State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
State Office Building
107 S. Broadway
Auditorium
Los Angeles, CA
November 15, 1978
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
78-21-1 Approval of Minutes of October 25, 1978 001
78-21-2 Status Report on Chemical Plant Fugitive/Emissions 006
78-21-3 Continuation of Hearing to Consider a Model Rule for 021
the Control of Sulfur Oxides and Organic Gas Emissions
from Marine Vessel Operations
78-21-4 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
b. Research Proposals
c. Delegation of Authority to the Executive Officer
to Review and Comment on Nonattainment Plans
ITEM NO.: 78-21-3
Chemical Plant Fugitive Emissions
RECOMMENDATION
The Board should delegate to the Executive Officer the authority
to extend the model rule on refinery valves and flanges to
chemical plants processing volatile organic materials.
SUMMARY
In May and August of 1978, the staff of the Air Resources Board
inspected a total of six chemical plants for leakage from valves
and flanges. 5.2 percent of the valves and 0.1 percent of the
flanges inspected leaked. For valves, these leak rates translate
into 0.23 tons/day from all chemical plants in the South Coast
Air Basin and 0.87 tons/day in the Bay Area Air Pollution Control
District. Emissions from flanges in chemical plants are
negligible.
Many chemicals used or produced in chemical plants are often
quite toxic, irritating, carcinogenic, or odorous even in small
quantities. The beneficial impact on the environment of
controlling these emissions should be viewed in this context as
well as in the context of reducing photochemical oxidant
precursors.
The Air Resources Board model rule limiting hydrocarbon leaks
from valves and flanges at refineries could be extended to
organic materials at chemical plants with an overall net savings.
ITEM NO'S.: 78-20-2 AND 78-21-3
Consider a Model Rule for the Control of Sulfur Oxides and
Organic Gas Emissions from Marine Vessel Operations
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed model rule.
SUMMARY
Marine vessel operation in California Coastal Waters account for
substantial quantities of air pollutants. During 1976, the
average daily combustion emissions from these operations were at
least 133,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 71,000 pounds of
nitrogen oxides, and 10,000 pounds of particulate matter.
Organic gases are emitted during the loading of organic liquid
cargoes into tankers and barges. In addition, organic gases are
displaced to the atmosphere during the ballasting of uncleaned
cargo tans, and during tank washing, purging, and gas-freeing
operations. Organic gas emissions from tanker and barge
operations in California Coastal Waters during 1976 were at least
22,000 pounds per average day. Because in some cases organic
liquids are not transferred to and from tankers and barges on a
daily basis, emissions during those days when transfers do occur
may be much higher than the average daily emissions.
Meteorological studies conducted by the staff indicate that
emissions from marine vessel operations in California Coastal
Waters are transported onshore, particularly during the summer.
This phenomenon also exists in winter, although with somewhat
less persistence and frequency than during the summer.
In order to reduce emissions from marine vessel operations in
California Coastal Waters, the staff proposes a model rule which
would control both sulfur oxides and organic gas emissions. One
section of the model rule would limit the sulfur oxides emissions
from marine vessel to those which would result from the
combustion of fuel with a sulfur content of 0.5 percent by
weight. Another section of the model rule would require that the
weight of non-methane organic gas emissions resulting from
loading organic liquids into tank vessels be reduced by 95
percent from uncontrolled conditions, except that these emissions
would not have to be reduced below 2.0 pounds per 1,000 barrels
of organic liquid loaded. Finally, the rule would nearly
eliminate organic gas emissions resulting from ballasting, tank
washing, purging, and gas-freeing of tank vessels by prohibiting
most such operations in California Coastal Waters if they would
result in organic gas emissions. Implementation of the proposed
model rule would reduce sulfur oxides emissions from marine
vessels by approximately 56 percent and organic gas emissions by
about 96 percent.
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
A. Port Activities - General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
B. Petroleum Terminal Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
C. Vessel types and Propulsion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D. Combustion Emissions From Marine Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Powerplants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Fuel Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3. Operating Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
E. Organic Gas Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
III. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
IV. Discussion of Proposed Model Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
V. Need to Reduce Emissions From Marine Vessel Operations. . . . . . . 64
A. General Climatic Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
B. Air Pollution Potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
C. Ambient Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
VI. Emissions From Marine Vessel Operations in California
Coastal Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
A. Combustion Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
B. Organic Gas Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
VII. Emission Control Impact and Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
A. Combustion Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B. Organic Gas Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
VIII. Other Impacts of the proposed Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
A. Environmental Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
B. Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
IX. Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
Appendix A - Notice of Public Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1