EPA-AA-SDSB-82-3

Technical Report

Conversion of Ammonia
Plants to Methanol Production

by
Daniel P. Heiser

February 1982

NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of
issues using data which are currently available. The purpose in
the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of technical developments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position
or regulatory action.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Summary
This report investigated the technical feasibility and capital cost of converting an ammonia plant to a methanol plant, both
using natural gas as a feedstock. It was determined th?t the
ammonia industry, which currently produces about 20 million tons
of ammonia per year in the U.S., could convert their facilities to
produce 16.4 million tons per year of methanol, or a fuel oil
equivalent of 150,000 barrels per day. Such a conversion would
cost about $2.l billion, compared to a cost of $3.1 billion for
building new natural gas-based methanol plants of the same capacity. While converting ammonia plants to methanol production has
favorable capital costs over that of building new plants, the savings
of one-third is not large, particularly considering the
effects of eliminating (or reducing) ammonia production. Thus, it
would appear at this time that large savings cannot be obtained
from the conversion of ammonia plants to methanol production.
Conversion of Ammonia Plants to Methanol Production
The U.S. ammonia industry currently produces over 20 million
tons of ammonia, [l] primarily for use in the fertilizer industry.
Ammonia is also used as the starting point of most military
explosives, and it touches some aspect of nearly all other industries in the .S.[2] Methanol is also an important product of the
U.S. chemical industry, an'Cl with a growing interest in methanol as
a transportation fuel, a:n increase in its production may become
even more desirable in the future. Although ammonia and methanol
appear to. be chemically dissimilar, both compounds can be commercially synthesized from the same feedstock, which is primarily
natural gas. With future demand of methanol possibly escalating,
an investigation may be necessary to evaluate the feasibility and
the cost of converting an existing natural gas based ammonia plant
to the production of methanol.
Although ammonia appears to be substantially different in
chemical composition from methanol, much of the _commercial synthesis process is very similar for the two chemical compounds. Both
can be synthesized from the same feedstock which is primarily
natural gas, to produce the large amounts of hydrogen needed. The
major difference between these two commercial syntheses is that in
ammonia production, all carbon containing gases (particularly carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide) are removed so that only nitrogen
and hydrogen remain to react, while in methanol synthesis, a considerable amount of carbon monoxide is retained along with the
hydrogen and no nitrogen is allowed to enter the system.
This report will analyze and discuss
cost of converting an ammonia plant to
The first section of this report will
involved with the established industrial

the feasibility and the

production of methanol.
outline the major steps
production of ammonia.

-2In the section following this, the conversion of an ammonia plant

to a methanol plant will be examined. This report will then
determine the total potential U.S. capacity of methanol production
from converted ammonia plants, and the cost of this conversion on
a plant basis and a nationwide basis.
I.

Description of the Commercial Production of Amm.onia[2,3]

The overall commercial synthesis of ammonia involves the

reaction of nitrogen from air anc;i hydrogen from natural gas at a
ratio of. 1:3 at high pressure and relatively low temperature in
the presence of a catalyst. This overall chemical reaction is:

A typical flow diagram for the commercial production

of
ammonia is shown in Figure 1. As was mentioned above, natural gas
is at present the most common feedstock used for production of
ammonia. The basic steps shown in Figure 1 for converting natural
gas into ammonia will be discussed in this section. These steps
are desulfurization,
primary
and
secondary
reforming,
shift
conversion, carbon dioxide removal, synthesis gas purification,
and ammonia synthesis and recovery.
In the first step, natural gas (which is essentially methane)
is introduced and desulfurized. Much of the feed natural gas, or
methane, is contaminated with sulfur-containing
compounds which
may poison catalysts downstream in the ammonia synthesis process.
Desulfurization involves the absorption of sulfur-containing compounds (which is usually in the form of hydrogen disulfide) onto
activated carbon or zinc oxide. After desulfurization,
the
purified natural gas is ready for reacting in the next steps of
steam reforming.
As shown in Figure 1, the steam reforming steps of the purified natural gas feedstock is carried out in
two
catalytic
reaction stages. The first stage is called the primary reformer,
where the methane is mixed with superheated steam and reacted over
a catalyst to produce a partially reformed gas, consisting of
carbon
monoxide, hydrogen and unreacted methane. The overall
reaction of the primary reformer is:
CH4

+ H20

CO

+ 3 H2 (Primary reforming)

Primary reforming is carried out in a furnace to accomodate the

large heat transfer required. The exit gas temperature is about
750-850Cand pressure is about 415-515 psig. The type of catalyst
used depends on the temperature and pressure in the
primary reformer.
The next step is the secondary reformer where the reforming
reaction is carried out to completion (all of the methane reacted)

Figure 1

Ammonia Plant Flow Diagram

STEAM

AIR
(02 + N2)

]
NATURAL GAS

DESULFURIZATION

PRIMARY REFORMER

'
I

CH + H 0 = CO + 3H2
4
2

\!./

'SECONDARY REFORMER
I

CH4 + J./2

c2 =

co + 2

,/

co
2

--'v
SHIFT
CONVERSION

w
I

co2 REMOVAL

METHANATION

COMPRESSION
AMMONIA SYNTHESIS

AMMONIA

-4also with a catalyst. As shown in Figure 1, sufficient

air is
added to the secondary reformer, serving a dual purpose. First,
the combustion of methane and oxygen provides heat, which is used
to react the remaining methane and steam to form more carbon
monoxide and hydrogen. Second, nitrogen (via the air)
is also
added to the system in the amount required later in the
ammonia
synthesis process. This amount of air is adjusted to eventually
supply a hydrogen/nitrogen ratio of 3: 1. A nickel catalyst supported on alumina is generally used in the secondary reformer.
Thus, while the primary reformer is used for reforming methane
only, the secondary reformer is used for
both
completing
the
reforming process and providing the necessary nitrogen
required
later in ammonia synthesis. The overall reaction involved in the
secondary reformer is:
CH4

+ l/Z Oz + ZNz = co + ZHz + ZNz

After the primary and secondary reformers, the next step of

CO shift conversion is applied as shown in Figure 1. CO shift
conversion utilizes the water-gas shift reaction and
produces
hydrogen from carbon monoxide via the following reaction:
CO

+ HzO

COz

+ Hz (Shift reaction)

The bulk of the carbon monoxide is first shifted to carbon dioxide

in a high temperature shift
converter (HTS) operating at
3504500C. The gases are then cooled and most of the remaining carbon
monoxide from the HTS is shifted to carbon dioxide in a lower
temperature shift converter (LTS) at a temperature of about Z00Z50C. The HTS catalyst consists mainly of iron oxide and chromium
oxide. The LTS catalyst consists of copper oxide sup- ported on
zinc oxide and alumina.
The effluent gases leaving the LTS converter from the shift
conversion step thus contain carbon dioxide which must be removed
or it will poison catalysts used in later steps. Most of the
carbon dioxide is removed in the bulk removal step (as shown in
Figure 1), where it is reduced to trace amounts. In removing the
carbon dioxide, scrubbing with an gaseous solution of monoethanolamine (MEA) or a hot solution of potassium carbonate is
standard. Activated carbon may also be used as a means to remove
carbon dioxide.
After bulk carbon dioxide removal, methanation is
applied,
where any residual carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are
converted to methane, since any carbon, oxygen, or oxygen-containing
compounds poison the ammonia synthesizing catalyst in the last
step of the ammonia synthesis process.
Methanation,
which
is
essentially the reverse of the reforming
reactions,
involves
the
fallowing two reactions:

co +

3Hz

CH4

+ HzO

-5C02

+ 4H2 = CH4 + 2 H20

Temperatures are typically in the

catalyst is usually nickel supported
cium aluminate cement.

range of 300-400C and the

on alumina, kaolin, or cal-

After this step, the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide

content of the treated gas is only a few parts per million and
does not affect the remainder of the ammonia synthesis process.
However, the methane itself contains carbon and must be eliminated. A cryogenic purifier system (which is not shown in Figure
1 as a distinct unit) is then used to remove all of the water and
nearly all the methane. In this unit the gas from methanation is
first dried to a very low dew point, then cooled and expanded in a
turbine to liquefy a portion of the gas. After further cooling,
the vapor from the partially liquified stream is scrubbed in a
rectifying column to remove the required amount of the methane.
The
sion and
as the
reaction
N2

synthesis gas is now ready for the final step of compresammonia manufacture in the synthesis loop. This is shown
compression ammonia synthesis unit in Figure 1. The
is:

+ 3H2 = 2NH3

The operating pressures for most synthesis loops fall in the range
of 150-200 atm (2200-2940 psig). This final step involves a
catalyst which generally consists of iron with the addition of
oxides of aluminum and potassium. Unreacted gases are recycled.
In almost all plants ammonia is recovered by condensation. This
requires refrigeration, normally provided by the synthesis ammonia
itself. Inerts entering the system are normally removed with a
purge stream.
II. Conversion of an Ammonia Plant to Methanol Production[2,3]
Commercial synthesis of methanol involves the reaction of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both which can be obtained from a
natural gas feedstock, at an overall ratio of 1:2. High temperatures and pressures are used, in addition to a catalyst to speed
up the reaction. The overall reaction is:
CO + 2H2

CH30H

A flow diagram representing a typical commercial methanol

production process is shown in Figure 2. When comparing Figure 2
to the ammonia plant flow diagram of Figure 1, it can be seen that
the initial steps of both processes are similar. However, methanol production also involves additional steps which replace many
of the steps involved with ammonia production. The basic steps
shown in Figure 2 for production of methanol from a converted
ammonia plant are desulfurization, steam ref arming, compression,

......... 0........ - -

Methanol Flow Diagram From Converted Ammonia Plant

STEAM

co 2

-.

NATURAL GAS

DESULFURIZATION

. STEAM REFORMER
---:;

..--

'/

'

------

COMPRESSION

CH + H2 o = CO + 3H
4
2

I
0\
I

CRYOGENIC UNIT

SULFUR GUARD
BEDS

METHANOL SYNTHESIS

METHANOL

-7cryogenic purification, final sulfur removal, and methanol synthesis.

These steps will be discussed elow.
The first step of methanol production is the desulfurization
of natural gas, which was also the first step of ammonia production. As with ammonia
production
the natural
gas
used
for
methanol production must be processed free of sulfur to prevent
poisoning catalysts downsteam. After
desulfurization
the
next
step is steam reforming again similar to ammonia production. For
methanol production, only one reformer is typically used which
also involves the introduction of steam, as shown in Figure 2. In
the reforme.r unit, the steam and methane react to form carbon
monoxide and hydrogen, identical to the reaction occurring in the
primary reformer for
ammonia
production.
This
reaction
is
expressed as:

The steam reformer in methanol production produces a carbon

monoxide:hydrogen ratio of 1:3, while methanol synthesis requires
only a 1:2 ratio. Thus, as shown in Figure 2, carbon dioxide is
added to produce carbon monoxide and consume hydrogen via the
reverse of the water gas shift reaction discussed above.
The steps following the steam reformer in methanol synthesis
differ from that found in ammonia synthesis. First of all, the
secondary ref armer the carbon monoxide shift converters and the
carbon monoxide removal unit are unnecessary for methanol production. Also, the process of methanation in an ammonia plant is
also eliminated in methanol production, because it is desired
to
retain as much carbon monoxide as possible.
However, there are additional steps in
the
production
of
methanol which are not present in the production of ammonia. The
first step is the compression of carbon monoxide and hydrogen that
has exited from the reformer. This step improves the conversion
of these reactants in the methanol synthesis unit. A turbo-driven
centrigual compressor is usually used to compress the carbon
monoxide:hydrogen mixture from about 150 atm to 300 atm. Following the compression step, nearly all of the carbon dioxide and
steam left are removed in a standard cryogenic feed purification
unit. A new cryogenic unit must be installed since a higher pressure is used for methanol synthesis than is used
for
ammonia
synthesis. A second cryogenic unit is also necessary to separate
the dry, carbon dioxide-free gas into synthesis gas (H2/CO ratio
= 2, CH 4 + N 2 about 1 percent) and a tail gas which is used as
fuel gas and consists mainly of unreacted methane with some carbon
monoxide. The cryogenic units are shown together in Figure 2.
Following the two cryogenic units, the synthesis gas is
heated and passed through a zinc-oxide sulfur-guard bed for final
removal of hydrogen sulfide and other sulfur-containing com-

-8pounds. After this comes the methanol synthesis where a

new
reactor (again because of higher pressures than ammonia synthesis)
is required.
The final reaction taking place in the reactor is:

2Hz + CO = CH30H
The methanol is subsequently cooled and condensed. Most
of the
synthesis gas passing through this unit is not converted
to
methanol and is recycled and mixed with fresh, incoming synthesis
gas.
In summary, the following units must be added to an ammonia
plant to convert it to methanol production: the compression unit,
two cryogenic units, the sulfur guard bed units, and the methanol
synthesis unit.
III. Capacity for Methanol Production
The above section described the steps involved with conversion of an ammonia plant to methanol production. This section
will estimate the nationwide capacity of methanol production from
converted ammonia plants.
The nationwide capacity of methanol production from a converted ammonia plant depends upon two factors. First, the ratio
of methanol to ammonia produced must be determined, based on an
equal amount of natural gas feed. Second, the current nationwide
production capacity of ammonia must be determined. These two
factors will be examined below.
The ratio of methanol to ammonia production can be based on a
stoichiometric estimate which assumes the same amount of natural
gas feedstock in both cases. For ammonia synthesis, the limiting
factor is the production of hydrogen which results in the production of about 4.86 tons of ammonia for every ton of methane feed.
For methanol synthesis, the limiting factor is the
production of
carbon monoxide which results in the production of about 4 tons of
methanol for every ton of methane feed. Thus, on this basis the
ratio (by weight) of methanol to ammonia production capacity
is

0.82.
Now, the total ammonia production capacity for the U.S. must
be estimated.
Current (1981) U.S. ammonia production capacity
should be close to 20 million tons based
on an estimate by
a
recent report on the ammonia industry.[4]
In that report, 1981
ammonia
production estimates are broken down
by
each
ammonia producing company and location, and are based on
actual February 1979 production data. There are 81 plants in
operation
in the
u.s. producing these 20 million tons annually.[4] The producers
of this ammonia and the locations of their plants are shown in
Table 1.[ 4]

-9-

Table 1
1981 Ammonia Production Capacity*
Company

1,000 Tons Per Year

Location

Agrico Chemical Co.

Blytheville, AR
Donaldsonville, LA
Verdigris, OK

407
468
840

Air Products & Chemical Co.

New Orleans, LA
Pace Junction, FL

210
100

Allied Chemical Corp.

La Platte, NE
Hopewell, VA
Helena, AR

172
340
210

American Cyanamid Co.

Fortier, LA
Fortier, LA

340
240

Amoco Oil Co.

Texas City, TX

522

Apache Powder Co.

Benson, AZ

15

Atlas Chemical Co.

Joplin, MO

136

Beker Industries

Conda, ID

100

Borden Chemical Co.

Geismar, LA

340

Camex, Inc.

Borger, TX

400

Car-ren

Columbus, MS

CF Industries, Inc.

Donaldsonville,
Donaldsonville,
Donaldsonville,
Donaldsonville,
Fremont, NE
Terre Haute, IN

Chevron Chemical Co.

Pascagoula, MS
Fort Madison, IA
El Segundo, CA

510
105
20

Columbia Nitrogen

Augusta, GA

510

Diamond Shamrock

Dumax, TX

160

Dow Chemical

Freeport, TX

115

E. I. DuPont de
Nemours

Beaumont, TX
Victoria, TX

340

LA
LA
LA
LA

375
375
420
420
48
150

100

-10Table 1 (Cont'd)
1981 Ammonia Production Capacity
Company

Location

1000 Tons Per Year

El Paso Products

Odessa, TX

115

Farmland Industries

Fort Dodge, IA
Dodge City, KS
Hastings, NE
Enid, OK
Lawrence, KS
Pollock, LA

210
210
140
840
340
420

Farmers Chem-CF Ind.

Tyner, TN

170

Felmont Oil Corp.

Olean, NY

85

First Miss Corp.

Fort Madison, IA

FMC Corp.

S. Charleston, WV

Gardinier, Inc.

Tampa, FL

120

Georgia Pacific

Plaquemine, LA

196

Grace-Okla. Nitrogen

Woodward, OK

400

w.

Woodstock, TN

340

R. Grace & Co.

365
24

Green Valley Chemical

Creston, IA

35

Hawkeye Chemical

Clinton, IA

138

Hercules, Inc.

Louisiana, MO

70

Hooker Chemical Co.

Tacoma, WA

23

International Minerals
& Chemicals

Sterington, LA

J piter Chemical (Terra)

Lake Charles, LA

Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals

Savawnnah, GA

150

Mississippi Chemical
Corp.

Yazoo City, MS
Pascagoula, MS

393
175

Monsanto Co.

Luling, LA

850

NJ Zinc-Gulf and Western

Palmerton, PA

400
78

35

-11Table 1 (Cont'd)
1981 Ammonia Production Capacity
Location

1000 Tons Per Year

N-Ren Corp. (Cherokee N)

Pryor, OK

94

N-Ren Corp. (St. Paul Ammonia)

East Dubuque, IL

238

Occidental Chemical Co.

Taft, LA
Lathrop, CA
Plainview, TX

90
160
52

Olin Corporation

Lake Charles, LA

490

Company

Pennwalt

Chemical

Corp.

Philips Pacific Chemicals

PPG Industries

OR

Beatrice, NE

210

Portland,

Natri\Dll, WV

50
90

Reichhold Chemicals

St. Helens, OR

J. R. Simplot

Pocatello, ID

Tennessee Valley Authority

Muscle Shoals, AL

Terra Chemicals

Port Neal, LA

210

Triad Chemical

Donaldsonville, LA

340

Union Oil

co:

U.S.A. Petrochem Corp.

USS

Agri-Chemicals

Kenai, AK
Brea, CA

108
74

1,020
280

Ventura, CA

60

Clairton, PA
Cherokee, AL
Geneva, UT

325
177
70

Valley Nitrogen Producers

El Centro, CA

210

Vistron Corp.

Lima, OH

475

Vulcan Materials

Witchita, KS

Wycon Chemical Co.

Cheyenne, WY

Total

35
167
20,000

*
Based on future projections from: February, 1979 data as estimated
in ref. [4]

-13
Next, using the ratio of methanol to ammonia production
determined above, the nationwide production capacity of methanol
from converted ammonia plants can be estimated for 1981.
The
nationwide production for methanol is about 16.4 million tons per
year. The specific volume of methanol is about 7 .2 barrels per
ton, so the annual volumetric production capacity would be 118
million barrels. On a calender day
operating
basis,
the
daily
production would be about 320,000 barrels. On an energy basis,
this is equivalent to a production of 150,000 barrels of fuel
oil
equivalent per day (BFOE/D)(based on an energy value of 2.11
barrels of methanol per barrel of fuel oil equivalent).
IV. Cost
The total capital cost of this conversion will be estimated
in this section. To determine these costs, capital costs will be
determined first for each converted ammonia plant. The cost of
each plant depends upon the plant size. The 81 U.S. ammonia
plants vary from a production of 8,000 tons per year (or 22 tons
per day) to a production as large as one million tons per year (or
2,790 tons per day).[4] Rather than attempt to calculate the cost
plant by plant, a cost for an average plant size will be estimated
for convenience. A straight average of the 81 ammonia plants,
based on a nationwide production of 20 million tons per year,
would yield a plant size of about 250,000 tons per year, or about
700 tons of ammonia per day. If these were converted to methanol,
each methanol plant would have the capacity to produce about 550
tons of methanol per day. On an energy equivalent basis, this
would amount to 1,990 BFOE/D.
Now that the average size plant has been determined, the cost
of converting an average-sized ammonia plant to a methanol plant
must be estimated. In section II above, it was determined that
the addition of the following units would be necessary when converting an ammonia plant to methanol production: a compression
unit, two cryogenic units, sulfur guard beds,
and
a methanol
synthesis unit. The cost for these
adaitional
units
for
converting to this average size methanol production plant is shown
in Table 2. These costs were scaled to a production of 550 TPD
from plant sizes found in current studies,[5,6,7,8,9] ranging from
a production of 1800 TPD to 75,000 TPD methanol using a scaling
factor of 0.75. This is
a
common capital scaling factor for
chemical producing industries. [ 10] Table 2 shows the middle of
the range of these scaled costs. The sum of these costs is $22
million (1981 dollars) per plant. In addition, there are probably
other costs involved when converting from ammonia to methanol
production. Since these costs would be difficult to estimate, a
contingency factor of 20 percent will
be allotted.
Thus, the
capital cost for the conversion units with contingency is
$26
million for a 550 TPD plant. Since there are approximately 81 of
these plants nationwide, the total cost to the nation would be
approximately $2.l billion.

-13-

Table 2
Cost of Methanol Producing Units
(Millions of First Quarter 1981 Dollars, 550 TPD)
Technology/Synthesis

Cost*

Synthesis Gas Compression

$ 1

Two Cryogenic Recovery Units

$ 4

Sulfur Removal and Recovery/Methanol Drying

$ 3

Methanol Synthesis

$14

Total

$22

*
Costs are the middle of the range of costs found in current
literature,[4,5,6,7,8] and are scaled to a methanol production of
550 TPD (1900 BFOE/D), using a 0.75 capital scaling factor.

-15
The cost of converting an ammonia plant should be compared to
the cost of constructing a new natural gas based methanol plant to
observe the possible savings involved. According to a report by
ICF, [11] the cost of a new methanol plant using natural gas as
feedstock would be about $140 million (in 1981 dollars) for a
2,000 TPD plant. To accomplish an annual production of 16.4 million tons per year (or the amount if all
ammonia plants were
converted to methanol production), approximately 22 of these new
methanol plants would be required. The total cost of these plants
would be about $3.1 billion. This is approximately 50 percent
higher than the nationwide cost of $2 .1 billion determined above
for converting the nation's ammonia plants to methanol production.
Thus, the cost of producing methanol from converted ammonia
plants is about $2.1 billion nationwide and appears to be roughly
one-third less expensive than building new methanol plants, which
cost about $3.1 billion. Of course, in the long run, final
justification of converting an ammonia plant to methanol prcxiuction as opposed to building new plants would not be based on the
simplified estimate of determining capital costs in each case.
Instead, an investigation is necessary to weigh the economics of
eliminating ammonia production and increasing methanol prcxiuction. Such an economic study, however, is beyond the scope of
this report. This report only shows that the capital costs for
producing a determined amount of methanol are reduced by approximately one-third if ammonia plants are converted rather than if
new methanol plants were constructed.

-15References
1.
Buividas,
L.J.,
"Coal
to Ammonia:
Chemical Engineering Progress, May, 1981.

Its

Status,"

2.
Shreve, Norris R. and Joseph A. Brink, Chemical Process
Industries, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 4th edition, 1977.
3.
Kirk, Othmer, Encyclopedia
2, 3rd Ed.
4.
"Brighter
March, 1979.

Days

Ahead

in

of

Chemical Technology,

Ammonia?"

Farm

Vol.

Chemicals,

5.
Ralph M. Parsons, Co. for EPRI, "Screening Evaluation:
Synthetic Liquid Fuel Manufacture," EPRI AF-523, August, 1977.
6.
C.F. Braun and Company for EPRI, "Coal to Methanol Via
New Processes Under Development: An Engineering and Economic
Evaluation," October, 1979. EPRI AF-1227.
7. DuPont
Company,
For U.S. ERDA, "Economic Feasibility
Study, Fuel Grade Methanol From Coal For
Office of Commercialization of the
Energy Research and Development Administration,".
McGeorge, Arthur, 1976 TID-27606.
8.
Badger Plants, Incorporated, "Conceptual Design of a Coalto-Methanol Commercial Plant," Vol. I-IV, for DOE, FE-2416- 24,
February, 1978.
9.
Exxon
Research
and
Engineering
Co.,
"Production
Economies for Hydrogen, Ammonia, and Methanol During the 1980-2000
Period," Cornell, H.G., Heinzelmann, F.J., and Nicholson, E.w.s.,
April, 1977.
10. Peters, Max s. and Timmerhaus, Klaus D., Plant Design
and Economics for Chemical Engineers, McGraw-Hill Company, Second
Edition, 1968.
11.
"Methanol from Coal: Prospects and Performance as a
Fuel and as a Feedstock," Prepared for the National Alcohol Fuels
Commission by ICF, Incorporated, December, 1980.