For filtering samples to instruments-
LETTERS Ozone correction
are the best on the You get: A cleaner sample, with a lower pressure drop, compared to any other filter!
A bold statementbut we can prove it! 1. Instant Proof Ask for our FREE“You’re the Judge” kit.
. . price and performance com- names of Balston
parisons. Plus
customers, stating why they selected Balston Filters. Plus - the easiestto-understand technical and product data you ever saw!
2. Seeing is Believing Match a Balston Filter against the filter you’re using now. See which works better! Our portable demonstrator does it quickly - enables you to test any filter you have against a Balston Filter by merely turning a valve and watching a counter. Details are in the “You’re the Judge” kit.
To get Balston’s FREE “You’re the Judge” kit, just phone or write us at Dept. 8-EST.
BALSTON,
iNC.
P 0.Box C, 703 Massachusetts Ave.
Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 (617) 861-7240 (617) 862-7455 Telex 92-3481 CIRCLE 3 2 ON READER SERVICE CARD
212
Environmental Science & Technology
Dear Sir: In the story, “Ozone can help clean water and air” (€SAT, July 1975, p 618) there are some words about my city, Quebec, and its water treatment plant. Since we are very proud of our treatment plant, we are always very happy when it is the subject of a discussion or when it is stated as an example of water treatment technology. In that issue, it was written, “lnterestingly enough, Quebec City ozonates prior to activated carbon filtration, whereas . . Such a statement is incorrect since our water is ozonated in the final steps of the treatment. In fact, the treatment goes like this: pre-chlorination of the raw water at a rate of ARB as making a correction or retrac:ion. The enclosed material, taken from lata of the Western Oil and Gas Associ3tion (WOGA) clearly illustrates the irre;ponsible actions of Tom Quinn and the sntire CARB, and items such as yours mly add to the problem in that thousands of readers only hear the CARB jide of what is happening to California md unfortunately the poor results of the
CA B and the voice of the taxpayer go unheard. CHARGE: CARB reported that the Federal Government’s proposed offshore oil-drilling program could have disastrous air quality impacts in Southern California-creating as much smog as at least 900000 new cars. (CARB press release, Sept. 29, 1975) RESPONSE: This didn’t make any sense at all to the WOGA, which charged that CARB apparently couldn’t tell an oil well from an oil refinery. The WOGA found that CARB took Environmental Protection Agency refinery emission factors that are to be used to estimate total emissions from all the valves in a refinery and applied those factors to each valve on offshore platforms, to each valve in the treating facilities, and to each valve in the loading and unloading facilities. In other words, CARE3 took the EPA’s 28 lb/day/1000 barrels refining capacity for all valves in a refinery, and applied that number to each valve in the anticipated production facilities. CARB compounded these errors by applying an emission factor for an entire refinery to a production facility that is equal to no more than a small part, such as a single unit, of a refinery. Further, CARB disregarded the fact that the vast majority of these production facilities handles liquids and gases of a less volatile nature and usually at much lower temperatures and pressures. All of this contributes to CARB’s gross overstatement of emissions from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) production facilities. CARB also assumed erroneously that all crude oil would be stored in tanks of 40 000-gallon (952-barrel) capacity or smaller, without vapor control devices. Crude tanks being built at the present time are far larger than 952-barrel capacity and have the most modern vapor control devices. In calculating impact, CARB estimated more than 17 tons a day of reactive hydrocarbons from 100 000 barrels a day of production, whereas WOGA estimates less than one ton a day from the same amount of production. Moreover, CARB assumed the efficiency of a sulfur removal unit in a gastreating facility to be only 80% and thus concluded that 8.1 tons of SOp/ day/ 100 000 barrels of produced crude would be emitted. The facts are that gas-treating facilities would have an efficiency greater than 99.5% and thus less than 0.1 tons/day/100 000 barrels would be emitted. Raymond H . Bever Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646
