EPA-450/3-78-017
HYDROCARBON CONTROL STRATEGIES
GASOLINE MARKETING OPERATIONS
by
R.L. Norton, R.R. Sakaida,
and M.M. Yamada
Contract No. 68-02-2606
EPA Project No. 13
EPA Project Officer: Charles F. Kleeberg
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management :
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 1978
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., 1930 14th Street, Santa Monica,
California 90404, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2606. The contents
of this report are reproduced herein as received from Pacific Environmental
Services, Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-78-017
11
-------
PREFACE
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95-95)
require the Environmental Protection Agency to make available
to appropriate federal agencies, states, and air pollution con-
trol agencies, information regarding processes, procedures, and
methods to reduce or control vapor emissions from fuel transfer
and storage operations [Section 108(f)(l)(A)(ii)]. This report
is an informational document on gasoline marketing operations
and the evaluation of applicable hydrocarbon emission control
strategies. The primary intent is to provide basic and current
information to those who have little knowledge of the subject
area. A bibliography, which should be consulted for supple-
mentary information, is included.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This informational document provides basic and current
descriptions of gasoline marketing operations and methods that
are available to control hydrocarbon emissions from these opera-
tions. The three types of facilities that are described are
terminals, bulk plants, and service stations. Operational and
business trends are also discussed. Emissions from typical
facilities, including transport trucks, are estimated.
The operations which lead to emissions from these facilities
include (1) gasoline storage, (2) gasoline loading at terminal
and bulk plants, (3) gasoline delivery to bulk plants and ser-
vice stations, and (4) the refueling of vehicles at service sta-
tions.
Available and possible methods for controlling emissions are
described with their estimated control efficiencies and costs.
The costs for control of a unit weight of hydrocarbon are calculated
from these estimates.
This report also includes a bibliography of references cited
in the text, and supplementary sources of information.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 SUMMARY ,...1-1
1.1 Emissions Estimates .. , 1-1
1.2 Control Technology .. 1-1
1.2.1 Terminals 1-2
1.2.2 Bulk Plants ., 1-2
1.2.3 Service Stations 1-2
1.2.4 Delivery Trucks 1-2
1.3 Cost-Effectiveness 1-3
2.0 GASOLINE MARKETING OPERATIONS 2-1
2.1 Description 2-1
2.1.1 Terminals 2-1
2.1.2 Bulk Plants 2-6
2.1.3 Service Stations .2-6
2.2 Potential Emission Sources 2-9
2.2.1 Gasoline Storage 2-9
2.2.2 Gasoline Transfer ........... 2-10
2.2.3 Gasoline Transport 2-12
2.3 Potential Emissions From Typical Facilities 2-12
2.3.1 Terminals 2-13
2.3.2 Bulk Plants 2-17
2.3.3 Service Stations 2-17
2.3.4 Trucks in Transit 2-17
2.4 Market Trends 2-20
2.4.1 Terminals 2-20
2.4.2 Bulk Plants 2-21
2.4.3 Service Stations 2-22
References 2-26
3.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES 3-1
3.1 Terminals 3-1
3.1.1 Storage Control Strategies 3-1
-------
Section page
3.1.2 Outgoing Transfer 3.5
3.2 Bulk Plants 3.12
3.2.1 Control Strategies for Incoming Transfer .. 3-12
3.2.2 Control Strategies for Storage Tanks ...... 3-15
3.2.3 Control Strategies for Outgoing Transfers.. 3-16
3.3 Service Stations 3-19
3.3.1 Delivery of Gasoline to the Service Station 3-21
3.3.2 Automobile Refueling 3-22
3.4 Delivery Trucks 3-30
References , 3,3]
4.0 REVIEW OF CONTROL STRATEGIES AT TERMINALS 4-1
4.1 Safety Requirements . 4.1
4.2 Efficiencies 40
4.3 costs .".'!!.*!!.'!!.'!!." 4-5
4.3.1 Capital Costs . 4.5
4.3.2 Annualized Costs and Cost-Effectiveness.'! 4-7
4.4 Energy and Environmental Impacts 4.7
References 4_-j 1
5.0 REVIEW OF CONTROL STRATEGIES AT BULK PLANTS 5-1
5.1 Safety Requirements 5«1
5.2 Efficiencies \\[ 5.]
5.2.1 Submerged Fill 5_1
5.2.2 Vapor Balance System 5-1
5.3 Costs 5_2
5.3.1 Capital Costs 5-2
5.3.2 Operation Maintenance Costs 5-5
5.3.3 Sources and Variability of Cost Data
for Vapor Balance Systems 5-6
5.3.4 Annualized Costs and Cost-Effectiveness .. 5-6
5.4 Energy and Environmental Impacts 5-6
References 5_g
-------
Section
6.0 REVIEW OF CONTROL STRATEGIES AT SERVICE STATIONS
6-1
6.1 Safety Requirements 6-1
6.2 Efficiencies 6-2
6.2.1 Stage I 6-2
. 6.2.2 Stage II ., 6-3
6.3 Costs 6-4
6.3.1 Capital Costs 6-4
6.3.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs 6-7
6.3.3 Annualized Costs and Cost-Effectiveness . 6-7
6.4 Energy and Environmental Impacts ......... :. 6-10
References 6-15
7.0 ASSESSMENT OF CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR GASOLINE
DELIVERY TRUCKS 7-1
7.1 Safety Requirements 7-1
7.2 Efficiency 7-1
7.3 Costs 7-1
7.3.1 Capital Costs 7-1
7.3.2 Cost-Effectiveness 7-2
7.4 Impacts - Conservation of Gasoline 7-2
References 7-4
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 8-1
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2-1 Demand and Sales of Gasoline 2-3
2-2 Number of Facilities , 2-4
2-3 Bottom Loading at Terminals 2-5
2-4 Types of Service Stations 2-8
2-5 Total National Hydrocarbon Emissions, 1975 2-14
2-6 Emissions From Gasoline Marketing Operations 2-15
2-7 Potential Emissions From Gasoline Terminals 2-16
2-8 Potential Emissions From Bulk Plants 2-18
2-9 Potential Hydrocarbon Emissions From Service Stations 2-19
2-10 Service Station Trends - 2-23
2-11 New and Deactivated Service Stations 2-24
2-12 Duration of Self-Service Operations by Lundberg
Survey Respondents 2-24
4-1 Summary of Storage Tank Costs. 4-5
4-2 Cost of Retrofitting an Existing Fixed-Roof Tank
With an Internal Floating Roof 4-5
4-3 Costs of Vapor Control Systems for Existing
Terminals 4-8
4-4 Annualized Control Cost Estimates for Model
Existing Terminals 4-9
5-1 Overview of Installed Capital Costs for Vapor
Balance Systems for Bulk Plants 5-3
5-2 Estimates of Annualized Costs and Cost-Effectiveness
for a Typical Bulk Plant 5-7
6-1 Cost Summary for Vapor Balance Systems 6-5
6-2 Cost Summary for Vacuum-Assist Systems 6-6
6-3 Cost Summary for Hybrid Systems 6-8
6-4 Average Capital Costs for Vapor Recovery Systems .... 6-9
6-5 Estimates of Annual O&M Costs for Vapor
Recovery Systems , 6-9
6-6 Annualized Cost Estimates and Cost-Effectiveness
for Service Stations Using Balance System 6-11
6-7 Annualized Cost Estimates and Cost-Effectiveness
for Service Stations Using Vacuum-Assist System ..... 6-12
6-8 Annualized Cost Estimates and Cost-Effectiveness for
Service Stations Using Hybrid Systems 6-13
7-1 Estimated Hydrocarbon Savings and Losses From Tank
Truck Transit Under Controlled Conditions 7-3
viii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Page
2-1 Gasoline Marketing Operations and Emission Sources .
3-1 Floating Roof Sealing Mechanism ,.
3-2 Lifter Roof Tank With Liquid Seal
3-3 Flexible Diaphragm Tank
3-4 Top-Loading Arm ....»
3-5 Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption (CRA) System ..
3-6 Compression-Refrigeration-Condensation (CRC) System.
3-7 Refrigeration System
3-8 Top-Loading Vapor Recovery Arm ....
3-9 Top-Loading Vapor Recovery System ...
3-10 Vapor Balance Systems ............,............
3-11 Balance System Vapor Recovery Nozzle .
3-12 Direct Incineration System .......
3-13 Aspirator-Assist System
2-2
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-7
3-10
3-11
3-13
3-18
3-20
3-23
3-25
3-27
3-29
IX
-------
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
This report provides a source of information for those
interested in gasoline marketing operations and the control of
hydrocarbon emissions therefrom. Marketing operations considered
in this document include those at gasoline terminals, bulk plants,
and service stations, and the truck deliveries between these faci-
lities. This report describes these facilities and operations,
with respect to their position in the marketing chain, size, and
operational and marketing trends.
1.1 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Estimates of typical annual hydrocarbon emissions from gaso-
line marketing operations are: terminals, 690,000 tons; bulk plants,
200,000 tons; service stations, 530,000 tons; and truck transporta-
tation, 30,000 tons. These emissions account for almost 5 percent
of the total national hydrocarbon emission estimates.
1.2 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Control technologies applicable to the different marketing
operations, particularly service stations, are continually being
tested and improved. Emission factors which have been accepted and
utilized for years have come under investigation and are currently
being updated. The most rapid changes are occurring with respect to
Stage II controls at service stations. These controls are utilized
to minimize emissions of gasoline vapors during automobile refueling.
Although attempts have been made to utilize the most current infor-
mation available, costs, control efficiencies, and practical applica-
bility of Stage II systems are subject to change during the course
of publication of this report. Applicable emission control
1-1
-------
techniques are discussed in detail for each of the different
marketing operations. Safety requirements, control efficiencies,
and costs are provided for the systems discussed.
1.2.1 TERMINALS
Floating roof tanks and vapor recovery units, in conjunction
with a vapor collection system from loading racks and fixed-roof
tanks, are favored control techniques used at terminals. These and
other available control techniques are being constantly improved and
can provide 90 percent control of emissions.
1.2.2 BULK PLANTS
Of the alternative control technologies available, the vapor
balance system and the submerged fill of tanks and trucks are used
almost exclusively for emissions control at bulk plants. Over 90
percent control of emissions from transfer operations is possible.
1.2.3 SERVICE STATIONS
Submerged fill of the storage tanks and a balance system are
the predominant control technology used in the delivery of gasoline
to service stations. The control efficiency is 95 percent or more.
Several systems are currently available for automobile refueling
(Stage II). These include the vapor balance, vacuum assist, and
the hybrid systems. The vapor balance system can attain greater
than 90 percent control efficiency if a good seal is provided at
the nozzle/fill neck interface. The other two systems have attained
control efficiencies above 95 percent.
1.2.4 DELIVERY TRUCKS
Preventing loss while the truck is in transit is primarily a
maintenance problem of reducing leaks. Standards can be set to
establish a maximum leak rate at the operating pressure-vacuum
1-2
-------
vent setting. Reduction of leaks is also required for best per-
formance with the vapor balance systems.
1.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed for each of the
gasoline marketing operations. These analyses in dollars expended
per unit weight of emissions controlled are presented in the
review sections for each of the marketing operations.
1-3
-------
-------
2.0 GASOLINE MARKETING OPERATIONS
2.1 DESCRIPTION
Gasoline, after being manufactured at a petroleum refinery,
is distributed from the refinery to a terminal primarily via pipe-
line or marine vessel. At the terminal, the gasoline is stored,
transferred to trucks or in some instances to railcars, and sub-
sequently delivered to intermediate wholesale outlets (bulk plants)
and to large retail (service stations) and commercial accounts.
Bulk plants generally deliver to accounts with storage tank capaci-
ties of less than 30,000 liters (8,000 gal).
This document describes gasoline marketing operations from
storage at the terminal to the refueling of vehicles at service
stations. A diagram showing the flow of gasoline for the market-
ing operations discussed and potential sources of hydrocarbon
emissions is given in Figure 2-1. As noted in Figure 2-1, the
three major facilities in this marketing chain are the terminal,
bulk plant, and service station.
Since 1972, which is the date of the last census of business
data, total gasoline demand in the United States has risen above
the 100-billion gallon mark. Gasoline sales at service stations
peaked in 1973 at 77.2 billion gallons but have subsequently re-
mained below this peak, as shown in Table 2-1. However, the
total dollar sales of gasoline at service stations have continued
to rise steadily and reached $48.0 billion in 1976. These sales
were estimated to be $52.8 billion in 1977. »
2.1.1 TERMINALS
As of the last Bureau of the Census data in 1972 (refer to
Table 2-2) there were 1,925 terminals which are the primary whole-
sale outlets for gasoline marketing. Gasoline is delivered from
2-1
-------
FACILITY
GASOLINE FLOW
HYDROCARBON
EMISSION
SOURCES
STORAGE TANK
(FLOATING/FIXED-ROOF)
Standing
Breathing
Transfer
Transport
Transfer
Breathing
Transfer
Transport
Transfer
Breathing
Dispensing
Figure 2-1. Gasoline Marketing Operations and Emission Sources
2-2
-------
Table 2-1. DEMAND AND SALES OF GASOLINE0
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1974
1976
1977
Total Domestic
xlO9 liters
293
311 .
325
339
352
374
390
379
387
405
415
Demand
xlO9 gal
77.4
82.2
85.8
89.5
92.9
98.7
103.0
100.2
102.3
106.9
109,6C
Service Station Sales
xlO9 liters xlO9 gal
207
220
235
247
260
276
292
279
288
278
283
54.8
58.1
62.0
65.3
68.8
72.9
77.2
73.8
76.0
73.4
74.7
a National Petroleum News (NPN), Factbook Issue, Mid-May 1977.
b Service stations are retail outlets with over 50 percent of their
volume from sales and service of petroleum products (Bureau of
Census, NPN).
c Arthur D. Little, Inc., The Economic Impact of Vapor-Recovery
Regulations on the Service Station Industry. Table 20 (for U.S.
Department of Labor, OSHA), Cambridge, Mass., March 1978.
2-3
-------
Such vapor losses which occur under storage conditions are
generally termed breathing losses. Other variables which affect
breathing or standing losses for fixed-roof tanks include the
amount and volatility of the gasoline stored and the type and
condition of tanks and appendages.14'15
2.2.1.2 Floating Roof Tank
r
Standing losses can also occur from floating roof tanks in
which the tank roof floats on the surface of the gasoline. Breath-
ing losses as associated with fixed-roof tanks are negligible
since the vapor space is beld to a minimum. However, some vapors
can exist in the annul us between the floating roof and the wall,
and certain wind conditions can force air past the seals and into
the space with a resultant loss of vapor. Normally, wicking of
the liquid past the edge of the seals and subsequent evaporation
results in the hydrocarbon losses. In both instances wind velocity
is the primary variable affecting hydrocarbon emissions.15r18
2.2.1.3 Variable Vapor Space Tank
Standing and breathing losses are effectively reduced
with a properly operating, nonleaking, variable space tank. Thus,
this type of tank has not been considered as a source of storage
emissions and is effective in reducing breathing losses when
throughputs are low.
2.2.2 GASOLINE TRANSFER
Gasoline transfer, if uncontrolled, will result in hydrocarbon
emissions by several mechanisms. Normally considered as working
losses, these losses result from the filling and emptying of fixed-
volume tanks and withdrawal from floating roof tanks.
2-10
-------
2.2.2.1 Fixed-Volume Tanks
2.2.2.1.1 Fixed-Roof Tanks
Working losses from fixed-roof tanks are a consequence of
filling and emptying operations. As the tank is filled, the
volume of vapor displaced by the liquid is expelled from the tank.
When liquid is removed from the tank, fresh air is drawn in. Un-
less the vapor space is saturated with vapors from the gasoline,
the gasoline will evaporate. Thus, after liquid withdrawal,
gasoline evaporates, the pressure in the vapor space increases,
and air-vapor mixture is expelled.
2.2.2.1.2 Tank Trucks
Excluding spillage,, the two major sources of gasoline vapor
loss during the filling of a tank truck are (1) venting the volume
of gases air and hydrocarbons displaced by the entering liquid
to the atmosphere, and (2) filling in a manner which increases tur-
bulence splash loading. Splash loading not only enhances satura-
tion of the air space with vapor but results in droplet and mist
formation. Entrainment of the droplets/mist in the exhaust results
in emissions which can significantly exceed that from discharging
gasoline into the tank compartment below the surface of the liquid
in the tank submerged loading.
For tank trucks, as for other fixed-volume tanks, no actual
emissions occur during tank emptying. However, as gasoline is
withdrawn, fresh air enters the vapor space through the vent. Sub-
sequently, a net evaporation of gasoline will take place until the
concentration of hydrocarbons in the vapor space approaches an
equilibrium value. Since the pressure in the vapor space will
increase during this process, some vapor may be vented to .the
a'nvjsphere. A detailed discussion of effects of tank operations
on the standard working loss equation is presented in API Bulletin
2518.U
2-11'
-------
2.2.2.1.3 Vehicle Fuel Tanks
Vapors are displaced from vehicle tanks during refueling just
as they are displaced in splash loading of a tank truck. Evapora-
tion of gasoline which has been spilled or spit back during filling
is also a major source of hydrocarbons.
2.2.2.2 Floating Roof Tanks
Working emissions from floating roof tanks are generally
limited to emptying of the tank and are insignificant. As the
roof is lowered, the gasoline wetting the wall can evaporate
when exposed.
2.2.3 GASOLINE TRANSPORT
Losses occurring during the transport of gasoline (breathing)
by truck have previously been assumed to be negligible because of
the relatively short travel time involved; 2 days or less. How-
ever, loss estimates from trucks during transport were recently
presented at a California Air Resources Board Public Hearing and
20
can be significant. These hydrocarbon losses during the trans-
port of gasoline in delivery tanks are caused by leaking delivery
tanks, pressure in the tank, and thermal effects oh the vapor and
on the liquid.
A worst-case situation arises if a poorly sealed tank has
been loaded with gasoline and pure air has been trapped in the
ullage space. Gasoline will then evaporate until the trapped air
becomes saturated. During this vaporization process, pressure
increases and venting occurs.
2.3 POTENTIAL EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL FACILITIES
Hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline marketing sources repre-
sent a significant amount of the total ambient hydrocarbon burden.
2-12
-------
As presented in Table 2-5, gasoline marketing emissions repre-
sented 4.6 percent of the total, hydrocarbon emissions in 1975.
Gasoline vapor emissions from the three marketing operations
and from truqk deliveries are given in Table 2-6. These esti-
mated annual gasoline losses were obtained from unpublished EPA
information and from emissions estimated for typical facilities
and annual gasoline throughput. For terminals, the total 1976
domestic gasoline demand was taken as the throughput, and for
service stations, 1977 sales were used. An estimate of 20,000
bulk plants operating 260 days per year with an average through-
put of 19,000 liters (5,000 gal) of gasoline per day was used to
calculate bulk plant losses. For the tanker trucks, the volume
of gasoline transported from the terminals to the bulk plants
and service stations and estimated volumes transported from the
bulk plants to service stations were used.
2.3.1 TERMINALS '
A typical terminal was assumed to have a throughput of
950,000 liters (250,000 gal) per day and three storage tanks of
7.95 x 10 liters (50,000 bbl) capacity, each with dimensions of
27 m (90 ft) diameter and 15 m (48 ft) height.
21
Using emission factors from AP-42 for a medium vapor pres-
sure gasoline (RVP 10), potential hydrocarbon emissions were
calculated for several storage and transfer operations which
could be present at a typical terminal. Both emission factors
and hydrocarbon losses are given in Table 2-7.
Tanker loading losses were computed for submerged and splash
loading and resulted in average losses of 570 kg/day and 1,330 kg/
day, respectively. These values assume normal dedicated service.
2-13
-------
Table 2-5. TOTAL NATIONAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS, 1975*
Source
Transportation
Organic solvents
Open burning
Industrial processes
Petroleum refining and handling
Gasoline marketing
Fuel combustion
Miscellaneous
Hydrocarbon Emissions
106 tons/yr
11.7
8.3
1.0
3.5
2.5
1.4
1.4
0.9
30.7
Percent
38.1
27.0
3.3
11.4
8.1
4.6
4.6
2.9
100
Sources: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
EPA Report No. 450/2-76-028; and Hopper, T.G., October 1975
(see bibliography under "General Information").
Petroleum handling other than gasoline.
2-14
-------
Table 2-6. EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE MARKETING OPERATIONS
Operation
Terminals
Bulk plants
Service stations
Trucks
Hydrocarbon Emissions3
10 tons/yr
690
. 200
530
30
1,450
Percent
47.6
13.8
36.5
2.1
100
Estimated typical emissions
2-15
-------
re
oo
ui
h-
UJ
o
a.
CM
a>
S
re
tJ
to
cu
to
to
o
_J
p
1-
re
0
o
S-
X)
£
o
to
s_
o
4-5
0
re
u_
E
O
to
to
r
c
«s
SLC-P
en
vx x
re
o
**s,^.
r"
fd
O>
>^
re
"CJ
""^
Q
r~
re
TJ
^Vs,,
en
co
O
I"" r"
"s"*^l fO
JD en
p
CO
CD S-
CU
"ai"*"5
^'^
»
^^
CM
O
CO
CM
O
in
^^
*
*"~
O
VO
CO
CM
O
CO
CM
CD
CD
to 4->
CU C
to *i"~
to re
O Q.
cu
CD 4->
E i-
r~ .E
[ ^
re "o
CU 0
S- 0
.0 en
^*^
If -VX
O E
O *O
t. 4_>
1
*a S
0) O)
x z:
cr>
vo
CM
o
CM
co
o
co
«\
1
o
f*^.
VO
CM
CD
f~*
co
o
CD
4«}
E
r
re
Q.
cu
r-
§
s-
o
0
CL
*>^
\x
E
re
o
r-"
O
CTl
vo
CM
O
O
O
in
o
CM
o
CT>
CM
CO
cr>
cr>
CD
to
to
0
c:
r~
r\s
i.
a
3E
(4.
O
O
i-
1
-a
cu
X
IZ
to
to
o
O^
c
^
a
re
4^
(/)
<4«
0
o
i.
en
E
^^
re
o
LZ
in
CO
^_ >
^^*
o
p
CM
in
en
co
co
O
CD
O
0
CD
CD
to
"re
0)
to
^j
f~
en
r
4-5
^
<~
re
-M
o
cu
"0,
"cu
3;
cu
o
00
VO
en
0
*J*
O
CM
CM
CO
O
CD
<^J"
CT^
O
o
CD
to
r
re
cu
to
cu
to
o
o
r*
*».
E
re
4J
T3
CU
CU
r-
S-
o
C5
i««
V
r~*
CO
in
r-.
CM
CO
CM
o
CD
CO
CM
O
O
CD
to
to
O
i
r~"
re
3.
re
s-
"CJ
5
r-
^
lf«
O
o
S-
cn
E
^
M
re
o
LZ
j
en
E
r-
"O
re
o
i««
s_
cu
g^
re
o
CO
co
o
en
in '
o
o
o
co
o
co
co
r
Q
CM
r~
*
-
,,,f^
to
re
r
ex
00
CO
vo
r
LO
^J-
CM
O
in
CM
*""
O
in
o
in
vo
CD
a
cu
en
5-
cu
^
t~\
3
oo
O) 1_
cn o
re
s- s-
O CU
M >
to o
cu C
CU 3
S- +J
j=. re
re
3 O
Q.4J
jc oo
en
o
re o
-o o
o
s- «
CU O
a. in
re to
en s.
cu
O 4J
O !-
O i
CDVO
in o
CM r
^^ X
to
S- CO
cu
4J CO
r- CM
O O
O
o >>
« +J .
O T- S.
in 0 re
cr> re cu
a. >,
j= re
4-> o re
r-
3 i to
re g
re o -r-
c (-> +J
s re o
s co
»-> c
r- re
r- 3 .C
re »->
o to
r- -i£ tO
a. c: to
re
O
a.
-p
re
Q.
O
O
S-
o
r-.
o
4->
E
CU
Q.
a.
3
OO
«l
UJ
oo
o
s- r->
M- r^.
en
to i
O i
a
t
I
to
c
re
cu
3
I
CU
re
cu
s-
re
cu
CU
CL
vo
co
to
cu
to
to
o
en
E
r-
a
E
re
> to
-
O
re
E «
to o
tO »->
r- O
£ re
UJ U.
£
o
cu
Q.
re
to
o
o
.<»
en
r-
"O
E
re
T3
E
re
en
-
»->
re
£
CO
s.
re
cu
cu
a.
to
vo
co
CM
I
CU
re
to
cu
CO
to
O
en
E
2-16
-------
2.3.2 BULK PLANTS
A typical bulk plant for this study was assumed to have a
throughput of 19,000 liters (5,000 gal) per day and three above-
ground fixed-roof, storage tanks with dimensions of 3.2 m (10.5 ft)
diameter and 8.0 m (26 ft) height.
Emission1 factors obtained from the U.S. EPA control techniques
nij
guideline series were used to compute potential emissions from a
typical bulk plant. Emission values tabulated in Table 2-8 indi-
cate that storage tank losses can amount to 39 kg/day and truck
loading losses can be about 11 kg/day or 27 kg/day depending on
whether the trucks are submerged or splash loaded.
2.3.3 SERVICE STATIONS
A typical service station was assumed to have three under-
ground tanks of 38,000 liters (10,000 gal) capacity each. A typi-
cal throughput of 147,500 liters (39,000 gal) per month was assumed.
This corresponds to an average throughput for service stations as
determined by ADL.
21
Using emission factors from AP-42, Supplement No. 7, poten-
tial hydrocarbon emissions for service stations were calculated as
shown in Table 2-9. Vehicle refueling and underground tank fill-
ing are the major sources of hydrocarbon emissions.
2.3.4 TRUCKS IN TRANSIT
Because transports and small delivery trucks can have the
same number of hatches and delivery ports from which vapors could
escape, no distinction will be made between the two when estimating
the potential emissions.
Using CARB estimates,20 a truck will emit approximately 2.1 kg
(4.57 Ib) of hydrocarbon per trip at a leak rate of 4 inches of
2-17
-------
.a
*
to
CO
h-
z.
3
OL.
^
_l
r>
ca
ry*
U.
CO
f**l
14
CO
CO
I i
^*
LU
cC
1 1
1
S£
UJ
1
o
CL.
00
1
CM
CU
Id
H-
O
to
a>
to
to
o
i
c
o
_a
i.
rd
O
O
i-
t3
^^
^T^
S-
^^
CO
^^
fC
-a
*»^
,_
rt3
O>
^^
rd
^.
r*~
^^
fl3
o
o>
o o o o o
^^ CO ^D ( Lf^>
LO in CM VO CM
Ann » *
CM co i r«» co
CTl CT> CTt LO O)
CO CM r r «^-
CO O VO in r
a
C7) VO CTi CO LO
r VO LO CM
Si" VO ^1"
CT> CD ^" VO r
CO CM r
X^
l~
CO
o
**""* ^^
-Q CO
^e -^
c
« co
»-> CM
i_ O »"»
CU % r
0. *-^ .CO
r~ | * ** CO
>>CO 3 I r-
tO O O CO ~-^
to "a r o co
CO --«. "O i .M
to co co c: **.
in ^^ ^^ to co vo
O -i"£
i CO VO C O
^~** 'r^ CO ^t* *^-^
\x r~~ yr*
C CO * ^ « ! r "O
ca
r CZ
V ^Z
4-> O
i- l-
3 U.
> to
4-> C
3 O
Q. !-
JC 10
CO tO
3 -r-
O E
t- 1 1 1
.C
4J . O
>> c
(O 10 tO
a co cr
i.
s- o o
CO O
Q.O CO
* !-
I LO 4->
O CO
O -M H-
"i- O
in r
o "p
I/) O S-
t. O 4->
CO " C
4J o O
r- cn o
r^
r~»
CTl
r
s_
CO
t~l
B
CO
o
cu
a
^^
LO
00
o
1
CM
_
,
O
r r-"
"CO
O M- eC Q.
o o o. cr
O LU e£
« >, 0
CT> 4-> -
r 'r- CO
U LO
.E «j rs co
4-> CX O
r- I***
^_> ^« (|w |
C tO CM
«O 4-> tO ^
r 0 i- O
Q-4-> O LO
4J «*
^. to u i
i (0 UJ
r- C
r- 2 O "
(O ! I/I
O 10 (/)-(->
r- .*: to c
Q. C T- (O
>> 10 E
1 4-> uj a.
(O ^
*~*+
S-
tO
CO
S-
co
CL
to
>,
o
VO
CO
CM
JO*
TJJ
co
c
r-
^i^ '
S-
o
3
c
o
TJ
CO
to
tO
ca
o
2-18
-------
re
co
o
on
UJ
CO
i
LU
CO
o
tI
CO
CO
II
UJ
§
££
i
re
TO
en
re -M
en 3
a.
CO 3
o &-
i s:
**^ "M
XI
r
S-M
r- 3
i Q.
i x:
en
CM
CM
CO
o
CO
.
M.
0
r
cu
*
O
en
E
.E
4->
re
CO
s.
E
re
+>
' "O
c
, - 3
O
s-
cn
S-
co
a
E
; . - =>
(Z
r
f-^
|H»
1
-^
>a
^3
t=
3,
O
S-
en
j_
a)
J~
=3
00
LT>
LT>
cn
^
Lf)
cn
CO
"*"
CO
^
00
00
o
T3
CO
cn
S-
CO
K
f^
3
CO
o
«*
CM
cn
CM
0
LO
00
VO
.tf»
^
00
co
J^
(/i
re
Q.
co
i
r
C3
*
CD
CM
C3
co
CD
^j-
C3
*
CD
-a
rco
c
fO
f_
re
OQ
o
cn
CO
CM
r^ .
^2
co
in
fJ>
00
E
i
r
CO
3
l^
CO
S-
CO
u
1
^
CO
5
. r
CM
C5
cn
CD
«*
0
r*.
CD
^.
CO
0
CD
CO
en
re
r«*
i
a.
CO
4-S
re
o
D-
T3
re
O
S_
CD
a.
re
O
o
o> cu o
CO
'"^ o
I/) flS *r-
s- o> +J
co re
-MO i
r- O -r-
r O Q.
»
o o
Oi
m
»
l~^ in r
«sl- i-
r- CU
O r
4->
MO C
3 O CU
Q.O a
^: « co
0)00 r-
3 CO Q.
O Q-
J- M- 3
J= O CO
re
4J
re
Q-
UJ 1
cn
co r
S CO
cn
E re ZD i
OS- i-
r- O E i-
M -M O Q-
re to s- <£
CO
O
o u
re re
3
O
r- S-
t ?
CO CO
10 -D
3 O O
re T-.I-
u co in to
r co in i/i
a. s- «r- -i-
.>.-= EE
re
2-19
-------
water per 5 minutes. This, however, assumes a constant leak rate
and could be considered worst-case. Additional studies indicate
that transit loss would normally not exceed 1.0 kg (2.2 Ib) based
23
on the average 5,000 gal tank truck. When the more stringent
criterion for a leak rate (of 1 inch of water per 5 minutes) must
be attained, a truck will emit no more than 0.46 kg (1.0 Ib) of
20
hydrocarbons per trip.
2.4 MARKET TRENDS
The overall domestic demand for gasoline increased continuously
from 293 billion liters (77.4 billion gal) in 1967, to 390 billion
liters (103 billion gal) in 1973; it dropped slightly in 1974 prior
to resuming its upward trend to hit a new high of 405 billion liters
(107 billion gal) in 1976 (refer to Table 2-1). Gasoline sales at
service stations have decreased slightly from the peak of 292 bil-
lion liters (77.2 billion gal) in 1973. This decrease is due pri-
marily to the increase in the average distance traveled per unit
gallon of gasoline and a slight decrease in unit automobile usage
2
for 1974 and 1975. If the individual automobile usage remains con-
stant and the trends in gasoline mileage and private car ownership
,!
continues, gasoline sales at service stations should remain within
the range of 275 to 285 billion liters (73 to 75 billion gal) an-
nually for the next few years.
2.4.1 TERMINALS
Although the total sales of gasoline increased substantially
from 1967 to 1972, the Census Bureau data show a 28.7 percent
drop in the number of terminals from 2,701 in 1967 to 1,925 in
7 9d
1972 (refer to Table 2-2). 'c According to NPN Factbook Issue
data, the total number of terminals decreased from 1,031 to 994
(from 1975 to 1976), and then increased to 1,081 in 1977. How-
ever, when data inputs from identical respondents were compared,
there was a net increase of 25 terminals in 1976 and 40 terminals
in 1977.
2-20
-------
In any event, marketers are taking a closer look at the iv'r f
economics of terminal operations with a view toward elimination
of or joint operations of terminals with other marketers. More
efficient operations of terminals and increased deliveries to
2
end users and retailers appear as likely trends.
2.4.2 BULK PLANTS ,,;
For census years 1967 and 1972, the number of bulk plants
decreased 11.2 percent, from 26,338 to 23,367. Based on data
from companies reporting in the NPN Factbook Issues for 1975,
1976, and 1977, the number of bulk plants represented was about
21,500 in 1975, 19,700 in 1976, and 17,400 in 1977.2 Since all
companies do not respond to questionnaires, these totals are prob-
ably less than the actual number of bulk plants.
The major oil companies accounted for the total decrease in
bulk plants for 1975-1976, while both majors and independents con-
tributed equally to the decrease in 1976-1977. One of the prime
reasons for the decrease is that larger service stations with
higher throughputs are being constructed permitting more direct
deliveries from terminals. Operating bulk plants then tend to
decrease in profitability for oil companies who can supply their
station directly from the terminals.
Similarly, bulk plant operators have been aggressively in-
creasing the amount of gasoline sold by direct delivery from ter-
minals to the customer. In addition to increased profitability
for the bulk plant, there is a belief that current state require-
ments to install vapor recovery on bulk plants can be circumvented
by sharply curtailing the amount of gasoline pumped through the
8
plant and delivered to nonexempt accounts.
The significant decrease in the number of bulk plants is ex-
pected to continue due to competitive pressures and other economic
2-21
-------
considerations which have reduced profitability and have made it
difficult to sell bulk plants for the marketing of gasoline.
2.4.3 SERVICE STATIONS
Unlike terminals and bulk plants, the census data for 1967
and 1972 show a 4.8 percent increase in service stations from
216,059 to 226,459. The number of the service stations began to
decline in 1973 to about 184,000 at the beginning of 1977 (refer
to Table 2-10). As noted previously, the quantity of gasoline
sold at service stations reached a peak in 1973, and is expected
to remain below that peak for the near future. Total dollar sales,
however, have continued to increase, as shown in Table 2-10.
Although new service stations continue to be built, the
number of stations that have been deactivated during the past 3
years, based on limited inputs, is over 20 times the number of
new stations (Table 2-11). (A new station is one which has been
built completely new on a site and does not include complete re-
builds.)
For the past few years, most of the capital spending for
gasoline marketing has been allocated to remodeling or rehabili-
tating existing service stations.2 Significant numbers of these
stations have been converted to at least partial self-service sta-
tions. NPNFactbook Issue for 1976 indicates a 128 percent growth
in self-service operations during 1976, which does not include
stations that are changing to split operations.2 This trend to-
ward inclusion of some self-service bays in service stations is
expected to continue at a significant rate. In a survey conducted
in the last week of April 1977 by Lundberg interviewers, there
appeared to have been a surge of self-service openings or conver-
sions during the preceding 6 months, as shown in Table 2-12.12
2-22
-------
Table 2-TO. SERVICE STATION TRENDS1
Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
Total Number
184,000b
186,840b
189,480b
196,130
215,880
226,459°
220,000
222,000
222,000
219,100
216,059°
214,000
Gasoline Sales
(109 gal)
74.7
73.4 .
76.0
73.8
77.2
72.9
68.8
65.3
62.0
58.1
54.8
52.9
Total Sales
(109 $)
52.8d
47. 9d '
44.0d
41.0
34.4
33.7
29.2
27.9
25.9
24.5
22,7
21.8
NPN Factbook Issue 1976, 1977 (Reference 2)
Franchising in the Economy 1975 - 1977 (Reference 25)
Bureau of Census
Projected by NPN
2-23
-------
Table 2-11. NEW AND DEACTIVATED SERVICE STATIONS*
Year
1976b
1975C
1974d
1973d
1972
1971
1970
1968
New Stations
330
189
206
1,177
1,689
2,068
2,508
3,740
Stations
Deactivated
5,829
4,127
6,041
9,342
3,498
3,630
3,586
4,554
(Reference 2)
Data from 28 companies
c Data from 25 companies
Data from 23 companies
Table 2-12. DURATION OF SELF-SERVE OPERATIONS BY
LUNDBERG SURVEY RESPONDENTS
(SELF-SERVE TRENDS)*
Number of Years
Self-Service
Less than 1/2
1/2 - 1
1 - 2
2-3
3-5
5
Percent of
Respondents
26
10
21
14
26
3
aBased on data from Lundberg Letters, Volum
No. 28, May 13, 1977
2-24
-------
Furthermore, a majority of the retailers contacted expect that
self-service volume will increase to at least 70 percent of the
gasoline sold at service stations.
Recent actions to permit self-service in Ohio and Illinois
should assist in the trend toward more self-service stations.
New Jersey, Oregon, and North Dakota have not yet approved self-
service gasoline stations. .1
Another trend in gasoline marketing is the increase in
other retail or service-type stores selling gasoline. For in-
stance, the number of convenience stores selling gasoline increased
from 5,375 in 1974 to 7S400 in 1975, which is 27 percent of the
total number of convenience stores.
These trends toward self-service stations and convenience
store outlets will apparently continue, where permissible, for the
next few years. The incentives are cost-efficiency, lower prices,
and increased total throughput with fewer service stations.
2-25
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Domestic and International Bus-
iness Administration, Franchising in the Economy 1975-1977,
Washington, D.C.
National Petroleum News (NPN), Factbook Issue, "Mid-May
Annuals," 1975, 1976, 1977
Radian Corp., A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline
Marketing Operations, Vol. I, Austin, Texas, EPA-450/3-75-
046-a, April 1975
Peterson, P. R., et al., Evaluation of Hydrocarbon Emissions
From Petroleum Liquid Storage. Pacific Environmental Services,
Inc., for U.S". EPA, EPA 450/3-78-012, March 1978
5. Bryan, R.J., et al., Compliance Analysis of Small Bulk Plants,
PES, EPA Contract No. 68-01-3156, Task 17, December 1976
6. Bryan, R.J., et.al., Economic Analysis of Vapor Recovery Systems
on Small Bulk Plants. PES, EPA Contract No. 68-01-3156. Task 24T
September 1976
7. Bryan, R.J., et al., Evaluation of Top-Loading Vapor Balance
Systems for Small Bulk Plants. PES. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4140.
Task 9, April 1977
8. Bryan, R.J., Yamada, M.M., and Norton, R.L., Effects of Stage I
Vapor Recovery Regulations on Small Bulk Plants and on Air
Quality in the Washington,D.C., Baltimore. Md.. and Houston
and Galveston, Tex. Areas. PES, EPA Contract No. 68-01-3156,
Task 28, March 1977
9. Bryan, R.J., et al., Study of Gasoline Vapor Emissions Controls
at Small Bulk Plants. PES. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3156. Task 15.
October 1976
10. Arthur D. Little, Inc., The Economic Impact of Vapor-Recovery
Regulations on the Service Station Industry, for U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, OSHA, March 1978
11. American Petroleum Institute (API), Gasoline Marketing, Publi-
cation 1589, Washington, D.C., December 1976
2-26
-------
12. Lundberg Letters. A Weekly of Statistics and Related
Petroleum Industry News, Tele-Drop Inc., N. Hollywood,
Calif., May 13, 1977
13. Arthur D. Little, Inc., The Economic Impact of Vapor-Recovery
Regulations on the Service Station Industry, Appendixes, for
U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, March 1978
14. API, "Evaporation Loss From Fixed-Roof Tanks," API Bulletin
2518, Washington, D.C., June 1962
15. Burklin, C. E., and Honerkamp, R.L., Revision of Evaporative
Hydrocarbon Emission Factors, Radian Corp., North Carolina,
EPA-450/3-76-039, August 1976
16. API, "Evaporative Loss From Floating Roof Tanks," API
Bulletin 2517, Washington, D.C., February 1962
17. Engineering-Sci ence, Inc., Hydrocarbon Emissions From Floating-
Roof Storage Tanks, prepared for the Western Oil and Gas Assoc.,
Calif., January 1977
18. Mobil Oil Corp., "Floating Roof Tank Evaporative Loss Study^"
Statement for CARB Workshop, Los,Angeles, Calif., December 17,
1976
19 Tl-3. Petroleum Committee, "Control of Atmospheric Emissions
From Petroleum Storage Tanks," JAPCA. Vol. 21, No. 5, May 1971,
pp. 260-268 ;
20. CARB, Public Hearing Certification and Test Procedures for
Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems for Bulk, Plants, Terminals
and Delivery Tanks, March 1977
21. U.S. EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Supple-
ment No. 7, April 1977
22 U.S. EPA, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Bulk
Gasoline Plants. EPA-450/2-77-035 (OAQPS No. 1.2-085). December
1977
23 R A 'Nichols Engineering, "Tank Truck Leakage Measurements,"
June 7, 1977 and transmittal letter to H.B. Uhlig, Chevron
USA, Inc., San Francisco, Calif., June 10, 1977
24. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 1972 Census of Wholesale Trade. August
1976
25. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Domestic and International Business
Administration, Franchising in the Economy. 1975-1977
2-27
-------
-------
3.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES
3.1 TERMINALS
The emission control technology for terminals is the most
developed of those available to the gasoline marketing industry.
For many years, certain regions have had regulations requiring
emission controls and have thus encouraged the development of
emission control systems for terminals. Also, the petroleum
industry has viewed certain terminal emission controls as a means
of conserving valuable commodities. This section discusses some
of the control measures available for hydrocarbon emissions at
the terminal, and Section 4.0 assesses such parameters as cost
(capital and operation), efficiency, reliability, safety, and
impacts of these control systems.
3.1.1 STORAGE CONTROL. STRATEGIES
Uncontrolled fixed-roof storage tanks can account for a large
amount of gasoline emissions from a terminal. As discussed in Para-
graph 2.2, these tankage losses occur from breathing, evaporation,
filling, and emptying. Installation of internal floating roofs
is the major approach for controlling fixed-roof tank emissions.
Replacement with floating roof tanks or installation of variable
vapor-space tanks are alternatives.
3.1.1.1 Floating Covers
Floating covers are rigid covers floated on the surface of
the volatile liquid which is being contained to eliminate vapor
spaces. Sliding seals are attached to the edge of the floating
cover to close the space between the edge and the tank wall. Thus,
both vaporization and leaks are reduced.
3-1
-------
There are three basic types of floating roofs: the pan, the
pontoon, and the double deck. The simplest floating roof and
the one with the longest history is the pan type. This consists
of a flat metal pan with a vertical rim and sufficient stiffening
braces to maintain rigidity. Although simple and relatively in-
expensive, the pan floating roof is now seldom used externally.
Tilting, holes, and heavy snows and rain have caused 20 percent
of these roofs to sink.
In order to overcome the problem of sinking and stability,
pontoon sections are added to the top of the pan around the rim.
Pontoon roofs, also, are rarely used as external floaters, since
solar heat is readily conducted through the single metal plate
resulting in high vaporization losses.
Extending the pontoon sections to completely cover the roof
results in the double-deck roof. For external floaters, the
expense of this design is generally considered to be justified
by the added rigidity and by the insulation provided by the dead
air space between the upper and lower deck plates. The compart-
mented dead air space supposedly provides enough insulation to sig-
nificantly reduce vapor losses.
The most common form of internal floating cover is the in-
ternal pan. Since the fixed roof protects the floating roof
from the weather, no provision is required for rain water removal.
Maintenance is reduced since the internals, particularly the seals,
are protected from the weather and the product is less likely to
be contaminated by dirt or water. Retrofitting of fixed-roof tanks
with internal floaters may require tank cleaning, refurbishment,
and modification. However, the cost is usually less than the cost
of replacement with a floating roof tank.
3-2
-------
As previously mentioned, the principle by which a floating
roof controls emissions from a volatile liquid is that of elimin-
ating the vapor space so that the liquid cannot evaporate and
later be vented. To be successful, the floating roof must com-
pletely seal off the liquid surface from the atmosphere. The.
ideal seal would be vaportight, long lasting, and require little
maintenance. However, some clearance may exist between seal and
tank wall for roof movement. Sectional views of sealing mechanisms
are shown in Figure 3-1. The floating section is customarily con-
structed about 20.32 cm (8 in.) less in diameter than the tank shell.1
A sealing mechanism must be provided for the remaining open annular
gap. The seal also helps keep the roof centered.
3.1.1.2 Variable Vapor-Space Tanks
The objective in employing a variable vapor-space tank at
a terminal is to prevent losses from expansion and contraction
of vapor and to provide storage for vapors until they can be
processed in a vapor recovery unit. The variable vapor-space
tank can be manifolded to the vapor space of fixed-roof tanks,
the loading rack, and the vapor recovery unit through a vapor
gathering system. They can also be integrated to hold liquid.
Two common types of variable vapor-space tanks are the lifter
roof (Figure 3-2) and the flexible diaphragm (Figure 3-3).3
Expanded and displaced vapors are stored in the variable vapor
space, then sent to the vapor recovery unit when the vapor
holder is filled. Since variable vapor-space tanks are now
rarely built, no further discussion is presented.
3-3
-------
simplification of design. Bottom-loading vapor recovery has many advan-
tages over top-loading vapor recovery. The operator does not have to walk
on top of the truck. Bottom loading is safer from a static electricity
point of view and allows faster loading because of the capacity to simul-
taneously load several compartments with fewer operational steps.
Bottom-loading vapor recovery is also more advantageous because
hatches do not have to be opened for gasoline transfer. Top loading, which
requires the opening of truck hatches, subjects much more wear and tear on
the hatches and seals. Therefore, truck hatch/seal integrity is maintained
for a longer period of time on bottom-loading trucks, Additionally, less
vapor loss occurs during attachment and detachment of gasoline transfer
systems if hatches are not opened.
In the truck modification, the vents on top of the trucks
are manifolded together and a single vapor vent line is brought
down the truck towards the bottom-loading connections. A quick-
acting coupling is attached to the end of the vapor Tine to per-
mit easy connection of the flexible vapor transfer line.
3.1.2.2 Vapor Recovery Units
Vapor collection units are manifolded into the vapor recov-
ery system at bulk terminals for conversion of the gasoline vapor
into liquid product. Vapor collection systems channel excess
vapors from the loading rack and the gasoline tankage to the
vapor recovery unit. This section reviews some of the vapor recovery
systems applicable to terminals.
3.1.2.2.1 Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption Systems (CRA)
The compression-refrigeration-absorption (CRA) vapor recov-
ery system is based on the absorption of gasoline vapors under
pressure with cool gasoline from storage. The primary unit in
a CRA system is the absorber with the remaining components serv-
ing to condition the vapor and liquid entering the absorber, im-
prove absorber efficiency, reduce thermal losses, and/or improve
" ' "i "
system safety.
Incoming vapors are first passed through a saturator where
* * *,' i.^
they are sprayed with gasoline to insure that the hydrocarbon
3-8
-------
concentrations of the vapors are above the upper explosive limit.
This is done as a safety measure to reduce the hazards of com-
pressing hydrocarbon vapors. The partially saturated vapors are
then compressed and cooled prior to entering the absorber. In
the absorber, the cooled, compressed vapors are contacted by
chilled gasoline drawn from product storage and are absorbed.
The remaining air, containing only a small amount of hydrocarbonss
is vented from the top of the absorber and gasoline, enriched
with light ends, withdrawn from the bottom of the absorber, and
returned to the gasoline storage tanks. The operating conditions
in the absorber vary with the manufacturer and range from -10 F
to ambient temperature and from 45 to 210 psig. Figure 3-5 shows
a schematic diagram of CRA vapor recovery systems.
3.1.2.2.2 Compression-Refrigeration-Condensation Systems (CRC)
Compression-refrigeration-condensation (CRC) vapor recov-
ery systems are based on the condensation of hydrocarbon vapors
by compression and refrigeration. Incoming vapors first come
in contact with the recovered product in a saturator and are
saturated beyond the flammability range. The saturated vapors
are then compressed in a compressor. The compressed vapors are
then passed through a condenser where they are cooled, condensed,
and returned to the gasoline storage tank. Essentially hydro-
carbon-free air is vented from the top of the condenser. Oper-
ating conditions vary with the manufacturer, with temperatures
ranging from -10° to 30°F and pressures ranging from 85 to 410
psig.6'7 Figure 3-6 shows a schematic diagram of CRC vapor
recovery systems.
3.1.2.2.3 Refrigeration Systems
This system is based on the condensation of gasoline vapors
by refrigeration at atmospheric pressure. In this system,
3-9
-------
PARKER VAPOR
RECOVERY SYSTEM
FLOW DIAGRAM
ABSORBER
COMPRESSOR
AFTERCOOLER
MODULE-
A AAAAAAAAAAAA A || ~
*A A A A A A A A A A A A A A || &EFR1CERATOR
MODULE
N\
A A A A !\ l\ A A A l\..l\l\ l\ l\ l\
SATURATOR-FLASH
SEPARATOR
VAPOR
SAVER
CONNECTION
VENT
CAS
Source: Scitech Corp., Santa Ana, Calif.
Figure 3-5. Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption (CRA) System
3-10
-------
V-l SATURATOR E-l
V-2 RECOVERED PRODUCT STORAGE E-2
V-3 VAPOR-LIQUID SEPARATOR , E-3
V-4 CONDENSER E-5
V-5 VAPOR-LIQUID SEPARATOR E-6
V.-6 ABSORBER P-l
V-9 METHANOL-WATER FRACTIONATOR P^2
V-10 METHANOL STORAGE P-4
C-l FIRST STAGE COMPRESSION P-5
CIA SECOND STAGE COMPRESSION
INTERSTAGE COOLER
HEAT EXCHANGER
HEAT EXCHANGER
HEAT EXCHANGER
HEAT EXCHANGER
PUMP
PUMP
PUMP
PUMP
Source: See Reference 1.
Figure 3r6. Compression-Refrigeration-Condensation (CRC) System
3-11
-------
displaced vapors enter a horizontal fin-tube condenser where
they are cooled to -90° to -100°F and condensed.6'7 Because
vapor is treated as it is evolved, no vapor holder is required.
Condensate is withdrawn from the condenser bottom and the
remaining air, containing only a small amount of hydrocarbons,
is vented from the condenser top. Cooling for the condenser
coils is supplied by a methylene chloride reservoir. Figure 3-7
shows a schematic diagram of refrigeration systems.
3.1.2.3 Emission Control Units (Incineration)
Incineration units are used to control the emissions from
the terminals without attempting to convert the gaseous emissions
back to liquid form. The gasoline vapor air mixture generated
from the transfer operations qan be routed to a vapor holder. When
the capacity of the holder is reached, the gasoline air-vapor
mixture in the holder is routed to the incineration unit where it
is oxidized before being released into the atmosphere.
3.2 BULK PLANTS
As mentioned in Paragraph 2.2, the primary emission sources
at bulk stations are incoming and outgoing transfer operations
and storage tanks. This section discusses the control measures
available for hydrocarbon emissions at the bulk plants.
3.2.1 CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR INCOMING TRANSFER
Transfer losses from incoming gasoline to bulk plants are
controlled primarily by submerged fill and vapor balance systems.
3.2.1.1 Submerged Fill
Submerged fill is the introduction of liquid gasoline into
the tank being filled with the transfer line outlet being below
3-12
-------
8
CT>
o
(O
u
1
i
o
Id
0>
«f-
O)
CO
O)
cn
Arse
3-13
-------
the liquid surface. This is compared to splash loading, where
the transfer line outlet is at the top of the storage tank.
Submerged filling minimizes droplet entrapment, added vaporiza-
tion, and turbulence. '
Aboveground storage tanks are normally filled through a
horizontal fillpipe located on the side of the storage tank
near the bottom. Thus, submerged fill of aboveground storage
tanks is normally included in the design. Submerged fill for
underground storage tanks can be accomplished by attaching a
pipe or drop tube to the fillport which extends to within 15 cm
(6 in.) of the tank bottom.
3-2.1.2 Vapor Balance System
This system is the most common method of emissions control
for incoming gasoline transfer. A pipeline between the vapor
spaces of the truck and storage tanks essentially creates a
closed system permitting the vapor spaces of the tank being fill-
ed and the truck being emptied to balance with each other. The
net effect of the system is to transfer vapor displaced by liquid
in the storage tank into the truck. This prevents the compression
and expansion of vapor spaces which would otherwise occur in a
filling operation. If a system is leak tight, very little or no
air is drawn into the system, and venting, due to compression,
is also substantially reduced.
Typical facility modifications involve adding aboveground
piping from the incoming truck unloading area to a manifold
interconnected with all gasoline storage tanks. Unleaded gaso-
line may have separate vapor lines to prevent contamination.
The vapor return piping is generally 5 to 8 cm (2 to 3 in.) in
nominal diameter, and it is sloped on horizontal runs tp drain
any condensate. Nonmetallic piping may be used if local .codes
allow their use.
3-14
-------
3.2.1.3 Secondary Systems
No secondary system, designed solely for the control of
emissions during incoming transfer of gasoline, was observed
at bulk plants of less than 76,000 liters (20,000 gal) per day
in San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, Denver, Baltimore, Washington,
O Q
D.C., or the Houston/Galveston area. '
3.2.2 CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR STORAGE TANKS
Storage tank losses at bulk plants occur due to breathing,
evaporation, filling, and emptying. Applicable measures to con-
trol tankage losses in bulk plants include underground tanks,
pressure-vacuum vents, shading, refrigeration, and other second-
ary processing.
3.2.2.1 Underground Tanks
Although underground tanks were never specified solely for
the purpose of reducing breathing losses, they do accomplish this
purpose by maintaining a relatively constant temperature.
3.2.2.2 Secondary Systems
The most promising secondary systems appear to be refrigera-
tion and adsorption. Both are somewhat developed, can potentially
be applied to bulk plants, and are capable of controlling emissions
due to breathing and working losses. Disadvantages include cost
and development time.
Other secondary systems suffer from safety problems (oxida-
tion), system complexity, and high cost for use in small-scale
(compression-refrigeration-condensation), or required develop-
ment (absorption). Secondary systems have been unsuccessfully
tested at a few bulk plants. Costs are not available and their
3-15
-------
application is tentative, thus discussions of specific systems
are not included.
3.2.3 CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR OUTGOING TRANSFERS
The control of transfer losses during loading mainly in-
volves submerged fill and the vapor balance system.
3.2.3.1 Submerged Fill
As already mentioned, submerged filling minimizes droplet
entrainment and added vaporization and reduces the losses during
loading.
Bottom loading of trucks, by definition, includes submerged
filling. Top-loaded trucks can be submerged-filled by either a
nozzle extension on the top-loading arm or a drop tube permanent-
ly attached to the account truck.
3.2.3.2 Vapor Balance System
As in other balance systems described, a pipeline between
the vapor spaces of the two vessels (in this case the account
truck and the storage tank) creates a closed system permitting
the vapor spaces to balance with each other.
3.2.3.2.1 Bottom Loading
Balance systems associated with bottom-loading facilities
incorporate separate fuel and vapor attachments to the account
truck. The vapor return line runs from the storage tank to the
loading rack and a flexible hose is connected. The flexible
hose allows hookup to the account truck from many positions and
distances. A vaportight fitting is attached to the end of the
return line so that vapors will not escape from the system when
3-16
-------
it is not in use. This fitting is compatible with the vapor
return connection on the account truck. ... . ;
The vapor balance system associated with bottom-loading
facilities has advantages over top-loading vapor balance systems
because the operator can stand on the ground, loading is faster, and
the installation cost for vapor recovery on an existing bottom-loaded
facility would be low. However, if the conversion of the bulk plant
loading rack from top to bottom loading is included in the vapor re-
covery cost, the total system cost for bottom-loading vapor recovery
is higher.
3.2-.3.2.2 Top Loading
Several top-loading vapor recovery balance systems are
available for installation at the bulk plant loading racks. These
systems can.be divided into three main categories: (1) those
systems which require major loading rack conversion and minimal
account truck conversion; (2) those systems which require mini-
mal loading rack conversion and consist mostly of account truck
modifications; and (3) those systems which require minimal modi-
fications to the loading rack and the truck.
The system which requires the most loading rack conversions
is the combination vapor recovery and product delivery loading
arm (Figure 3-8). The installation of these arms requires that
the vapor return line be run to each of the loading arms. The
top-loading arms are also quite heavy (up to 2,000 Ib) and some
12 13
require a supply of compressed air for operation. ' Since
most bulk plants do not have an air compressor, this additional
installation would have to be included in the system cost. No
modifications to the account truck for loading is necessary
since the loading arms fill through the hatch opening. The seal
on the hatch can be accomplished with_a mechanical connection or
the use of V pneumatic fitting.
3-17
-------
± * V*n»b:o length w specified
*« tkw &.*
(A) C«>l9mertt mnunting ll*ngcs to
bt- Ubtcc.i:i-'i f.lumL nod in
line using C'ufciin ahgnmcrit
spool.
Source: FMC Corporation, Brea, Calif.
Figure 3-8. Top-Loading Vapor Recovery Arm
3-18
-------
The system that requires the least loading rack conversion
uses a vapor recovery connection identical to that which is used
at bottom-loading facilities. The only modification to the load-
ing rack is the installation of a flexible hose to the top-loading
arm and the connection of a nozzle or fitting. However, modifica-
tions to the truck include the fitting of a vapor-tight .fill con-
nector, a vapor return connection, and an overfill protection
device to each compartment. The vapor return connections must be
manifolded to a common vapor return line with a fitting compatible
with a flexible vapor return line. A submerged fill pipe with the
vaportight connector is permanently attached to each compartment
and fitted with a cap to eliminate vapor leakage and entrance of
dirt and other foreign substances. With the addition of an over-
fill protection device, this installation^(Figure 3-9) provides
vapor control efficiencies similar to bottom-loaded systems.
The third system requires no account truck modification for
loading and only slight loading rack conversion. The loading arm
is modified with a flexible hose and connector as mentioned pre-
viously, the vapor return line is run to each loading arm and a
vaportight connector attached. The system relies on the use of
a portable adaptor that is attached to the truck hatch opening
through a mechanical clamping system.15 This portable adaptor
can be carried from one hatch to the next since it weighs only 28
pounds and can be coupled to each different loading arm.
All top-loading systems which require that the truck hatch be
opened for attachment of the loading arm or adaptor are not vapor
controlled when the hatch is opened and the loading arm or adaptor
is not connected. Vapor loss due to possitive pressure in the truck
compartments can occur during this period.
3.3 SERVICE STATIONS
Control concepts to be discussed in this section will include
controls for emissions from the delivery of gasoline to the service
station and emissions during automobile refueling.
3-19
-------
o
Q-
=c
>
UJ
Q -Z.
LU II
Q I
in
>>
CO
CD
O
O
CD
O
ex
re
-o
re
o
i
Q.
o
en
i
CO
CD
S-
3
en
LU tt
Q- U.
3-20
-------
3.3.1 DELIVERY OF GASOLINE TO THE SERVICE STATION (STAGE I)
3.3.1.1 Submerged Fill Tubes
The easiest and most basic concept for controlling the
emissions of gasoline vapors from the loading of the underground
storage tanks is the installation of a submerged fill pipe. As
previously mentioned in this section, the submerged loading of
gasoline is an effective method of controlling or reducing splash
loading of gasoline.
The submerged fill pipe is easily installed in the fill port
of the underground tank and extends to within 15.2 cm (6 in.) of
the bottom of the storage tank. These fill tubes can be obtained
12
commercially or can be constructed from common pipe.
3.3.1.2 Balance System
The control concept used almost exclusively for reducing the
emissions from the unloading of gasoline from the truck into the
underground storage tank is the balance system because of its
efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The balance system is simply
the plumbing together of two vapor spaces (in this case the under-
ground storage tank and the delivery truck) and allowing the dis-
pensed liquid in one vessel to balance with the displaced vapors
in the other vessel. The balance system at the service station
for the filling of the underground tanks controls the working
losses from the storage tanks.
In the case of Stage I deliveries, the balance system con-
sists of a manifolded vapor return line on the delivery truck, a
vaportight fitting plumbed into the vapor space of the storage
tank, and a flexible hose which connects the two. The fitting
used to connect the flexible vapor hose and the gasoline delivery
hose from the truck may have a separate attaching location or be
Of the coaxial type.
11,12,15
3-21
-------
To enhance the collection of vapors during Stage I deliveries,
some balance systems have incorporated the use of orifice restrictors
on the storage tank vent line. This orifice is installed to apply
a slight restriction to the flow of vapors out of the storage tank
during a delivery and allows the return vapor line to the delivery
truck to be the path of least resistance. Also, this restriction
encourages the connection of the vapor return line since the rate
of gasoline transfer would be slowed if the restricted vent were
the only outlet for the displaced vapor.
3.3.2 AUTOMOBILE REFUELING (STAGE II)
Controls for the refueling of automobiles are designed to
minimize emissions of the displaced gasoline vapors from the
vehicle fuel tank. Methods or control concepts to capture the dis-
placed vapors include the balance system, the vacuum-assisted vapor
recovery system, and the hybrid system.
3.3.2.1 Vapor Balance System
The vapor balance system is the simplest mode of control of
the vapors released from automobile refueling. The system is simi-
lar to the other balance systems discussed in that the vapor spaces
of the automobile tank and the gas station underground storage tank
are connected through piping and allowed to balance with each other.
The vapors forced from the fuel tank, due to the displacement from
the dispensed gasoline, pass through the nozzle and into a flexible
vapor return hose. This hose is connected, through the pump hous-
ing, to the underground vapor return piping (normally 2 in. pipe)
which is connected to the vapor space of the underground storage
tank (Figure 3-10).
Problems associated with the vapor balance system included
liquid blockage in the vapor return line, nozzle wear, and
3-22
-------
UJ
UJ
sg
cc
o
OO
UJ
oo
Q
_1
O
«=C
2:
o
1
UJ
to
4J
V)
-
oo
Q
UJ
LU
a: »-4
o r^
a. o-
-------
loss of vapors at the nozzle if there is a poor fit. Liquid block-
age can occur in the vapor return line by the entrance of liquid
gasoline flowing past the nozzle into the return system. This
blockage can be caused by a slow reacting or faulty shutoff mech-
anism or by condensation of liquid in the return line. To elimin-
ate this problem, liquid blockage sensors can be installed in the
vapor return line. To prevent loss of vapors due to poor fit,
nozzles incorporate "no-seal, no-flow" technology in which flow
of gasoline cannot be initiated until the nozzle boot has been
properly opened or latched.
Nozzles used with the vapor balance system incorporate a
rubber boot and faceplate which is attached over the nozzle
delivery spout and is designed to cover the gasoline fillneck
on the automobile (see Figure 3-11). The dispensed vapors travel
through the nozzle into the vapor return line. A flowrcheck
valve is installed in the vapor return side of the nozzle which
will allow vapors to flow into the system, but will not allow
them to escape when the nozzle is not in use. A problem of
excessive wear on the rubber faceplate in contact with the gaso-
line fill neck existed with some of the earlier nozzles used in
the balance system.16
3.3.2.2 Vacuum-Assist System
The vacuum-assist systems are so called because of the use
of an in-line blower in the vapor return line to apply a slight
vacuum (1-2 in. H20) at the nozzle/fill neck interface. This
slight vacuum draws in air around the fillneck and enhances the
collection of vapors into the system. The nozzles used in the
vacuum-assist system are designed to allow the entrance of air
into the system and therefore do not have a sealing faceplate
on the flexible nozzle boot.- Also, the problem of wear on the
vacuum-assist nozzles is greatly reduced with the elimination of
the faceplate.
3-24
-------
o
o
CO
CQ UJ
CQ ti UJ
C£ Q UJ O
>- O l/> 3T
UJ CC CQ O
13 Z I
CQ D.
oo
O)
IM
N
o
O)
o
o
OJ
a:
o
Q.
O
OJ
o
c
re
CO
CO
2!
3
nrmr
3-25
-------
Air entering the system creates a larger volume of
vapor returning to the storage tanks than the volume of liquid
dispensed. This "excess vapor" must then be treated or process-
ed before being emitted to the atmosphere. The advantage of the
vacuum-assist system is the added collection efficiency at the
nozzle, but the system does require some type of processor.
District incineration is the system in general use at gasoline
service stations for eliminating excess vapors.
In the direct incineration system, the gasoline vapor-air
mixture is drawn from the automobile fillneck interface and the
volume of return vapors equal to the volume of gasoline dispensed
is directed back to the underground tank. The excess vapors are
exhausted directly to the incineration system where they are oxi-
dized before exiting to the atmosphere (Figure 3-12).
In most cases, the amount of vapors reaching the incineration
unit depends on pressure sensors in the underground tank. When
the tank pressure rises to a set level, the vapors are allowed to
pass to the oxidizing unit where they are incinerated. When the
pressure in the underground tank falls below the set level, the
path to the incineration unit is closed and the incineration
ceases. The spark for these units may be either direct flame or
a series of electric relays and spark sources. If a direct flame
is used, a supply of pilot light gas is required.
Other processors which have been tested at service stations
but have not attained general use are: catalytic incineration
adsorption/incineration, refrigeration/adsorption, and compres-
sion-refrigeration-condensation systems.
3-26
-------
.r
n
VENT
VAPOR COLLECTION
BLOWER
V
A
STORAGE TANK
TO,ATM
4
INCINERATOR
UNIT
VAPOR LINE
LIQUID LINE
Figure 3-12. Direct Incineration System
3-27
-------
3.3.2.3 Hybrid System
The hybrid system is one that shares features of both the
vacuum-assist and the vapor balance system.
The hybrid system supplies some slight assistance at the
nozzle for vapor collection but does not use a blower and motor.
The slight vacuum assistance provided by the hybrid system is by
the use of an aspirator. The hybrid system has the advantage
over the balance system of the added vapor pickup at the nozzle
interface and the advantage over the vacuum-assist system because
only a minimal amount of excess air is brought into the system.
The aspirator system currently being employed uses gasoline
as the driving force. A proportional amount of the gasoline be-
ing dispensed is routed through the aspirator before it is meter-
ed and returned to the underground tank. The vapor return line
is also routed to the aspirator. The liquid gasoline forced
through the aspirator supplies a slight vacuum (0-0.1 in. HgO)
at the nozzle (see Figure 3-13). Since a proportion of the gaso-
line being dispensed is used in the ejector, the amount of vacuum
supplied at the nozzle will vary with the flow of gasoline. This
is advantageous to the pure vacuum-assist system which supplies a
constant vacuum source regardless of the volume rate of flow of
the gasoline. This latter system, in order to provide sufficient
vapor capture at the highest gasoline flow rate, will return a
higher percentage of excess air at low gasoline pumping rates.
Since both the hybrid system and the vapor balance system
draw a very small vacuum, liquids in the vapor return line can
cause flow stoppage. For this reason liquid blockage sensors
1618
may be required to insure proper vapor flow. * Under certain
conditions, the gasoline going through the aspirator may become
sufficiently warm to cause vaporization of the cooler gasoline
when it returns to the storage tank.
3-28
-------
VAPOR CHECK VALVE
ASPIRATOR
SHEAR JOINT
VAPOR SCREEN
PRESSURE TAP
AND TUBING
Source: Red Jacket Division of Weil-McLain Co., Inc., Davenport, Iowa
Figure 3-13. Aspirator-Assist System
3-29
-------
Balance system type nozzles are recommended for use with
the hybrid system but the "no-seal, no-flow" feature is not
a requirement.
3.4 DELIVERY TRUCKS
Delivery trucks are sources of hydrocarbon emissions when
they are being loaded or unloaded as well as when they are in
transit. Measures which can be taken to reduce emissions while
the truck is being filled have already been discussed in rela-
tion to the loading rack, both at the terminal and the bulk plant.
Emissions from unloading a transport are effectively and
easily controlled by the use of a balance system. (The operation
of the balance system has been described in the sections on bulk
plants and on service stations.)
While the truck is in transit, product vapors could be lost
through leaks in the tank, around fittings, and particularly
around the dome and dome vents. In an effort to insure that
truck tanks are vaportight, the State of California has established
tank performance standards and compliance test procedures. These
tank performance standards have been set such that there is a
minimum amount of leakage from or into the vapor space at a given
maximum pressure or vacuum setting. Such leak-rate criteria mini-
mize breathing losses during the transportation of the gasoline.
3-30
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.0
1. Radian Corp., A Study of Vapor Control Measures for Gasoline
Marketing Operations. Austin, Texas, EPA-450/3-75-046-a,
April 1975
2. U.S. EPA, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd. ed. AP-40,
N.C., May T973 :
3. U.S. EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Supplement No. 7, April 1977!
4. Mowbray, G.9 Ameron Process Systems Division, Santa Ana,
Calif.
5. Soni, A., Dresser Industries, Inc., Long Beach, Calif.
6. Hirsch, R., Fallon Engineering Co. Sun Valley, Calif., (Repre-
sentative for Edwards Engineering Corp., Pompton Plains, N.J.)
7. Gardner, F.H., Tenney Engineering Inc., Union, N.J.
8. Bryan, R.J., et al., Study of Gasoline Vapor Emissions
Controls at Small Bulk Plants, PES, EPA Contract No. 68-01-
3156, Task 15, October 1976
9. Bryan, R.J., Yamada, M.M., and Norton, R.L., Effect of
Stage I Vapor Recovery Regulations on Small Bulk Plants
and on Air Quality in the Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Md.,
and Houston/Galveston, Tex. Areas\ PES. EPA Contract No. 6'8-
01-3156, Task 28, March 1977
10. Bryan, R.J., et al., Evaluation of Top-Loading. Vapor
Balance Systems for Small Bulk Plants. PES, EPA Contract No.
68-01-4140, Task 9, April 1977
11. Arnold, C., EMCO Wheaton, Inc., Conneaut, Ohio and. R. H.
Alexander in Los Angeles, Calif.
12. Carl, R.C., Dover Corp., OPW Division, Cincinnati, Ohio
13. Cortis, B., FMC Corporation, Brea, Calif.
14. Deleval Turbin, Inc., Wiggins Connectors Division, Calif.
15. Burgat, R., Scitech Corp. (Parker Hannifin), Santa Ana, Calif.
16. Perry, F., and Simeroth, D., California Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, Calif.
3-31
-------
17. Bryan, R.O., Wayne, L.G., Norton, R.L., Reliability Study
of Vapor Recovery Systems at Service Stations, PES, EPA-
450/3-76-001, March 1976
18. Hiller, T., Red Jacket Division of Weil-McLain Company,Inc.,
Davenport, Iowa
3-32
-------
4.0 REVIEW OF CONTROL STRATEGIES AT TERMINALS
4.1 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS _
A convincing series of test's conducted in 1923, in the presence
of representatives of petroleum and insurance companies, was largely
responsible for the initial acceptance of the floating roof tank as
a safe and economical means of storing volatile liquids. The oper-
ation and effectiveness of floating roofs with respect to control
of hydrocarbon emissions have improved vastly since 1923. Also,
floating roofs are considered to provide excellent fire protection
and lightning safety.
However, as with any operating structure, dependable, trouble-
free service is available only within certain operating limits.
When liquid in the tank is withdrawn to a level below the minimum
position of the floating roof, the roof becomes supported in a
fixed position by its legs. Consequently, any space between the
liquid level and the bottom of the floating roof reacts to product
movements and temperature changes similar to a fixed-roof tank.
When liquid is pumped into the tank, the air and vapor mixture
present under the floating roof will be vented until the roof again
floats.
During this operation, any air-vapor mixture within the flam-
mable range is vulnerable to ignition. Thus, liquid levels should
not be lowered below the floating position of the roof for optimal
operations. The air-vapor mixture above the floating roof is quick-
ly dissipated in open-top tanks but can linger on for a short per-
iod in covered floating roof tanks. For these internal floaters,
adequate ventilation of the space above the floating roof is re-
quired to dissipate gasoline vapor as fast as possible.
A potential safety problem in tanks with internal flexible dia-
phragms has been leakage, which can result in an explosive mixture
in the air space above the diaphragm. Regularly maintained and in-
spected diaphragms should pose no safety problem.
4-1
-------
Pipelines connecting the loading racks to the vapor recovery
equipment range in length from 100 to 1,600 feet, and up to 12 in-
p
ches in diameter. As a safety measure, the gasoline vapors from
loading racks, after passing through a flame arrestor, can pass
through a saturator where they are sprayed with fuel to insure that
the hydrocarbon concentration of the vapors is above the explosive
level.
Safety has been an important factor in designing vapor recov-
ery equipment. Potential safety problems exist whenever hydrocarbon
mixtures are being stored and processed. To eliminate the possibil-
ity of explosion, many vapor recovery units are equipped with sat-
urators.
CRA and CRC systems compress hydrocarbon vapors. The adiabatic
heat of compression increases the outlet gas temperature to the
point where it is much more easily ignited than are the cooler inlet
vapors. Compression ratios and the corresponding outlet gas temp-
eratures must be maintained at levels low enough to prevent excessive
heating and spontaneous combustion.
Because the vapor recovery units are largely custom made, none
of them have obtained Underwriters Laboratory (UL) approval. The
majority of the systems, however, do conform to Class I, Group D,
Division 1 of the National Electric Codes (NEC) and also comply with
2 8
all other applicable engineering codes and standards.
4.2 EFFICIENCIES
The efficiency of floating covers is dependent on the condition
q
of the storage tank and its sliding seals. Using API equations,
it was estimated that floating roofs can reduce emissions by about
93 to 95 percent; but recent floating roof tank emission tests show
efficiencies of about 97 percent for a tank with a commercially
4-2
-------
fitting foam seal and about 99 percent for a tank with a metallic
shoe-type seal. Results from the same test show that adding
secondary seals increases the efficiency of foam seals to 99.6
percent and metallic shoe-type seals to 99.8 percent.
1,11
The typ-
ical control efficiency of a retrofitted fixed-roof tank with an
internal floating roof is 95 percent or more.
Hydrocarbon losses from variable vapor-space tanks are negli-
gible. Because variable vapor-space tanks and the manifolded
fixed-roof tanks are sealed frcm the atmosphere, there are virtually
no direct tankage emissions. When the vapor saver is full, the
vapors are sent to a vapor recovery processing unit. Overall vapor
recovery efficiency in this system is dependent on the efficiency
of the processing unit.
The vapor collection efficiency of bottom-loading equipment
may approach 100 percent if there are no leaks in the truck. When
properly operating, the system remains sealed throughout the loading
operation. Dry break couplings are used on the gasoline dispensing
line and check valves are used on the vapor return lines to minimize
spills and vapor escape during hookups and disconnects.
The vapor collection efficiency is lower for top loaders which
require opening the hatch for insertion and removal of the top-
loading nozzle. There are also losses due to spills as the loading
arm is raised from the truck. Top loaders which have been modified
to accommodate vapor recovery systems and do not require hatch
opening would have vapor collection efficiencies equivalent to
bottom-loading trucks.
CRA, CRC, and refrigeration vapor recovery systems reduce the
hydrocarbon concentration in their inlet gas to a relatively con-
stant value in their exhaust. Control efficiencies are then depend-
ent on the inlet hydrocarbon concentration. Current CRA systems
4-3
-------
have a recovery efficiency of greater than 90 percent for inlet
hydrocarbon concentrations of greater than 20 percent by volume.7"9
Field tests at Exxon Company's Philadelphia Terminal gave an average
recovery efficiency of 70.9 percent, on a mass basis for a CRA system.
The low recoveries were attributed to having no balance system at the
gasoline drop and cold ambient conditions. Both factors would tend
to lower the hydrocarbon concentration in the tank ullage. For these
tests, the hydrocarbon emissions from the processor averaged 4.0
percent by volume as propane (0.08 gm HC/liter) and was relatively
12
consistent. Subsequent tests in Denver showed the hydrocarbon
concentration in the vent stream of a CRA unit to be within 3.1 and
4.0 percent by volume as propane (0.06 to 0.078 gm HC/liter).
Current CRC systems have a recovery efficiency -greater than 90
percent. * It is expected that the hydrocarbon concentration in the
vent stream is similar to those encountered with the CRA and refriger-
ation systems.
Current refrigeration systems have a recovery efficiency of
2 7
93 to 97 percent. ' Field tests at Exxon's Baytown Terminal have
shown recovery efficiencies ranging from 70.8 to 90.0 percent with
an average recovery efficiency of about 84.4 percent for their re-
frigeration system. There were two factors that had an effect on
the refrigeration system in the aforementioned case. First, the
condenser was operating at a temperature higher than design and
normal operation. Secondly, the incoming vapors were probably less
than saturated with hydrocarbons. These and other tests have shown
that the vent stream from the refrigeration unit contained 1.8
to 5.4 percent propane by volume (0.035 to 0.106 gm HC/liter air).''4'15
The efficiency of the direct incineration system is dependent
upon proper unit design and periodic maintenance. Efficiencies have
been reported near 99 percent, with less than 55 ppm hydrocarbon in
the stack gas.16
4-4
-------
All the vapor recovery systems need periodical inspection to
maintain design specifications and safety. Vapor balance systems
need careful operation to minimize the leaks.
4.3 COSTS
4.3.1 CAPITAL COSTS
Table 4-1 shows the purchase cost of a storage tank 27 meters
in diameter, 15 meters in height, with a capacity of 7,950,000 li-
ters (90 ft diameter, 48 ft height, 50,000 bbl). To estimate the
overall cost of installing a tank, excavation, foundation, electrical
grounding, piping, and painting costs have to be added to these costs
Table 4-2 provides estimates of installed cost for installation
of an internal floating roof in an existing fixed-roof tank with a
diameter of 27 meters (90 ft) and a capacity of 7,950,000 liters
(50,000 bbl).
Table 4-1. SUMMARY OF STORAGE TANK COSTS3
Fixed roof
Pontoon floating roof
Double-deck floating roof
Weathermaster or covered floating roof
a Basis: 50,000 bbl storage tank, 90 ft dia.
Sources : Reference 1 , and Graver Tank and
bibliography under "Manufacturers
$150,000 - $191,000
200,000 - 239,000
250,000 - 300,000
200,000 - 244,000
x 48 ft ht.
Manufacturing Co. in
it
»
Table 4-2. COST OF RETROFITTING AN EXISTING FIXED-ROOF TANK WITH
AN INTERNAL FLOATING ROOF9
Steel pan
Aluminum
$50,000 - $60,000
18,000- 21,000
a Basis: 27 m (90 ft) dia. floater
b Sources: Reference 1, and Graver Tank Manufacturing Co. and
Ultraflote Corp. in bibliography under "Manufacturers."
4-5
-------
FOB costs for 4 inch top-loading vapor collection arm assemblies
including nozzles, range from $3,200 to $4,000.6>17
FOB costs for bottom-loading vapor collection equipment range
from $1,600 to $3,200, depending on.whether simple flexible hoses
or complex counterbalance loading arms are employed.6'^7 The afore-
mentioned costs do not include costs for vapor return lines which
are about $360 per 20 feet installed.
A 950,000 liter/day (250,000 gpd) gasoline terminal will usu-
ally have two loading racks with three loading arms each, for a total
of six loading arms. The cost of equipping such a terminal with top-
loading vapor collection arms would be $19,000 to $24,000 and with
bottom-loading vapor collection assemblies would be $9,600 to $19,000.
For estimating costs of CRA and CRC vapor recovery systems it
has been assumed that a terminal with a throughput capacity of
950,000 liter/day (250,000 gpd) will require 2,500 to 4,250 liter/
min (90 to 150 cfm) vapor recovery unit. The FOB cost of such a
CRA unit for a typical plant is about $105,000. Required vapor
holder for this system costs about $18,000.8 Site preparation,
ancillary equipment, and installation costs are about $30,000.18
The FOB cost for a 150 cfm CRC unit is about. $130,000. Addi-
tionally a vapor holder for this system costs $18,000 and site prep-
aration and installation costs about $25,000.4 Another kind of CRC
unit which can be used for this size of terminal and does not need
a vapor holder costs about $180,000. Installation costs for the
latter system are about $40,000.5
The refrigeration vapor recovery unit recommended by the manu-
facturers for a 950,000 liter/day (250,000 gpd) bottom-loading ter-
minal is capable of handling a vapor rate of 1,400 liter/min (370
cfm). This high capacity is required because the system design in-
cludes no vapor storage tank. The FOB costs for this unit range
4-6
-------
from $87,000 to $107,000.19 The costs for installation, ancillary
equipment,and site preparation are estimated at about $25,000.
The direct incineration unit for a 950,000 liter/day (250,000
gpd) terminal costs about $70.000. Site preparation and installa-
tion are estimated at $20,000..
Average capital costs for vapor recovery systems at terminals
with different gasoline throughputs are given in Table 4-3.
4.3.2 ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The only operating cost for storage tank controls is maintenance.
Annual maintenance costs for floating roof tanks range from 3 to
21
3.5 percent of its capital cost.
Annual maintenance costs for incineration and vapor recovery
systems range from 2 to 6 percent of capital costs. Power require-
ments for vapor recovery systems range from 250 to 370 kWh per day.
A credit of $0.10/Titer ($0.40/gal) of gasoline recovered is
assumed for vapor recovery systems. If the trucks are not vapor
balanced prior to loading, vapor control (i.e., vapor recovery or
incineration) results in 520 mg hydrocarbon controlled per liter of
gasoline loaded.22 In calculating annualized costs, a 10-year
economic life for equipment is assumed and a 10 percent interest
rate. Taxes, insurance, and corporate overhead are estimated at 4
percent of the capital cost.22 Annualized costs for the 950,000
liter/day (250,000 gal/day) terminal are presented in Table 4-4.
Cost-effectiveness (dollars per megagram of hydrocarbon) is also pro-
vided in Table 4-4.
16
4.4 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Vapor recovery systems (CRA, CRC, refrigeration) at. 950,000
liters per day (250,000 gpd) terminals use from 250 to 370 kWh
per day of power.16 Assuming 33 percent efficiency for electric
4-7
-------
CO
eC
CD
CO
X
LU
ce:
o
co
LU
co
co
o
or
8
o
CL.
CO
a
co
t
O)
r
X)
rtJ
to
o
o
E
O
'£
re)
to
I-H
'to
CQ
0
u_
O-b9-
|
^3
1?
cn-o
O i
s- res
E
OJ
4->
to
CO
O
O et
to
o
o
1 1
ai
>
o
N
to
<0
cl
(O
*
CM
to
O)
O
E
O
S-
O)
4
OJ
Di
O
CL
(O
>
to
(1)
a
3
r
0
c
H-l
Q
tl_
OJ
s-
fO
to
(1)
01
E
(O
^_
>r_
(O
>
-------
Table 4-4. ANNUALIZED CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR MODEL EXISTING
TERMINALS
950,000 liters/day terminal3
(Two rack positions and three products per rack)
Rack Design
Control System
Installed capital cost ($000)b
Direct operating cost ($000/yr):
Utilities (elec.0$0.04/KWh)
Maintenance
Capital charges ($000/yr)
Gasoline (credit) ($000/yr)
Net annual ized cost
(credit) ($000/yr)
Controlled emissions (Mg/yr)d
Emission reduction (percent)
Cost (credit) per Mg of HCe
controlled ($/Mg)
Top-Submerged or
Bottom Fill
Refrigeration
18Q*
6.0
5.3
36.0
( 21.4)
25.9
150
87
170
CRA
200
3.9
5.8
40.0
( 21.4)
28.3
150
87
190
Oxidizer
140
3.2
2.8
28.0
0
34,0
150
87
230
a Average gasoline loaded daily.
b Does not include truck or storage tank modification costs
c Assume truck is not vapor saturated. If vapor balance is used
at the gasoline delivery point, recovery can be increased sub-
stantially.
d 1 Mg = 1,000 kg = 2,205 pounds.
e Cost-effectiveness; i.e., net annualized cost + emissions
controlled.
4-9
-------
power generation, the energy expended for operating the vapor recov-
ery systems would be between 27 x TO9 and 4.0 x TO9 joules per day
(26 x TO6 and 3.8 x 106 Btu/day). Taking the heating value of gaso-
line as 11,500 cal/gm (20,500 Btu/lb), the equivalent amount of
gasoline expended daily to provide the electric power would be 95
to 135 liters (25 to 36 gal).
Other than for air, environmental impacts due to the control
of hydrocarbon emissions at terminals are negligible. Use of vapor
recovery or incineration can reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 520 mg/
liter of gasoline loaded.22 Daily reduction for a typical terminal
would be 490 kg (1,090 Ib) per day. For vapor recovery systems
this would result in the potential recovery of 800 liters (210 gal)
per day of gasoline.
4-10
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.0
1. Moriss, B., Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, Oak Brook, 111.
2. Hirsch, R., Fallen Engineering Co., Sun Valley. Calif., and'
Edwards Engineering Corp., Pompton Plains, N.O".
3. Creiph, L., AHech Industries, Inc., Allentown, Pa.
4. Mowbray, 6., Ameron Process Systems Division, Santa Ana, Calif.
5. Soni, A., Dresser Industries, Inc., Long Beach, Calif.
6. Burgat, R., Scitech Corp. (Parker Hannifin), Santa Ana, Calif.
7. Gardner, F. H., Tenney Engineering, Inc., Union, N.J.
8. Sasseen, K., Trico Superior, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif.
9. API Bulletin 2518, February 1962
10. Engineering-Science, Inc., Hydrocarbon Emissions From Floating-
Roof Storage Tanks, January 1977
11. Chicago Bridge and Iron News, January and March 1977
12. Geiger, J. H., and Charrington, P. R., Emissions From Gasoline
Transfer Operations at Exxon Co.. U.S.A., Philadelphia, Pa..
Betz Environmental "Engineers, Inc. (B.E.E.), Denver, Colorado,
for EPA, EMB Report No. 75-GAS-10, September 1975
13. Geiger, J. H., Pasco-Denver Products Gasoline Terminal. Trico-
Suoerior Vapor Control System, B.E.E. for EPA, Project No.
76-GAS-17, September 1976
14. Geiger, J. H., and Charrington, P. R., Emissions From Gasoline
Transfer Operations at Exxon Co.. U.S.A.. Baytown. Tex.*'
B.E.E, for EPA, EMB Report No. 75-GAS-8, September 1975
15. Geiger, J. H., Diamond Shamrock Gasoline Terminal, Edwards
Vapor Control System, Denver, Colo.. B.E.E. for EPA, Project
No. 76-GAS-16, September 1976
16. Radian Corp., A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline
Marketing Operations: Volume 1 - Industry Survey and Control
Techniques (EPA-450/3-75-046-a), April 1975'
4-11
-------
17. Arnold, C. and Alexander, R. H., EMCO Wheaton, Inc., Conneaut,
Ohio, and Los Angeles, Calif.
18. Sexton, J., Texaco Inc., White Plains, N.Y., Letter to Pratapas, J.,
OAQPS/EPA, Durham, N.C., January 19, 1978
19. Price List, Model VC, Edwards Engineering Corporation, May 1977
20. Psyhojos, T., AER Corp., Ramsey, N. J., Letter to Pratapas,
J., OAQPS/EPA, Durham, N.C., March 22, 1977
21. Preston, J. E.s Chevron, San Francisco, Calif.
22. Control of Hydrocarbons From Tank Truck Gasoline Loading
Terminals, EPA-450/2-77-026, October 1977
4-12
-------
5.0 REVIEW OF CONTROL STRATEGIES AT BULK PLANTS
5.1 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
As a general rule, the more complex a vapor recovery system
is, the higher the risk of an accident. Since accidents involv-
ing gasoline and gasoline vapors can be very serious, the risk
of an accident must be minimized. Although all secondary systems
(refrigeration, adsorption) can be made safe, the safety and
reliability of the first vapor recovery systems in service sta-
tions and bulk plants were poor. Currently, secondary systems
are not required and are not expected to be used to any extent
at bulk plants because satisfactory and cost-effective emission
control is being provided by submerged fill and vapor balance
systems.
The latter systems require the usual general care taken
when handling flammable and explosive vapors.
5.2 EFFICIENCIES
5.2.1 SUBMERGED FILL.
Submerged filling of tank trucks can reduce vapor loss by
57 percent when compared to splash loading. Similar reductions
in emissions may be obtained when comparing splash-loaded versus
submerged fill underground storage tanks. For a typical bulk
plant converting from splash to submerged fill, loading of trucks
can reduce hydrocarbon emissions from 27 kg/day (58 Ib/day) to
11 kg/day (25 Ib/day) as shown in Table 2-8.
5.2.2 VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEM
The balance system has proven to be effective in bulk plant
applications for both the delivery of gasoline to the bulk plant
5-1
-------
and for loading the account truck. In both applications, hydro-
carbon emissions can be decreased by over 90 percent. Proper
maintenance of the storage and truck-tanks and pipelines and
insuring that proper connections are made are necessary for
attaining high efficiencies.
5.3 COSTS
The costs of hydrocarbon control systems are reviewed in
the sequential order in which gasoline is received and then
transferred from bulk plants: (1) incoming transfer, (2) storage,
and (3) outgoing transfer.
5.3.1 CAPITAL COSTS
5.3.1.1 Incoming Transfer Control Costs
5.3.1.1.1 Submerged Fill
Application of the submerged fill technique does not require
modifying aboveground storage tanks. Underground tanks require
a "drop tube" with the discharge opening not more than 15 cm
(6 in.) from the tank bottom. Typical hardware costs (i.e., for
a submerged filling tube, OPW 61-T) are $25, and installation is
generally simple for tanks utilized at bulk plants.
Submerged fill modifications thus add very little to the
overall emission control costs.
5.3.1.1.2 Balance System
Capital costs for balance systems include hardware and in-
stallation. Typical hardware for aboveground tanks includes
piping, fittings, supports, pressure-vacuum (PV) valves, liquid
traps, paint, disconnects, seals, and gaskets. Typical install-
ation work includes draining the tank, assembling piping and
5-2
-------
supports, breaking into the existing tank top or vent, painting,
leak testing, replacing PV valve, replacing seals, and occasion-
ally repairing leaks by welding tanks or covers. The cost of
installing a balance system on an underground tank is generally
lower than the installation on an aboveground tank. If a typi-
cal bulk plant (aboveground storage tank) is used as a base, the
average installation cost (derived from major oi] companies, con-
tractors, and operators) is from $3,900 to $5,000 per bulk plant.
The overall range was $250 to $13,500, with Snly one estimate over
$9,TOO.2'3 Installation costs are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. OVERVIEW OF INSTALLED CAPITAL COSTS FOR
VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEMS FOR BULK PLANTS*
Incoming transfers
Balance system
Outgoing transfers
Balance system
Top loading
Bottom loading
Average Cost
$6,500
3,600
12,300
Range
$250-13,500
1,600- 5,000
4,100-15,000
a References 3, 5
5.3.1.2 Storage Loss Control Costs
5.3.1.2.1 Underground Tanks
The purchase price for each underground tank is in the or-
der of $3,000.2 The overall cost of underground tanks depends
on the number of tanks and the amount of earthwork, concrete
5-3
-------
work, and plumbing required. A number of plants have simultan-
eously relocated tanks underground and installed vapor recovery
systems for $20,000 to $40,000, depending on the number of tanks.
5.3.1.2.2 Increasing the Set Point of Storage Tank PV Value
The price of PV valves (OPW 95-UT, for example) is typically
a few hundred dollars, and the installation is relatively simple.
The total cost of implementing this system, however, depends on
other testing and potential modifications required on the storage
tanks. These include nondestructive, proof and Teak testing,
manual venting capability, seals, gaskets and welding required,
grounding, instrumentation, and pump changes. Costs can be ex-
pected to vary widely.
5.3.1.3 Outgoing Transfer Control Costs
5.3.1.3.1 Submerged Fill for Top Loading
A typical bulk plant with top-loading capability requires
only a drop tube to obtain submerged fill. Initial costs are
thus minor (for a short length of hose or pipe, and coupling).
Operating costs depend on whether or not the drop tube is perma-
nently attached to the loading arm. If the attached drop tube
will not clear an account truck, it must be assembled and dis-
mantled for each loading. However, this added labor cost appears
to be minor.
5.3.1.3.2 Balance System
Estimated installation costs for complete vapor-balance and
bottom-loading systems for incoming and outgoing loads range from
$4,100 to $15,000. Average cost is $12,300.3 The aforementioned
costs include conversion from top-loading to bottom- loading. How-
ever, they do not include costs for many older plants at which
complete replacement of the loading rack (buried piping, meters,
5-4
-------
fittings, pumps, electrical controls, and interlocks) may be
required.
The cost of vapor balance equipment for top-loading install-
ations ranges from $1,600 to $5,000 with an average cost of
$3,600.3 Costs would escalate to $40,000 if renovation of the
loading rack is included.6 Today, there is a trend toward con-
verting outgoing trucks to bottom-loading. The reasons given by
bulk plant operators were faster loading, safety, and integration
with customer and supplier vapor recovery equipment.
The costs for vapor balance do not correlate strongly with
plant throughput or size, but certain factors have become appar-
ent. Age of the facility generally increases modification costs.
Tanks would normally be aboveground for older plants and require
longer vapor transfer lines. These older tanks may also require
sealing of leaks to permit installation of pipes and fittings
required for vapor.conservation systems. More modification and
modernization would probably also be required at the truck loading
and unloading racks, leading to higher costs for old bulk plants.
5.3.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Since only a few bulk operators have had long-term experience
with vapor recovery systems, cost information is limited. Main-
tenance costs for vapor balance and bottom loading are generally
expected to be small. Transfer hoses and mating fittings will
require replacement. Installation of automatic controls for
loading and unloading of gasoline may impose additional mainten-
ance requirements. No direct information on operating costs was
available. .
5-5
-------
5.3.3 SOURCES AND VARIABILITY OF COST DATA FOR VAPOR BALANCE
SYSTEMS
Cost estimates originated from permit applications record-
ed in the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division in October
1977. These estimates were considered in comparison with a
nationwide survey of bulk plants conducted in December 1976, and
the cost of converting a truck to bottom-loading ($2,500) was
derived from this survey.7 The most salient feature of all bulk
plant cost information is its extreme variability. Both the per-
mit application data and the survey data showed wide ranges for
the same cost item. Related to this variability is the fact
that particular applications were seldom comparable in the costs
of installation and hardware. Consequently, in both the survey
and the permit application data, averages were used which cover
a wide range of technical situations and it should be expected
that any given application of. a vapor balance system may vary con-
siderably from these averages.
5.3.4 ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Annual operation and maintenance costs of the control
systems were assumed to be 3 percent of the installed capital
cost. The capital charge factor was obtained from the EPA Guide-
lines Document and a gasoline credit of $0.10/1 Her was assumed
for the hydrocarbons controlled during the outgoing transfer of
gasoline. Annualized costs and cost-effectiveness for a typical
19,000 liters (5,000 gal) per day bulk plant are given in Table
5-2.
5.4 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Energy impacts are minimal since neither submerged fill or
vapor balance systems consume energy. Also, no deleterious
environmental impacts are foreseeable with these systems.
5-6
-------
co
CO
LU
UJ
O
UJ
UJ
I
co
CD
o
co CQ
° J5
><
O Q-
o;
o
o
CO
CO
UJ
CM
LO
CU
r~
J2
to
-o
cu
^ - i ~i r"n
01 E
E CU
f» +-5
T3 to
O CO
1 CU
E 0
O E
4-> (B
+J i
O to
CO CO
E
01 CU
E +->
i- to
13£>
Scu
1 O
Q. E
O tO
H- i
to
CO
O
O
CO
CO
r~
o
CD
r
O
r
to
O
O
to
IJ
r
Q.
to
O
i
to
E
l <
c> o o o
^£> i r O1
LO CM CO CO
CO CM
a o CD" o
CD CO r LO
CO 1^ CO r
r " r
*~ ^"
^
f^>
-f^
**^
4J
Operation and maintenance cos
Capital charges0 ($/yr)
Gasoline credit01 ($/yr)
Net cost ($/yr)
0 0
O 0
CO «*
CM LO
0 0
0 0
CO "3-
CM LO
^"
Controlled emissions6 (kg/yr;
Credited emissions (kg/yr)
CO
CM
CD
cn
o
CD
,r~^
01
^^
ff)
^^,
-o
cu
r
*o
E
0
O
O
re
o
CD
J_
Qj
O
ID CU
O.
O
O tD
>, LO CU
4-> O
- -a E
to E to
E CO r
O) «
"O ^ o
to
cu to "O
E i E
i a. re
i tO
o 01
to -M E
«J E !-
CD CU JZ
O 4-i
s~ to
O
r- LO tO
^. cu to
O tO 3
i 3
0 - E
(/j 4& tO tO
&~ -^ '
CD +-> O Q-
«»V (03
to >- T3
C -0 4J CU
re cu r
S- +J S-i
4J «i O O
T3 U_ S-
01 4J CU 4->
E to !- E
i- O O O
00 CO 0,
CD S- 1
1 _
a Table 5-1, incoming and out
b Assume 3 percent of capital
0 Use factor from Reference 5
d Control of outgoing transfe
e Emission factors on Table 2
filling for typical plant.
5-7
-------
Hydrocarbon emission reductions for a 19,000 liter (.5,000 gal)
per day bulk plant can amount to 45 kg (100 Ib) per day assuming
the use of submerged filling of tanks and vapor balance for both
incoming and outgoing transfers of gasoline. An annual emission
reduction of approximately 11.5 metric tons of hydrocarbons would
be possible for a typical sized plant with no balance system and
50 percent submerged fill of trucks.
5-8
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.0
1. Burklin, C.E., and Honerkamp, R.L., Revision of Evaporative
Hydrocarbon Emission Factors, Radian Corp., for U.S.EPA-
450/3-76-039, North Carolina, August 1976
2. Bryan, R.J., et al., Study of Gasoline Vapor Emission Con-
trols at Small Bulk Plants. PES, EPA Contract No. 68-01-3156,
Task 15, October 1976 ,
3. U.S. EPA, OAQPS, CPB, 1978
4. Delaval Turbine, Inc., Wiggins Connectors Division, Calif.
5. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline
Plants, EPA-450/2-77-035, OAQPS Guideline No. 1.2-085,
pp. 4-1 through 4-11, December 1977
6. Bryan, R.J., et al., Evaluation of Top-Loading Vapor Balance
Systems for Small Bulk Plants, PES, EPA Contract No. 68-01-4140,
Task 9, April 1977
7. Study of Gasoline Vapor Emission Controls, Contract No. 68-01-
3156, Task Order 15, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, PES,December 1976,
pp. 2-1, and Economic Analysis of Vapor Recovery Systems on
Small Bulk Plants. U.S. EPA, DSSE, Contract No. 68-01-3156,
Task Order No. 24, September 1976, pp.4-3
5-9
-------
-------
6.0 REVIEW OF CONTROL STRATEGIES AT SERVICE STATIONS
6.1 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
Fire safety is a major concern of any system installed at a
gasoline service station because of the possible presence of flam-
mable hydrocarbon vapor air mixtures. Much has been written on
the safety hazards and necessary precautions that must be followed
1 8
to avoid accidental fires or explosions.
Regulations have been proposed by the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), and the State of California Fire Marshal's
office which cover safety precautions for underground tank vents,
nozzles, vapor return lines, and vapor processing units and are
8-10
discussed in this section.
The use of restrictors or pressure-vacuum vents on the under-
ground tank vent lines less than 2 inches in diameter is allowed
only if the back pressure provided is not greater than the maximum
working pressure of the tank. The tank vents should vent verti-
cally at least 12 feet aboveground so that hydrocarbon vapors will
589
not accumulate at ground.level or in buildings. * '
The use of flame arresters or automatic fire checks in piping
lines where the possibility of flammable mixtures exists has become
an important factor in the design and installation of many of these
vapor recovery systems. These are required in vapor return lines
and around equipment components, such as in-line blowers and vapor
processers for vacuum-assist systems. Flame arresters may also
be required on some larger tank vent lines.
The vapor return line should be sloped toward the storage
tanks to enable any liquid gasoline which has found its way into
the line to drain back to storage. There should be no dropouts
6-1
-------
or traps that will accumulate liquids. The vapor return lines
and vapor return system should be pressure-tested after instal-
lation to insure that the lines were installed properly and va-
pors do not leak out. Poor installation and the subsequent es-
cape of vapors can cause a severe fire hazard.
Vapor connections on the storage tank and at the nozzle
should be closed when not in use to eliminate the loss of vapors
from the system. This not only minimizes vapor losses from the
vapor system but is especially important in the vacuum-assist
processor units that are activated by pressure sensors. The loss
of system pressure may cause unnecessary cycling of the proces-
sor unit.
The processing units themselves must be positioned so as
to minimize the possibility of damage. Curbs, poles* bumper
guards, etc., should be installed as safety devices from the
possible impact of automobiles. The design of the unit must
also include shear and impact valves to eliminate the escape of
vapors if damage should occur to the processor.
All safety devices and vapor recovery devices (i.e., nozzles,
flame arrestors, processing units, etc.) should be approved by a
nationally recognized testing laboratory. The primary complaint of
many fire marshals was that although most systems, which were installed
several years ago, were comprised of approved components, they had
neither been approved as a total system by a nationally recognized test-
ing laboratory nor met many applicable safety codes.3'7
6.2 EFFICIENCIES
6.2.1 STAGE I
The balance system has proved very effective as a means of
controlling vapors from the filling of the underground storage
tanks. They are reported to be usually above 96 percent. '
6-2
-------
6.2.2 STAGE II
The efficiency of a vapor recovery system depends on the
equipment selected and its condition. Although no efficiencies
of vapor recovery nozzles themselves have been quantified, it
has been shown that the amount of pickup of vapors at the nozzle/
fillneck interface can vary with the type of nozzle selected. '13
This is true more so for the vapor balance system than for the
vacuum-assist .system. Since poor fit characteristics at the noz-
zle/fillneck interface are not as critical with the vacuum-
assist and hybrid systems, these systems have an advantage at the
self-serve station where there is not a trained operator handling
the refueling.
The vapor balance system efficiency is very dependent upon
the fit at the nozzle/fill neck interface and the condition of the
nozzle. Published efficiencies from recent test reports show '
vapor balance efficiencies range from 60 to 90 percent. ''
The average balance system efficiency reported was 80.1 percent.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District states
that their tests show the vapor balance system can obtain an
efficiency of 90 percent on automobiles with a good nozzle fit and
14
82 percent if automobiles with poor fits were included. The im-
plementation of a "no-flow, no-seal" nozzle should readily permit
attainment of over 90 percent control for the vapor balance system.
Good fit characteristics are not required with the vacuum-
assist systems Which are designed to draw in air around the nozzle.
Published efficiencies for vacuum-assist systems are generally 90+
percent and average approximately 95 percent. ''13»'° ^
For the hybrid system, an efficiency of 95+ percent is indi-
cated.15
6-3
-------
6.3 COSTS
6.3.1 CAPITAL COSTS
Little data has been published on capital and installation
costs of a Stage I balance system alone because the system is
normally installed at the same time as Stage II systems and may
share some of the piping. The earthwork and asphalt patching is
also usually all done at once at the service station. The cost
submitted by two contractors for installing Stage I alone, how-
ever, was $1,350.
The cost of installing vapor recovery systems at gasoline
stations can vary greatly, depending on the station throughput,
station layout, and the number of nozzles and pumps. Architectural
and engineering services, site work, and other miscellaneous
charges should be included when determining cost factors for both
Stage I and Stage II emission control systems.
The average capital costs for equipment and installation of
balance systems range from $4,300 to $11,600 depending on the
size of the service station. Installation costs for the balance
system include the installation of liquid blockage sensors with
an average cost of $100-$150 per dispenser.18'19 This cost was
included because these sensors are currently being required by
the California Air Resources Board and the California Fire Mar-
shal's Office. Table 6-1 shows the range of costs for equipment
and installation of balance systems.
The average cost of equipment for vacuum-assist systems also
varies with station size. The cost of these systems ranges from
$9,800 to $18,900. Table 6-2 indicates the range of costs for the
equipment and installation of the vacuum-assist systems.
6-4
-------
Table 6-1. COST SUMMARY FOR VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEMS'
Number of
Dispensers^
2
3
6
9
12
15
Average
Capital Cost
$4,300
4,500
6,300
7,900
9,600
11,600
Range ,
of Costs
$3,800-5,300
4,000-5,500
5,800-7,300
7,400-8,900
9,100-10,600
11,100-12,600
Source: Unpublished analysis (November 1977) of costs by
Economic Analysis Branch/OAQPS/EPA based on data
submitted by oil companies, equipment vendors, and
state agencies as well as field surveys.
Balance systems installed on existing stations with no controls.
Includes cost for Stage I.
The relationship used between gasoline throughput and number
of dispensers was as follows:
Throughput (1.000 gal/mo)
15 30 60 90 120 180
Number of dispensers
12
15
Capital costs include the installation of liquid blockage
sensors at an average cost of $100/dispenser.
Average costs reflect manifolded piping.
reflects nonmanifolded piping.
Higher end of range
6-5
-------
Table 6-2. COST SUMMARY FOR VACUUM-ASSIST SYSTEMS
Number of
Dispensers
2
' 3
6
9
12
15
Average
Capital Cost
9,800
10,500
12,200
14,000
16,300
18,900
Range .
of Costs
$7,800-10,800
8,300-11,500
9,700-13,200
11,300-15,000
13,400-17,300
15,800-20,000
Source: Unpublished analysis (November 1977) of costs by
Economic Analysis Branch/OAQPS/EPA based on data
submitted by oil companies, equipment vendors,
and state agencies as well as field surveys.
Vacuum assist system with direct incineration unit installed
on existing stations with no controls. Costs include mani-
folded piping and Stage I
The relationship used between gasoline throughput and number
of dispensers was as follows:
Throughput (1,000 gal/mo) 15 30 60 90 120 180
Number of dispensers 2 3 6 9 12 15
0 Average costs include current costs for processing unit and
dispenser components.
Range reflects reported estimates of mature costs, which are
not yet substantiated.
6-6
-------
The hybrid system discussed is basically a vapor balance
system with the liquid aspirator equipment added. The addition-
al cost for the equipment puts the hybrid system in the middle
between vapor balance systems and vacuum-assisted systems (refer
to Table 6-3). This additional cost has been estimated at.$200
per pump ($160 for parts, and $40 for installation) over a bal-
ance system with independent returns. A summary of the average
costs, for comparison, is found in Table 6-4.
6.3.2 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The operating and maintenance costs for the various systems
will be extremely variable depending upon individual station cir-
cumstances. Nozzle maintenance will vary between systems because
of the complexity of the nozzles. The balance system will require
more nozzle maintenance because of the many parts of the "no-seal,
no-flow" nozzle, while the vacuum-assist and hybrid systems have
less complex nozzles. System maintenance, however, for the bal-
ance and hybrid systems will be'limited to the blockage sensor
device, while the vacuum-assist system will require maintenance
of the processing unit and the blower. Furthermore, the vacuum
assist will require electrical power for the operation of the
blower and processing unit, though this is not expected to be a
major cost item. Table 6-5 presents estimates of operating and
maintenance costs for the systems using reasonable assumptions
for nozzle replacement and repair, system maintenance, and power
consumption.
6.3.3 ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
In calculating annualized costs, 10-year life for the con-
trol equipment and 10 percent interest were assumed. Installed
costs for Stage I and Stage II controls were obtained from
6-7
-------
Table 6-3. COST SUMMARY FOR HYBRID SYSTEMS0
Number ofb
Dispensers
2
3
6
9
12
15
Average
Capital Costc
$5,200
5,600
8,500
10,600
13,200
16,100
Range
of Costs
$4,700-5,900
5,100-6,300
8,000-9,000
10,100-11,300
12,700-13,900
15,600-16,800
[ - - i
Source: Unpublished analysis (November 1977) of costs by
Economic Analysis Branch/OAQPS/EPA based on data
submitted by oil companies, equipment vendors,
and state agencies as well as field surveys.
a Hybrid system installed on existing station with no controls.
Includes cost for Stage I and nonmanifolded piping.
b The relationship used between gasoline throughput and number
of dispensers was as follows:
Throughput (1,000 gal/mo)
15 30 60 90 120 180
12
15
Number of dispensers 2369
c Capital costs include liquid blockage sensors at $125 per
dispenser and aspirator system at $200 per dispenser ($160 list
price and $40 installation).
6-8
-------
Table 6-4. AVERAGE CAPITAL COSTS FOR VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS0
Number of
Dispensers
2
3
6
9
12
15
Vapor Balance
System
$4,300
4,500
6,300
7,900
9,600
11,600
Vacuum-Assist
System
$9,800
10,500
12,200
14,000
16,300
18,900
Hybrid
System
$5,200
5,600
8,500
10,600
13,200
16,100
Refer to Tables 6-1, -2, -3 for relevant information.
Table 6-5. ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR
VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Number of Nozzles
2
3
6
9
12
15
Balance
$270
330
510
690
870
1,050
Vacuum-Assist
$425
460
550
650
750
840
Hybrid
$270
320
450
590
720
860
Source: EPA estimates
6-9
-------
Table 6-4 and operating and maintenance costs from Table 6-5. A
credit of $0.10 per liter ($0.39/gal) of gasoline recovered during
refueling (Stage II) was assumed. Service stations were not given
credit for hydrocarbon emission controls for vapor-balanced trans-
fer of gasoline to the underground tanks.
Hydrocarbon emissions were calculated using the factors in
Table 2-9. Typical facilities were assumed to have 50 percent
splash and 50 percent submerged filling of storage tanks.20
Vehical refueling emissions were reduced 90 percent for the bal-
ance system and 95 percent for both the vacuum assist and hybrid
system. All of the controlled gasoline was assumed recovered with
the balance system, 90 percent with the hybrid system, 50 percent
with the vacuum-assist system, with the remaining 50 percent being
incinerated.20 It was assumed that some excess air would be drawn
into the hybrid system.
Tables 6-6, -7, and -8 summarize the annualized cost and
cost-effectiveness estimated for various size service stations us-
ing balance, vacuum-assist, and hybrid control systems, respect-
ively.
6.4 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Based on information provided in Section 2.0 on the potential
emissions from service stations and the amount of gasoline which
passes through them, the 1977 emissions from all service stations
in the United States, if uncontrolled, would be about 830,000 tons
of hydrocarbons per year (about 2,300 tons per day). Current
estimated emissions are 530,000 tons per year. Thus if vapor
recovery systems, which could achieve an overall efficiency of 90
percent were installed on 10 percent of the service stations in
the United States, hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by up to
an additional 75,000 tons per year if these stations were uncontrol-
led. If vapor recovery systems were installed at 30 percent of the
typical service stations, 143,000 tons per year of hydrocarbons
would be eliminated.
6-10
-------
co
UJ
CO
CJ
o
UJ
CO
vo
vo
co
IE
re
re
to
CO
N
Nl
o
o
S-
cu
JD
£
3
in
p
CM
r
cn
VO
co
CM
o
CD
vo
A
r^
0
O
VO
*
cn
o
o
en
ft
r-.
o
o
CO
ft
VO
o
o
LO
**
"*
CD
O
CO
#1
51-
^ ^
faO-
^-**
1 <
to
O
o
p
re
>io
i
CL
re
o
TO
CO
r"~
r» ,
re
4^
t/J
c
i i
o
in
o
O
cn
(X3
o
CO
o
VO
LO
CO
CD
CO
o
CO
cn
f> ft ft vt ft n
l~~
o
r***
CO
o
cn
vo
CD
LO
0
CO
CO
CD
r-.
CM
U
^
JD
to
o
o
CO
u
re
c
CO
c
p-
re
g^
-a
c
re
E
O
. »p
H-J
re
s-
CO
Q.
0
r
10
vo
10
**
r
0
CM
ft
r
CD
CO
CD
ft
P
LO
CO
CD
CD
r*"*
*£
***+^
f^-
^..-i*
o
to
(i)
en
SM
co
JZ
o
r»
fO
4->
r
£2L
cl
^
0
f*^» '
s*-x
0
en
in
'^^
^^
in
cn
CO
^ ^
irT
2
^* *
0
o
r
Sta^*
S-
**n^
faO-
^M«^
o
1-^
p-
o
CO
S-
CJ
CO
c
r
r
O
re
l~
in
«^
vo
et
r~~
O
cn
CO
vt
p
in
m
i»~
CD
CO
0
00
^-~%'
s-
^N^^
-fc/>
Nta^
T^>
CD
cn
CM
t\
in
o
cn
co
CD
vo
CM
o
CM
co
'
CD
VO
VO
T?
^
CD
^wlf
T3
C
O
'1^
re
^ ^
to
cu
u
.p-
S-
O)
to
o
^J
p-
"^3
CO
S-
o
CD
CD
in
P
CD
vo
«
o
o
CM
CD
CO
CD
CM
VO
CD
CD
^1
^.
c^.
o
CO
p
pw
o
+J
c
o
u
o
tf_
CD
s_
CO
Q-
^3
to
o
CJ
a.
CD
o
re
LO
o
u
S-
o
re
cr>
s.
cu
s-
O)
a.
ro
T3
cu
oo x>
r-. co
o
cn
jc to
o -i-
S.
re >,
a: o
a.
UJ CD
co
CO «4-
-o cu
E S~
e co
<*_
o
CO
C T3
r re
co
re
cu
en
Q.
cn to
c
re
cu
£^> f^
to
T3
*9 TD
CD «
LO
T3 CU
C P
*o
o
CO
CD
s-
o
O-
-o
CO
J2
to
o
u
s_
o
cu jc to o
S- CO 3 LO
>
V) S- CU
re E cu to
CU
-M
S- J- -P-
O «f- i
. +J -««. . CO
r- in (J T3 CDCn CD
i i re co ^^ i i
VO VO M- S- CM *>.
co r-v. CD
CO CO CO > VO CO
rr- p CD O P
JQ J3 S- (J O J3 «S-
re re re cu re p
o o
O O CO O CM
^+"^£$-* p-
S- S- +J p -r- S- re
CO CO T- O to CO 4J
««-««- Q. to C *»- O
co cu re re co co 4->
oc o; cj CD -p c£ «
re JD o TD co
to
o
r
V)
to
r
O>
o
. CO
CDr
*- "o
cu -t->
3 C
<*- O
CO U
4->
cu to
o
o o
CO CO
> z.
6-11
-------
CO
CO
o
><
£
CO
UJ
o
UJ
CO
CO
co
UJ
O UJ
UJ I
u. co
u. >-
LU co
CO CO
O HH
cj co
co
LU
co
o
o
a
LU
to
CU
JQ
re
re
CO
cu
r
N
N
O
Z=
O
cu
*jO
z.
\f>
p
CM
r
O^
to
OO
CM
O
O
er>
ft
00
o
o
oo
*
i2
CD
O
^^
t
^j-
1
CZ)
o
CM
*
CM
O
CD
ID
>
2
O
O
oo
^?
. ,
re
to
o
0
r«
re
4*J
i
Q.
re
u
a
cu
r"
p^
re
*{-3
to
E
l »
o
^-
oo
o
IT)
p^»
O
in
^O
o
in
in
o
to
«sd"
O
CM
1
°+*
to
o
o
cu
o
E
re
E
CU
+J
E
r"
re
E
^3
E
re
E
O
r-
4^
re
s-
cu
a.
o
0
oo
o
*
oo
o
to
to
CM
O
00
CM
f
CM
O
CT>
0%
*»
"
O
1^^
»
T~~
o
o
to
«\
^~*
S-
^^
x^^
fc-*
o
CO
cu
CD
s-
re
0
^^
re
4->
r"
O.
re
0
0
oo
to
^^
CVJ
tfc^
in*
r-^
OO
(^^^
CM
**_-"
o"
o
^
s^^>
o"
in
*. ^»
c
^)
^^
bf*
N«^
T3
40
p-
o
CU
S-
o
cu
E
p-
r
O
CO
re
CJ3
o
O^
CM
«
00
o
en
en
»
CM
in
r»~
to
CM
O
OO
00
>
CM
o
o
ft
CM
O
**
^-++
SM.
>^
^^^
(jT)
*s '
^_3
(/)
O
o
M
cu
oo
oo
oo
oo
oo
00
CO
oo
oo
00
CO
CO
^ «»
^s>
Sw*
cu
E
o
r"
4Jt
o
T3
cu
s-
E
O
p-
co
to
r-
E
UJ
O
51-
oo
ft
p
o
in
ft
-
o
ID
CO
0
CO
A
in
o
CO
ft
CM
O
LO
ft
F
^X
s_
>>_
CD
^..X
cu
to
E
O
p-
CO
CO
'i
cu
o
cu
r^
o
s_
^_>
E
O
o
0
CM
ft
"*
o
CO
ft
CM
o
p
CM
O
O
ft
r"~
O
o
o
in
oo
CD
rsy
v^^X
p^
^^
E
O
^j
re
CO
cu
0
r-
s~
cu
to
o
+j
r-
"^
CU
i-
en
r~~
.
0
to
CM
O
O
oo
o
o
o
CM
1^.
*
O
to
oo
CD
^
tltma
o
cu
1
p
o
1 ^
E
o
o
o
3=
t[
O
CD
c^
CU
Q.
[ ^
CO
o
0
o «*
cu
r-
T3 r
cu re
S- 4->
o o
CO
r-
C7i
E !-
O r
CO «p-
i ^
CU E
re
cu
r^ CU
O CD
S- S-
4-> CU
E E
O -Q
0 =3
OO CO
en O «&9
r- -00
&S CULT)
-E O CO
o in =s >
S- - J=
re i- co
s: >> cu re
« E -i- Q.
eC O i co
O.
UJ CD C06-S
E ^ CD
>>T- in
jo r r~»
cu vo cu
T3 =5 -tO
cu t- a 3
-a cu
E S- 4- CU
CU O E
E CU "i
E >#
O O 4J CU
O -r- -I- to
cu .E to re
S- CU EJQ
^ cu
co -a i.
re E o
0 CUU.
SL S_ E
O M- T-
CM If) O "O OCn
i i re cu co i
to to 4- s- recM
CU CD
cu cu cu > cu
l i CD 0 .
JQ J=» S- 0 .JD
re re re cu s- re
I r- -E S- CUI
O -4-1
O O CU -1- O
+-> 4-> r E r 4->
re T- \
S- S- »-> r 0 S-
CU CU -i- O t-f Q)
1- «4- 0- CO .<»-
cu cu re re o cu
C£ C£ O O *-t$.rv
re -Q O T3 CU
en
E
r-
CU
4-
01
i-
OJ
o
a)
'o
-o
re
cu
CD
re
r
a.
to
o
cu
o
E
re
"re
J3
CD
^
c~
M
re
cu
r**i
^j
-o
re
o
cu to
i E
o
O-r-
S- 10
<+3 CO
E'<-
O E
o cu
o cu
U_r
O
. s-
r ~* E
m O
P* (_)
"P.«*^
-------
co
LU
CO
oo
o
l-H
oo
3C
CD
l-H
CO
ZD
CO
O
£
u
LU
O
ii
o:
LU
co
CO
CO
o
UJ
oo
s
co
LU
co
LU
CO
O
o
LU
"
JD
4J
CO
O
0
CU
O
E
re
jr
cu
4-J
d
r
f3
£=
"«
C
CM
O
LO
T-H
rt
CM
O
CO
f"«*.
01
1 I
LO
00
co
0>
l-H
10
t-H
01
0
LO
oo
.<-»
S-
>^
^^
w^-
h^-*
u
to
cu
en
i_
re
.E
o
r~
re
4_)
f
D-
re
o
X ' "»
O
ro
t-H
t
t-H
LO
LO
VO
LO
^-^*
O
oo
CO
*M*>
c?
01
t-H
*^*
LO
01
«* ^
S-
^J
^-x^
fa^
* -*
"O
r
-0
CU
S-
0
cu
E
r
f
O
to
re
o
LO
LO
CO
"
CM
LO
t-H
t-H
0v
CM
LO
LO
r-.
i-H
LO
LO
^^~
0t
r-H
LO
«^-
0
r.
t 1
LO
OJ
O
ft
t-H
^ ,
s-
>^
^x^.
{/%
*^_^-
4_>
I/)
0
O
4-*
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
00
oo
CO
00
00
00
CO
co
*-**
^^
^^
cu
sr
o
r
4_>
o
3
-a
t_
sr
o
r~
to
to
!-
L5
O
CO
*>
I
l-H
O
LO
r*
l-H
l-H
O
r-.
vo
01
CO
o
CO
1
01
LO
o
01
CO
0*
OJ
o
LO
n
l-H
^^
s_
"*^ .
*>
en
*fc_ ^.
cu
sr
o
r
to
to
1
E
cu
"O
cu
r^
O
s-
f^
0
0
o
CO
LO
ft
o
LO
o
LO
CD
01
0t
CO
o
co
LO
01
OJ
o
VO
OJ
01
1 I
o
CO
vo
IT
^
^7)
^S
^_rf*
T~t
v_?
sz
0
-!>
re
to
cu
o
^
S-
QJ
to
O
*4_3
i
-o
CU
0
^
l-H
o
CO
t-H
CD
O
CM
O
LO
CM
O
vo
CO
o
1 I
I--.
o
01
-^.
vS
t^
TQ
CU
in
o
S-
e~
O
o
g 1
-T~
tl-
o
en
s_
cu
Q.
] ^
CO
o
o
to
ro
i
VO
cu
r
_Q
re
H-
0
S-
cu
(*-
cu
OL
0 .
LO
1
vo
cu
r
J3
re
I
0
s-
cu
«4-
QJ
ex:
Cl
CO*
Ol
rH
o
i
LU
CO
*
-o
cu
-o
cu
E
o
o
O)
S-
CO
re
S-
0
o
re
cu
en
s-
re
o
r
re
r
CL
re
o
o
T3
CU
4J
r-
-o
cu
0
to
^-^
E
O
"I
to
v>
r-
CU
cu
r
O
E
O
o -o
cu
M- to
0 3
O CU
Ol 4->
r Ol
f _\^
O
cnvo
sr
'a; t(_
cu >r"
o
r
f
cu
S-
M-
-o
CO
s-
cu
0
o
CO
S-
cu
r->
r
0
to
re
CD
o
to
sr
cu
-o
cu
r_
r
0
to
re
CD
S-
QJ
4^
r
r
s_
cu
Q.
O
t-H
O
oo-
i-H
CM CO
"re cu
4-> t
O 0
' cu
en >
E
r O
£ LO
J^£ "O
re re
o cu
cu en
en re
S- i
CU i
E-r-
_j^ )^>
3 10
to
O CO
LO O
-E i
to re
re ****
Q. »
to en
c
LO 4->
re
CO CO
to s-
*"i f~^
CO T3
sr -o
r
cu
to
re
s_
0
LJL.
Ol
1
OJ
CO
r
l->
re
l
o
c
S-
co
CO
o;
cu
re
-o
cu
i
fn»
Q
S-
4_>
CT"
O
o
C-
o
Lu
^-^
S-
QJ
4^
r
r en
o sr
o -i-
i 1 1
->>. CD
en 3
CO
E
0
r
to
to
r
o
CO
0««l
r-~
O
S
+J
c:
o
o
"x^.
-4->
(/I
O
u
1-^
cu
s:
ti-
6-13
-------
Data available on energy consumption of the processing units
used at service stations are very limited. One estimate for a
vacuum-assist system with incineration was 1.4 kWh/1,000 gallons
21
throughput. If this system was installed on 10 percent of the
typical service stations, approximately 10,000 megawatt hours per
year of energy would be consumed with the recovery of 16,000 tons
per year of gasoline not including Stage I controls.
Energy consumption by the balance and hybrid systems would
be negligible.
6-14
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.0
1. American Petroleum Institute, "Comments in -Response to .the'
EPA's October 9, 1975 Announcement of Proposed Stage II
Gasoline Recovery Regulations," Washington, D.C., December 1975
2. Bonine, J.E., "Documentation of Costs of Stage II Vapor Recovery,"
internal EPA letter to John Haines, July 22, 1975
3. Dodson, H.C., "Resolution of Fire Marshal's Association of
Colorado," August 1975
4. Mawn, P.E..Economic Impact of Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations:
Working Memoranda, Arthur D. Little, EPA-450/3-76-042, November
1976
5. McDonald, T.W., Letter to EPA on Proposed Decision on Gasoline
Station Vapor Recovery, Bureau of Fire Prevention, Long Beach,
Calif., October 1975
6. National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH), Health and
Safety Guide for Service Stations, Dept. of Health, Education
and Welfare, Ohio, 1975
7. Noffsinger, W., "Report From San Diego and Other Comments From
the Viewpoint of a Fire Marshall," Fire Marshal's Association
of Colorado, August 1975
8. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code, 1976, Boston, Mass.
9. State of California.Air Resources Board (CARB), Evaluation
of Spitback, Spillage, Weights and Measures, and Fire and
Safety Considerations With Regards to the ARB Stage II Vapor
Recovery Program, March 1977
10. Battles, R.L., Gasoline Vapor Recovery Performance Tests for
Phillips Petroleum Company at"Littleton, Colorado, York
Research Corp., Colorado, April 1975
11. Hasselman, D.E., Test Evaluation of Gasoline Transfer Vapor
Recovery Systems. TRW, EPA 74-GAS-l, November 1974
12. Bryan, Wayne, Norton, Reliability Study of Vapor Recovery
Systems at Service Stations, March 1976
6-15
-------
13. Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., Evaluation of Test
Procedures for Measuring Vehicle Refueling Emissions,
API Publication No. 4276, San Bernardino, Calif., July 1976
14. CARB, Statement of EPA Public Hearing on Vapor Recovery
Regulations and Test Procedures, April 14, 1977
«
15. Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., Performance Evaluation
of Red Jacket Vapor Recovery System, Calif., November 1975
16. CARB Letter to EPA, May 24, 1977
17. Weeks, R.L., "Cost Analysis for Gasoline Vapor Recovery
System," internal San Diego County letter to Richard J.
Sommerville, July 7, 1972
18. Hiller, T., Red Jacket Division of Weil-McLain Company, Inc.,
Davenport, Iowa
19. Perry F., and Simeroth, D., CARB, Sacramento, Calif.
20. U.S. EPA, OAQPS, CPB, 1978
21. Hasselman, D.E., communications with U.S. EPA.
6-16
-------
7.0 ASSESSMENT OF CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR
GASOLINE DELIVERY TRUCKS
7.1 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
Truck operators have expressed concern over the potential
hazard posed by a tank filled with vapors, particularly if it is
involved in an accident. The upper explosive limit of 6-percent
volume gasoline in air will be exceeded by a significant amount
when all vapors produced by delivering a load of gasoline are
returned to the delivery vehicle through a properly functioning
vapor balance system.
7.2 EFFICIENCY
CARB data show that a significant decrease in emissions is pos-
sible as the allowable leak rate of vapors from a tank truck is de-
creased.1 Subsequent tests and analyses indicate that typical emis-
sions, even at a maximum, would be less than half that assumed by
CARB.2 However, on the basis of CARB's controlled emissions, an
emission reduction of 60 to 80 percent appears achievable.
7.3 COSTS
7.3.1 CAPITAL COSTS
Gasoline transports can be operated by commercial carriers
as well as by the operators or owners of the terminal. From
information obtained from owners and equipment manufacturers and
installers, the initial cost of a vapor balance system for these
trucks has ranged from $600 to $10,000.
Typical small-account delivery trucks, can be retrofitted
with vapor return and bottom-loading equipment for between $600
to $9,900, with an overall average cost of about $4,200. To in-
stall only a vapor-return line will cost an average of $2,000
less. This wide range for the modification of trucks is due to
7-1
-------
several factors: (1) number of compartments (two to six) per truck,
which have to be modified; (2) age of the truck, since substantial
modification may be required for old trucks; (3) accessibility of
hatch (roll protection devices) may make installation difficult;
and (4) tanks of aluminum may be more difficult to work with than
tanks made of steel.
7.3.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS
It has been estimated that it will cost approximately $500 a
year to make a delivery tank meet the proposed CARB performance
criteria. An estimated 0.55 kg (1.2 Ib) of hydrocarbon would be
saved each round trip. This is based on a typical loss being 1.0
kg (2.2 Ib) per round trip2 and controlled loss being 0.45 kg (1.0 Ib)
per round trip. Also, industry representatives have indicated that
a delivery tank would make a minimum of 500 round trips per year.1
This amounts to 275 kg (600 Ib) per year of hydrocarbons saved at a
cost of $1.80/kg (0.83/lb) if the cargo tank owner is a contract car-
rier. If the cargo tank is company-owned, and the value of the re-
turned vapors converted to gasoline are considered, the cost would be
approximately $1.67/kg ($0.76/lb) saved based on 90 percent recovery
and approximately $0.08/lb value of the saved vapors.
7.4 IMPACTS - CONSERVATION OF GASOLINE
The potential for preventing the loss of gasoline from
delivery trucks by making them vaportiqht is estimated for the
country as a whole. There are approximately 1,950 terminals and
20,000 bulk plants. The average daily throughput at a terminal
is 950,000 liters (250,000 gal); at a bulk plant, 19,000 liters
(5,000 gal). The transports serving terminals carry an average
load of 30,000 liters (8,000 gal), and the small delivery trucks
serving bulk plants haul an average load of 7,800 liters (2,000 gal).
7-2
-------
3 2
Using the figure of 0.45 1b hydrocarbon/10 gal potential losses,
and 0.2 Ib hydrocarbon/103 gal (CARB basis) for .losses under con-
trolled conditions, emission estimates can be made as shown in
Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 ESTIMATED HYDROCARBON SAVINGS AND LOSSES FROM TANK
laDie TRUCK TRANSIT UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS
Potential losses
Terminals
Bulk plants
Controlled losses
Terminal
Bulk plants
Pounds
Hydrocarbons/Day
219,000
45,000
Gallons
Gasoline/Day
43,000
9,000
total savings
264,000
-98,000
20,000
118,000
146,000
52,000
19,000
4,000
23,000
29.000
Allowing for 250 working days per year, this means an annual,
nationwide potential savings of gasoline losses during transit of
18,300 tons of hydrocarbons or 7,150,000 gallons of gasoline.
Other environmental impacts due to the control of truck emissions
would be insignificant. Energy impacts would be minimal. Compressors
pumps, and other equipment would be used during truck testing for
leaks.
7-3
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.0
1. State of California Air Resources Board, "Public Hearing-
Certification and Test Procedures for Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Systems for Bulk Plants, Terminals, and Delivery Tanks,"
March 1977
2. R.A. Nichols Engineering, "Tank Truck Leakage Measurements,"
June 7, 1977 and transmittal letter to H.B. Uhlig, Chevron
U.S.A., San Francisco, Calif., June 10, 1977
3. Bryan, R.J. et al., Evaluation of Top-Loading Vapor Balance
System for Small Bulk Plants, PES, EPA Contract No. 68-01-4140
Task 9, April 1977
7-4
-------
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The bibliography is divided into several sections according
to subject matter contained in the documents. Nonspecific docu-
ments are listed under General Information. Manufacturers are
listed separately and their products are identified. A listing of
additional sources from which useful information can be obtained
are also included.
TERMINALS
American Petroleum Institute (API). Recommended Good Practices for
Bulk Liquid-Loss Control in Terminals and Depots, API Bulletin
1623, Washington, D.C., June 1972
Fallen Engineering Co., Test Procedure for Gasoline Truck Terminal
Vapor Gasoline Equipment and System, Calif., undated (received May
T977)
Foley, M., "Data on Operational Parameters for Bulk Terminal Vapor
Recovery Units in San Diego, for Pacific Environmental Systems,"
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Calif.,
April 28, 1977
Geiger, J.H., Air Pollution Emission Test, Diamond Shamrock Gaso-
line Terminal, Edwards Vapor Control System, Denver. Col., Betz
Environmental Engineers, Inc. (BEE), for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, EMB Report No. 76-GAS-16, September 1976
Geiger, J.H., Air Pollution Emission Test, Pasco-Denver Products
Gasoline Terminal, Trico-Superior Vapor Control System, Denver,
~Co7", BEE, Plymouth Meeting, Penn. for U.S. EPA EMB Report No.
76-GAS-16, September 1976
Geiger, J.H., Charrington, P.R., Emissions From Gasoline Transfer
Operations at Exxon Company, USA. Baytown, Tex., BEE, Plymouth
Meeting, Penn. for U.S. EPA, EMB Report No. 75-GAS-8, September
1975
Geiger, J.H.. Emissions From Gasoline Transfer Operations at Exxon
Co., USA. PhiTadeTp1vra,^a., BEE, for U.S. EPA, EMB Report No.
75-GAS-10, September 1975
8-1
-------
Nichols, R.A., "Hydrocarbon-Vapor Recovery," Chemical Engineering,
March 1973 a ^
Sims, A.V., Field Surveillance and Enforcement Guide for Petroleum
Refineries, The Ben Holt Company, U.S. EPA, Contract No. 450/3-
74-042, July 1974
State of California Air Resources Board (CARB), "Certification and
Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems at Gasoline Terminals,"
April 1977
Umlauf, G.E., Parekh, B., Study of Air Pollution Emission Problems
and Controls at Petroleum Refineries, Pacific Environmental Servi-
ces, Inc. (PES), for U.S. EPA, February 1977
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Hydrocarbons From
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals. EPA-450/2-77-026.(OAQPS
No. 1.2-082), North Carolina, October 1977
BULK PLANTS
American Petroleum Institute, "Bulk Plant Operation and Delivery
of Products," API Accident Prevention Manual No. 8, March 1935
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (APCD), "Amendments to
Regulations 2 and 3 Concerning Bulk Loading Terminals and the Re-
duction of Emissions Therefrom," San Francisco, Calif,, January
29, 1976; Revised February 9, 1976
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Board of Directors
Regular Meeting Minutes from October 15, 1975, February 4, 1976,
and February 18, 1976
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (APCD), "Small Bulk Load-
ing Terminals," San Francisco, Calif., October 29, 1975
Bryan, R.J. et al.. Compliance Analysis of Small Bulk Plants. Pac-
ific Environmental Services, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-01-3156,
Task No. 17, December 1976
Bryan, R.J. et al., Economic Analysis of Vapor Recovery Systems on
Small Bulk Plants, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., EPA Con-
tract No. 68-01-3156, Task No. 24, September 1976
Bryan, R.J. et al., Evaluation of Top Loading Vapor Balance Sys-
tems for Small Bulk Plants. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
EPA Contract No. 68-01-4140, Task No. 9, April 1977
8-2
-------
Bryan, R.J., Yamada, M.M., Norton, R.L., Effects of Stage I Vapor
Recovery Regulations on Small Bulk Plants and on Air Quality in
The Washington D.C.. Baltimore, Md., and Houston/Galveston.Tex.
Areas, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-
01-3156, Task No. 28, March 1977
Bryan, R.J. et al., Study of Gasoline Vapor Emission Controls at
Small Bulk Plants. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., EPA Con-
tract No. 68-01-3156,, Task No. 15, October 1976
Mobray, G., Communications regarding vapor recovery systems for
small bulk plants, Ameron Process Systems Division, Calif., June
1976
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
Health and Safety Guide for Bulk Petroleum Plants, U.S. DHEW,
Ohio, November 1975
Pfarr, R.J., "Bulk Plant Terminals," Statement to Bay Area APCD
from operators of nine bulk plants in Contra Costa, Calif., Janu-
ary 1976
Severson, D.E., "Vapor Recovery: Small Bulk Plants," Presentation
to the California Air Resources Board, by Standard Oil of Calif.,
February 1975
State of California Air Resources Board, Information Report:
Comparison Between the Air Resources Board and the Environmental
Protection Agency Stage I Vapor Recovery Rules, April 1977
CARB, "Certification and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Sys-
tems at Gasoline Bulk Plant," April 1977
Tuome, J.E., Letter to Mr. P.M. Covington EPA Region IX in res-
ponse to an amendment in Federal Register 41 No. 44, March 4j 1976
dealing with compliance data for Stage I vapor control regulation
of agricultural tanks, 2,000 gallon tanks and small bulk plants,
Standard Oil of Calif., April 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions From Bulk Gasoline Plants, EPA-450/2-77-035, OAQPS No.
(1.2-085), North Carolina, December 1977
SERVICE STATIONS
American Petroleum Institute, "Comments in Response to the Envir-
onmental Protection Agency's October 9, 1975, Announcement of Pro-
posed Stage II Gasoli'ne Vapor Recovery Regulations," Washington,
D.C., December 1975
8-3
-------
Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Non Service Station Gasoline Dispensing
Audit," memo to EPA/OSHA, September 15, 1977
Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Service Station Audit," memo to EPA/OSHA
October 3, 1977
Atlantic Richfield Company, Statement of EPA Proposal of Stage II
Vapor Recovery Regulations, Washington, D.C., January 1977
Battles, R.L., Gasoline Vapor Recovery Performance Tests for
Phillips Petroleum Company at Littleton, Col., York Research
Corp., Col., April 1975
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, Board of Directors Regu-
lar Meeting Minutes, San Francisco, Calif., November 5, 1975; Jan-
uary 21, 1976; February 4, 1976
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, Statement at the EPA Pub-
lic Hearing on Vapor Recovery Regulations and Test Procedures
April 14, 1977 '
Bonine, J.E., "Documentation of Costs of Stage II Vapor Recovery "
internal EPA letter to John Haines, July 22, 1975
Bryan, R.J., Trip Report Notes on EPA Stage II, National Hearings,
January 5, 1977, Pacific Environmental Services, January 1977
Bryan, R.J., Norton, R., Cost Data Vapor Recovery Systems at Ser-
vice Stations. Pacific Environmental Services, EPA-450/3-75-085"
September 1975
Bryan, R.J., Vapor Recovery Carbon Sampling Program. Pacific Envi-
ronmental Services, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1405, Task No. 2, Janu-
ary 1977
Bryan, R.J., Wayne, L.6., and Norton, R.L., Reliability Study of
Vapor Recovery Systems at Service Stations. Pacific Environmental
Services, EPA-450/3-76-001, March 1976
Dodson, H.C., "Resolutions of Fire Marshal's Association of Colo-
rado," August 1975
Fisher, H. Lee, "Status Overview on Vapor Control Programs in San
Diego County," for the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, Oc-
tober 1975
Forbes, D.A., Cost Analysis Service Station Emission Controls-
Vehicle Refueling. Conoca. Ponca nty, nkia^ Marrh * IQTK
8-4
-------
Hasselman, D.E., Test Evaluation of Gasoline Transfer Vapor Re-
covery Systems, TRW, for U.S. EPA, EMB Report No. 74-GAS-l, Novem-
ber 1974 ,
Hasselman & Associates, Presentation to the EPA Hearing Board for
Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery, Washington, D.C., January 1977
Listen, E.M., Determination of Hydrocarbon Vapor Losses From Ve-
hicle Fuel Tanks During Refueling Using a Leak-Rate Procedure,
Stanford Research Institute (SRI), API Dept. CEA-22, June 1975
Liston, E.M.. A Study of Variables That Effect the Amount of Vapor
Emitted During the Refueling of Automobiles, SRI for API, May
1975
Manos, J.J., Evaluation of Test Procedures for Measuring Vehicle
Refueling Emissions, Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., pre-
pared for API, December 1975
Marplan Research, Inc., "A Survey of Service Station Operators and
Their Reactions'to a Vapor Recovery System" for Exxon Company USA,
December 1976
Mawn, P.E., Economic Impact of Stage II Vapor Recovery Regula-
tions: Working Memoranda, Arthur D. Little, Inc., EPA-450/3-76-
042, November 19/b
McDonald, T.W., Letter to EPA on Proposed Decision on Gasoline
Station Vapor Recovery, Bureau of Fire Prevention, Long Beach,
California, October 1975
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health and
Safety Guide for Service Stations, DHEW, Ohio, 1975
Noffsinger, W.s " 'Report form San Diego' and other Comments from
the Viewpoint of a Fire Marshal," Presented to the Quarterly Meet-
ing of the Fire Marshal's Association of Colorado, August 1975
San Diego County APCD, "APCD Comments on Status Overview on Vapor
Control Programs in San Diego County," Calif., November 1975
San Diego County APCD, "Operation Procedure OP-1 Bulk Drop" APCD
OP-1, Calif., June 1975
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., Evaluation of Test Proce-
dures for Measuring Vehicle Refueling Emissions, API Publication
4276, Calif., July 1975
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., Performance of Red Jacket
Vaoor Recovery System, November 1975
8-5
-------
Shell Oil Company, "Reproposal of Amendments to Stage II Vapor Re-
covery Regulations and Test Procedures," Washington, D.C., January
State of California Air Resources Board, "Certification of the OPW
System Y Type 2, Vapor Recovery System for Underground Storage
Tanks at Gasoline Service Stations," Executive Order G-70-6, April
26, 1977
CARB, Evaluation of Spitback. Spillage, Weights and Measures and
Fire and Safety Considerations With Regard to the ARB Stage II
Vapor Recovery Program, March 1977.(Input and discussions from
the Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Measurement
Standards; Vapor Balance System Task Force; State Fire Marshal's
Office, and the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.)
CARB, Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 24.
1977
CARB, "Status Report on the California Program for Gasoline Vapor
Recovery During Gasoline Marketing Operations," May 26 1977
CARB, "Test Procedures for Determining the Efficiency of Gasoline
Vapor Recovery Systems at Service Stations," March 1976
U.S. Department of Commerce, Domestic and International Business
Administration, Franchising in the Economy 1975-77
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Stage II Gasoline Vapor Re-
covery," Federal Register Vol. 40, No. 197, October 1975
U.S. EPA, "Proposal of Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations and
Test Procedures," Federal Register, Vol. 41 No. 211, November 1976
(also Vol.41, No. 231, November 1976)
U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement, "Interim Report on the Stage II
Vapor Recovery Short Test," December 30, 1976
U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement, "Vehicle Sampling for Stage II
Vapor Recovery," December 1976
U.S. EPA, Region IX, "Public Hearing on Vapor Recovery Regulations
and Test Procedures, Phase II," (with exhibits), San Francisco,
April 1977
Venturini, P.O., and Grady, D.M., "Background and Development of
the California Vapor Recovery Control Program for Service Sta-
tions, CARB, November 1975
8-6
-------
Weeks, R.L., "Cost Analysis for Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems,
internal San Diego County letter to Richard J. Sommerville, July
7, 1975
STORAGE TANKS
American Petroleum Institute, Evaporation Loss From Fixed-Roof
Tanks, API Bulletin 2518, Washington, D.C., June 1962
API, Evaporation Loss From Floating Roof Tanks, API Bulletin 2517,
February 1962
API, Evaporation Loss From Low-Pressure Tanks, API Bulletin 2516,
March~T962
API, "Flame Arresters for Tank Vents," PSD 2210, May 1971
API, Miscellaneous tables and figures on storage tank loss calcu-
lations
Ball, D.A., Putnam, A.A., and Luce, R.G., Evaluation of Methods
for Measuring and Controlling Hydrocarbon Emissions From Petroleum
Storage Tanks. Battelle, Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio,
EPA-450/3-036, November 1976
Chicago Bridge and Iron News, January and March 1977
Engineering-Science, Inc., Hydrocarbon Emissions From Fixed-Roof
Petroleum Tanks, prepared for the Western Oil and Gas Sssociation,
Calif., July 1977
Engineering-Science, Inc., Hydrocarbon Emissions From Floating
Roof Storage Tanks, prepared for the Western Oil and Gas Associa-
tion, Calif., January 1977
Gammell, D.M., "Blanket Tanks for Gas Control," Hydrocarbon Proc-
essing, December 1976
Mobil Oil Corporation, "Floating Roof Tank Evaporative Loss Stu-
dy," Statement to CARB Workshop, Los Angeles, Calif., December 17,
1976
Peterson, P.R. et a.1., Evaluation of Hydrocarbon Emissions From
Petroleum Liquid Storage, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-2606, Work Assignment No. 1, January 1978
(Draft)
Sims A.V., Inspection Manual for the Enforcement of New Source
Performance StalTdTFasT"Volatile Hydrocarbon Storage, reviie^ by
Pacific EnvironmentarServices, Inc., EPA contract No. 68-01-3156,
Task No. 19', October 1976
8-7
-------
State of California Air Resources Board, "Public Hearing on the
Effective Date of Sealing Requirements for Floating Roof Tanks in
Southern Calif. Air Pollution Control District Rule 463," No. 77-
2-4, Calif., January 26, 1977
CARB, "Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Rule 463 of the
Southern Calif. Air Pollution Control District," 76-12-2, Calif.,
June 25, 1976
CARB, "Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's Rule 453 Pertaining to Floating-
Roof Tank Seal Requirements," March 25, 1977
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Standards for Safety bulletins:
UL 142, "Steel Above-Ground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible
Liquids;" UL 525, "Flame Arresters for use on Vents of Storage
Tanks for Petroleum Oil and Gasoline;" UL 58, "Steel Underground
Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids;1 and UL 842, "Valves
for Flammable Fluids."
U.S. EPA, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Storage of
Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks. EPA 450/2-77-036 (OAOPS No.
1.2-089), North Carolina, December 1977
Wafelman, H.R., and Buhrmann, H., "Maintain Safer Tank Storage,"
Hydrocarbon Processing, January 1977
Yun-Chung, Sun, G.R. Killat, "Adsorption for Vapor Control," Hydro-
carbon Processing, September 1976
TANKERS
American Petroleum Institute, Bottom Loading and Vapor Recovery
for MC-306 Tank Motor Vehicles, API RP 1004, Washington, D.C.,
September 1975
State of California Air Resources Board, "Certification and Test
Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems of Gasoline Delivery Tanks,"
April 13, 1977
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, "Bottom Loading DOT MC306
Cargo Tanks," TTMA Recommended Practice, Report No. 46-76, March
1976
TTMA, "Leak Testing of Cargo Tank Vapor Recovery Systems," TTMA
Recommended Practice, Report No. 50-76, May 1976
8-8
-------
TTMA, "Vapor Collection for MC306 Cargo Tanks," TTMA Recommended
Practice, Report No. 45-74, June 1974
GENERAL INFORMATION
American Petroleum Institute, Gasoline Marketing, API Publication
1589, Washington, D.C., December 1976
API, Hydrocarbon Emissions From Refineries, API Publication 928,
July 1973
API, Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume on Atmospheric
Emissions, API Publication 931, 1974-1976
Burklin, C.E., and Honerkamp, R.L., Revision of Evaporative Hyd-
rocarbon Emission Factors, Radian Corp., North Carolina, EPA-450/
3-76-039, August 1976
Environmental Reporter, "Implementation Plans," Federal Regula-
tions, Section 125, Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, D.C.,
T97B~
Environmental Reporter, State Air Laws, Bureau of National Af-
fairs, Washington, D.C., 1976
Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions From Stationary Sources, Vol.T.Prepared for
the U.S. EPA by the Research Corporation of New England, Conn.,
October 1975
Lundberg Letters, A Weekly of Statistics and Related Petroleum
Industry News, (Misc. Issues), Tele-Drop, Inc., N. Hoilywood,
Calif.i
National Fire Protection Association, Flammable and Combustible
Liquid Code, 1976, Boston, Mass.
National Petroleum News, Factbook Issue "Mid-May Annuals," for'
1975, 1976, 1977
Nichols, R.A., "R.A. Nichols Engineering Reports on ^Gasoline
Transfer and Transportation Prepared for Chevron, U.S.A. Calif.,
February to June 1977
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "State Air Pollution
Implementation Plan Progress Report, June 30 to December 31,
1973," EPA Report No,, 450/2-74004, April 1974
8-9
-------
Radian Corp., A Study of Vapor Control Methods for Gasoline Mar-
keting Operations. 2 Vols., Austin, Texas, EPA-450/3-75-046-a,"Ap-
ril 1975 , K
Smith, V.K. "The Treatment of Intangibles in Benefit-Cost Analy-
sis," National Association of Attorney General Newsletter, May
State Fire Marshal, State of California, "Adoption of Regulations
on Gasoline Vapor Control Systems," April 18, 1977
State of California Air Resources Board, "Public Hearing on Pro-
posed Revisions to Coordinated Basinwide Air Pollution Control
Plans - Emissions From Gasoline Marketing Operations," No. 75-6-2
March 1975
CARB, "Public Hearing on Certification and Test Procedures for
Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems for Bulk Plants, Terminals, and
Delivery Tanks," March 1977
CARB, "Suggested Vapor Recovery Rules Recommended for Adoption by
Local Air Pollution Control Districts," April 1975
State of Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, "Regulation
No. 7, Regulation to Control the Emissions of Hydrocarbon Vapors "
Colorado, April 1975
State of Maryland, Division of Program Planning and Evaluation,
"1975 Emissions Inventory Report," March 1976
U.S. EPA, "Marketing and Transportation of Petroleum Products,"
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Publication No AP-42
Washington, D.C., February 1976
U-S. EPA, Air Pollution Engineering Manual. 2nd Ed. AP-40, EPA,
N.C., May T973 '
U.S. EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42
Supplement No. 7, April 1977
MANUFACTURERS
Altech Industries, Inc., Allentown, Pennsylvania, L. Creiph - (in-
ternal floating roof)
Ameron Process Systems Division, Santa Ana, California, G. Mowbray
- (vapor recovery system; compressor, condensation)
8-10
-------
The Boedecker Company, Hopkins, Minnesota - (tank vent vapor con-
denser)
Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, Oak Brook, Illinois, B. Moriss -
(storage tank)
Deleval Turbine, Inc., Wiggins Connectors Division, California -
(bottom-loading system)
Dover Corporation/OPW Division, Cincinnati, Ohio, R.C. Carl - (va-
por recovery equipment)
Dresser Industries, Inc., Salisbury, Maryland; Long Beach, Cali-
fornia, A. Soni - (vapor recovery system; compression, refrigera-
tion, absorption)
Edwards Engineering Corporation, Pompton Plains, New Jersey, R.
Hirsch - (vapor recovery; direct condensation)
EMCO Wheaton, Inc., Conneaut, Ohio, C. Arnold; .Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, R. H. Alexander) - (vapor recovery equipment)
Enquip, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma - (vapor emission control; compress-
or, chiller, separator)
Ever-Tite Coupling Company, Montebello, California, J. Mermur -
(loading rack vapor control)
FMC Corporation, Brea9 California, B. Cortis - (vapor recovery
loader arm)
Graver Tank and Manufacturing Company, El Monte, California, R.
Reba - (storage tank)
Hasselman and Associates (Hasstech, Inc.), La Jolla, California,
P. LeBante, D. Hasselman - (Stage II emission control)
Hirt Combustion Engineers, Montebello, California - (service sta-
tion emission control)
Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, Neville Island, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, M. J. McLaughlin - (storage tanks)
Process Products, Gardena, California, A. Dadis - (vapor recovery ;
refrigeration, condensation, adsorption)
The Protectoseal Company, Bensenville, Illinois - (emission
control equipment)
8-11
-------
QualAir Division of Energy Absorption Systems, Inc., (Clean Air
Engineering) Anaheim, California, E. Brown - (service station
Stage II control units)
Red Jacket, Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Davenport, Iowa, T. Miller
- (service station Stage II equipment)
Scitech Corporation (Parker Hannifin), Santa Ana, California, R.
Burgat - (vapor recovery system; compressor, condenser, absorber)
Tenney Engineering, Inc., Union, New Jersey, F. H. Gardner - (va-
por recovery systems, condenser)
Trico Superior, Inc., Los Angeles, California, K. Sasseen - (mis-
cellaneous vapor recovery systems)
Ultraflote Corporation, Houston, Texas, R. Seal - (storage tank)
Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Division, Cleveland,
Ohio - (activated carbon gasoline vapor recovery)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, California Dick
Smith and Mike Foley
Air Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara, California John
Laird and John English
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. -- Jim Walters
ARCO Oil Company, Los Angeles, California B. DiGiovanni
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, San Francisco, California
G. G. Karels
California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California -- Francis
Perry, Dean Simeroth, and Jim Loop
California Department of Food and Agriculture Division of Measure-
ments Standards, Sacramento, California 0. Leifson
California Fire Marshal's Office, Sacramento, California Jack
Smith
California Fire Prevention Committee, Long Beach, California ~
Captain C. McDonald
Chevron,'San Francisco, California J. E. Presten
8-12
-------
Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division,
Denver, Colorado Ernie Trunco
Continental Oil Company, Ponca City, Oklahoma .D. A. Forbes
Douglas Oil Company, Cokmpton, California R. S. Hodgson
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., P. Principe;
North Carolina, C. Kleeburg; and regional offices
Exxon Oil Company, Houston, Texas -- S. D. Curran
Fire Prevention Bureau, Commerce City, Colorado Capt. D. Ken-
nerson
Gulf Oil Company, Beverly Hills, California F. E. Pacheko
Maryland Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control, Baltimore,
Maryland D. P. Andrew
Mobil Oil Company, Los Angeles, California A. E. McCluskey
National Fire Protection Association, Boston, Massachusetts «
Miles Woodworth
Private Engineering Consultant, Santa Monica, California K.
Luedtke
Southern Pacific Pipeline, Los Angeles, California C. B. Mil-
ler
Union Oil Company, Los Angeles, California -- A. W. Percy
8-13
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Hydrocarbon Control Strategies for Gasoline Marketing
Operations
5. REPORT DATE
Mav 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. L. Norton, R. R. Sakaida, A. Kokin, M.M. Yamada,
A. Kashani
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Pacific Environmental Services
1930 14th Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2606, Task 13
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer: Charles F. Kleeberg
16. ABSTRACT
This informational document provides basic and current descriptions of
gasoline marketing operations and methods that are available to control
hydrocarbon emissions from these operations. The three types of facilities
that are described are terminals, bulk plants, and service stations.
Operational aand business trends are also discussed. The potential emissions
from typical facilities, including transport trucks, are given.
The operations which lead to emissions from these facilities include
(1) gasoline storage, (2) gasoline loading at terminals and bulk plants,
(3) gasoline delivery to bulk plants and service stations, and (4) the
refueling of vehicles at service stations.
Available and possible methods for controlling emissions are described
with their estimated control efficiencies and costs.
This report also includes a bibliography of references cited in the
text, and supplementary sources of informatio;i.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Control Equipment
Hydrocarbons
Gasoline Marketing
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Control
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
ID. SECURITY CLASS (This Report}
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unr 1 a ^ s i f i *»rl
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-73)
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 260-880/85 1-3
-------
------- |