2o4C }, r epr esenting small, medium, and large SOCMI storage tanks respec-

~~vely we r e selected for evaluation. 

Thr ee different cases representing three commmon conditions of condenser operaion were selected for each of the model tanks and are also shown in Table V-4 . 

?or case 1 it was assumed that the chemical stored has a low vapor pressure, 

3.5 kPa, and that the vapor pressure of the exit gas stream leaving the condenser has been reduced to 1.4 kPa. Case 2 is an evaluation of the storage of 

an average-vapor-pressure (10 . 3-kPa) chemical with a final (exit) vapor pressu re of 1.4 kPa. For case 3 it was assumed that the chemical stored has a high 

vapor pressure, 51.7 kPa, and that the exit stream vapor pressure has been reduced 

to 3.5 kPa. 

The physical properties of three different chemicals with vapor pressures nearly 

equal to the initial vapor pressures described for cases 1, 2, and 3 were averaged. 

These averages were used to calculate the size of each condenser and its accompanying refrigeration system. Sizing details are shown in Appendix B. 

Table V- 5 shows the VOC emissions expected from the three model fig:ed-roof tanks 

before and afte r a refrigera t e d vent condenser was added. Also included in the 

table is the amount of VOC r educed. Quantities are shown for all three cases 

of opera tion selected. 

Re f r ige rate d vent c ondensers do not consume any raw materials but do require 

e lectricity. The electrical requirements for each model tank selected are shown 

in Table V-6 as joules per gram of VOC recovered . Values range from 331 to 

1854 J/g. 

b . Floating-Roof-Tank Emissions---The quantity of voc emitted from a floatingroof tank is primar ily a function of the capacity (size) of the tank itsel f and 

of the vapor pressure of the chemical stored in the tank . Table V- 7 shows the 

VOC emissions in Mg/yr that would be expected for the nine selected model tank 

si~es at five selected v apor pressures. 
V-5 

Table V-4. Model Parameters and Operating Conditions for Assessing 

Impacts from Refrigerated Vent Condensers 

Fixed-Roof Final Emission Tank Capacity Turnovers Va:eor Pressure {kPa} Temp. Reduction 

{m3} Per Year Initial Final {oC2 (%2 

Case 1 

1SO 200 } 660 so 3.5 1.4 10 60 

2840 24 

Case 2 

150 200) 660 so 10.3 1.4 -9.6 86.7 

2840 24 

Case 3 

1SO 200} 660 50 51.7 3.5 -20.3 93.3 

2840 24 
Model Tank 

caeacit~ (m3) Case I 

150 1.55 

660 4.24 

2840 11.88 

Table V-5 . VOC Emissions from Fixed-Roof Tanks Before and 

After Refrigerated Condenser Add-on 

VOC Emissions (Mg/yr) --- ~ 

Before Add-on After Add-On 

Case II Case III Case I Case II Case III Case I 

4.07 13.48 0. 62 0.54 0.90 0. 93 

11.03 36.38 1. 70 1. 47 2.44 2.54 

30.60 100.65 4.75 4.07 6.74 7.13 

Reduction 

Case II 

3.53 

9.56 

26.53 

Case III 

12.58 

33.94 

93.91 

<: 

I 

Cj) 
V-7 

Table V-6. Energy Impact from Refrigerated 

Vent Condenser 

Electrical Requirements (J/g) 

C "t {m3 apac~ y ) Case I Case II Case III 

150 

660 

2840 

1854 

885 

468 

688 

456 

331 

511 

467 

464 
V-8 

Table V-7. VOC Emissions from Model Floating- Roof Tank 

vs Absolute Vapor Pressures of Material Stored 

voc Emissions (l1g/yr) for Vaeor Pressures of 

Model Tank3 51.7 69.0 76.6 86.2 100.7 

caeacity {m } kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa 

40 0.58 0.94 1.22 1.86 17 . 88 

75 0.60 0.96 1.23 1.87 17.90 

115 0.61 0.98 1.25 1.89 17.92 

150 0.75 1.20 1.54 2.33 22.11 

285 1.16 1.88 2.43 3 . 70 35.59 

660 1.47 2.40 3.10 4 . 74 45.66 

1420 2.59 4.23 5.48 8.38 80 . 96 

2840 4.31 7.08 9.17 14.05 135.96 

8330 9.62 15.83 20.51 31.45 304.88 

--~·· 

~ ,.._~f~;~"t'~UJ~,-~to;., .. 'd• 
V-9 

Emissions were calculated based on the standing-storage- and withdrawal-loss 

equations discussed in Sect. III of this report for an internal-floating-roof 

tank. 

Two pressure-vessel conditions were evaluated for pressure vessels used in place 

of internal-floating-roof tanks or open-top floating roof tanks with primary 

and secondary seals (new sources): no VOC loss (100% emission control) and 

98%-controlled VOC emissions. The latter condition would apply to pressure 

vessels with an inert-gas pad used for safety or operating reasons and that 

would therefore require periodic relief venting. Table V- 8 shows the VOC 

emission reduction that can be achieved by installation of a new pressure 

vessel instead of a new floating-roof tank. Both the 98%- and 100%-control 

conditions are shown. 

In operation, pressure vessels used as emission controls do.not consume any raw 

materials or utilities and have no adverse environmental or energy impacts. 

Loading and Handling 

3 A model loading terminal sized for handling 950 m of organics per day was selected 

for evaluation of the cost effectiveness of two control methods. The model was 

selected from the EPA Guideline Series document Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank 

Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals. 1 The use of this model was considered to be 

acceptable because petroleum loading operations compare reasonably well with 

those of the SOCMI. 

Two controls taken from the cited document are evaluated: a refrigerated condenser system that condenses VOC vapors at atmospheric pressure and -73°C 

temperature, and an oxidation system based on a thermal oxidizer. 

Table V-9 shows the theoretical control efficiencies of the condenser for the 

four vapor pressures selected. The control efficiency of the thermal oxidizer 

was estimated to be 99%. 

Table V-10 gives the VOC emissions expected from the model terminal before 

controls and after either the refrigeration or teh oxidizer system was 

installed. 
Table V-8. VOC Emission Reduction from Installation of New Pressure Vessels Instead of New 

Floating-Roof Tanks as a Function of Stored-Material Vapor Pressures 

Model Tank VOC Emission Reductions (Mg/yr) Size 51.7 kPa 69.0 kPa 76.6 kPa 86 .2 kPa 100.7 kPa 

~m3} {98%) {100%) (98%) (100%) (98%) (100%l {98%2 (100%} (98%) (100%} 

40 0. 57 0 .58 0 .92 0.94 1.19 1. 22 1.82 1.86 17.53 17.88 

75 0.58 0.60 0 . 94 0.96 1.21 1.23 1.84 1.88 17.54 17.90 

115 0.60 0.61 0.96 0.98 1.23 1.25 1.85 1.89 17.56 17.92 

150 0.74 0.75 1.18 1. 20 l. 51 1.54 2.28 2.33 21.66 22.11 

285 1.13 1.16 1.84 1.88 2.38 2.43 3.63 3.70 34.88 35.59 <: 

I 

660 1.44 1.47 2.36 2.40 3.04 3.10 4.65 4. 74 44.75 ...... 45.66 0 

1420 2.53 2.59 4.15 4.24 5.37 5.48 8.21 8 .38 79.34 80.96 

2840 4.23 4.31 6.94 7.08 8.99 9.17 13.77 14.05 133.24 135.96 

8330 9.42 9.62 15.51 15.83 20.10 20.51 30.82 31.45 298.79 304.88 
V-11 

Table V-9. Control Parameters of Model 

Loading Terminal for Refrigeration System 

Theoretical 

Control Va12or Pressure (kPa) 

Efficiency (%) Initial Final 

60 3.5 1.4 

86.7 10.3 1.4 

93.3 34.5 3.5 

94.9 69.0 3.5 

Table V-10 . VOC Emissions from Model Loading Terminal 

Before and After Addition of Controls 

voc Emission U·1g/yr) 

Vapor Pressure After Controls Added 

(kPa) Before Controls Added Refrigeration Oxidizer System 

3.5 a 15.8 6.3 0.2 

10.3b 76.3 10.5 0 . 8 

34.5c 123.8 8.3 1.2 

69. 0d 267.8 l3. 7 2.7 

auncontrolled emission rate, 55 mg per liter loaded (derived from Table III- 3) . 

b Uncontrolled emission rate, 265 mg per liter loaded (derived from Table III-3). 

c Uncontrolled emission rate, 430 mg per liter loaded (derived from Table III-3). 

d Uncontrolled emission rate, 930 mg per liter loaded (derived from Table III- 3). 

... 
V-12 

Emissions were calculated with the equations discus sed in Sect. III and averaged 

from the vapor pressures given in Table III- 3 . 

The energy effect of vapor recovery systems at terminals is considered to be 

minimal . Although energy is required to drive compressors, pumps, and other 

equipment , i n most systems a valuable product is recovered that would otherwise 

be lost to the atmosphere. In thermal- oxidizer systems additional energy will 

be required in the form of gaseous fuel to convert the VOC vapor to carbon dioxide 

and water. An estimated 85 liters of propane per Mg of product per year is 

. db h 'd' 1 requ1re y t e ox1 1zer. 

B. CONTROL COST IMPACT 

This section presents estimated costs and cost-effecti veness ratios for the 

additional control of voc emissions from the storage and loading of organic 

chemicals in the synthetic organic chemicals industry. Present emission sources 

and emission quantities are discussed in Sect. III. 

The capital cost estimates represent the total investment involved in purchasing 

and installing all equipment and material necessary for a complete control system that will perform as defined for a new installation at a typical location . 

These estimates do not include such highly variable costs as loss of production 

during installation or startup, research and development, land acquisition, and 

preparation and cleaning of the tanks for retrofi tting. Cost estimate calculations 

are included in Appendix c. 

Cost factors for calculation of annual operating costs are shown in Table V-11. 

The capital recovery factor of 0.18 is based on a 10-year depreciable life and 

~ a 12% annual interest rate. Emission recovery credit is based on the average 

market value of all synthetic organic chemicals that have potential recovery. 

Annual costs are for a 1-year period beginning in December 1979 . 

1. 

a. 

Storage Tanks 

Fixed-Roof-Tank Emission Controls---The capital cost and the cost effectiveness 

of controlling VOC emission losses with two control techniques were evaluated: 
V-13 

Table V-11. Cost Factors for Computing Annual Costs 

Item Factor 

Electrical power 8.33 $/GJ 

Operating time 8760 hr/yr 

Operating labor Minor; no~ considered 

Maitenance material and labor 

Capital charges 

Capital recovery 

Miscellaneous (taxes, insurance, 

and administration) 

$0.06 X capital cost 

$0 . 18 X capital cost 

$0.05 X capital cost 

Liquid-waste disposal Minor; not considered 

Recovery credit $330.8/Mg 

Model 

Tank Size 

(m3) 

40 

75 

ll5 

150 

285 

6 60 

1420 

2840 

8330 

Table V-12. Installed Capital and Operating Costs for 

Internal-Floating-Roofsa 

Installed Capital Cost (X 103) 

Secondary Annual Operating 

Floa ting Roof seal = Total (X 103) 

5.6 0.6 6 . 2 1.8 

5.6 0.6 6.2 1.8 

5 . 6 0.6 6.2 1.8 

6.0 0.6 6. 6 1.9 

7 . 1 0.9 8.0 2 . 3 

8.0 1.0 9.0 2.6 

12 .0 1.5 13.5 3.9 

20.4 2 . 1 22.5 6.5 

50.3 3.6 53.9 15.6 

Costb 

aA contact interna l floating roof with a secondary seal installed in a fixedroof tank. 

bBefore credit. 

·~-----~-- - - -
V-14 

Internal floating roof used on fixed-roof tanks--Table V-12 shows the installed 

capital cost and the annual operating cost for the installation of a contact 

internal floating roof with a liquid primary seal and a continuous secondary 

seal to an existing fixed-roof tank. The annual operating cost is the cost of 

the internal floating roof before recovery credit is taken for the emission I 

reductions. The installed capital costs for the roof and seal were taken from 

Table C-1 of Appendix C. 

The installed capital costs for tanks shown in Table C-1 were prepared primarily from data presented in the EPA report Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, 2 which was prepared by TRW. 

Table V-13 gives the cost effectiveness for installing a floating roof to an 

existi ng fixed-roof tank. The cost effectiveness is affected by the vapor 

pressure of the material stored in the model tank. The cost effectiveness 

versus tank size is plotted in Fig. V-1. 

Refrigerated vent condensers (new and retrofit sources)---To evaluate the control cost effectiveness of adding a refrigerated vent condenser to a new or 

existing fixed-r oof tank, the models and conditions discussed in the environmental and energy impact portion of this section were used; see Tables V-4--V-6. 

Table V-14 gi ves t he cost effecti veness for adding refrigerated vent condensers 

to the f i xed- roof model tanks for all three cases . Cost estimation details a r e 

given in Appendix C. Figure V-2 is a plot of the cost effectiveness for the 

t h ree model conditions. 

The cost effectiveness for multiple storage tanks containing the same material 

and using a common add-on refrigeration unit should be more favorable than that 

for equivalent storage tanks using individual controls. These highly variable 

situations were not modeled. 

Other control techniques---Due to time limitations cost-effectiveness calculations 

were not comple ted for carbon adsorption and thermal oxidation . Installed capital 

cost curves for both techniques are, however, included in the cost estimate 

details (Appendix C). 
Model Tank 

Size 

(m3) 1.0 kPa 

40 12,530 

75 6,590 

115 4,535 

150 3,545 

285 2,820 

660 1,555 

1420 1,085 

2840 1,325 

8330 1,985 

Table V-13. Cost Effectiveness of Installing an 

Internal Floating Roof in a Fixed Roof-Tank 

Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg) at Vapor Pressures of 

1. 4 kPa 3.4 kPa 6.9 kPa 10.3 kPa 34.5 kPa 

9665 4815 2625 1650 580 

5125 2395 1195 700 140 

3420 1485 710 370 (15) 

2590 1190 485 220 (80) 

2090 880 360 135 (115) 

1115 390 80 (55) (205) 

750 40 (25) (125) (235) 

940 310 40 (80) (215) 

1460 605 215 40 (155) 

~alues in parentheses represent credits. 

51.7 kPa 

270 

{20) a 

(120) 

(165) 

(190) 

(245) 

(265) ~ 

I 

(255) ...... 

V1 

(215) 
.j..) 

Ul 

0 

u 

13,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

4,000 

2,000 

.j..) 

Ul 

0 

u 

o-t 

.j..) 

·.-i 

'0 

Q) 

~ 

u 

1.0 kPa 

1. 0 kPa 

10.3 

10 

Fig . V-1. 

100 1000 

Cost Effectiveness of Controlling Emissions by Retrofit·ting 

Ex i sting Fixe d - Roof Tank with Internal Floating Roofs 

10,000 
V-17 

Table V-14. Cost Effectiveness for Add-On Refrigerated Vent 

Condenser to Fixed-Roof Tank (New and Retrofitted Sources) 

Model Tank 

Size Cost Effectiveness* 

(m3) Case l Case 2 

150 $101430 $3,031 

660 8,030 2,470 

2840 5,245 1,890 

-------------------------- *Case conditions described in Table V-4. 

(per r-ig) 

Case 3 

$1.693 

2,585 

2,085 
tl' 

::<: 

........ 

(/)o 

....... 

'0 

Q) 

.-l 

.-l 

0 

~ 

.j.J 

c:: 

0 

u 

Ul 

c:: 

0 

·.-1 

Ul 

Ul 

·.-1 

E 

~ 

u 

0 

::> 

~ 

0 

4-l 

.j.J 

Ul 

0 

u 

10 ,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Case 2 

100 

V- 18 

1000 

Tank Size (m3) 

Fig. V-2. cost Effectiveness of Controlling Emissions by 

Refrigerated Vent Condenser Added On to Fixed-Roof Tank 

5000 

....... ~ . ;:, .. -xy, ~"N~-- ., . - ~----
V-19 

Floating-Roof-Tank Emission Controls---The capital cost and the cost effectiveness of controlling VOC emission losses from an internal floating-roof tank 

were evaluated: 

To evaluate the control cost effectiveness of installing new, low-pressure service 

(172 kPa maximum) vessels instead of new floating-roof tanks, the models and 

emission reductions discussed in Sect V-A were used. The annual operating cost 

was calculated from the incremental capital cost difference betw~en a new, internalfloating-roof tank and a new pressure vessel. 

Table V-15 shows the installed capital cost and the annual operating cost, before 

credit was taken for emission recovery, for each of the model tank sizes. 

Installed capital costs are based on the cost data for fixed- roof tanks factored 

by engineering estimates to represent current low-pressure service vessel costs. 

Cost estimation details are given in Appendix c. 

Table V-16 gives the cost effectiveness for installing new pressure vessels at 

the 98%- and 100%-control conditions. Figures V-3 and V-4 are plots of the 

cost effectiveness for the new-pressure-vessel installation at 98%- and 100%-

control efficiency conditions respectively. 

Loading and Handling 

To evaluate the control cost effectiveness of installing either the refrigeration or oxidizer system for loading terminals, the model and emission reductions 

described in Sect. V-A were used. 

All installed capital cost and operating cost data shown in Table V-17 were 

taken from the EPA Guideline series document Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank 

Truck Gasoline Unloading Terminals1 and adjusted to reflect December 1979 

dollars. 

Table V-18 gives the cost effectiveness for installing either the refrigeration 

or the oxidizer system at the model terminal for loading chemicals with four 

selected vapor pressures. 
V-20 

Table V-15. Installed Capital and Operating Costs for 

Pressure Vessels 

Hodel Tank Installed Capital Annual Operating 

Ca,eacity (m3) Cost (X 103)a Cost (X 103 )b 

40 $ 7.8 $ 2.3 

75 5.8 1.7 

115 4.2 1.2 

150 6.8 2.0 

285 14.0 4.1 

660 34.5 10.0 

1420 64.6 18.7 

2840 102.9 29.8 

8330 242.7 70.4 

aincremental cost difference between new pressure vessel and new 

floating- roof tank. 

b29.0% of capital cost before recovery credit. 

• 

.. 

• 

• 
Table V-16. Cost Effectiveness for Installing a New Pressure Vessel Instead of a New Floating-Roof Tank 

(Incremental Cost Difference) as a Function of St ored-Material Vapor Pressures 

Hodel Tank Cost Effectiveness {Eer Mg~ 

Size 98% Control Efficiency at VaEor Pressur es of 100% Control Efficiency at VaEor Pressures of 

51.7 69.0 76.6 86.2 100.7 51.7 69.0 76.6 86.2 100.7 

~m3) kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa 

40 $3704 $2167 $1593 $ 933 ($200)* $3627 $2123 $1561 $ 914 ($202) 

75 2573 1489 1075 600 (234) 2521 1460 1053 587 (235) 

115 1667 941 652 324 (262) 1634 922 639 317 (265) 

150 2446 1361 995 526 (240) 2397 1333 975 515 (240) 

285 3263 1898 1387 800 (212) 3198 1860 1359 756 (214) 

660 6579 3907 2959 1830 (107) 6450 3829 2900 1772 (112) 

1420 7067 4169 3148 1948 (95) 6886 4085 3085 1897 (100) 

2840 6722 3963 2982 1838 (107) 6588 3883 3422 1794 (112) 

8330 7142 4209 3169 1953 (95) 6989 4119 3100 1908 (100) 

*Values in parentheses represent credits. 

<: 

I 

N 

1-' 
7500 

7000 

6000 

,-.. 

tJ1 

::.<:! 

-

{/)- 5000 ~ 

'"0 

<1J 

.-l 

.-l 

0 

l-1 

+I 4000 

s:: 

I 0 

u 

Ul 

s:: 

0 

·rl 

Ul 3000 Ul 

-.-t 

s 

[11 

~ 

.8 

+l 

CJl 

0 

u 

50 

10 

51.7 kPa 

\ / I / 

69.0 kPa 

76.6 kPa 

86.2 kPa 

100 

Model Tank Size (m3) 

1000 

Fig. V-3. Cost Effectiveness of Controlling Emissions (100%) by 

Installing New Pressure Vessel vs New Floating-Roof Tank 

I < I 

N 

N 

10,000 
........ 

tJl 

~ 

-(/)-

ro 

8000 

7000 

6000 

~ 5000 

r-i 

0 

H 

~ 

8 

Ul 

s:: 

0 

·.-I 

Ul 

Ul 

·.-I 

~ 

u 

8 

H 

.B 

4000 

3000 

+l 2000 (J) 

0 

u 

1000 

0-+·-

51. 7 kPa 

69.0 kPa 

76.6 kPa 

86.2 kPa 

100.7 kPa-----------------------------------------------------------------

- SOOj I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

10,000 10 100 1,000 

Model Tank Size (ro3) 

Fig. V-4 . Cost Effectiveness of Controlling Emissions (98%) by 

Installing New Pressur e Vessel vs New Floating-Roof Tank 

<! 

I 

N 

w 
V- 24 

Table V-17. Installed Capital and Operating Cost for ModelLoading-Terminala Control Systems (950m3/day) 

Control System Installed Capi tal Cost (X 103 ) Annual Operating Cost (X 103 )b 

Refrigeration 

Oxidizer 

$186 . 6 

148.4 

a bTop- submerged or bottom- filled . 

Based on 29.0% of capital before recovery credit . 

$54.1 

43 . 0 

Table V-18. Cost Effectiveness for Loading-Terminal 

3 (950 m /day) Control Systems vs Material Vapor Pressure s 

Cost Effect iveness (:eer Mg} 

Vapor Pressure Refrigeration Oxidizer 

(kPa) system System 

3.5 $5368 $2756 

10.3 491 570 

34.5 138 351 

69.0 (118)* 162 

*Values in parentheses represent credits. 

--------- --
V-25 

C. REFERENCES* 

1. Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals, Guideline 

Series, EPA-450/2-77-026 (OAQPS No. 1.2-082), Research Triangle Park, NC 

(October 1977). 

2. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Tanks, draft, chapters 3--6 and preliminary capital costing, Apr. 28, 1980 

(on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC). 

*A reference located at the end of a paragraph usually refers to the entire paragraph. If another reference relates to certain portions of the paragraph, the 

reference number is indicated on the material involved. When the reference 

appears on a heading, it refers to all the text covered by that heading.