# &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 Eng ineering Division

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation Office of Air Quality Pla nn i ng and Standa rds Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 December 1980l. 2 . 3. INTRODUCTION Product Report STORAGE AND HANDLI NG FUGITIVE EMI SSIONS SECONDARY EMI SSIONS REPORT 

### v
CONTENTS vii

1-i 

### 2
- i 3-iD20A 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 A ir Quality Planning and Standards**ENVIRONY~NTAL** 

### PROTECTION AGENCY Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
September 1980I. 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. Internal floating roofs used on fixed-roof tanks (new and retrofitted) sources--- Table V-3 shows the VOC emission reduction that can be achieved by fitting a contact internal floating roof with a liquid primary seal and a continuous secondary s eal 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. 99Table 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 Pressuresa 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. 73 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**~~ =~:** **;a r~** **-~ ~=~** **s sec** **=~ ~**  assessi ng the impacts from addition of a refrige:-a::e::: · ·e:: :: ccr.;::e:::lser- to a fixed-roof tank. Three model tank sizes (150, 660,**~~** 2o4C**},** repr esenting small, medium, and large SOCMI storage tanks respec-**~~vely** w e re selected for evaluation. T

hr ee different cases representing three commmon conditions of condenser opera**ion** 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 pressure 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 em issions expected from the three model fig:ed-roof tanks before and after a refrigerat ed vent condenser was added. Also included in the table is the amount of VOC r educed. Quantities are shown for all three cases of operation selected. Refr igerated vent c ondensers do not consume any raw materials but do require electricity. T he electrical requirements for each model tank selected are shown in Table V-6 as joules per gram of VOC recovered . Values range from 33 1 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 M g/yr that w ould 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 24Model 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 {m

### 3 ) III**apac~** 

### y 

### Case I Case II Case 150 660 2840 1854 885 468 688 456 

### 331 

### 511 467 464V-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 .3 8 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 31.45 298.79 304.88V-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 -1 0 . 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 3.5a 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) . bUncontrolled emission rate, 265 mg per liter loaded (derived from Table III-3). cUncontrolled emission rate, 430 mg per liter loaded (derived from Table III-3). dUncontrolled 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 1 420 2840 8330 Table V-12. Installed Capital and Operating Costs for Internal-Floating-Roofsa Installed Capital C ost (X 103 ) Secondary Annual Operating Floating R oof 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 1 2 .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 internal 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 primar
ily 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- roof 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 fi xed
- roof model tanks for all three cases . Cost estimation details are given in Appendix C. Figure V-2 is a plot of the cost effectiveness for the three 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 completed 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 1 650 580 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 Exi s ting Fixed
- Roof Tank with Internal Floating Roofs 10,000V-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 2,085tl' ::<:

........ (/)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 65 2 324 (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 4000 +I s:: 

### I 0 

### u Ul s:: 0 ·rl 3000 Ul 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 N ew Pressur e Vessel vs New Floating-Roof Tank <! I N wV
- 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 Pressures 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.