DOCSLIB.ORG

Celanese Chemicals, Clear Lake, Methanol Unit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Celanese Chemicals, Clear Lake, Methanol Unit Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Application for Methanol Manufacturing Celanese Clear Lake Plant Pasadena, Texas Revision June 2013 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 715 Discovery Blvd., Suite 301 Cedar Park, Texas 78613 512/258-8500 Fax 512/258-7522 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Project Scope ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 Process Description ....................................................................................................... 1-2 SECTION 2 Emissions Estimate Methodology ....................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Methanol Reformer (REFORM) ................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Fugitive Equipment (MEOHFUG) ............................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Emergency Generator (MEOHENG) ............................................................................ 2-2 2.4 MSS Activities of Methane Containing Equipment (MEOHMSS) .............................. 2-2 2.5 MSS and Emergency Flare (MEOHFLR) ..................................................................... 2-2 2.6 Cooling Tower (MEOHMT) ......................................................................................... 2-2 SECTION 3 GHG Best Available Control Technology Analysis .......................................... 3-1 3.1 BACT Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 BACT Top-Down Approach ......................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Step 1 – Identify Control Technology ................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 Step 2 - Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options .............................................. 3-3 3.2.3 Step 3 - Rank Remaining Control Technologies ................................................. 3-3 3.2.4 Step 4 - Evaluate the Most Effective Controls and Document Results ............... 3-3 3.2.5 Step 5 - Selection of BACT ................................................................................. 3-4 3.3 GHG BACT Evaluation for Reformer .......................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1 Step 1 – Identification of Potential GHG Control Techniques ............................ 3-5 3.3.2 Step 2 – Elimination of Technically Infeasible Control Options ....................... 3-12 3.3.3 Step 3 – Rank of Remaining Control Technologies .......................................... 3-14 3.3.4 Step 4 – Evaluation of Most Stringent Controls ................................................ 3-14 3.3.5 Step 5 – Selection of GHG BACT ..................................................................... 3-17 Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. i Celanese Ltd., Clear Lake Plant June 2013 GHG Permit Application TABLE OF CONTENTS - (CONTINUED) 3.4 GHG BACT Evaluation for Flare ............................................................................... 3-17 3.4.1 Step 1 – Identification of Potential GHG Control Techniques .......................... 3-17 3.4.2 Step 2 – Elimination of Technically Infeasible Control Options ....................... 3-18 3.4.3 Step 3 – Rank Remaining Control Options by Effectiveness ............................ 3-19 3.4.4 Step 4 – Top-Down Evaluation of Control Options .......................................... 3-19 3.4.5 Step 5 – Selection of CO2 BACT for Flare ....................................................... 3-19 3.5 GHG BACT Evaluation for Fugitives Emissions ....................................................... 3-19 3.5.1 Step 1 – Identify All Control Technologies ....................................................... 3-19 3.5.2 Step 2 – Technical Feasibility Analysis ............................................................. 3-20 3.5.3 Step 3 – Rank of Remaining Control Technologies by Effectiveness ............... 3-20 3.5.4 Step 4 – Top-Down Evaluation of Control Options .......................................... 3-21 3.5.5 Step 5 – Selection of CH4 BACT for Fugitive Emissions................................. 3-22 3.6 GHG BACT Evaluation for Emergency Generator .................................................... 3-22 3.6.1 Step 1 – Identify All Control Technologies ....................................................... 3-22 3.6.2 Step 2 – Technical Feasibility Analysis ............................................................. 3-22 3.6.3 Step 3 – Rank of Remaining Control Technologies by Effectiveness ............... 3-23 3.6.4 Step 4 – Top-Down Evaluation of Control Options .......................................... 3-23 3.6.5 Step 5 – Selection of CH4 BACT for Fugitive Emissions................................. 3-23 3.7 GHG BACT Evaluation for Cooling Tower ............................................................... 3-23 3.7.1 Step 1 – Identify All Control Technologies ....................................................... 3-23 3.7.2 Step 2 – Technical Feasibility Analysis ............................................................. 3-23 3.7.3 Step 3 – Rank of Remaining Control Technologies by Effectiveness ............... 3-24 3.7.4 Step 4 – Top-Down Evaluation of Control Options .......................................... 3-24 3.7.5 Step 5 – Selection of CH4 BACT for Cooling Tower Emissions...................... 3-24 Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. ii Celanese Ltd., Clear Lake Plant June 2013 GHG Permit Application TABLE OF CONTENTS - (CONTINUED) SECTION 4 Monitoring and Compliance Demonstration ..................................................... 4-1 4.1 Fugitives (MEOHFUG)................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 MSS Flare (MEOHFLR) ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Reformer Furnace (REFORM)...................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Emergency Generator (MEOHENG) ............................................................................ 4-3 4.5 Cooling Tower (MEOHMT) ......................................................................................... 4-3 SECTION 5 Other Administrative Requirements .................................................................. 5-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Sources of Emissions ............................................................................................. 1-3 Table 3-1 Global Warming Potentials ................................................................................... 3-4 Table 4-1 Proposed Compliance Demonstration By Source .................................................. 4-4 Table 5-1 Other Administrative Information ......................................................................... 5-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Area Map ............................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1-2 Simplified Process Flow Diagram ......................................................................... 1-5 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A GHG Emission Calculations Appendix B EPA Duly Authorized Representative Letter Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. iii Celanese Ltd., Clear Lake Plant June 2013 GHG Permit Application SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction Celanese Ltd. (Celanese) is hereby requesting a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for greenhouse gases (GHG ) that will be emitted from a new methanol manufacturing unit to be located at its Clear Lake Plant in Pasadena, Texas. 1.2 Background Celanese owns and operates multiple chemical manufacturing units at the Clear Lake Plant located at 9502 Bayport Blvd., Pasadena, Harris County, Texas. An Area Map, Figure 1-1, of the Clear Lake Plant and surrounding area has been included in this application. Methanol is one of the feedstocks imported to the facility. To provide improved reliability of its methanol supply and reduce transportation expenses, Celanese proposes to manufacture methanol onsite with the construction of a new methanol manufacturing unit. The Celanese Clear Lake Plant is an existing major source under the federal PSD program. Therefore, physical changes and changes in the method of operation are potentially subject to PSD permitting requirements. The proposed project triggers PSD review since GHGs are expected to increase by more than 75,000 tons per year (tpy). The permit application has been prepared based upon EPA’s guidance, including the “New Source Review Workshop Manual,” the March 2011 document, “PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases (EPA- 457/B-11-001) and the memo dated October 15, 2012, “Timely Processing of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits When EPA or PSD-Delegated Air Agency Issues the Permit.” 1.3 Project Scope The proposed project will emit GHG emissions, and thus Celanese requests a PSD permit
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A.22G Liquefied Natural Gas Management Plan
    APPENDIX A.22G: Liquid Natural Gas Management Plan Volume A.i: PREFACE VOLUME A.V: Volume A.V: Volume A.ii: Volume A.iii: Volume A.iV: ADDITIONAL Project BioPhysicAl socio-economic AdditionAl introduction VAlued VAlued YESAAyesAA & oVerView comPonents comPonents REQUIREMENTSreQuirements A.1 Introduction A.6 Terrain Features A.13 Employment and A.20 Effects of the Income Environment on Concordance Table to the the Project A.1A A.7 Water Quality A.13A Economic Impacts of the Executive Committee’s Request Casino Mine Project for Supplementary Information A.21 Accidents and A.7A Variability Water Balance Model Malfunctions Report A.14 Employability First Nations and A.2 A.7B Water Quality Predictions Report A.22 Environmental Community A.15 Economic Management Consultation A.7c Potential Effects of Climate Change on Development and the Variability Water Balance A.22A Waste and Hazardous Business Sector Materials A.2A Traditional Knowledge Management Plan Bibliography A.7d Updated Appendix B5 to Appendix 7A A.16 Community A.22B Spill Contingency A.7e 2008 Environmental Vitality Management Plan A.3 Project Location Studies Report: Final A.17 Community A.22c Sediment and Erosion A.7F The Effect of Acid Rock Drainage on Control Management A.4 Project Description Casino Creek Infrastructure and Plan Services A.7G Toxicity Testing Reports A.22d Invasive Species A.4A Tailings Management Facility Management Plan Construction Material Alternatives A.7h Appendix A2 to Casino Waste Rock A.18 Cultural and Ore Geochemical Static Test As- A.22e Road Use
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance on Estimating Condensate and Crude Oil Loading Losses from Tank Trucks Section I
    Guidance on Estimating Condensate and Crude Oil Loading Losses from Tank Trucks Section I. Introduction The purpose of this guidance document is to provide general guidance on estimating condensate and crude oil evaporative emissions from tank trucks during loading operations. • OAC 165:10-1-2 defines condensate as “a liquid hydrocarbon which: (A) [w]as produced as a liquid at the surface, (B) [e]xisted as a gas in the reservoir, and (C) [h]as an API gravity greater than or equal to fifty degrees, unless otherwise proven.” • OAC 165:10-1-2 defines crude oil as “any petroleum hydrocarbon, except condensate, produced from a well in liquid form by ordinary production methods.” The Air Quality Division (AQD) has received permit applications requesting the use of a reduced Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) loading emission factor for estimating tank truck loading loss emissions. This is to account for methane and ethane entrained in the petroleum liquid that, along with VOC, are released in the vapors as the petroleum liquid is loaded. In some cases, the proposed non-VOC reduction represents a combined methane and ethane vapor concentration of greater than 30 percent by weight. Permit applications are submitted with loading loss emissions calculated using the methodology outlined in AP-42 (6/08), Section 5.2, using process simulation software, or both. Process simulation software estimates emissions based on all streams reaching equilibrium. The majority of permitted loading losses are calculated assuming negligible concentrations of methane and/or ethane. Due to the high concentrations of methane and ethane proposed in some permit applications, a review of the calculation methodology was conducted and resulted in this guidance document.
    [Show full text]
  • Safe Operation of Vacuum Trucks in Petroleum Service
    Safe Operation of Vacuum Trucks in Petroleum Service API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2219 THIRD EDITION, NOVEMBER 2005 REAFFIRMED, NOVEMBER 2012 --``,,```,`,,,`,,`````,,,,``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API Licensee=Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Main/5924979112, User=Elliott No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 12/30/2013 09:55:43 MST --``,,```,`,,,`,,`````,,,,``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API Licensee=Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Main/5924979112, User=Elliott No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 12/30/2013 09:55:43 MST Safe Operation of Vacuum Trucks in Petroleum Service Downstream Segment API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2219 THIRD EDITION, NOVEMBER 2005 REAFFIRMED, NOVEMBER 2012 --``,,```,`,,,`,,`````,,,,``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- Copyright American Petroleum Institute Provided by IHS under license with API Licensee=Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Main/5924979112, User=Elliott No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 12/30/2013 09:55:43 MST SPECIAL NOTES API publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respect to particular circumstances, local, state, and federal laws and regulations should be reviewed. Neither API nor any of API's employees, subcontractors, consultants, committees, or other assignees make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained herein, or assume any liability or responsibility for any use, or the results of such use, of any information or process disclosed in this publication. Neither API nor any of API's employees, subcontractors, con- sultants, or other assignees represent that use of this publication would not infringe upon pri- vately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Logistics: the Price of Success These Are Good Times for Chemical Manufacturing in the United States
    —JOINT SPONSORED CONTENT FROM— Chemical Week Chemical Logistics: The Price of Success These are good times for chemical manufacturing in the United States. But an active market creates special challenges for companies that need to transport chemical products. 66 Inbound Logistics • June 2018 Chemical Logistics: The Price of Success he U.S. chemical industry is going strong, according to American Chemistry Council (ACC) figures released in late 2017. U.S. chemical president, chemical and oil and gas production volume for 2017, excluding pharmaceuticals, would be at Boston-based consulting firm 0.8 percent higher than in 2016, finds the ACC’s annual industry Maine Pointe. Tstudy. ACC predicts further growth of 3.7 percent in 2018, 3.9 percent in Companies that transport 2019, and 3 percent in 2020. chemicals, or manage chemicals transportation, saw a spike in Continued access to inexpensive creating a $32-billion trade business in 2017 in the wake of shale gas, used for feedstock in surplus for chemicals, excluding several major hurricanes, including the manufacturing process and pharmaceuticals, in 2017. Chemical Harvey, which ravaged southern for energy, gives U.S. chemical exports totaled $127 billion, and Texas in August of that year. “Some manufacturers an advantage over imports rose by 2.8 percent over of the production facilities we were competitors in other locations, 2017, reaching $96 billion. working with sustained damage,” says the ACC. Companies have Along with low-cost feedstock, recalls Adam Kroupa, general announced nearly 320 new the U.S. chemical industry manager of the ChemSolutions chemical production projects in benefits from the strength of the business at third-party logistics the United States, with a total general economy, which is driving (3PL) provider C.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Manufacturing High Temperature Systems, Joseph Hartvigsen
    Electrolytic Hydrogen Production Workshop Manufacturing and Scale Up Challenges Joseph Hartvigsen Ceramatec, Inc. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, CO February 28, 2014 Antipode Assertions • Electric power generation is not the limitation – To misquote Jay Leno “Use all you want, we’ll make more” – http://atomicinsights.com/2013/02/use-all-the-electricity-you-want-well-make-more.html • High electric costs come from working the demand curve from below rather than above • “Grid Storage” is a misleading notion – Constrains thinking to electricity in / electricity out viewpoint – Instead of asking what is the most beneficial instantaneous use of excess capacity • A broader thought framework is “energy currency arbitrage” – Need efficient, economical, intensive conversion paths • Electric utilities aren’t fixed with the right mindset for the job – Business model optimized for their industry’s historical constraints Renewable and Nuclear Power Grid Challenged • Nuclear – PUC caps on profits – Risk averse utilities – Slow growth of grid demand – Rate payer opposition • Greater opposition in major urban centers with large loads • Bonding Whoops! (Specter of WPPSS ‘83 $2.25B bond default) • Renewable – Dispatchability • Grid stability • Costly reserve requirements • Wind out of phase with diurnal load min-max – Transmission • Resource remote from load (population) centers • Transmission permitting difficult and construction costly Energy Resources, Incl. RE, Are Abundant • Renewable energy resources – Large Scale Wind http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/archive/038411.pdf
    [Show full text]
  • Oilmen's Truck Tanks, Inc
    OILMEN’S TRUCK TANKS, INC. Serving the Petroleum Industry... Since 1951 E ILM N’S O EQUIPMENT d in 1951 Establishe Performance Guaranteed 800-859-TANK (8265) or 864-573-7400 www.trucktanks.com T2015 Joshua 24:15 Oilmen’s Celebrated its 60th Anniversary with 6,000 Square-Foot Expansion. Thanks to our valuable Customers, Employees, and the following participating Vendors for their support... Cim-Tek DIEGHAN For additional details, visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/OilmensTruckTanks/60YearsBuildingTruckTanks/prweb9138642 No parts of the work covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic or mechanical including photo copying, recording, taping, or information storage or retrieval systems – without written prior approval from the owner. 2 © Copyright 2015, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2005, 1999, 1992 Oilmen’s Truck Tanks, Inc. Oilmen’s is a registered trademark of Oilmen’s Equipment Corp. 2 OILMEN’S TRUCK TANKS, INC. Catalog Contents Oilmen’s is one of the Largest Dealers in New and Used Truck Tanks in North America. 2 Oilmen’s Celebrates 60 Years 52 Oilmen’s Specialty Event Photos, Plant Tour, Participating Vendors, Insulated and Wrapped Stainless Steel Tanks with and Aerial Photos of 6,000 sq. ft. Expansion. Insulated Cabinets; Stainless Steel Fuel Tanks for Extreme Cold Climates; All Terrain Rough Service 4 DEF Delivery Products Refueling Vehicles; Special Units for Fueling DEF Trucks, Trailers, Stationary Skids, Mobile Skids, Emergency Response Vehicles; DEF Delivery Transloading Systems, Bulk Storage. Solutions; Diesel Systems for Fueling Locomotives; Service Units for Delivering Oils, Grease, Air, Diesel 6 Oilmen’s Headquarters & Gas; Storm Chasers; Quick Response Storage Aerial Photo of Oilmen’s 80,000 sq.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Preparing Tank Trucks for Transporting Potable Water
    APPENDIX E GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING TANK TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORTING POTABLE WATER The following procedures are guidelines for using tank trucks or trailers to provide potable water during drought or other emergency conditions. The appropriate Environmental Field Office should be contacted before a water hauling operation is begun. Selection Tank trucks or trailers to be used for transporting potable water should be selected with two considerations in mind: the nature of the truck’s normal use and the degree of difficulty in cleaning. Commercial milk or potable water tank trucks are preferred. Trucks designed for the transport of wine, vegetable oil, beer, or other food products may also be used. Trucks that have been used to haul petroleum products or other toxic substances are not acceptable. Cleaning Procedures Water trucks: Flush tanks thoroughly with potable water and inspect for particulate matter such as rust and sediment. Milk trucks: Scrub tanks with detergent, flush thoroughly with potable water, and inspect for cleanliness. The following cleaning procedures may be employed for tank trucks normally used for hauling such liquids as apple juice, vinegar, wine, yeast, liquid sugar, beer, corn syrup, cottonseed oil, peanut oil, margarine oil, linseed oil, safflower oil, and soybean oil: 1. Open the drain and flush with hot, potable water. 2. Steam with an emulsifying detergent until the tank is clean. If steam is not available, circulate the detergent at a temperature of 180 degrees to 210 degrees Fahrenheit, changing the location of the nozzle to keep the interior continuously wet from top to bottom. Repeat this procedure until the tank is clean.
    [Show full text]
  • 700.16 Oil Loading and Unloading Policy
    Facilities Management Policy Number: 700.16 Title: Oil Loading and Unloading Policy Implementation Date: October 6th, 2016 Audited: February 14th, 2018 Revised: February 14th, 2018 Introduction The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and precautions to ensure both personnel safety and prevention of spills or accidental releases during routine handling or transferring of oil derived products at all ETSU facilities. ETSU has an aboveground storage capacity exceeding 1,320 gallons of oil in containers 55 gallons or larger, therefore, the facility is subject to the federal regulation for Oil Pollution Prevention, 40 CFR 112. This policy complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 112.3 and 112.5 of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan regulations. Scope This policy shall apply to all employees in Facilities Management, outside contractors and their representatives hired by ETSU to provide oil transfer services on ETSU property. Definitions Oil: As defined by 40 CFR 112 means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: fats, oils, greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin, vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits or kernels; and other oils and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil. Navigable Waters: Are considered by regulations to mean practically all surface bodies, streams, and wetlands. SPCC Plan: Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan. Purpose is to establish procedures, methods, equipment and other criteria to prevent the discharge of oil into navigable waterways. Policy 700.16 – Oil Loading and Unloading Policy Page 1 of 4 Spill Prevention: System components and characteristics and operating procedures to prevent oil spills.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Systems: Suggested Changes to Truck and Motorcoach Regulations and Inspection Procedures
    Natural Gas Systems: Suggested Changes to Truck and Motorcoach Regulations and Inspection Procedures March 2013 FOREWORD This report provides recommendations for suggested changes needed to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), North American Standard inspection procedures, and out-of- service (OOS) criteria to accommodate and facilitate the use of natural gas (compressed or liquefied) as an alternative to traditional fuels such as diesel and gasoline in commercial vehicles. In addition to providing specific recommendations for changes, this report summarizes the process used to arrive at these recommendations, which included a literature review and gap analysis, industry site visits/consultations, and a formal peer review process. NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FMCSA-RRT-13-044 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Natural Gas Systems: Suggested Changes to Truck and Motorcoach March 2013 Regulations and Inspection Procedures 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost, Well-To-Wheels Energy Use, and Emissions for the Current Technology Status of Seven Hydrogen Production
    Technical Report Hydrogen Pathways: Cost, NREL/TP-6A1-46612 Well-to-Wheels Energy Use, September 2009 and Emissions for the Current Technology Status of Seven Hydrogen Production, Delivery, and Distribution Scenarios Mark Ruth National Renewable Energy Laboratory Melissa Laffen and Thomas A. Timbario Alliance Technical Services, Inc. Technical Report Hydrogen Pathways: Cost, NREL/TP-6A1-46612 Well-to-Wheels Energy Use, September 2009 and Emissions for the Current Technology Status of Seven Hydrogen Production, Delivery, and Distribution Scenarios Mark Ruth National Renewable Energy Laboratory Melissa Laffen and Thomas A. Timbario Alliance Technical Services, Inc. Prepared under Task No. HS07.1002 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Configuration of Tank Vehicles Hauling Flammable Liquids in Michigan
    HE 5627 Z6.H39 I E78, UM·HSRI-80·73 -1 1980 FUTURE CONFIGURATION OF TANK VEHICLES HAULING FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS IN MICHIGAN R. D. Ervin C. Mallikarjunarao : ·_ j ! . ~ T. D. Gillespie . l FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT DECEMBER 1980 ~ ·. _,; l0ehnical R!lFpori DocuCHMtoti"on Page 1. R'"i""'' No. 2. Gov~,.._,ant Acco&uion No. 3. Rocipi9tlt' & Catalog No. UM-HSRI-80-73-l 4. Tit!., rwu:l :X.btit!.u 5. Rvporl Dot& FUTURE CONFIGURATION OF TANK VEHICLES HAULING 12/80 FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS IN MICHIGAN 6. PG'I"fo11r1ing Orooni;~:otion Co.:le 384237 Vol. I - Technical Report 8. P e-rfoflllllling Orgoni urtion Report No. 7. Author' II) R D. Ervin, C. Mallikarjunarao, UI•1-HSRI-80-73 '( D.__G_il,l~~oie 9. Per~rw~ing Orggni~:..tion Nome and Addnru 10. Won. U .. it No. Highway Safety Research Institute The University of Michi~an 11. Contract .,., Gront No. I Huron Parkway & Baxter d. Agree. #78-2230 Ann Arbor, M1chigan 48109 13. Type of Re>port oncl Period Covered l2. ~snring Ageney Namo and AJ.d,.nu Final Dtate of MichigaQ ept. of State H1ghways & Transportation 3/6/79-11 /l /80 P~B:es~1g~~Bs6 Bu1lding 14. Sporu1oring Avvncy Coda Lansina M1chiaan 48909 IS. Supplemfi>rlloty Notes l6. Alol!'lroc:t The special safety hazard posed by highway tank vehicles hauling flam- mable liquids has been addressed through accident data analysis and engineering evaluations related to tank vehicle configuration. The study, which was mandated directly by an Act of the Michigan State Legislature, has produced a recommendation for new legislation pertaining to the con- figuration of tank vehjcles having fluid capacities in excess of 9,000 gal.
    [Show full text]
  • A Sustainable Solution for Bulk Liquid Transport
    Tank Containers: A Sustainable Solution for Bulk Liquid Transport Prepared by Atlantic Consulting for the International Tank Container Organisation October 2011 CONTENTS 1 FOREWORD FROM ITCO 4 2 SUMMARY : TANK CONTAINERS PROVIDE A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION FOR BULK LIQUID TRANSPORT 5 3 TANK CONTAINERS : REUSABLE , RECYCLABLE , RE -MANUFACTURABLE 6 3.1 Reusable ............................................................................................................. 6 3.2 Recyclable .......................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Re-manufacture ................................................................................................. 7 4 SUSTAINABILITY IN PRACTICE : THE CASE OF TANK CONTAINERS 8 4.1 Manufacture ...................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Operations ......................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Leasing ............................................................................................................. 10 4.4 Tank Service Providers ..................................................................................... 11 4.5 Inspection ......................................................................................................... 11 5 ECO -IMPACT OF TANK CONTAINERS 12 5.1 Carbon footprint: tank container shipment from China to Europe ................. 12 5.2 All environmental impacts: tank container shipment
    [Show full text]