United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-84-140 Sept. 1984
Project Summary
Demonstration of Vapor Control
Technology for Gasoline Loading
of Barges
S. S. Gross
The objective of the program was to
demonstrate a safe cost-effective way
to control gasoline vapors emitted
during barge loading. Refrigeration,
carbon adsorption, oil absorption, and
incineration were reviewed in terms of
their safety, economics, and
performance. Two barge terminals
were used as the design basis for
extending their existing truck loading
vapor control systems (oil absorption
and incineration) to include the barge
loading facilities. Although fabrication
drawings were prepared for both
terminals, the barge vapor collection
system was installed only at the
terminal using incineration.
Arrangements were also made to lease
a barge with vapor collection piping and
add additional equipment to reduce the
likelihood of barge explosion or overfill.
However, before start-up of the
demonstration, the program was
curtailed. The system is still in place and
could be considered for future field
demonstrations.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Research
Triangle Park. NC. to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report of
the same title (see Project Report order-
ing information at back).
Introduction
Vapors emitted during the loading of
gasoline into cars, trucks, and barges
contribute to the formation of smog.
Equipment is available which can control
these vapors at truck loading facilities, as
well as at larger gasoline retail outlets.
However, gasoline vapor emissions are
not controlled at barge loading terminals
because it has not been demonstrated
that the more complex safety and design
considerations have been adequately
addressed.
This report discusses various vapor
control technologies and their application
to barge loading of gasoline. Two vapor
control technologies were selected from
the review: one, based on an oil
absorption system, would recover the
gasoline; and the other, based on incin-
eration has lower installation and
operation costs, but no recovery.
Two existing terminals were used as
the design basis for projected demonstra-
tion of the two control technologies. Both
terminals had existing vapor control
systems at the truck loading area. One
terminal had an installed oil sorption
system, with an additional uninstalled
scrubber; the other had an installed
incinerator. Each vapor control system
had enough excess capacity to handle the
vapors from the barge loading facilities.
The terminal with the incineration
system was selected as a demonstration
site. The on-shore vapor collection
system was connected to an existing
incineration system with the correspond-
ing safety and flow control equipment. A
barge with vapor collection piping was
leased. Equipment such as overflow
alarms and flame arresters were also
purchased for installation on the barge to
reduce the risk of overfill or explosion.
Quality assurance and quality control
plans were submitted to the EPA for
approval. The QA/QC plan detailed the
-------
sampling, data collection, and handling
procedures.
Just before start-up, the program was
curtailed.
During the study phase, 80 mg of
hydrocarbons/L was considered the level
achievable using reasonably available
control technology (PACT). This standard
was applied to bulk loading at gasoline
truck terminals. Subsequently, EPA
issued a new source performance
standard (NSPS) of 35 mg/L. The actual
emission level that may be chosen for
barge loading will be based on perform-
ance and cost considerations, not
necessarily the 80 (or more recently 35)
mg/L standard used at truck loading. The
80 mg/L standard that existed at the time
of the study was chosen only as a base
line for cost and performance considera-
tions and does not reflect EPA's attitude
toward a standard for barge loading.
Conclusions
Of the vapor recovery systems, calcu-
lations showed that oil absorption was
the most economical, followed by carbon
adsorption and refrigeration. However,
selection of a particular vapor control
technique depends on site-specific condi-
tions.
While calculations indicated a possible
payback with a vapor recovery system,
often the payback period is longer than
the expected life of the recovery equip-
ment.
Generally, users felt that vapor
recovery systems at truck loading
facilities are not significantly more eco-
nomical than incineration because of
their higher capital and operating costs.
Prior EPA reports cite 80 mg of
hydrocarbon/L of gasoline loaded as the
level achievable with reasonably avail-
able control technology (RACT) at truck
loading. This is about a 90% control.
Because of the lower efluent
concentrations at barge loading, a 90%
control level may be significantly below
80 mg/L. Existing vapor recovery
systems can meet the 80 mg/L emission
level. However, if the emission concen-
tration is reduced significantly, major
upgrading of the vapor recovery equip-
ment may be necessary.
Incineration may be the lowest cost
(equipment and operating) approach to
vapor control, especially at smaller
terminals. However, no payback is
possible, and there are additional
safety considerations.
For the two installations discussed
here, passive safety equipment (e.g..
pretested and/or approved flame
arresters) would provide an adequate
level of safety. Because of the short vapor
lines and prior testing of the flame
arresters, active safety systems (e.g.,
inerting, vapor saturation, and dilution)
were not used since they did not improve
the overall safety of the system. However,
in some cases (e.g., long vapor lines),
active safety systems should be strongly
considered.
Equipping a barge with a vapor collec-
tion system when constructed is
significantly less expensive than a later
retrofit.
Because the terminal operator may not
own or operate the barge, legal questions
concerning safety and cost liability remain
to be answered.
Recommendations
If the control of gasoline vapors at
barge loading facilities is desired by the
EPA, a field demonstration will be valua-
ble for safety and economic analysis of an
operational vapor collection and control
system.
Vapor control systems were examined
for two gasoline terminals: one used
vapor recovery; the other, incineration.
Demonstrations at both would aid in
comparing the two vapor control
technologies.
The actual benefits of a vapor recovery
system are difficult to measure because
of the small fractions of gasoline
recovered compared to the volume
transferred. Continuous monitoring of
the influent and effluent hydrocarbon
concentrations would help the user real-
ize the possible payback advantages of a
vapor recovery system. In any case, the
use of continuous monitoring
instruments on the exhaust of the vapor
control units could be considered. The
performance of the units is unknown,
unless monitored more than occasionally.
-------
S. S. Gross is with MSA Research Corporation, Evans City, PA 16033.
SamuelL. Rakes is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Demonstration of Vapor Control Technology for
Gasoline Loading of Barges." (Order No. PB 84-239 425; Cost: $10.00, subject
to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
irU S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1984—759-015/7820
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |