EPA-450/2-77-026
October 1977
(OAQPS NO. 1.2-082)
_ Cl?"RTirC
C/JEiJOL Jl JCLiO
CONTROL OF HYDROCARBONS
FROM TANK TRUCK GASOLINE
LOADING TERMINALS
'WW """ WIG
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/2-77-Q26
(OAQPS NO. 1.2-082)
CONTROL OF HYDROCARBONS
FROM TANK TRUCK GASOLINE
LOADING TERMINALS
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Chemical and Petroleum Branch
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
October 1977
-------
OAQPS GUIDELINE SERIES
The guideline series of reports is being issued by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide information to state and local
air pollution control agencies; for example, to provide guidance on the
acquisition and processing of air quality data and on the planning and
analysis requisite for the maintenance of air quality. Reports published in
this series will be available - as supplies permit - from the Library Services
Office (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a
nominal fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-77-026
(OAQPS No. 1.2-082)
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1.0 Introduction . 1-1
1.1 Need to Regulate Tank Truck Terminals 1-1
1.2 Sources and Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
from Tank Truck Terminals 1-2
1.3 Regulatory Approach 1-2
Chapter 2.0 Sources and Type of Emissions 2-1
2.1 Hydrocarbon Emission Points at Tank Truck Gasoline
Loading Facilities .... ..... 2-1
2.1.1 Leaks At Tank Trucks 2-3
Tank Truck Overfills 2-3
2.1.2 Back Pressure in Vapor Recovery Facilities . . 2-3
2.1.3 Vapor Holder Tanks 2-3
2.1.4 Knock-Out Tanks 2-3
2.2 Uncontrolled Emissions 2-4
2.3 Gasoline Vapor Compositions 2-4
2.4 References 2-9
Chapter 3.0 Applicable Systems of Emission Reduction 3-1
3.1 Methods of Hydrocarbon Emission Reduction 3-1
3.2 Vapor Control Systems Source Tested by EPA 3-1
3.2.1 Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption Systems . 3-4
3.2.2 Refrigeration Systems . 3-4
3.2.3 Oxidation Systems 3-4
3.3 Leak Prevention from Tank Trucks 3-6
3.4 References 3-6
i i i
-------
Page
Chapter 4.0 Cost Analysis 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.1.1 Purpose 4-1
4.1.2 Scope 4-1
4.1.3 Use of Model Terminals 4-1
4.1.4 Bases for Capital and Annualized Cost Estimates 4-2
4.2 Vapor Control at Loading Racks 4-2
4.2.1 Model Terminal Parameters ... 4-2
4.2.2 Control Costs (Model Terminals) 4-4
4.2.3 Cost Effectiveness (Model TprmirvilO d-f,
4.2.4 Actual Costs - Comparison to Model Estimates . . 4-9
4.3 References 4-1 n
Chapter 5.0 Effects of Applying the Technology 5-1
5.1 Impact of Control Methods 5-1
5.1.1 Air Pollution Impacts 5-1
5.1.2 Water and Solid Waste Impact 5-2
5.1.3 Energy Impact 5-2
5.2 References 5-2
Chapter 6.0 Compliance Test Method and Monitoring Techniques . . . 6-1
6.1 Compliance Test Method 6-2
6.2 Monitoring Techniques 6-2
6.3 Affected Facility 6-4
6.4 Standard Format 6-4
iv
-------
Page
Appendix A
A.l Emission Test Procedure for Tank Truck Gasoline Loading
Terminals A-l
A. 2 Applicability A-l
A. 3 Definitions A-l
A.4 Summary of Method A-2
A.5 Test Scope and Conditions Applicable to Test A-2
A.6 Basic Measurements and Equipment Required A-3
A.7 Test Procedures A-5
A.8 Calculations A-6
A. 9 Calibrations A-7
Appendix B
B.l Summary of Results for Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminal
Vapor Recovery System Testing B-l
B.2 References B-6
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1 Composite Analysis of 15 Sample Motor Gasolines 2-6
Table 2-2 Example: Chemical Composition of Gasoline Vapors 2-8
Table 3-1 Example: Vapor Control System Operating Parameters ... 3-1
Table 3-2 Summary of EPA Tests at Tank Truck Terminals 3-5
Table 4-1 Cost Factors Used in Developing Annualized Cost
Estimates for Model Terminals 4-3
Table 4-2 Control Cost Estimates for Model Existing Terminals .. 4-5
Table 4-3 Actual Control Costs for Bottom Fill Terminals 4-8
Table A-l Gasoline Bulk Transfer Terminal Data Sheet No. 1 A-10
Table A-2 Gasoline Bulk Transfer Terminal Control System Data
Sheet No. 2 A-l 1
Table B-l Summary of EPA Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminal
Vapor Recovery Tests B-5
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1 Gasoline Tank Truck Loading Methods 2-2
Figure 3-1 Tank Truck Terminal Gasoline Vapor Recovery .... 3-2
Figure 3-2 Terminal Oxidation System 3-3
Figure 4-1 Cost Effectiveness for Hydrocarbon Control at
Existing Gasoline Tank Truck Terminals 4-7
Figure A-l Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Vapor Control Schematic A-9
v11
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSION FACTORS
EPA policy is to express all measurements in agency documents
in metric units. Listed below are abbreviations and conversion factors
for British equivalents of metric units for the use of engineers and
scientists accustomed to using the British system.
Abbreviations
Mg - Megagrams
kg - kilograms
g - gram
mg - milligram
1 - liters
cm - centimeters
Conversion Factors
liters X .264 = gallons
gallon X 3.785 = 1 iters
mg/1 X .008 = lb/1000 gallons
Joules X 3.6 X 106 = kwh
Joules X 9.48 X 10"4 = Btu
gram X 1 X 10 = 1 Megagram = 1 metric ton
pound = 454 grams
°C = .5555 (°F - 32)
viii 7
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is related to the control of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from tank truck terminals with daily throughputs of
greater than 76,000 liters of gasoline. The control techniques dis-
cussed are more complex and more costly than those which are applicable
to smaller bulk plants. Control techniques applicable to bulk plants are
being covered in a separate document. The VOC emitted during gasoline
loading of tank trucks are primarily C^ and Cg paraffins and olefins
which are photochemically reactive (precursors of oxidants).
1.1 NEED TO REGULATE TANK TRUCK TERMINALS
Many State or local regulations governing tank truck terminals
require vapor control to reduce VOC emissions from tank trucks during
gasoline loading operations. Estimated annual nationwide emissions from
loading gasoline tank trucks at bulk terminals are 300,00C metric tons
per year. This represents 1.8 percent of the 1975 estimate of total
VOC from stationary sources.
Control techniques guidelines are being prepared for those
industries that emit significant quantities of air pollutants in areas
of the country where National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
not being attained. Gasoline tank truck terminals are a significant
source of VOC and tend to be concentrated in areas where the oxidant
NAAQS are likely to be exceeded.
1-1
-------
1.2 SOURCES AND CONTROL OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM TANK TRUCK
TERMINALS
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are displaced to the atmosphere
when tank trucks are filled with gasoline. There are an estimated 300
vapor control systems currently in operation at approximately 2000 tank
truck terminals in the U.S. Many of those control systems were retrofitted
to existing facilities.
It has been assumed in this document that as a minimum control
measure (base case) all tank truck gasoline loading terminals are equipped
for either top-submerged or bottom-fill (emission factor 600 mg/1). Top
splash facilities are assumed to be equipped with a vapor control system.
If vapor control systems are used at tank truck delivery points
(service stations, bulk plants, or commercial accounts), hydrocarbon vapor
levels in tank trucks servicing these sources will approach saturation
(emission factor 1400 mg/1). In these situations, vapor control systems
will be more cost effective than in areas where tank truck delivery point
vapor control systems have not been installed. Capital costs for a
950,000 liter per day tank truck terminal are estimated to range from
$176,000 to $194,000 for a vapor recovery unit and $140,000 for an
incineration unit. Average annualized costs are estimated at $20,600 for
vapor recovery and $29,800 for vapor incineration. Recovered value is
approximately $0.10 per liter.
1.3 REGULATORY APPROACH
The recommended tank truck gasoline loading terminal emission limit
1-2
-------
that represents the presumptive norm that can be achieved through the
application of reasonably available control technology (RACT) is
80 milligrams of hydrocarbon per liter of gasoline loaded. Reasonably
available control technology is defined as the lowest emission limit that
a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological
and economic feasibility. It may require technology that has been applied
to similar, but not necessarily identical source categories. It is not
intended that extensive research and development be conducted before a
given control technology can be applied to the source. This does not,
however, preclude requiring a short-term evaluation program to permit
the application of a given technology to a particular source. This
latter effort is an appropriate technology-forcing aspect of RACT.
Monitoring terminal operational procedures and control system operating
parameters by visual observation and by the use of portable hydrocarbon
detectors will ensure that liquid and vapor leaks are minimized.
1-3
-------
2.0 SOURCES AND TYPE OF EMISSIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe tank truck
gasoline loading processes currently in use and those processes likely to
be installed in the future. When possible, emissions from each
significant point source are quantified.
Hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline tank truck terminals may occur at
storage tanks, tank trucks, points along the tank truck vapor gathering
system, and from the hydrocarbon vapor control unit. Tank truck loading of
gasoline may be by bottom fill, by top splash or by submerged fill pipe
through hatches on the tops of the trucks, (See Figure 2-1)
Hydrocarbon vapors displaced from tank truck compartments are vented
either directly to the atmosphere or to a gathering system and
then to vapor control equipment. Air and residual hydrocarbons are ventea
directly to the atmosphere from the vapor control equipment.
2.1 HYDROCARBON EMISSION POINTS AT TANK TRUCK GASOLINE LOADING FACILITIES.
Potential points of hydrocarbon emissions are leaking flow valves, relief
valves, flanges, meters, pumps, etc.
The overall effectiveness of vapor control systems is dependent on
the concentration of hydrocarbon vapors in the tank trucks, the degree
of VOC capture at the truck and the efficiency of the control equipment.
Several factors may influence capture and recovery efficiency of VOC at
terminals. They are discussed below.
2-1
-------
VAPOR EUlMIOlii
X
to
O
Tank truck compartment
Case 2. submerged fill pipe
VAPOR VENT
TO RECOVERY
OR ATMOSPHERE
HATCH CvOSED
V
\
\ > N
-- PRODUCT : :
VAPORS
:.'V
Tank truck compartment
Case 3, BOTTOM LOADING
Figure 2-1. Gasoline Tank Truck Loading Methods
Gasoline
A Fllt Hf,E
2-2
-------
2.1.1 Leaks at Tank Trucks
Urethane or other gasoline-resistant, rubber-like materials are used
for sealing hatches and pipe connections on tank trucks. Cracks in seals
and improper connections can cause leaks even when vapor recovery equipment
is in operation. Recent source tests conducted by EPA at terminals have
shown appreciable leakage. In five cases, from 30 to 70 percent of the vapor
escaped capture at the truck. These losses are attributed to leaks in seals
and pressure-vacuum valves, as well as other factors cited below:
Tank Truck Overfills - Tank trucks are bottom loaded by dispensing a
metered amount of gasoline into each compartment. In some instances,
apparently due to improper setting of the meter, residual gasoline in the
tank truck compartment, and apparent overflow shut-off valve failure, overfills
have occurred. If vapor recovery systems are in use, overfilling can result
in the partial filling of vapor lines and the blockage of flow to the vapor
recovery system. Hydrocarbon vapors in these instances may vent through
tank truck pressure relief valves or through poorly mating connections or
other leaks in the vapor lines.
2.1.2 Back Pressure in Vapor Recovery Facilities
High fill rates combined with an undersized vapor collection/recovery
system can cause back pressure and losses through poorly maintained seals
and pressure-vacuum relief valves on the trucks.
2.1.3 Vapor Holder Tanks
Compression-refrigeration-absorption (CRA) units and some incinceration
devices as well as other types of control systems use vapor holders to com-
pensate for surges in vapors from tank trucks and to increase the hydrocarbon
concentration in the gases above the upper explosive limit. The vapor holder
tanks are typically equipped with flexible membranes which add a potential
source of leakage. 2-3
-------
2.1.4 Knock-out Tanks
Many vapor recovery systems utilize knock-out tanks to recover
condensed liquids in the vapor line or to capture liquids from the loading
operations due to overfills or spills. These tanks normally include a
pressure-vacuum vent that is susceptible to leakage.
2.2 UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
The emission factor for hydrocarbon emissions generated during
submerged fill (top or bottom) gasoline loading operations is 600 mg/liter*
transferred.^ This figure represents 40-50 percent hydrocarbon saturation
of the air in the tank trucks. In areas where service stations are
controlled, hydrocarbon saturation approaches 100 percent (emission factor
1400 mg/1).
Application of the 600 mg/1 emission factor to a 950,000 liter/day
terminal results in an estimated emission of 600 kg/day.
The emissions discussed above do not include fugitive emissions
(both gaseous leaks and liquid spillage) that could occur during loading
operati ons.
2.3 GASOLINE VAPOR COMPOSITIONS
A composite analysis of 15 sample motor gasolines is shown in
Table 2-1.
The principal compounds found in essentially all gasoline vapors
are C^ and Cg paraffins and olefins. (See Table 2-2). The average
molecular weight of vapors vented from the tank trucks during gasoline
loading operations are in the range of 68.
*mi 11 igrams' of ^C emlTtFd"per Titer of gasoline loaded."
2-4
-------
Vapors vented from the vapor control equipment are typically of
lower molecular weight since the heavier hydrocarbon molecules are
recovered more readily.
2-5
-------
Table 2-1. COMPOSITE ANALYSIS OF 15 SAMPLE MOTOR GASOLINES 2
Component % wt.
Saturates:
Methane .
Ethane
Isobutane 1
n-butane 7
Isopentane 10
n-pentane ........ 4
2.3-dimethylbutane .... 2
2-methylpentane 3
3-methylpentane 2
n-hexane 2
Methylcyclopentane .... 1
2s4-dimethyl pentane ... 2
Cyclohexane 1
2-methylhexane 5
2,2,4-trimethylpentane . . 6
n-heptane 1
Methylcyclohexane .... 1
2.4-dimethylhexane .... 1
2.3.4-trimethylpentane . . 2
2,3,3-trimethylpentane . . 1
2-methyl-3-ethylpentane . 1
3,4-dimethyl hexane .... 1
2.2.5-trimethylhexane . . 1
n-octane 1
Other saturates 6
Olefins and acetylenes:
Ethylene .
Propylene
Isobutylene/l-butene
2-butene
2-methyl-l-butene .... 1
2-pentene 1
2-methyl-2-butene .... 2
2-methyl-2-pentene .... 1
1,3-butadiene
2-methyl-l,3-butadiene . . ...
Acetylene
Methyl acetylene
Other olefins 6
Aromatics:
Benzene 1
Toluene 6
Ethyl benzene 1
m and p-xylene 5
o-xylene 2
n-propylbenzene 1
2-6
-------
Table 2-1 (corit.)
1-methyl-4-ethylbenzene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene .
1-methyl-2-ethylbenzene
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene .
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene .
Other aromatics . . . .
2-7
-------
Table 2-2, EXAMPLE: CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GASOLINE VAPORS3
Vol %
Wt. %
Air
58.1
37.6
Propane
0.6
0.6
Iso-Butane
2.9
3.8
Butene
3.2
4.0
N-Butane
17.4
22.5
Iso-Pentane
7.7
12.4
Pentene
5.1
8.0
N-Pentarie
2.0
3.1
Hexarie
3.0
8.0
100.0
100.0
2-8
-------
2.4 REFERENCES
1. Supplement No. 7 for Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, Second Edition, EPA, April 1977,
2. A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Sasoline Marketing
Operations: Vol. II - Appendix, EPA-450/3-75-046b, page 51.
3. Kinsey R. H., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Ed,
AP-40, EPA, May 1973, page 655.
2-9
-------
3.0 APPLICABLE SYSTEMS OF EMISSION REDUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to review control equipment and
achievable emission levels applicable to tank truck gasoline loading
terminals.
3.1 METHODS OF HYDROCARBON EMISSION REDUCTION
It is estimated that 300 vapor control systems have been installed
at tank truck terminals and are in commercial operation. Stage I service
station controls have provided impetus for such installations in air quality
control regions with oxidant problems.
EPA test data indicate that with minimal gas leakage from trucks
during loading, emissions to the atmosphere should not exceed 80 mg per
liter of gasoline loaded when equipped with vapor collection and recovery
or oxidation control systems. These data are summarized in the last
column of Table 3-1.
3-2 VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS SOURCE TESTED BY EPA
Simplified schematics of the types of vapor control systems source
tested by EPA are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. A summary of major operating
parameters for the systems are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Example: Vapor Control System Operating Parameters
Unit
1. Refrigeration
Pressure Temperature
cm. Hg. °C
Absorbent Mole Ratio Mass
Liquid/Gas Efficiency
Compression (RF) Ambient
-73
0
80-93
2. Refrigeration 260 to 1090
Absorption (CRA)
-23 to -46
2 to 9
71-92
3. Thermal (TO) Ambient
Oxidizer
760
Firebox Temp.
0
99+
3-1
-------
Vent t;
atmosphere
Vapor —
hoi cier
Saturater
Vapor
recovery
urn" t
Storage
tank
lank truck
Water
Recovered ^
product
Bottom loading
ne
Pi peline
Figure 3-1. Tank Truck Terminal Gasoline Vapor Recovery
-------
Vapor holder
\
Figure 3-2.
Stack
Burner
Air
Pilot line
Propane tank
Thermal Oxidation System
-------
3.2.1 Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption Systems-
The compression-refrigeration-absorption vapor recovery system (CRA)
is based on the absorption of gasoline vapors under pressure with chilled
gasoline from storage. EPA tests on two CRA units at tank truck loading
facilities indicated average outlet concentrations of 25,000 and 75,000 ppm
and a maximum emission level of 43 milligrams per liter. See
terminals A and D in Table 3-2 for detailed data.
3.2.2 Refrigeration Systems
One of the more recently developed vapor recovery systems is the
straight refrigeration system (RF) based on the condensation of gasoline
vapors by refrigeration at atmospheric pressure. It is estimated that
70 units of this type are in commercial operation. Vapors displaced
from the terminal enter a horizontal fin-tube condenser where they are
cooled to a temperature of about -73°C and condensed. Because vapors are
treated as they are vented from the tank trucks, no vapor holder is
required. Condensate is withdrawn from the condenser and the remaining
air containing only a small amount of hydrocarbons is vented to the
atmosphere. EPA conducted source tests ori 3 units, outlet concentrations
of hydrocarbons averaged 34,000 ppm (measured as propane). See terminals
B, C and F in Table 3-2 for detailed data.
3.2.3. Oxidation Systems
The highest efficiency in hydrocarbon control (about 99 percent)
can be obtained with incineration devices. Gasoline vapors from the
terminal tested by EPA were displaced to a vapor holder as they were
3-4
-------
1-6
Table 3-2 SUMMARY OF EPA TESTS AT TANK TRUCK TERMINALS
Test
Number
Da te
of
test
Average
throughput
1i ters/day
No.of
loading
racks
No. of
trucks
loaded
during
testing
period
Type of
control
system3
Type
of
fill
Hydrocarbon
Concentration
Vol. % as propane13
Processing
unit
avg.
control
effic.
g
Processing
unit
avg.
emission
mg/le
Avg.
system
loss
due to
leakage
mg/le
Avg.
total
system
loss to
atmosphere
mg/le
Calculated
average system
loss with no
leakage
(100 percent
collection)
mg/lf
inlet
(tank truck)
outlet
(processing unit)
A
12/10-12/74
605,600
3
39
CRA
Bottom
2.5-23.2
4.3-4.8
70.9
31.2
115.2
146.4
64.7
(2 in use)
B
12/16-19/74
378,500
1
24
RF
Bottom
10.8-30.5
1.4-4.83
84.4
37.0
100.9
137.9
52.8
C
9/20-22/76
1,430,700
1
45
RF
Bottom
8.93-74.96
3-5.41
93.1
33.6
86.7
120.2
40.9
D
9/23-25/.76
1 ,192,300
4
43
CRA
Bottom
2.48-75.58
3.11-3.97
92.1
43.3
154.6
197.9
54.7
E
11/18/73 -
1,101,400
3
*c
TO
2 Bottom
2.4-31.5k
1-45 ppm
99.9
Est.
Est.avg
Est.avg
Est.
5/2/74
1 Top
1.32
302 ,
• d
30%
<26.4
F
11/10-12/76
813,775
3
39
RF
Bottom
2.78-43.35
2.81-4.27
80.4
62.6
46.0
100.6
71.6
CRA - Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption
RF - Refrigeration
,T0 - Thermal Oxidizer
All concentrations are reported as propane except terminal "E" test which is reported as methane.
jMany tank trucks loaded with gasoline over 4 month period.
N/K - not known - reportedly about 70 percent of air hydrocarbon mixture displaced from trucks reached the thermal oxidizer.
-See Appendix B.
This column was calculated using source test data indicating the potential mass recovery factor and the processor efficiency (see Appendix B)
9The inlet hydrocarbon concentration greatly affects the calculated efficiency of the processing unit. Low inlet hydrocarbon concentrations
result in lower process unit efficiencies. In normal operation the process unit outlet hydrocarbon concentrations vary within narrow limits
regardless of inlet hydrocarbon concentrations. If inlet hydrocarbon concentrations were near saturation, higher control efficiencies
would be anticipated.
-------
generated. When the vapor holder reached its capacity, the gasoline
vapors were released to the oxidizer after mixing with a properly metered
air stream and combusted.. The thermal oxidizer is not a true afterburner,
rather it operates in the manner of ari enclosed flare.
Twelve to fifteen thermal oxidizer have reportedly been installed
by terminal operators. Later models of this type of control equipment do
not require vapor holders; vapors from the tank trucks during loading
operations are vented directly to the thermal oxidizer. Hydrocarbon
emissions to the atmosphere (assuming 100 percent collection of vapors)
are less than 80 milligrams per liter. See Terminal E in Table 3-2 for
detailed data.
3. 3 LEAK PREVENTION FROM TANK TRUCKS
Essentially all hydrocarbon vapors from the tank truck must be
vented to the control system for optimum operation. Therefore the
integrity of the vapor control systems at. gasoline tank truck gasoline
loading terminals will depend heavily on maintaining essentially leakless
tank trucks.
To ensure that such leakless tank trucks are used, proper operating
procedures and periodic maintenance of hatches, P--V valves and liquid
and gaseous connections will be required. Also, periodic qualitative
testing can be done by the use of an exp'losimeter.
3.4 REFERENCES
1. Test No. A, EMB Project No. 75-GAS-10, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1407,
Task No. 7, September, 1975.
2. Test No. B, EMB Project No. 75-GAS-8, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1407,
September, 1975.
3-6
-------
3. Test No.C, EMB Project No. 76-GAS-16, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1407,
September, 1976.
4. Test No. D, EMB Project No. 76-GAS-17, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1407,
September, 1976.
5. Test No. E, EPA-650/2-75-042, June, 1975.
6. Test No. F, EMB Project No. 77-GAS-18, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1407,
November, 1976.
3-7
-------
4.0 COST ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter 1s to present estimated costs for control
of hydrocarbon emissions resulting from the loading of gasoline into tank
trucks at bulk terminals.
4.1.2 Scope
Control cost estimates are developed for top-submerged and bottom
loading rack configurations. The control alternatives considered include
vapor collection systems venting either to a vapor recovery unit (refrigera-
tion or CRA) or a vapor incinerator. Detailed costs are presented for 950,000
liters/day and 1,900,000 liters/day model terminals. Cost effectiveness
ratios (annualized cost per kilogram of hydrocarbon controlled) are developed
from the model terminal analyses for terminals ranging from 76,000 liters/day
to 2.000,000 liters/day gasoline loaded.
4.1.3 Use of Model Terminals
Cost estimates developed for this analysis rely upon the use of model
terminals. Terminal loading rack configurations, operating factors and control
system capacities will influence vapor control costs for actual facilities.1
While actual costs for specific terminal sizes may vary, model terminal cost
estimates are useful in comparing control alternatives. How these estimates
compare to actual costs incurred by terminals is addressed in Section 4.2.4.
4-1
-------
4.1.4 Bases for Capital and Annualized Cost Estimates
Capital cost estimates are intended to represent the total investment
required to purchase and install a particular control system. Costs obtained
from equipment vendors and from terminal installations are the bases for the
model terminal estimates. Retrofit installations are assumed. New installa-
tion costs are expected to be only slightly lower. No attempt was made to
include production losses during installation and start-up. All capital cost
estimates presented reflect second quarter 1977 dollars.
Annualized control cost estimates include operating labor, maintenance,
utilities, credits for gasoline recovery and capital related changes. Credits
for gasoline recovery in vapor recovery units have been calculated based upon
an emission factor of 600 rrig/liter for top-submerged or bottom loading, an
achievable emission level of 80 mg/liter with vapor control and a recovered
gasoline value of $.10/liter (F.O.B. terminal before tax). Assumed cost
factors for model terminal cost estimates are summarized in Table 4-1. All
annualized cost estimates are for a one-year period commencing with the second
quarter of 1977.
4.2 VAPOR CONTROL AT LOADING RACKS
4.2.1 Model Terminal Parameters
Technical parameters used for the model existing 950,000 1iters/day
and 1.900,000 liters/day terminals are based upon those obtained through Ll'A
source testing and questionnaires. Estimates of maximum instantaneous vapor
generation rates were used in sizing both vapor recovery and thermal oxidation
systems. For a given terminal size these rates are based upon the number of
loading arms and their respective pumping capacities. It has been assumed that
4-2
-------
Table 4-1, COST FACTORS USED IN DEVELOPING ANNUALIZED
COST ESTIMATES LOR MODEL TERMINALS
Utilities:
- Electricity
- Propane (oxidizer pilot only)
Maintenance (percent of capital cost)1
- Refrigeration vapor recovery
- CRA vapor recovery
- Oxidizer
$.01/10 joules
$3.30/109 joules
3 percent
3 percent
2 percent
Capital charges (percent of capital cost):
- Refrigeration, CRA or oxidizer system 13 percent'
plus
- Taxes, insurance and administrative overhead 4 percent
G««o"l 1 ne value (recovered) FOB termin&l
before tax:
$.10/1 iter
dBased upon reported costs for actual installations
Calculated using capital recovery factor formula assuming 15 year equipmen
life and !U percent interest rate.
cQiI Daily - May 1977.
-------
pumps are rated at 1900 liters/minute. Although it appears to be common
practice to oversize vapor control units to accomodate projected growth,
no attempt has been made to include such a factor into model terminal costs.
Emission reductions and gasoline recoveries (where applicable) were
calculated using the following emission factors:
Top-submerged or bottom loading 6U0 mg/liter loadeu
Vapor recovery or incineration 80 mg/liter loaded
As mentioned in Section 2.2, the 600 mg/1 emission factor
cited above for loading assumes about 50 percent saturation of vapors in
the tanker prior to loading. Should trucks be vapor balanced prior to
terminal loading, Section 2.2 estimates uncontrolled vapor emissions at
1400 mg/liter loaded. Under these conditions, gasoline recovery credits and
vapor emission reductions presented for model terminals would be increased
proportionately. Conversely, recovery credits and emission reductions can
be reduced if vapor capture is not maintained. Factors affecting capture
have been discussed in Section 2.1.
4.2.2 Control Costs (Model Terminals)
Estimates of control costs for vapor recovery or incineration at two
model terminal sizes are presented in Table 4-2. As evidenced by these
estimates, for a given terminal size, thermal oxidation systems are generally
less expensive to purchase, install, and operate than vapor recovery units
(VRU). However, gasoline recoveries associated with VRU's help to recoup
these expenses to the extent that net annualized costs, i.e., direct operating
plas capital charges less recovered gasoline credits, are generally lower for
VRU's than oxidizers. As depicted later in the discussion of cost-effectiveness
for these systems, as gasoline recoveries diminish at lower gasoline throughputs
the net annualized costs for VRU's and oxidizers approach parity.
4-4
-------
Table 4-2. CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR MODEL EXISTING TERMINALS2'3'4'5'6
950,000 liters/day Terminal9
(Two rack positions and three products per rack )
Rack Desiqn
Top-Submerged or
Bottom Fill
Control System
Refrigeration
' CRA
Oxidizer
Installed Capital Cost ($000)
176
194
140
Direct Operating Cost ($000/yr):
Utili ties
Maintenance
Capital Charges ($000/yr)
Gasoline (credit) ($000/yr)
6.0
5.3
30.0
(21.4)
3.9
5.8
33.0
.{2LA1
3.2
2.8
23.8
_Q_
Net Annualized Cost (credit)
($000/yr)
19.9
21.3
29.8
Controlled Emissions (Mg/yr)
Emission Reduction {%)
150
87
150
87
150
87
Cost (credit) per Mg of HC'
controlled ($/Mg)
133
142
199
1,900,000 liters/day Terminal
(Thr?° rack po^i'tinns and three products per rack)
Rack Design
Top-Submerged or
Bottom Fill
Control System
Refrigeration
CRA
Oxidizer
Installed Capital Cost ($000)
264
310
202
Direct Operating Cost ($G00/yr):
Utilities
Maintenance
Capital Charges ($000/yr)
Gasoline (cretivc) ($000/y.')
12.0
7.9
44.9
(42.3)
7.8
9.3
52.7
(^2.8 )
6.4
4.0
34.3
0
Net Annualized Cost (credit)
($000/yr)
22.0
27.0
44.7
Controlled Emissions (Mg/yr)'5
Emission Reduction {%)
300
87
300
87
300
87
Cost (credit) per Mg of HC
controlled ($/Mg)
73
90
149
Average gasoline loaded daily
'l Mg = 1000 Kg = 2205 pounds
truck modification costs not included.
4-5
-------
Some terminals decide to convert top loading racks to bottom loading in
conjunction with vapor recovery or incineration system installations. They
will incur capital costs of about $80,000 per rack if extensive modifications
4
are required. These conversions enhance safety and operational characteris-
tics of the loading racks but are not considered to be necessary for vapor
control at terminals.
4.2.3 Cost-Effectiveness (Model Terminals)
Figure 4-1 graphically depicts the estimated cost-effectiveness of
vapor recovery (average of refrigeration and CRA values) and incineration
for top submerged or bottom loading of gasoline for the range of gasoline
throughputs indicated. Although the same emission rate (post-control) has
been assumed for vapor recovery and thermal oxidizer units, i.e,, 80 mg/liter3
EPA test data summarized in Table 3-2 indicates that much lower mass emission
rates are achievable with incineration,. Therefore, actual cost-effectiveness
values for incineration may be lower than those presented in Table 4-2 and
Figure 4-1. As depicted in Figure 4-1, vapor recovery units appear more cost
effective than thermal oxidizers for most terminal sizes considered.
The apparent convergence of cost effectiveness curves for VRU's and
oxidizers at gasoline throughputs of about 100,000 liters per day is note-
worthy. It is emphasized that these curves reflect conservative estimates of
cost-effectiveness. Using the 1400 mg/liter emission factor for tank trucks
that have been vapor-balanced prior to loading (Section 2.2) would increase the
spread between these two curves. For vapor recovery systems net annualized costs
would decrease and emissions controlled would increase. The overall effect for
larger terminal sizes would be a credit ($) for vapor recovery systems. Incin-
eration cost effectiveness values would only be impacted by greater emission reductions.
4-6
-------
520
480
440
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
Figure 4-1. Cost-Effectivanes 'or Hydrocarbon Control
at Existing Gasoirrre Tank Truck Terminals
Thermal Oxidizers
Vapor Recovery Units
200
600
80C 1000 1200 1400 1600
Gasoline Loaded (1000 liters/day)
1800
-------
4
Table 4-3. ACTUAL CONTROL COSTS FOR BOTTOM FILL TERMINALS
(Second quarter 1S77 dollars)
1000 liters/day
492
598
1101
1230
1703
1930
(1000 gal/day)
130
158
231
325
450
510
Number of Racks
2
1
3
4
3
3
Control Technique
RF
RF
OX
CRA
CRA
RF
Installed Capital ($000)
126
126
153
192
282
265
Direct Operating Costs ($000/yr)
10.5
6.5
9.8
5.4
16.1
15.2
Capital Charges ($000/yr)
21.4
21.4
26.0
32.6
47.9
45.1
Gasoline Recovery Credit ($000/vr)
(4,8)
(12.8)
0
(19.2)
(15.8)
(17.8)
Net annualized Cost/(credit)
($000/yr)
27.1
15.1
35.8
18.8
48.2
42.5
Controlled Emissions (Mg/yr)
47
100
297
133
122
104
Cost/(credit) per Mg of HC
controlled ($/Mg)
577
151
162
141
395
408
-------
In no case would net annualized costs for incineration be a credit to the
terminal. The difference between vapor recovery and incineration cost-
effectiveness values would still be the smallest for terminals with low
gasoline throughputs.
4.2.4 Actual Costs - Comparison to Model Estimates
Capital and operating costs for vapor control systems, gasoline recoveries
and gasoline throughput information were obtained from actual terminal
installations. Reported information is presented in Table 4-3. Since
capital charges were not reported they were estimated based upon the factors
and method included in Table 4-1.
A comparison of model and actual costs indicates reasonable correlation
with respect to capital and annual direct operating costs. Gasoline recoveries
are generally lower than EPA estimates for comparable model terminal sizes.
Psr-Horc + hat hr» ("CIS i when attempt inn to v^p^nnrilp thocp Hi^rpo-
pancies are addressed in Section 2.1 and will not be repeated here. Cost
effectiveness ratios for vapor control at actual terminal installations agree
with Figure 4-1 values for some terminals and exhibit extreme variances at
other si/i?s. Discrepancies again are linked to lower gasoline recoveries for
these actual terminals than those predicted using EPA factors.
Finally, it has been assumed throughout this chapter that, as a minimum,
loading racks are designed for top-submerged or bottom loading. However, it
is not unusual for actual terminal installations to splash load when incor-
porating a CRA vapor recovery unit. This insures saturation of vapors prior
Lo the compression stage. Costs for the CRA unit on top splash fill terminals
should be simi lar to those depicted in Table 4-2 for top-subtrkir-jc J or bottom-fill
terminalb provided the tank trucks have been vapor balanced prior to loading
5 7
at the terminal. '
4-9
-------
A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline Marketing: Volume I -
Industry Survey and Control Techniques. Radian Corporation, Austin,
Texas. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1319, April 1975.
Ibid, Volume II, Appendix.
Edwards Hydrocarbon Vapor Recovery Units for Terminals (Pricing and
technical literature) flay 1977.
Responses to EPA questionnaires sent to operators of gasoline bulk
terminals employing vapor recovery or incineration and tested by
EPA in 1976.
Comments received on May 15, 1977, draft document titled Control of
Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals.
Personal communication from Triff Psyhojas, AER Corporation, Ramsey,
N.J. to John Pratapas, OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, February 1977.
Supplement No. 7 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors pp. 4.
through 4.4-10. April 1977.
4-10
-------
5.0 EFFECTS OF APPLYING THE TECHNOLOGY
The impacts on air pollution, water pollution, solid waste, and
energy are discussed in this chapter.
5.1 IMPACT OF CONTROL METHODS
The control methods described in Chapter 3.0 that minimize the
emission of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere during tank truck loading of
gasoline are bottom-fill, top-splash, or top-submerged fill with the tank
trucks vented to a vapor recovery or oxidation system. Their impact on air
pollution, water pollution, and solid waste and energy are as follows;
5•11 Air Pollution impacts
The estimated uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions in 1973 from tank
truck gasoline loading terminals (base case) were 300,000 metric tons per
1
year. This represents approximately 1.8 percent of the estimated 1975
total stationary source hydrocarbon emissions of 18 million metric tons
o
per year.'
Estimated emi ssions from equipment installed at terminals are
as follows: (1) top-submerged or bottom-fill - 600 nig/liter of gasoline
loaded; (2) top-submerged or bottom-fill with vapor recovery or
i,ic1 rn-ra ion - 80 mg/liter of gasoline loaded or less. The average
uncontrolled hydrocarbon loss for a 950,000 liter per day terminal is
600 kq/day.
T- ".ting of a thermal oxidizer by EPA indicated hydrocarfcor:
w " • f 1.32 mg/liter of gasoline loaded, nitrogen oxides "less
ts per million and carbon monoxide less than 3C part:
r"*'" Sulfur oxides were not determine! during the te':t
-------
period but are considered to be essentially nil.
5.1.2. Water and Solid Waste Impact
There are no significant solid or liquid wastes associated with the
control of loading of gasoline into tank trucks at tank truck terminals.
5.1.3. Energy Impact
The energy impact of vapor recovery systems at terminals is considered
minimal. Energy is required to drive compressors, pumps, and other equipment;
however, in many systems a valuable product is recovered that would other-
4
wise be lost into the atmosphere. In thermal oxidizer systems, additional
energy may be required in the form of gaseous fuel to convert the hydro-
carbon vapor to carbon dioxide and water. An estimated 13,000 liters of
propane per year were used in the oxidizer tested by EPA.
5.2 REFERENCES
1. "Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Petroleum Liquids,"
EPA-600/2-75-042, September 1975, pp. 3-5.
2. "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume I: Control Methods for Surface Coating Operations,"
EPA-450/2-76-028, November 1976, pp. 1, 11-12.
3. "Demonstration of Reduced Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline
Loading Terminals," EPA-650/2-75-042, June 1975, p. 10.
4. "A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline Marketing
Operations - Volume I: Industry Survey and Control Techniques." EPA-450/
3-75-046a, April 1975, pp. 89-115.
5. Op. cit., Gasoline Loading Terminals, p. 2.
5-2
-------
6.0 COMPLIANCE TEST METHOD AND MONITORING. TECHNIQUES
6.1 COMPLIANCE TEST METHOD
The recommended compliance test method as detailed in Appendix A
can be used to determine emissions from bulk terminal gasoline vapor control
equipment under conditions of loading leak-free tank trucks and trailers,
and leak-free operation of the vapor collection and processing systems.
Direct measurements of volume and concentration of vapor processor emissions
are made to calculate the total mass of vented hydrocarbons. This total
mass emitted is divided by the total volume of liquid gasoline loaded
during the test period to determine the mass emission factor.
To insure that the vapor collection and processor are operating under
leak-free conditions, qualitative monitoring should be conducted using a
combustible gas indicator to indicate any leakage from the tank truck or
trailer «~a.rgo compartments and all equipment associated with the control
system. Any incidence of direct hydrocarbon leakage would indicate that
corrective actions are required prior to further compliance testing.
The test period specification is intended to allow inclusion of the
typical daily variation in loading frequency in each repetition and three
repetition* are specified in order to include the normal day-to-day variations
in loading frequency.
For terminals employing intermittent vapor processing systems, each
test repetition must include at least one fully automatic operating cycle
of the vapor processing unit.
6-1
-------
This procedure is applicable to determining hydrocarbon emission
rates from systems serving tank truck or trailer loading only. For
those facilities employing a single control system to process vapors
generated from both tank truck and trailer loading and fixed roof
storage tank filling, no storage tank filling may occur during the
duration of test repetition.
Source testing may not be required after initial compliance
testing or if preconstruction review indicates the equipment will
achieve compliance. In such cases, the performance parameters of the
vapor control system would be checked and compared with compliance
tests of other installations using the same system design.
6.2 MONITORING TECHNIQUES
The vapor collection system and associated vapor control
equipment must be designed so that under maximum instantaneous loading
rates, the tank truck pressure relief valves will not vent.
An intermittent monitoring approach is recommended. In this
type of program, a portable hydrocarbon analyzer would be used to
determine the processing unit exhaust hydrocarbon concentration and a
combustible gas indicator would be used to detect any incidence of leaks
from the cargo tanks and vapor collection lines at specified intervals.
Such a procedure would require the establishment of a control
equipment exhaust concentration level at which the compliance with a
mass emission factor regulation is assured.
6-2
-------
There are currently available instruments that have a dual range of
0-100 percent LEL and 0-100 percent by volume of hydrocarbons as propane.
The cost of this type instrument is approximately $500. A disadvantage
of this type instrument is that the accuracy of the measurements at 4 to 5
percent hydrocarbon level is about + 20 percent. This may not provide
the precision necessary to differentiate between complying and non-
complying operation. It would, however, detect gross deviations from
design operation. An additional disadvantage is that comparative
calibrations would be necessary to relate the monitoring results to the
reference test procedure concentration measurements.
Portable hydrocarbon analyzers based on FID or NDIR principles are
also available at costs ranging from $1500-$4000. These instruments
have the advantage of being the most precise measurement techniques
available. Also, since these techniques are used for hydrocarbon
measurements in the reference procedure, no comparative testing is
necessary to establish relative accuracy of the monitoring technique.
For leak monitoring alone, many versions of combustible gas
indicators with 0-100 percent LEL spans are available. The cost of this
type of unit would range from $200 to $500 depending on the particular
vendor and instrument features.
In addition to the use of instruments monitoring control equipment
process variables ( principally temperature and pressure) can give a good
indication of performance. The primary variables of interest and the
approximate values that would indicate acceptable performance are listed
on page 3-1.
6-3
-------
6.3 AFFECTED FACILITY
In developing terminal regulations, 1t 1s suggested that the
affected facility be defined as the tank truck gasoline loading
stations and appurtenant equipment necessary to load the tank truck
compartments.
6.4 STANDARD FORMAT
It is recommended that the following provisions be written
into the tank truck gasoline terminal loading regulations.
1. Gasoline is not to be discarded in sewers or stored in
open containers or handled in any other manner that would result
in evaporation.
2. The allowable mass emissions of hydrocarbons from control
equipment are to be 80 milligrams per liter or less of gasoline
loaded.
3. Pressure in the vapor collection lines should not exceed
tank truck pressure relief valve settings.
Test procedures for determining allowable hydrocarbon
emissions are detailed in Appendix A.
6-4
-------
APPENDIX A
A. 1 EMISSION TEST PROCEDURE FOR TANK TRUCK GASOLINE LOADING TERMINALS
Hydrocarbon mass emissions are determined directly using flow meters
and hydrocarbon analysers. The volume of liquid gasoline dispensed is
determined by calculation based on the metered quantity of gasoline at the
loading rack. Test results are expressed in milligrams of hydrocarbons
emitted per liter of gasoline transferred.
A.2 APPLICABILITY
This method is applicable to determining hydrocarbon emission rates
at tank truck gasoline loading terminals employing vapor balance collection
systems and either continuous or intermittent vapor processing devices.
This method is applicable to motor tank truck and trailer loading only.
A.3 DEFINITIONS
3•1 Tank Truck Gasoline Terminal
A primary distribution point for delivering gasoline to bulk plants,
service stations, and other distribution points, where the total gasoline
throughput is greater than 76,000 liters/day.
3.2 Loading Rack
An aggregation or combination of gasoline loading equipment arranged
so that all loading outlets in the combination can be connected to a tank
truck or trailer parked in a specified loading space.
3.3 Vapor Balance Collection System
A-l
-------
A vapor transport system which uses direct displacement by the liquid
loaded to force vapors from the tank truck otr trailer Into the recovery
system.
3.4 Continuous Vapor Processing Device
A hydrocarbon vapor control system that treats vapors from tank trucks
or trailers on a demand basis without intermediate accumulation.
3.5 Intermittent Vapor Processing Device
A hydrocarbon vapor control system that employs an intermediate vapor
holder to accumulate recovered vapors from tank trucks or trailers. The
processing unit treats the accumulated vapors only during automatically
controlled cycles.
A.4 SUMMARY OF THE METHOD
This method describes the test conditions and test procedures to be
followed in determining the emissions from systems installed to control
hydrocarbon vapors resulting from tank truck and trailer loading operations
at bulk terminals. Under this procedure, direct measurements are made to
calculate the hydrocarbon mass exhausted from the vapor processing equipment.
All possible sources of leaks are qualitatively checked to insure that no
unprocessed vapors are emitted to the atmosphere. The results are expressed
in terms of mass hydrocarbons emitted per unit volume of gasoline transferred.
Emissions are determined on a total hydrocarbon basis. If methane is present
in the vapors returned from the tank trucks or trailers, provisions are
included for conversion to a total non-methane hydrqQar&qr) basis.
A.5 TEST SCOPE AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO TEST
5.1 Test Period
The elapsed time during which the test 1s performed shatl 1 not be less
A-2
-------
than three 8-hour test repetitions.
5.2 Terminal Status During Test Period
The test procedure is designed to measure control system performance
under conditions of normal operation. Normal operation will vary from
terminal-to-terminal and from day-to-day. Therefore, no specific criteria
can be set forth to define normal operation. The following guidelines are
provided to assist in determining normal operation.
5.2.1 Closing of Loading Racks
During the test period, all loading racks shall be open for each product
line which is controlled by the system under test. Simultaneous use of more
than one loading rack shall occur to the extent that such use would normally
occur.
5.2.2 Simultaneous use of more than one dispenser on each loading rack
shall occur to the extent that such use would normally occur.
5.2.3 Dispensing rates shall be set at the maximum rate at which the
equipment is designed to be operated. Automatic product dispensers are
to be used according to normal operating practices.
5.3 Vapor Control System Status During Teists
Applicable operating parameters shall be monitored to demonstrate that
the processing unit is operating at design levels. For intermittent vapor
processing units employing a vapor holder, each test repetition shall include
at least one fully automatic operation cycle of the vapor holder and processing
device. Tank trucks shall be essentially leak free as determined by EPA Mobile
Source Enforcement Division.
A.6 BASIC MEASUREMENTS AND EQUIPMENT REQUIRED
6.1 Basic measurements required for evaluation of emissions from gasoline
bulk loading terminals are described below. The various sampling points
A-3
-------
are numbered in Figure 1.
Sample Point
1. Gasoline dispensers
2. Vapor Return Line
3. Processing unit exhaust
Measurements Necessary
- Amount dispensed
- Leak check all fittings
- Temperature of vapors exhausted
- Press.of vapors exhausted
- Volume of vapors exhausted
- HC concentration of vapors
*
- Gas chromatograph analysis of HC
- Leak check all fittings and vents
6.2 The equipment required for the basic measurements are listed below:
Sample Point
Miscellaneous
Equipment and Specifications
1 portable combustible gas detector,
(0-100% LEL)
1 flexible thermocouple with recorder
1 gas volume meter, appropriately sized
for exhaust flow rate and range
1 total hydrocarbon analyzer with recorder;
(FID or NDIR type, equipped to read out
0-101 by volume hydrocarbons as propane
for vapor recovery processing device; or,
0-10,000 ppmv HC as propane for incin-
eration processing devices)
1 portable combustible gas detector (0-1001
LEL)
1 barometer
1 GC/FID w^jolumn to separate C, - C,
alkanes
Required if methane is present in recovered vapors
Required if methane is present in recovered vapors or if incineration 1s
the vapor processing technique.
A-4
-------
A. 7 TEST PROCEDURES
7.1 Preparation for testing includes:
7.1.1 Instal1 an appropriately sized gas meter on the exhaust vent of
the vapor processing device. A gas volume meter can be used at the exhaust
of most vapor recovery processing devices. For those where size restrictions
preclude the use of a volume meter; or when incineration is used for vapor
processing, a gas flow rate meter (orifice, pi tot tube annubar, etc.) is
necessary. At the meter inlet, instal1 a thermocouple with recorder. Install
a tap at the volume meter outlet. Attach a sample line for a total hydro-
carbon analyzer (0-10% as propane) to this tap. If the meter pressure is
different than barometric pressure, install a second tap at the meter outlet
and attach an appropriate manometer for pressure measurement. If methane
analysis is required, install a third tap for connection to a constant volume
*
sample pump/evacuated bag assembly.
7.1.2 Calibrate and span all instruments as outlined in Section 9.
7.2 Measurements and data required for evaluating the system emissions
include:
7.2.1 At the beginning and end of each test repetition, record the volume
readings on each product dispenser on each loading rack served by the system
under test,
7.2.2 At the beginning of each test repetition and each two hours thereafter,
record the ambient temperature and the barometric pressure.
7.2.3 For intermittent processing units employing a vapor holder, the unit
shall be manually started and allowed to process vapors in the holder until
the lower automatic cut-off is reached. This cycle should be performed
immediately prior to the beginning of the test repetition before reading in
7.2.1 are taken. No loading shall be in progress during this manual cycle.
Described in Method 3, Federal Register, V36, n247, December 23, 1971.
A-5
-------
7.2.4 For each cycle of the processing unit during each test repetition,
record the processor start and stop time, the initial and final gas meter
readings, and the average vapor temperature, pressure and hydrocarbon
concentration. If a flow rate meter is used, record flow meter readouts
continuously during the cycle. If required, extract a sample continuously
during each cycle for chromatographic analysis for specific hydrocarbons.
7.2.5 For each tank truck or trailer loading during the test period, check
all fittings and seals on the tanker compartments with the combustible gas
detector. Record the maximum combustible gas reading for any incidents of
leakage of hydrocarbon vapors. Explore the entire periphery of the potential
leak source with the sample hose inlet 1 cm away from the interface.
7.2.6 During each test period, monitor all possible sources of leaks in
the vapor collection and processing system with the combustible gas indicator.
Record the location and combustible gas reading for any incidents of leakage.
7.2.7 For intermittent systems, the processing unit shall be manually
started and allowed to process vapors in the holder until the lower automatic
shut-off is reached at the end of each test repetition. Record the data in
7.2.4 for this manual cycle. No loading shall be in progress during this
manual cycle.
A. 8 CALCULATIONS
8.1 Terminology
T = Ambient temperature (°C)
a
= Barometric pressure (mm Hg)
L. = Total volume of liquid dispensed from all controlled
racks during the test period (liters)
V = Volume of air-hydrocarbon mixture exhausted from the
processing unit (M )
A-6
-------
V = Normalized volume of air-hydrocarbon mixture exhausted,
es NM3 (s> 20°C, 760 mmHg
C = Volume fraction of hydrocarbons in exhausted mixture
(volume % as CoH-,n/100, corrected for methane content
if required
Te = Temperature at processing unit exhaust (°C)
Pe = Pressure at processing unit exhaust (mm Hg abs)
(M/L) = Mass of hydrocarbons exhausted from the processing unit
per volume of liquid loaded, (mg/1)
8.2 Processing Unit Emissions
Calculate the following results for each period of processing unit
operation:
8.2.1 Volume of air-hydrocarbon mixture exhausted from the processing
unit:
Ve = Vef " Vei>or
-------
Administrator to calibrate the gas meters.
9.2 Temperature Recording Instruments
Calibrate prior to the test period and following the test period using
an ice bath (0°C) and a known reference temperature source of about 35°C.
Baily during the test period, use an accurate reference to measure the
ambient temperature and compare the ambient temperature reading of all
other instruments to this value.
9* 3 Total hydrocarbon analyzer
Follow the manufacturer's instructions concerning warm-up and adjust-
ments. Prior to and immediately after the emission test, perform a
comprehensive laboratory calibration on each analyzer used. Calibration
gases should be propane in nitrogen prepared gravimetrically with mass
quantities of approximately 100 percent propane. A calibration curve
shall be provided using a minimum of five prepared standards in the range
of concentrations expected during testing.
For each repetition, zero with zero gas (3 ppm C) and span with 70%
propane for instruments used in the vapor return lines and with 10%
propane for instruments used at the control device exhaust.
The zero and span procedure shall be performed at least once prior to
the first test measurement, once during the middle of the run, and once
foil owing the final test measurement for each run.
Conditions in calibration gas cylinders must be kept such that con-
densation of propane does not occur. A safety factor of 2 for pressure and
temperature is recommended.
A-8
-------
Vent
U_£LO_Q
Liquid FupI
Return
Vapor
Gasoline dispenser test point
Tank truck vapor collection test point
Vapor control unit test point
©
Fuel From
Storage
-//-
Vapor
Control
Unit
Figure A-l. Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Vapor Control Schematic
-------
Table A-l GASOLINE BULK TRANSFER TERMINAL DATA SHEET No.
Terminal Name: ,
Location:
Date:
Daily Ambient Data: (record every 2 hours)
Time
Start:
End:
Schematic Diagram of Rack
Layout
Dispenser Meter Readings
Time
Pump No. initial Final
Time
Pump No.
Initial Final
A-10
(,
-------
GASOLINE BULK TRANSFER TERMINAL CONTROL SYSTEM DATA SHEET No. 2
Terminal Name:
Location:
Date:
Control Device Outlet
Gas meter readings Initial
Time Test Start
Final
Test End
Record the following for each processing unit operating cycle or emission period.
Time
Start
Stop
Volume Reading
Average
HC Concentration
Final Temperature Pressure % as
A-ll
-------
Appendix B
R.l SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR TANK TRUCK GASOLINE LOADING TERMINAL
VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM TESTING
The following discussion summarizes the results of the five terminal
tests conducted by EPA, These results are presented in Table B-l. The
nomenclature used in the table is explained below.
1* {V/L)r - Average volumetric recovery factor; this is the
actual volume of vapors that were returned from
the tank trucks divided by the volume of liquid
gasoline loaded,
2. (M/L)r - Average mass recovery factor; the mass of hydro-
carbons that were returned from the tank trucks
divided by the volume loaded.
3. (V/1")D " Average potential volumetric recovery factor; the
r
volume of vapors returned divided by the volume of
liquid loaded under conditions of no vapor leakage
from the tank trucks.
4. (M/L)p - Average potential mass recovery factor; a calculated
result that represents the mass of hydrocarbons that
would have been returned from the tank truck if no
leaks had occurred, divided by the volume of liquid
loaded.
B-l
-------
5. (M/L)-j - Average tank truck leakage; the mass of hydrocarbons
leaked directly to the atmosphere during loading
divided by the liquid volume loaded. This result
is obtained by subtracting (2) from (4).
6. (M/L)e - Processor emission factor; the mass of hydrocarbons
exhausted from the processing unit divided by the
total volume of gasoline loaded into tank trucks.
7. E - Processor efficiency; the hydrocarbon mass recovery
r
efficiency for the vapors processed. Calculated
using (6) and (2).
8. (M/L)^ - Total system emission factor; the sum of the
processor emission factor(6) plus the leakage
emission factor (5).
9. Es - Total system efficiency; the hydrocarbon mass
recovery efficiency for the total system. Includes
the impact of incomplete vapor collection at the
tank trucks and the processor efficiency. Calculated
using the total system emission factor (8) and the
potential mass recovery factor (4).
10. (M/L) * - Leakless total system emission factor; an extra-
polated estimate of the processor (system) emission
factor if no leaks occurred at the tank trucks.
Calculated using the potential mass recovery
factor (4) and the processor efficiency (7).
In some cases, it was necessary to modify the calculation procedures
in order to evaluate the systems. Comments about the results for the
individual facilities are given below.
B-2
-------
1. Facilities A, B, and E - All reported results are calculated
directly from the test data. Sufficient information was available to allow
the procedures specified in the emission test procedure to be followed,
2. Facility C - The calculated results for actual returned vapor
factors and processor emissions are derived directly from the data.
There were noloadings which met the leakless criteria, therefore, it was
necessary to use those loadings with the lowest explosimeter readings during
loading. In no case did the explosimeter readings exceed 100 percent LEL
for those loadings selected to calculate a potential volumetric recovery
factor. This estimated potential volumetric recovery factor was then used
to calculate the potential mass recovery factor, the mass leakage rate,
the total system emissions, the total system efficiency and the leakless
system emission factor. The best estimate for the validity of these
calculations can be made by comparing the calculated potential volumetric
recovery factor to those obtained during testing at the other facilities.
From this comparison, the estimate for this facility is not inconsistent
with the other results.
A reliability factor of about 10 percent is probably a good estimate
of the validity of the subsequent mass factors. The impact on the
efficiency calculations wil1 be less since ratios of - mass factors are
used.
3. Facility D - There were no leakless gasoline loadings at this
facility during testing, therefore, the comments for Facility C are applicable.
In addition, it was necessary to assume that the filling of the
storage tanks from the pipeline generated no excess vapors. (Excess vapors
are defined as that volume of vapor displaced that is in excess of the
volume of liquid transferred.) In other words, the lifter tank simply rose
B-3
-------
due to the liquid level change in the tanks. Thus, all vapors placed into
the storage tanks came from tank trucks. In actual practice, some additional
vapors may be generated during storage tank filling, but the above assumption
allows a more direct calculation and more representative data comparison
with the other facilities. In this model, the mass emission factor due to
storage tank filling is assigned a value of zero. The volume of gasoline
transferred to the storage tank is then irrelevant. All processor emissions
are assigned to tank truck loading and the total volume of liquid loaded
into trucks is used for emission factor calculations.
The only impact that this assumption would have would be in the
estimation of the system total potential emissions and the controlled
system emissions assuming no leaks. This is due to the methametical
deletion of the contribution of storage tank-filling excess vapors. Since
these excess vapors are not expected to be greater than 2 to 3 volume
percent, the final impact on the calculated results is insignificant.
B-4
-------
Table B-l. SUMMARY OF EPA TANK TRUCK GASOLINE LOADING TERMINAL
VAPOR RECOVERY TESTS
Terminals
Average results
A
B
C
D
F
1.
(V/L)r, m3/m3
0.418
0.752
0.786
0.844
0.903
2.
(M/L)r, mg/liter
107.3
236.7
486.9
554.0
318.9
3.
(V/L)p, m3/m3
0.920
1.012
0.925
1.079
1.081
4.
(M/L) , mg/liter
222.5
337.6
576.0
693.5
365.1
5.
(M/L)-|, mg/1 iter
115.2
100.9
86.7
154.6
46.0
6.
(M/L) , mg/i'iter
31.2
37.0
33.6
43.3
62.6
7.
Ep, %
70.9
84.4
93.1
92.1
80.4
8.
(M/L)t, rug/1 iter
146.4
137.9
120.2
197.9
100.6
9.
Es %
34.2
59.2
79.5
71 .5
70.3
0.
(M/L)e*, mg/liter
64.7
52.8
40.9
54.7
71.6
B-5
-------
B. 2 REFERENCE
Summary of Results for Bulk Terminal Testing, EPA internal memorandum
from Winton Kelly, EMB, to William Polglase, CPB, dated April 16, 1977.
B-6
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before compleWin)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/2-77-026
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESS I Of* N O.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Control of Hydrocarbons From Tank Truck Gasoline
Loading Terminals
5. REPORT DATE
October, 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
William Polglase, ESED
Winton Kelly, ESED
John Pratapas
, SASD
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
OAQPS No. 1.2-082
9. performing organization name and address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report provides the necessary guidance for development of regulations
to limit emissions of volatile organic sources (VOC) of hydrocarbons from tank
truck gasoline loading operations. This guidance includes an emission limit
which represents reasonable available control technology (RACT), an analytical
technique for determining the emissions from control equipment, and cost analysis
for evaluating cost effectiveness of tank truck gasoline loading terminal controls.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
e. cosati Field/Group
Air Pollution
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Operations
Emission Limits
Regulatory Guidance
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Organic Vapors
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. no. of pages
60
Unlimited
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tilts page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
ENV!" MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ichnical Publications Branch
Office of Administration
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA - 335
SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE
BOOK
Return this sheet if you do NOT wish to receive this material I I
or if change of address is needed I I. (indicate change, including
ZIP code.)
PUBLICATION NO. EPA-450/2-77-026
(OAQPS NO. 1.2-082)
------- |