EPA-450/3-75-046-a
  April 1975
 A STUDY OF VAPOR CONTROL
      METHODS  FOR GASOLINE
     MARKETING OPERATIONS:
VOLUME  I - INDUSTRY SURVEY
   AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Office of Air and Waste Management
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
      Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
                               EPA-450/3-75-046-a
A STUDY OF VAPOR CONTROL
   METHODS FOR GASOLINE
   MARKETING OPERATIONS:
VOLUME I - INDUSTRY SURVEY
  AND CONTROL  TECHNIQUES
                   by
          C.E. Burklin, E.G. Cavanaugh,
         J.C. Dickerman, and S.R. Fernandes

              Radian Corporation
            8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard
              Austin, Texas 78766

             Contract No. 68-02-1319
        EPA Project Officer: Edwin J. Vincent
                Prepared for

        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Office of Air and Waste Management
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
      Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771]

                 April 1975    ' - .vJU'i.' '

-------
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 - as supplies permit -  from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, 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
Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas 78766, in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-02-1319.  The contents of this report are reproduced herein as
received from Radian Corporation. 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~450/3-75-046-a
                                     11

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                            Volume I
                                                          Page
            INTRODUCTION	  1

1. 0         SUMMARY	  2
1.1         Report Obj ectives	  2
1.1.1       Regulations	  2
1.1.2       Control Technology	  3
1.1.3       Statistics	  4
1. 2         Conclusions and Comments	  5

2 .0         TECHNICAL DISCUSSION	  9
2.1         Gasoline Marketing Industry	 11
2.1.1       Background	 11
2.1.1.1     Size and Extent of the Industry	 11
2.1.1.2     The Gasoline Marketing Network	 20
2.1.1.3     Gasoline Market - Projections	 32
2.1.2       Air Pollution Contribution	 40
2.1.2.1     Adverse Effects of Hydrocarbon Emissions	 40
2.1.2.2     How Gasoline Marketing Contributes to Atmos-
            pheric Hydrocarbons	 43
2.1.2.3     Magnitude of Gasoline Marketing Emissions	 44
2.1.2.4     Seasonal Characteristics - Photochemical
            Oxidant Levels	 49
2.1.3       Gasoline Marketing Systems	 58
2.1.3.1     Bulk Terminals	 58
2.1.3.2     Marine Terminals	 60
2.1.3.3     Bulk Plants	 60
2.1.3.4     Service Stations	 65
2.1.4       Uncontrolled Emissions	 67
2.1.4.1     Bulk Terminals	 67
2.1.4.2     Bulk Plants	 73
2.1.4.3     Service Stations	 74
                              iii

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Volume I (cont.)
2. 2         Emission Control Technology	  76
2.2.1       Terminals	  76
2.2.1.1     Tankage Control Measures	  76
2.2.1.2     Loading Rack Vapor Controls	  89
2.2.1.3     Vapor Recovery Units	  95
2.2.2       Service Stations	 114
2.2.2.1     Stage I Control Technology	 116
2.2.2.2     Stage II Control Technology	 128
2.2.2.3     Nozzle Design-Effects on Vapor Recovery	 164
2.2.3       Bulk Stations	 170
2.2.3.1     Vapor Balance	 170
2.2.3.2     Vapor Recovery Systems	 171
2.2.3.3     Cost	 171
2.2.3.4     Operating Reliability	 173
2. 3         Other Environmental Effects	 174
2.3.1       Impact on Water Pollution	 174
2.3.2       Impact on Solid Wastes	 174
2.3.3       Energy Considerations	 17 4
2.4         Advantages/Disadvantages of Various
            Regulation Criteria	 175
2.4.1       Regulations Based on Percent Reduction	 175
2.4.2       Regulations Based on Mass Emissions.	 178
2.4.3       Regulations Based on Equipment Standards	 179

            BIBLIOGRAPHY	 181
                               IV

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES
                           Volume I
TABLE 2.1-1   Gasoline Refining and Marketing
              Facilities	
12
TABLE 2.1-2   Gasoline Consumption By State 	  17

TABLE 2.1-3   Average Fuel Consumption 1969-1973	21

TABLE 2.1-4   1973 Oil Company Marketing Statistics ...  24
TABLE 2.1-5   Number of Gasoline Service Stations and
              Sales Volume 1968 - 1974	
31
TABLE 2.1-6   Gasoline Marketing By State 	  34

TABLE 2.1-7   Contribution of Pollutants to Vegetation
              Damage in California	42
TABLE 2.1-8   National Emissions of Hydrocarbon
              Compounds, 1968 	
45
TABLE 2.1-9   Hydrocarbon Emissions Inventory Summary--
              Air Quality Control Region 7,  Houston -
              Galveston	4-6
TABLE 2.1-10  Hydrocarbon Emissions Inventory Summary--
              Air Quality Control Region 3,  Austin-
              Waco	47

-------
LIST OF TABLES - Volume I (cont.)
                                                         Page
TABLE 2.1-11   Summary of Hydrocarbon Emission Trends
               From Gasoline Marketing	   48
TABLE 2.1-12   U.  S.  Bulk Storage Capacity By Tank
               Size	
                                            59
TABLE 2.1-13   Uncontrolled Hydrocarbon Emissions From
               250,000 Gal/Day Bulk Terminal	   72
TABLE 2.2-1    Summary of Storage Tank Costs
TABLE 2.2-2    Installed Costs for Variable Vapor Space
               Tanks (50,000 bbl-1961) 	
                                            82
                                            o o
                                            OO
TABLE 2.2-3    Characteristics of Vapor Recovery Units
               for Bulk Terminals	113
TABLE 2.2-4    Summary of Computer Calculations. .  .
                                           115
TABLE 2.2-5
Data and Results of Displacement Vapor
Recovery Study for Underground
Deliveries	
                                                          117
TABLE 2.2-6    Summary of Bulk Drop Data	118
TABLE 2.2-7
Summary of Vapor Emissions - Tank Truck
Delivery Tests with Service Station Vapor
Control Systems 	  119
TABLE 2.2-8
Predicted Potential Efficiency of a
Carbon Storage System 	
                                                          148
                               VI

-------
LIST OF TABLES - Volume I  (cont.)

                                                         Page
TABLE 2.2-9    Summary of Service Station Stage II
               Vapor Recovery Systems	   166

TABLE 2.3-1    Energy Conserved or Used at Gasoline
               Marketing Facilities	176
                              VI1

-------
                         LIST OF FIGURES
                            Volume I                     Page
FIGURE 2.1-1   U. S. Gasoline Consumption	   16

FIGURE 2.1-2   The Gasoline Marketing Distribution
               System in the United States	   22

FIGURE 2.1-3   Marketing Trends at Gasoline Service
               Stations	   29

FIGURE 2.1-4   Monthly Oxidant Maxima, Los Angeles and
               San Bernadino, California - 1972	   50

FIGURE 2.1-5   Monthly Oxidant Maxima, Camden, New Jersey
               and Denver, Colorado - 1972	   51

FIGURE 2.1-6   Monthly Oxidant Maxima, San Diego and
               Oceanside, California - 1972	   52

FIGURE 2.1-7   Monthly Oxidant Maxima, Sacramento,
               California - 1972	   53

FIGURE 2.1-8   Monthly Oxidant Maxima, Bakersfield and
               Stockton, California - 1972	   54

FIGURE 2.1-9   Monthly Oxidant Measurements, Azusa, Los
               Angeles, and San Diego, California -
               1972	   55

FIGURE 2.1-10  Monthly Oxidant Measurements, San Bernadino
               and Sacramento California - 1972	   56
                               Vlll

-------
 LIST  OF  FIGURES  - Volume  I  (cont.)
FIGURE  2.1-11
                                         Page
Hourly Oxidant Measurements,  Bakersfield
and Stockton, California, and Denver,
Colorado - 1972	    57
FIGURE  2.1-12   Diagram of a Fixed Roof Tank
                                            61
FIGURE  2.1-13   Diagram of a Floating Roof Tank.
                                            62
FIGURE  2.1-14   Vapor and Liquid Flow in a Typical
                Bulk Terminal	
                                           63
FIGURE  2.1-15   Vapor and Liquid Flow in a Typical Bulk
                Plant	    66

FIGURE  2.1-16   Vapor and Liquid Flow in a Typical Service
                Station	    68
FIGURE  2.2-1   Standard Fixed Cone Roof Tanks
                                            78
FIGURE  2.2-2   Pan-Type Floating Roof Tank.
FIGURE  2.2-3    Pontoon Floating Roof Tank
FIGURE  2.2-4   Double Deck Floating Roof.
                                            78
                                            79
                                            79
FIGURE  2.2-5   Pan-Type Internal Floating Cover ....    80
FIGURE  2.2-6   Lifter Roof Tank
                                            80
FIGURE  2.2-7   Integrated Vapor Gathering System. ...    84
                              IX

-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Volume I (cont.)

                                                         Page
FIGURE 2.2-8    Combined Storage Tank and Flexible
                Diaphragm.	    36

FIGURE 2.2-9    Independent Flexible Diaphragm 	    87

FIGURE 2.2-10   Top Loading Arm Equipped With A Vapor
                Recovery Nozzle	    90

FIGURE 2.2-11   Detail of a Vapor Recovery Nozzle. ...    92

FIGURE 2.2-12   Bottom Loading Vapor Recovery	    93

FIGURE 2.2-13   Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption
                Unit By Parker Hannifin	    97

FIGURE 2.2-14   Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption Unit
                By Rheem Superior	    98

FIGURE 2.2-15   Compression-Refrigeration-Condensation
                Unit By GESCO	   101

FIGURE 2.2-16   Compression-Refrigeration-Condensation
                Unit By Vaporex	   102

FIGURE 2.2-17   Refrigeration Vapor Recovery Unit By
                Edwards	   104

FIGURE 2.2-18   Lean Oil Absorption System By Southwest
                Industries	   106

-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Volume I  (cont.)

                                                         Page
FIGURE 2.2-19   Flame Oxidation System By AER
                Corporation ...............
FIGURE 2.2-20   Diagram of a Coaxial Fitting and Fill
                Tube Adapter ...............   122

FIGURE 2.2-21   Coaxial Vapor Recovery System ......   129

FIGURE 2.2-22   Diagram of a Vapor Balance System. .  .   .   132

FIGURE 2.2-23   Sensitivity of Displaced Loss to
                Temperature at Various Values of RVP .   .   134

FIGURE 2.2-24   Effect of Temperature Differential
                on Emission Rates, RVP = 11 .......   135

FIGURE 2.2-25   Diagram of a Compression-Refrigeration-
                Condensation Vapor Recovery Unit ....   143

FIGURE 2.2-26   Schematic of a Carbon Storage Vapor
                Recovery Unit ..............   147

FIGURE 2.2-27   Diagram of a Catalytic Oxidation Vapor
                Recovery System .............   151

FIGURE 2.2-28   Schematic Diagram of a Thermal Oxidation
                Unit ..................   152

FIGURE 2.2-29   Diagram of a Refrigeration Vapor
                Recovery System .............   156

FIGURE 2.2-30   Schematic of the Gasoline Engine Vapor
                Recovery System .............   159
                               XI

-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Volume I (cont.)
FIGURE 2.2-31   Schematic of a Compression-Absorption-
                Adsorption Vapor Recovery System. .  .

FIGURE 2.2-32   Schematic of an Adsorption-Absorption
                Vapor Recovery System 	
 Page

.  163
FIGURE 2.2-33   Low Pressure Tank Emissions vs Tank
                Operating Pressure Range	
  165
  172
                               XII

-------
                          INTRODUCTION

           The purpose of this report is to provide the Environ-
mental Protection Agency with information relative to hydrocarbon
emission sources in the gasoline marketing industry.

           This report contains information on the size of and
growth trends within the industry, the extent and nature of its
hydrocarbon emissions, and the status of existing and developing
emission control technology.

           Additional work is required in the evaluation of hydro-
carbon emissions from the gasoline marketing industry.  This
work involves re-evaluation of test procedures and further inves-
tigation of the impacts of various control alternatives.  Recom-
mended additional work and a discussion of unresolved issues are
included in the report.
                               -1-

-------
1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       Report Objectives

          It is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency,
prior to issuing documents leading to emissions regulations or
for emissions guidelines, to make every effort to examine care-
fully the impacts of such documents on citizens,  industry, and
government.  The approach is to gain broad knowledge of the in-
dustry in question; its size, type of facilities, growth patterns,
and history with regard to pollution.  Of interest also are regu-
lations, pending or in force, that have an impact on the in-
dustry, on its customers and employees, or on any citizen or
organization that might be affected.  The objective of this re-
port is to provide to EPA technical information relating to
hydrocarbon emission from gasoline narketing facilities and to
the methods of controlling these emissions.

1.1.1     Regulations

          Regulation of hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline
marketing operations is being examined by EPA for both existing
and new facilities.  Although the emission control equipment
and the marketing facilities proper are basically identical,
there are notable differences in emission control objectives
for the two cases.

          Sections 108, 109, and 110 of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970 apply to existing sources.  In these sections it
is stated that the Administrator of the EPA has authority, after
identifying air pollutant sources, and establishing regulations
prescribing national standards for these pollutants, to require
that implementation plans be provided by states where control
of such emissions might be required.
                              -2-

-------
          Federal standards of performance for new stationary
sources will be considered under Section 111 of the Act which
requires that standards of performance reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account
the cost of achieving such reduction) the Administrator deter-
mines has been adequately demonstrated.

          Achieving the national ambient air quality standard
for hydrocarbons (maximum three-hour concentration of 160 yg/m3,
not to be exceeded more than once per year) may require gasoline
vapor emission control at existing facilities in various seg-
ments of the nation.  Some air pollution control districts,
however, may require no emission controls at existing gasoline
handling facilities, depending on the nature and intensity of
hydrocarbon emissions from other sources in that district.

          Upon promulgation of new source standards of perfor-
mance,  those facilities identified as new sources or those modi-
fied such as to substantially increase emissions from existing
sources will be subject to control such that new pollutants
added to the air are he"! 1 to the minimum possible or practical
amount.

1.1.2     Control Technology

          Hydrocarbon emission control technology at service
stations,  bulk plants,  and terminals today is that involved with
control at existing facilities.   In many cases,  the equipment
in use is quite new and not fully performance tested.  Further-
more, while these recovery systems may be adequate for control
of existing facilities, control regulations for new sources may
require higher overall collection efficiencies.
                             -3-

-------
          This report,  therefore,  includes the results of in-
vestigation of all aspects of hydrocarbon emission in the gasoline
marketing industry.   This includes analysis of performance tests
on existing control units at service stations and terminals.   It
also includes engineering assessment of these units on a theoreti-
cal basis, evaluation of their capital and operating costs,
consideration of their reliability and safety of operation;  all
based on information supplied by equipment suppliers and in-
dustry users.

          Because many  segments of  the control  technology are
in  their  infancy, it is  essential that well  considered  projections
are made  to  assess ultimate methods  of achieving  "best" practical
control.  One example is  anticipated improvements  in  mechanical
design  of the nozzle-fill pipe  interface  for vehicle  refueling.
Any major improvement of  this equipment if achieved nationwide,
would have considerable bearing on  determining  the  "best" approach
to  effective containment  of gasoline vapor emissions.
1.1.3      Statistics

           The gasoline marketing network is large and complex.
Its activities affect a large percentage of the citizenry on
a day-to-day basis.  Certain sections of this report are in-
tended to provide EPA with helpful background information on
the industry.  Included are statistical data (number of stations
and terminals, gallons sold, growth patterns, and so on) and
commentary (anticipated reactions, alternative technology,
status of regulations, and so on).
                              -4-

-------
1.2       Conclusions and Comments

          The following comments are presented to summarize the
status of the principal issues involved in the evaluation of
control technology for both new and existing gasoline marketing
facilities.   Considerable work remains to be done in the eval-
uation of hydrocarbon emission control systems.  Some of this
work involves field testing to substantiate equipment perfor-
mance at marketing locations.  Other work involves investigation
of issues described in the following paragraphs.

          (1)  At service stations 90 percent control or
               better of emission resulting from under-
               ground tank failure operations can be
               achieved using known technology.  This
               essentially involves using a balance system
               with submerged fill for fuel drops.

          (2)  For Stage II controls it appears that
               80 percent control can be achieved with a
               balance system, assuming a reasonably good
               nozzle-f-a.1 pipe interface.   Using vacuum
               assist with reasonably good fit at the
               nozzle, a 90 percent control looks possible.
               This assumes,  however,  that the secondary
               recovery equipment can be operated in a safe
               and reliable fashion.

          (3)  There has been little industrial experi-
               ence demonstrating reliable stream factors
               with the vacuum assist units.   This equip-
               ment is,  however,  in an early period of
               development.   Similar types of equipment in
               industrial and commercial use have histories
               of highly reliable operation.

                             -5-

-------
1.2  Cotrclusions and Comments (Cont. )

          (4)   The costs  to install recovery systems  at
               new service stations are estimated to  be
               $3000 for  balance systems,  and $10,000 for
               vacuum assist systems,  both based on in-
               stallation at a typical 32,000 gallon  per
               month station.   For an  existing station the
               costs are  estimated to  be $6000 for balance
               systems and $13,000 for vacuum assist
               systems.

          (5)   The population of retail gasoline outlets
               is changing.   The total number of service
               stations  in the nation  has  decreased over
               the past  two years.   Small  to medium size
               stations  are being phased out.  New stations
               being built are generally in the larger
               category  (50,000 to 150,000 gallons per
               month).  Many convenience store and self
               service outlets ranging in  size from very
               small (2000 gallons per month) to very
               large (150,000 gallons  per  month) are  also
               among the  new installations.

          (6)   For very  small retail outlets, particularly
               in rural  areas, the use of  vacuum assist
               adds substantially to capital and operating
               costs,  while providing  only a marginal
               benefit in terms of pollution control.

          (7)   Meaningful comparisons  of vacuum assist
               and vapor  balance systems are difficult
               because of testing procedure inadequacies.
                              -6-

-------
1.2  Conclusions and Comments (cont.)

          (8)   Resolution of the nozzle-fill pipe closure
               problem will require the contributions  of
               automobile manufacturers,  gasoline marketers,
               nozzle manufacturers,  and government  agencies.

          (9)   There has  been a steady decline in the
               number of  bulk stations in the nation.
               Many more  such stations are marginal  opera-
               tions and  probably will be closed,  or at
               least not  expanded,  in  the years ahead.
               There will undoubtedly  be the need for  a
               limited number of new bulk stations in
               certain rural areas,  however.

         (10)   Control technology used in either bulk
               terminals  or service stations appears to
               be directly applicable  to bulk stations.

         (11)   Vapor control systems have been in use  at
               bulk terminals for two  decades.   The  technology
               is,  therefore,  well established.   New and
               improved designs are being made commercially
               available,  however.

         (12)   Marine terminals have not  been subject  to
               vapor control in the past;  however, this
               situation  may change.   Control technology
               used at bulk terminals  should be directly
               applicable at marine loading facilities.

         (13)   The  actual impact of gasoline vapor emissions
               nationwide has not been quantified.   While
               certain urban areas  have experienced  pronounced
                              -7-

-------
1.2  Conclusions and Comments (cont.)

               adverse effects because of the conversion
               of these emissions to photochemical oxidants,
               the impacts on many rural regions have not
               been characterized.

          (14)  Regulations governing hydrocarbon emissions
               from gasoline marketing operations may be
               promulgated on three bases:   percent reduction,
               mass emissions, and equipment standards.
               A regulation based on mass emissions has
               advantages in that it is applicable to
               all vapor recovery systems and is not
               affected by seasonal variations.
                             -8-

-------
2.0       TECHNICAL DISCUSSION

          Technical information and evaluations of many aspects
of both hydrocarbon emissions and hydrocarbon recovery from
the gasoline marketing industry are contained in this section
of the report.  The following discussion presents brief descrip-
tions of each subsection.

          Section 2.1 contains a description of the domestic
gasoline industry, including the number and locations of plants
and facilities, product rates and values, growth trends, and
number of people employed by and served by the industry.  The
current status of regulations and transportation control plans
covering control at certain existing marketing facilities is
given.  Descriptions of equipment and support facilities in
terminals, bulk stations, and service stations are provided.
The nature, extent and impact of hydrocarbon emissions from
these facilities are described.

          The available control systems in use or under develop-
ment are discussed in Section 2.2, with regard to operating
principles, and histories of control efficiency, mechanical
performance, reliability, and general applicability to the
primary emission sources.  Descriptive sketches are provided.

          For terminals and service stations numerous control
systems are available commercially.   Control at bulk stations
has had limited application in the nation; however, technology
developed for terminals and service stations appears to be
totally applicable.   Gasoline handling operations at marine
terminals is also subject to technology transfer according to
manufacturers supplying equipment and fittings to that industry.
                             -9-

-------
 2.0  Technical Discussion  (cont.)

          The impact on air pollution of these control systems
is described in Section 2.3.  These impacts are defined as mass
emission reductions at each source.  The factors being considered
in state transportation control plans regarding reduction in
ambient air concentrations are discussed.  Impacts on other pol-
lution forms such as water or solid waste are negligible for
these systems.

          There are several issues concerning hydrocarbon
emissions from the gasoline marketing industry which were un-
resolved at the time this report was drafted.  These issues
are discussed in Section 2.4.   With regard to emissions control
at gasoline marketing facilities, unresolved issues are pri-
marily differences of opinion with no one opinion fully sup-
ported by fact.

          Some facts, such as efficiencies or costs of vapor
recovery units, can be obtained through source tests or through
recorded capital or operating costs.  Other data, such as
operating reliability of newly developed systems, may not be
subject to immediate proof, but might yield to judgment based
on analogous experience.  Each unresolved issue described in
this section is examined with the purpose of deciding where
facts are needed and if so, how they should be obtained.
Where judgment is the principal requirement, this is so defined.

          Finally, a discussion of areas in which Radian feels
additional work is necessary to be able to fully evaluate the
impact of hydrocarbon emissions and controls from the gasoline
marketing industry is presented in Section 2.5.  Some of these
areas of work may be under current study, however, all should
be investigated to fully resolve the issues.
                             -10-

-------
2.1       Gasoline Marketing Industry

2.101     Background

          The gasoline marketing industry is defined as that in-
dustry concerned with the transfer and storage of gasoline.
This definition includes the loading of gasoline into tank
trucks and/or tank cars at petroleum refineries and marketing
terminals, the unloading of gasoline into storage tanks at
service stations, and, finally, the loading of gasoline into
vehicle tanks.  These operations represent a significant part
of the petroleum industry.

2.1.1.1   Size and Extent of the Industry

          In 1967, over 80 billion gallons per year were dis-
tributed through 2,700 marketing terminals and over 36,000
bulk stations.  By 1973 annual U.S. consumption had grown to
over 106 billion gallons, about 70 percent of which was sold to
passenger cars at 212,000 retail service stations.  The remain-
ing 30 billion gallons were sold to industrial, commercial, and
rural customers or to passenger cars at nonservice station out-
lets.  The combined wholesale and retail segments of the gasoline
marketing industry employ 700,000 people.

          U.S. Gasoline Production

          In 1973, 261 refineries in 38 states produced 6.7
million barrels per day of gasoline.  Table 2.1-1 specifies the
number of refineries and the volume of gasoline produced in each
state.  Outputs from these refineries, plus some imported refined
products, are the sources of supply to the domestic gasoline
marketing network.
                             -11-

-------





























J 	 1
1
1—1
CS|
W
l_^
PQ
<^
H















































M
r-l
H
lj
U

rT)

o
M
H
1
O
<^
o
2;
r-l
Zl
M
tM

OS

W
O
o

















c
o
•r-l
JJ
nl
en

cu
cj
• H
0)
cn
CO £
C w r
Or-l
•H flJ
4J C
cfl -i-4
CO G
QJ
i-* r
3-0
PQ C

CM
01
r-l
10
C
•r-l
E
u
H

CM
10
C
O
JJ
M;
4-J
CO

,V!
H
3
m

lH
O "C

•H .c
o -u
U! 3
CO p.
U 4-
(5
r-l
CO
a
•1-
M
cu
tJ
•H
IM
a
P4






r-_4








O i— 1 f*^ ^ CO o 00 1 — ^OOCMOOCO
i— i vi'in^inr^cMini—icMrooocM
incMcor-ii— ir- ir^incor-ir^-^-r-i
>3" CM CO CM CO CM CM VO r-l
r-l



co oo CM m vo vO o co r*~ oo vo CM r--
r-ioOi-4covovocM^ inincor-i
m CM in i— i co i— i invo co
••
r-l


r-ICMOOCMCMCM-d-f-incOCMCM
O r^* co in r°^ m co *^ CM r*^ "^ oo
in CMincM,^ *O CM CM CM
O VO vt CO CO CO r-l



^ CO 1
- 1 •> - - 1
CM CM 1 O CM OO 1
CM I— 1 CM u-! OO
m CM <-* t~-




CM r~. o o •* o o
r-l r-l CM









CM 00 CM
r-l CM r-l
O vO CM
CO <± OO



CM r— co
r-~ in CM
r-l r-l O
-
I-l


r- r-i oi
OO VO vt
r-l r-l r-l
r-l




OO CM 1 —
m -J co






CM CM in
CM r-i m
r-l r-l O

l-l








o
1 1 CO
1 1
1 1 I*-'
m





CM O vO










m
00
in
-*



CM
r-4
O
•
r-l


in
CM
CO
r-l




CO
*^






CM
00
CM

r-4








0
r-t
—
o\
vo





ro







CU
4-1
rt
4J
in






rt
e
a
n
to
r-l
*£




CO
V^
CO
to
I— 1
*£



a
c
o
N
• r-l
Vj
*£


CO
to
U)
£
to

^t
<£
ca
•i-i
c
IH
0
CH
•H
t— i
tg
u


o
•a
CO
V-t
o
1— 1
o
CJ
3
o
•I-l
4J
CJ
cu
c
c
o
o


CU
M
nj
s
to
r-l
cu
o



tO
•a
• H
• M
0 0
• i-H
a b
            CO
 CO         -r4   tO
•l-l  -A       O   C
 00  -r4   O   C
 V-l  10   f.  -r4
 O  'f   C3  r-t
 CU  tO   -O  r-l
O  X   r-t  r-t
         CO


CO
to
en
C
to

\^
O
3
iJ
C
CU
flt
C
CO
•1-1
CQ
•H
3
o



CU
c
•1-1
tO
V
•a
c
tO
rH
>s

to
CU
CO
3
J3
u
to
to
IA
53
C
ttf
bO
•i-l
r;
u
53
«
O
to
d)

1£
2
-12-

-------

















































^•N

4-J
C
°l
^
r-l
1
i— 1
CvJ

W
hJ
PQ
H
en
C
O
4J
4J
CO
0)
U
1
CO




•* in
CM
ON
r-l
CM
f^
CM


« -K
C cok
O r-l
i-l ct)
•u C
qj «H
f p
co C
.MH
r-l C
3 73
B9 C
tti
CM
r^
id
c

1

CO Q) *C
W
M
H
M
M
0

fc.
o
53
H

s
3
si

1
U
Z
pT
a
w

M
o
CO
0
c-^
•H J3
rH^-"
to £
O 4-
3
O
•o
CM
ON
r^
CM



N

vO
ON
rH
CO
CO
•J-




vO
ON
in
CO







CO
p-
vO
ON
rH
^
^*





O
CO
P-
r-l
o

r-l
VO
rH




rH
CO
(11
•rl
QJ
C
•rl
IH
OJ





rJ
ON
r-l
m







0)
4J
rt
4J
CO

TI
a
ex
•rl
n
to
•rl
tn
to
•r-l
S




co o in oo oo GO i— i ON vo o
3OONvOONCOvOCOin-^r-l
CMrHCMr^OOr-»COCOO>^
VO rH CM in rH rH VO



SSSSS2SP!^S



co co oo f^ ^o vo r**> co vc oo
oOt-Hoor--cr)-3'vo%^i<»^
O *^ vO r~^ C"*J C*J Is** 00 vO
i~)

,
to i CT\ c**i r^* o^ r^ CN *^ *^
mir-li-l COr-(OOi-(r-l
1 CM iH






CO 1 ON ON CJN P^ C3 rH CM >^
CM 1 CO CO vO *^ CO CO CO CO
o i in rH CM *^" r** vo
1
rH



O vo O O O O O
o CM o i i r~ in o i o
*sf CO CM 1 1 ON f^ r-H 1 CO
00 CO CM 1 1 p^ CO CM 1 CM
CO VO CO rH «^ CM
CM








rHCOr-IOOinvOCMOCM




at
TH .«
J3 >. O C
tn v o -ri id
•rl a CX W -rl ,iiMOO
^CjWOjn)(l)ll)OM ,yj
co iJ M (Q O O
tocxi>.»33»
•rlO(U u^ r*- r-» co r^ oo
O VO lO f*^ «4" lO *^" CT* i— I lO VO r^
iH r-t


00 in CO vO f*^ ^O ^O CO OO r~l rH f"* ^f O\
r-)CMCMU-ii-l-strHmi-J.-li-*OOa%C»J
rH i-» rH






in o\ «^" co r^ oo i-^ CT\ r^ ^ i-^ r*^ ON O
O CO O O CM \O cO CO «^ vO vO . vO
ON lO tO vO CO lA "tf 00 r-4 *^ lf\ r4
•
rH



o p^ m o mo o o
ONrH ICO 1 1 lO^^ '^r^**"*
O-*l-*l 1 IO°'*IOr*vO
ONin co t-in CM"*
CM CM CO • r*> rH

rH






r^CMf-HrHrHOOOCOvOOrHvOCO
rH rH ~J-




•rl C HI <8
c a c c -ri
Id rH -rl 01 0) O C
Id > CO r-l 4J 0) CTJ 4J -r<
£ l-Ht-HOOCQ 4JiHbOOO
OCX l-i ^ to CCCri
•rli-HOICO CXldCrltO
000(Si§COCOHHD>>33:'
-13-

-------
CM CM
       NO
       C-l
       CM




































J
o
o
iH
1
•
i i
CN
siavi
CO 1*
C w to
OrH C-
•H id r
4-1 C 0
19 -rl i-
4J &
co C
41
rH CM
O 13 Is
PQ C NJ
id c


CM rH rH
>4 ^ \O «O
- O rH >O
^ » *
-1 rH >n
CM

CO CM ON

3 CM rH O
IN -
H rH ON
CM

CM
CO
id
•rl U
Br
41
H





- rH 1 rH
D r~ i O
TN i r-
H
CM





2
Lk Stations
i— i
pa

CM 1 CO
•~ CM 1 CO
O CM 1 CO
IN - 1
•H rH NO
CM





CO
Cd
M
FACILIT
g
|

0
51
M
5
t*
g
w
GASOLIN
rH
5
Output (
O O «0
•o o N O
33 H





O\
O\
O
>% '
o> ^

*^ -M
C w\
«j u J;}
2
*~* .G .
S u ^
•H
0 T>
5'" 5

43 'o ~*
" 1 S


s*.
rH
CO
O
1
(Q

*o w «T N"*'
Q) C(J y
rrt "^ **^
(U OT T!»
publicly re]
of the Censx
.cly releasec
dustry Stati
C 3 rH £
01 id ,0
01 01 3 g
•"i ^
•-1 CU
4J pp QJ ^
2 « O
C C j" rl
M O rS a)
19 -rl 41 pJJ
w Vj •»"
41 4J rH £
r4 CO *H Jj
3 ' -Jj " >
3 -S § a
itj fi W
•§ «< rH
O W u
tfl /i
4J 0 X TJ
." W "° ">
rH 0) T3 Tj
0) 4J M 2
4J Id CO rn
01 4J 11
•^ W r-j _,
B 0 rl 2
O -H c
0 B 01 g
0 43 .5
we <;
1-1 O 4J M
•C U O p.
•it ^
f
CO
4J
Subject Repo
cu
cd
CO
01
o
H
rH
O
n
CO
01
C
CO
M
>4H
O
67 Census
ON
rH
CM
.
CO
u
rea Statisti
<
41
•O
01
IH

01
rH
2
4)
rH
O
CO
CO
01
C
CO
CO
MH
O
72 Census
ON
rH
CO

Statistics
01
<;

01
•O
id
H
rH
•H
4H
O
72 Census
ON
rH

41
U
M
O
CO
                      -14-

-------
2.1.1.1  Size and Extent of the Industry (Cont.)
          U.S. Gasoline Consumption

          In 1973, U.S. consumption of gasoline was 106 billion
gallons, a 4.7 percent increase over 1972 consumption.  As in-
dicated in Figure 2.1-1, the number of gallons of gasoline con-
sumed annually between 1968 and 1973 has increased steadily with
an average annual increase of 5.2%.  This increase may be at-
tributed to two factors:  (1) an increase in the number of
vehicles on the road, and (2) a gradual increase in the number
of miles traveled per vehicle combined with an accompanying de-
crease in the number of miles achieved per gallon through 1973
model automobiles.

          America, a mobile society, has become increasingly
more dependent on the automobile as a means of transportation
in the last two decades.  This trend is demonstrated by the
steady growth in annual consumption of energy by automobiles as
compared with a comparable decrease in energy consumption by
public transportation (CI-005).  Current statistics reflect
that eight out of ten American households own at least one car
and three out of ten own two cars  (FO-027)„

          Roughly 13 million new drivers have been registered
and 17 million motor vehicles have been added to U.S. roads
since 1969.  A state-by-state breakdown of these figures as
compared with gasoline consumption is given in Table 2.1-2,,

          In addition to increased dependence on the automobile,
gasoline demand has been affected by a loss of fuel economy in
recent years.  In 1963, the average passenger car got 14.4 miles
per gallon; in 1973 this figure was estimated to be 13.3 miles
per gallon (NA-168).  This decrease in fuel efficiency has been
attributed to the increased weight of automobiles, the increased
                              -15-

-------
CQ
o
60
CO
c
o
•l-l
PQ
110
105
100
 95
 90
 85
 80
         1968 1969 1970 1971 1972  1973 1974
       FIGURE 2.1-1 - U.S. GASOLINE  CONSUMPTION
       Source:     NPN Mid-Ma^ Factbook. 1968-74.
                          -16-

-------
































CN
'
i — I
•
CN
w
T
t—l
s
H





















































w
H
<;
H

>•
M

z
o
r-l
H
1
CO
z
0
• *

M


0

^
0


























CM
Z
o
I—I

{X<
g

y
O
o

w
z
M
hJ
o
co

o



CM
CO
w
CJ
M
,"7"!
w
>

fij
o
H
O
A
O
w
w
H
cn
O
W







1-1
Z
0
(—I
f-H
<
£3

O
&i










0)
to
(U
o
c
M

5^



CO

f-1 ^*
M1"*
O
o
o

TJ
*"O
CM

3
r-H

to
CO
0)
•H
O
C
M

5^


s~*
"U
0)
4->
S §
ON -rH
r-H 4J
CO
\^s






CM
ON
r-H




CM
r-
rH
^









U
H
CO


CD f"*» vD vO ON CO r** *^ vO P*« vO
inooN^cN-jr— im voo oo i— lOcMONOCM ONinON
CM
in


o
o
o
vO
m
(^








O
EG
Q
M


•^
•*



00
r^
CO
CO
VO
O
m



CM
r-H
rH
CN
m
oo
•*



o
^






CD
o
o
f^.
vO
oo
in




CO
m
co
CO
^j-
vO
in

o
o
o
r-H
in
CM
r-H
r-l



CO
M
O

r-H
d
M


vo
CO



m
r*^
^r
r^
vo
OO
CM



<)-
rH
O
f^
vo
r^-
CM



r^
r-H






O
0
ON
m
ON
CN




CO
^j-
m
00
0
ON
CN

O
o
o
^j-
^J-
CN
m





<^
2j
-------
                  5-1
                  o
                  c
CM


 O

 H



 co

 6
 o
 o
 co

 o
                 en
               CO
               o
               o
               •u
               T>
                  CM
                        r*-coor--oocT\cMoocT>a\r-ioocM   cr>  o  tr>  r-i  co
                            r-l  CM   <]•  'CM  l-l  CM
                            I-I  CM    r-i  .inmr—  coococMvo
                                                  co  H
                                                  co  K
                                                  M  O
                                                           co
                                                           W
                                                                            r-i   oo  m
                                                                               *  O
                                                         CO   W  CJ

                                                         Dy   CO  M
                                                                                 o
                                                   W  U  W   U  U
                                                   a  a  yu   2;  2;
                                                               -18-
-------
                   (U
                   V)
                   CO
                   cu

                   o
                   c
           CM
             Z
             o
                                                                                       CM
                   n
                 ca
                 60
             u
                o
               I O
                                                                 O  00
                                                                 co  r**
                                           CM
                                                                          u~>  O
                                                                          r-l  CO
                                                                          CM
                                                                                       VO
                                                                                       O
                                                                                               CM
                                                                                               r-l
                                                                                                I
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               vO
                                                                                               CTi
             o
             CO
                •o
                   IN
             O    
                                           CM  r-»
                                                            CM
                                                                          CM
                                                                                       CM
                                                                                       in
                                                                                       oo
                                                                                       vO
                                                                                               0)
                                                                                               •U
                                                                                               (0
                                                                                               4J
                                                                                               CO
             W
             r-l
             EC
             W
       CO
       CO

       VJ
       CJ
       c
                                                                                       o
                                                                                         •
                                                                                       1/1
                                                                                               I
Oi
o
H
O
2

O
W
Cd
W
H
CO
M
O
             O
             CU
 TJ
  CU
  4J
I  co
•  e
                   m
                     co   j  H   w               <:
            rJ  M   O  O   CO           E-l  r-l

            cows  <3   K  pi
            W  DC    •    •   W  W  H   W  M
            &4peJCOCOHHE3;>>
                                               Z  M
                                               O  Z   Z
                                               H  M   M
                                               O  O   CO  O
                                               Z  Cd   Z  Z
                                               M  H   O  r-l
                                                        u  S
                                                        CO  O
                                                                CO
                                                                         M
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       H
                                                                     CO
                                                                       •
                                                                     s
                                                                                              OT
                                                                                              O
                                                                                              CO
                                                             -19-
-------
prevalence of accessory items such as air conditioning, power
steering, automatic transmissions, and emission control devices
on post-1970 model cars.  Efforts are now being made by car
manufacturers to reverse this trend.  The use of the catalytic
converter as an emission control device will add to the number
of miles per gallon.  It is estimated that 80-857o of 1975 model
cars will be equipped with catalytic converters (AA-007).
General Motors is predicting a 207, increase in fuel economy on
1975 models equipped with this device.  It will not: be possible
to assess the impact of catalytic converters on overall gaso-
line consumption, however, until mid-1975 (AA-007).  Other fuel
economy measures would include an increased production of lighter
cars and cars with smaller engines.

          The increase in the average number of gallons con-
sumed by passenger cars between 1969 and 1973 is indicated in
Table 2.1-3.  An increase in the average number of miles traveled
is also shown.  Fuel efficiency for cargo vehicles has remained
relatively constant.

2.1.1.2   The Gasoline Marketing Network

          Figure 2.1-2 shows the basic flow of gasoline from
refinery storage to the vehicle refueling stations in the U0S.
marketing network.

          Gasoline is transported from refinery storage to
terminals by pipelines, tankers and barges, or rail tank cars.
In 1967, 427o of the U.S. terminals reported receiving bulk
liquid products by barge and 357<> by pipeline (US-031).

          The same statistics show that approximately 8070 of
the buLk stations received their products by tank truck  (US-031).
                              -20-
-------






































ro

CN

W

lyj
P~J
^4
H

































cn

ON
r-l
1
ON
vO
ON
r-4

z
0

1
CO

O
CJ

J
g


w
a
2
w
cn
01
j^
u
•r-l
£.
01
>

CO W r-l

£ fa cn
0 V4
W ca
OZ 0
<0
K ,-J H
M i— 1 1'
> <5 ot
•
vO vO vO >O CO CO
• • • • • ^
co co co cn cn jzs
i— i i-i r-i i— i 1-1 w
•r-l
X

*
C
\J
•I-l
CO
V4
CO
CO
01
1-1
o
•r-l
JC
01
1 >
Z W
OrJr-l
cj 0 1-1
• Mi
OO CO OO OO CO CO
S

60
iJ X T-l
u w
5 > cn
W O U
CJ M
< H >-i
PS PH 0)
W § W
> 5 C
<3 CO 0)
CO
cfl
PH
SG
i-4
CO
1-1
0)
T3
01
OO iO VQ U™( VO fT[
i— 1 CO ~3" 1O vO
C
o
•r-t
4-*
CO
4-1
O














T3
c
CO

ft
^-N
oo
vO
r-4
1
Z

A
j<|
ON
r-4

•»
v^
O
O
,£3
,4_)
O
CQ
fa

1
*o
•r^
3C

z
PH

i

CO
r--
r-i

> CX-«































^






























co
C
CO
}_j
CO
01
1-1
0
Q J3
M QJ
*~j *^
p4
> r-l
^ r—l
H

m
o
ON vO OO O O •
vo r^« ON r-- r^- 4-»
ON O i— i co co ex.
•\ ** *\ »» »\ Qj
ON O O O O Q
r-l i-l r-l i-l
H CO
co 3 cn
W CJ H
iJ M CO
M ffi U
S W

W 0)
o w
^ c
p2 oj
W CO
> CO
< CO
PH
o"

. •
W
o
CN| 00 r-^ 
-------
  SHIP,  RAIL,  BARGE
                        REFINERY  STORAGE
                                _L
                         BULK TERMINALS
    PIPELINE
 SERVICE STATION
                           TANK TRUCK
                            1
                       AUTOMOBILES,  TRUCKS
                                                     BULK PLANTS
COMMERCIAL,
RURAL USERS
FIGURE 2.1-2 - THE GASOLINE MARKETING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
               IN THE UNITED STATES
                                -22-
-------
2.1.1.2  The Gasoline Marketing Network  (Cont.)

          Bulk stations are intermediate distribution points in
the marketing network.  Gasoline from the 8,000-gallon trucks
is unloaded into storage tanks at the bulk stations, then re-
loaded into smaller tank trucks, usually in the 2,000-gallon
category, for distribution to service stations and to commercial
and rural users.  In many areas, gasoline is delivered directly
from terminals to service stations.  Table 2.1-1 lists the num-
ber of wholesale marketing facilities in each state.  Gasoline
is unloaded into underground storage tanks at the more than
300,000 domestic service stations and other gasoline retail
outlets.   Table 2.1-1 lists the number of service stations in
each state.  Sizes of service stations vary widely, from 5,000
to 500,000 gallons per month of gasoline dispensed.  Average
service station size is about 30,000 gallons per month.  Other
gasoline retail outlets range from 2,000-3,000 gallons per month
to as much as 150,000 gallons per month.

          Sizes and trends for marketing terminals and retail
outlets are described in more detail in the following sections.

          Marketing Companies

          There are over 400 oil companies involved in some
aspect of the U.S. gasoline marketing network according to a
1974 NPN listing (NA-168).  Table 2.1-4 lists those oil companies
whose activities accounted for 0.13 percent or more of the market
in 1973.  For statistical purposes, these companies have been
divided into six categories:  integrated marketers, other
  A service station is defined as a retail outlet with more than
  507o of its dollar value coming from the sale and service of
  petroleum products.  Retail outlets not meeting this definition
  are grouped together as "other gasoline retail outlets" or
  "nonservice station" outlets.
                              -23-
-------
TABLE  2.1-4
1973 OIL COMPANY MARKET IN
Company
Name
Home Office
Gasoline
(add 000
1973
Sales
nal.)
'1. Change
Bulk
Plants
INTEGRATED MARKETERS
Texaco
Exxon
Shell
Amoco
Gulf
Mobil
Standard of
California
Axco
Phillips
Petroleum
Sun
Union
Continental
Cities
Service
Standard of
Ohio
BP Oil
Getty
Skelly
Boron (Sub .
N.Y.. N.Y.
Houston. Tx.
Houston, Tx.
Chicago. 111.
Pittsburgh. Pa.
N.Y. . N.Y.
San Francisco, Ca.
Los Angeles, Ca.
Bartlesvllle. Ok.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Palantlne. 111.
Houston, Tx.
Tulsa. Ok.
Cleveland, Ohio
Montreal, Canada
N.Y. . N.Y.
Tulsa. Ok.
of Standard of Ohio)
8,299,497
7.952.177
7.790.808
7.168.225
7.028.701
«, 752. 328
4.982.476
4.563.353
4.084.997
3,827.395
3.182.161
2,405.071
1.736.622
1.284,865
847.864
679.925
621,444
140,029
1.53
15.53
7.92
2.67
7.86
5.01
6.47
-7.01
.09
-.70
7.64
2.59
-3.80
5.58
-24.64
4.12
4.48
20.54
2404

24
4665
2131
NA
952
1788
2312
NA
1366
1099
55
NA
NA
109
1460
NA
OTHER INTEGRATED I-IARKETF.RS
Marathon
Ashland
Clark
Amerada
Hess
Tenneco Oil
Co.
Murphy
American
Fetrofina
Triangle
Diamond
Shamrock
Tosco
Vlckera
Charter
Crown
Central
Champlln
Apco
Derby
Kerr-McCee
Power Ine
Husky
North
Western
Pasco
Findlay, Ohio
Ashland, Ky.
Milwaukee, Wis.
N.Y., N.Y.
Houston, Tx.
El Dorado, Ark.
Dallas, Tx.
Houston, Tx.
Araarlllo, Tx.

Wichita, Kansas
Houston, Tx.
Baltimore, Md.
Fort Worth. Tx.
Oklahoma City, Ok.
Wichita, Kan.
Oklahoma City, Ok.
Santa Fe Springs, Ca.
Denver, Colo.
St. Paul Park, Minn.
Denver. Colo.
1,583,560
1.548,346
1.312.036
1.039.096
819.869
684.835
646.259
598.851
549.166
358.387
353.403
345.908
341.872
321,964
283.912
263.689
263,292
. 251.150
250.782
246.934
213.964
-0.10
3.50
15.01
2.17
-0.95
3.55
2.18
-9.15
3.83
123.22
31.75
8.65
-9.14
5.83
8.01
2.53
-8.32
8.66
2.65
11.21
1167.86
384
171
NA
NA
NA
10
386
NA
2

NA
NA
NA
299
—
1
146
NA
104
NA
SO
                         Terminals
                           132

                           141
                            98
                           NA
                           NA
                             8

                           113
                            SI

                           NA
                            65
                           NA
                            38

                           NA

                           NA
                             9
                            10
                           NA
                            38
                            25
                            11
                          NA
                          NA

                            29
                            13

                          NA
                            10
                          NA
                          NA
                          NA

                            7
                            1
                            1
                            3
                          NA
                            2
                          NA
                                                         Total  Branded
                                      Service Stations*   Retail Outlctt
23.000

19.509
17.113
17.187
MA
 7.911

NA
13,737

16.057*
13.296
 3.649
 7.624

 7.800

 NA
 2.202
 3.127
 NA
 2.127
   701
 1.854
 NA

   962

 1.203
 4.394

 HA
 1.520
   908
   529
 HA

 1.210
 1.398
   626
 1.575
 NA
   716
 NA

 1.200
35.097

26,000
19,509
27.676
23.553
17.764

15,767
19,272

16.057
14.500
5,939
7.624

7.800

 NA
2.441
4.546
 NA
 3,564
 1.887
 1.854
 NA

 1.134

 1.203
 5.493

 NA
 1.520
  908
  529
 HA

1,267
1.398
  (26
1.641
 NA
  729
 NA

1.200
          -24-
-------
  TABLE  2.1-4   (Cont.)
1973 OIL COMPANY MARKETING STATISTICS
Carolina Sales
Company
Name
UGlorla
Mohawk
Time
Delta
Petroleum
Marketing
Pennzoil
Union Texas
Caribou
Total
Leonard
SUPPLIERS
Rock Island
Golden Eagle
Beacon
Cheker

K&A
Fletcher O&R
Little
America
MARKETERS
Koch Ref.
Martin Oil
Gas land
COOPERATIVES
Cenex
Farmland
Coop Assns.
(add 000 gal.)
Home Office
Houston, Tx.
Los Angeles, Ca.
Loa Angeles, Ca.
Conway , Ark .
McLean, Va.

Houston, Tx.
Houston, Tx.
Afton, Wyo.
Alma, Mich.


Indianapolis, Ind.
Los Angeles, Ca.
Hanford, Ca.
S. Chicago Heights,
111.

Carson, Ca.
Cheyenne. Wyo.


Wichita. Kan.
Blue Island. 111.


St. Paul, Minn.
Kansas City, Mo.

19/3
204,618
182.107
152.127
149,194
137.401

131,282
126,769
124,147
120,156


237.541
220,124
154.865
144,867

139.532
125,049
121,054


241.371
185.316
160,316

342,795
205,619
170.206
7. Change
2.43
29.25
-28.05
55.83
-16.65

-5.46
6.45
-11.59
-13.18


2.18
8.62
-5.20
18.42

-24.42
-22.57
15.37


22.64
-9.23
-12.76

6.64
4.38
13.16
Bulk
Plants
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA

33
NA
1
90


NA
NA
15
NA

NA
NA
NA


NA
6


764
869
NA
Terminals
NA
NA
10
NA
1

5
3
NA
3


HA
NA
3
NA

NA
NA
NA


NA
i


4
16
NA
Service Stations**
HA
225
300
NA
135

S88
271
58
402


NA
NA
226
247

NA
NA
NA


290
217


672
RA
NA
Total Branded
Retail Outlet!
NA
225
300
NA
US

878
271
38
710


RA
MA
241
247

SA
NA
IA


290
227


672
1,192
NA
 MISCELLANEOUS
 TOTAL
                                        169,561

                                    104,154,631
8.71

3.85
  Companies with less than 0.127. of the market are  not  listed.

  Service  stations are defined as ret.iil  outlets with  more than
  50Z of their dollar value coming from the sale and cervice of
  petroleum products.

 NA - Information No1  Available.

 Category  Deflnt'    *
     IntcgrjijT ' r. irketers - Produce, refine,  transport,
     commerce   Tlar^ec under their own brand in 24 or m
                                                         and market  in  interstate
                                                      more states.
 II.   Other jntefirated  Marketers  - Transport  and/or market in  interstate
      cocn-iercc.   i" roJuce  and  re Fine,  also,  but  one or  the other of these
      functions  may  not be  substantial  in  their over-all  operation.  Market
      wl' ,.  their own brand  or brands  in  one to  23 states.
III.   Supj^licrs  - Transport and/or market  in  interstate cornnerce.  May  market
      dTtectly "and/or indirectly.  May  produce  and/or  re fine,  but nei ther
      function  is substand I Jn  their  over-all operation.  Instead, their
      distributive  ". i,cton  aie  operational  because of exchanges and/or
      special pui h i<, Ln>:  arrangements .
 IV.   "Ti^o_tcr<^  - Do not  supply other marketers directly  or indirectly.
         •sot utilize brands,  bulk plants,  or  outlets of any company  in
      groups I,  II,  and III,  and  are  not subsidiaries  or  jobbers for any
      entity other than themselves    Ma> deal in crude, but exert no control
      over, aad  are  free  from control by any  company in groups I, II. and III.
  V.   Co^pe_ra_tLveT  - Generally  serve  a  nonretail public,'  although  sooe  engage
      Tn branded" sales.   May  or may not be intc^'ated.
 VI.   Ml ic*>l lan*>ous  - Unbranded,  nonmarketing operations  (research companies,
      natural-pas producers,  railroads,  etc.) reporting net-taxable  gallonages.
Source:
                     Factbook.  197A  (NA-168).
                                                          -25-
-------
2.1.1.2  The Gasoline Marketing Network (Cont.)

integrated marketers, suppliers, marketers, cooperatives, and
miscellaneouso  These categories are defined in Table 2.1-4.

          Current statistics included give the volume of gaso-
line sales in 1973 and the percentage change in sales from 1972
for each company.  The number of distribution facilities is
also indicated for each company listed.  Bulk plant and terminal
totals include both company-operated and jobber-operated fa-
cilities.

          Marketing Terminals

          Sizes and Number

          Statistics from the 1967 Census of Business show that
there were 2,701 terminals in that year.  Total national liquid
storage capacity of motor gasoline at terminals was 6.2 billion
gallons with an average capacity of 2.3 million gallons per
terminal (US-031).  The same source indicated there were 26,338
bulk stations in 1967.  Liquid storage capacity of motor gaso-
line at bulk stations was 1.0 billion gallons with an average
capacity of 39,660 gallons (US-031).

          Marketing Trends

          Although 1972 Census of Business figures are not yet
          ~k
available,  state totals published to date indicate that gaso-
line was being distributed in 1972 through fewer bulk stations
and terminals than in 1967 (see Table 2.1-1).  Direct contact
with oil companies and industry associations has confirmed this
  Complete 1972 Census of Business statistics are scheduled for
  publication in December, 1974.
                              -26-
-------
2.1.1.2  The Gasoline Marketing Network (Cont.)

preliminary assessment and indicated that the reduction is
primarily in the number of bulk stations.  These contacts have
indicated that there is a current trend toward phasing out bulk
stations for economic reasons.  More gasoline deliveries will
be made directly from terminals with large tank trucks; less
from the disappearing bulk stations with small trucks.  Storage
volumes will be added at terminals to compensate for bulk
terminal reductions.  The decrease in number of bulk stations
will not necessarily have a major impact on overall marketing
operations, however.

          Again, without the benefit of complete 1972 statistics,
it is presumed that the combined sales volume at bulk stations
and terminals has increased at a rate commensurate with the
steady increase in gasoline consumption.

          Gasoline Service Stations
          Sizes and Number

          In 1973 there were 218,000 service stations (NA-168).
A gasoline service stas	   's defined by the U.S. Department
of Commerce as a retail u_ulet with more than 50% of its dollar
volume coming from the sale and service of petroleum products.
As descril" d in the following section on marketing trends, the
total m  jer of gasoline service stations is undergoing rapid
change.  A survey conducted in May and June 1974, by Audits and
Surveys,  Inc., a New York firm reveals that in 1974 there are
196,000 U.S. service stations, a total which is down 9»170 from
their 1973 survey figure of 216,000 (AU-020).

          Detailed breakdowns of service station sizes as
functions of sales volumes are difficult to obtain due to the
                              -27-
-------
2.1.1.2  The Gasoline Marketing Network (Cont.)

reluctance of oil companies to make this information public.  In
1973, average monthly service station throughput was 30,800 gal-
lons per month according to an estimate by Lundberg Survey, Inc.
(LU-044).

          An EPA analysis of service station sales statistics
from the 1967 Census of Business reveals the following totals
for the number of stations in various size categories.
          Service Station Sizes          Number Stations
            Gallons/Year Sold                in 1967
            Less than 150,000                54,100
            150,000-200,000                  17,000
            200,000-250,000                  21,200
            250,000-300,000                  25,500
            Larger than 300,000              98,100
                                            216,000
          Source:  Maxey, Robert, EPA, personal communica-
                   tion, 10 September 1974 (MA-314).
          Marketing Trends

          Two trends are evident when looking at gasoline
marketing operations at service stations during the last five
years:
          (1)  retail sales have increased, and
          (2)  the total number of service stations
               has decreased.

These trends are charted in Figure 2.1-3=

                               -28-
-------
  o
  o
wo
> Q
& q
w <]
CO ^
O S
  O
 • M
O H
&<
  H
  CO
230
225

220

215
210

205
                  -L
                                                  80
                                                  75
45
40
      1968 1969 1970  1971  1972  1973 1974


       ~" Retail Sales

       — No. of Stations


FIGURE  2.1-3- MARKETING T?vENDS  AT GASOLINE

               SERVICE STATIONS
                                                  CO
                                                  S
                                                  O
70  cow

65  w%
60  g M

55  o§
50  
-------
2.1.1.2  The Gasoline Marketing Network (Cont.)
          National Petroleum News has documented the decline
in service station construction.  In 1973, the average oil
company closed 750 stations and opened 97 (NA-168).  The 1974
survey by Audits and Surveys, Inc., confirms the continuation
of this trend in 1974 as previously mentioned.  A review of
selected major and independent oil company 1973 annual reports
reinforces this picture.  Operational policy for all companies
reviewed included a program of closing those stations considered
economically marginal0  New construction programs are underway,
however, to meet intensive growth demands.

          Accompanying the decline in the number of service
stations has been an increase in throughput per station to
accommodate the increased volume of gasoline consumption
nationally.  As indicated in Table 20l-5, passenger car gas-
oline sales have increased from 58.1 billion gallons in 1968
to an estimated 75.8 billion gallons per year in 1974.  Service
station dollar sales show an accompanying increase during this
period.

          Other Gasoline Retail Outlets

          In 1973, it is estimated that there were between
125,000 and 150,000 retail outlets selling gasoline which did
not fall under the Department of Commerce definition of service
stations.  In other words, the dollar return from petroleum
product sales and service at these facilities did not equal 5070
of their total sales volume.  Included in this category of
retail outlets are convenience stores with gasoline pumps,
automotive stores, and department stores with an automotive
department.  Specific data on these "non-service station"
retail outlets cannot be obtained from publicly available
                              -30-
-------






































m
i
r-l

CM

W

W































O)
co co ^-\
co cu co
Ol r-l M
rl CO CO
0 CO r-l
C r-l
HI C O
MO
H! ^
CO
CO
^
CO r-l
cO
CO>4-I
o
r-l


p~l
>_}
O
£>

CO
w
»_3
<2
CO

Q
5
^3

w
J23
0
M
H

Pi
W
CO

w

M
O
CO
"*^4
O
0
w
PQ
IS
a
ct) co
4-* C
O O
H-rl
r-l
r-l
•rl
PQ
O *^^




i r~ r-l co CM co o
1 ......
1 in OO ^ vO r-l CT«
r-l





m CT- o CM o  CO rl O
r-i o 01 i— i
60 rj
1 Ol C ^
bOOl U
oo co co ^

O^ 0) CO
r-l ^ fX|








0 0 0 O 0 O 0
o o o o o o o
r-i co in i-i r~ o oo
*>•.-.«•,«
CM CO *^ vO r*^ CT» CT«
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM




^

















0)
rl
o
e

rl CO
O 4J
O
8-5 3
o-o
m o
rl
£ O.
4-1
••-* B
^ *3
Ol
CO r-l
4J O
01 rl
r-l 4J
4-> 01
3 pi
O
14-1
r-l O
•rl
cO CU
• 4-1 O
•V CU -rl
00 rl >
VO rl
<^ r


CO -^
co
^s §
CO w i
C 1
*— ' ,-H
;•; CO
•H CU °
r-l MM.
0 C o
CO CU °
co co „
O co g
. •;* O
3o2
r! i_i ri
S~g
<
-1 CO Ol
1 CO CO
£
a T3Ti
s.
*.
r
c
r
p^ r^ r^ i— I i— i CM CM
CM -3- ON CM CM  01 r-i
-1 T3 cfl
co co
- Ol 0)
«i rl B *->
D CO O CO
D U 0
3 CfltW -rl
-> C *-)
J O txO CO
0 -rl C Ol
H 4J -rl
CO S Z
>-J 4-1 O P-i
o co o a
01 CU Ol
3 0 S rl
-1 -rl 3 CO
^ K* r-l
rl O CO
S 01 > 01
U CO V-l
S rl 3
Ol CO 60
Cr-l -rl
• -Hr-l M-l
1) r-l O
J OT3 -*
-i co i~-
3 COM-I CTi
3 O O r-l
Or-l CM
-31-
-------
statistical resources.  It is estimated that convenience food
stores average 2,000-3,000 gallons per month while some large
department stores may average 100,000-150,000 gallons per
month.

2.1.1.3   Gasoline Market - Projections

          A 1972 survey of 30 energy forecast reports reveals
that the majority of these forecasts assume a 3.5 percent annual
growth rate in all transportation energy consumption for the
years 1970-1980 (SU-049).  The basic premise behind this assump-
tion is that individual cars will remain the primary mode of
transportation in the U.S., at least until 1980.  Lead times
for mass transit systems and for the development of alternative
fuels will prevent such future options from having any major
impact before 1980 (SH-121).

          These same basic premises have been used in this
report to project U.S. gasoline consumption to 1980 „  The
methodology used to develop this projection is described below.

          Projection and Methodology - Vehicles and Gasoline
          Consumed

          Due to the many variables involved, it is difficult
to project gasoline consumption accurately.  The following
assumptions have been made in this study for projecting auto-
mobile gasoline consumption to 1980 for each state.

          (1)  the U.S. population will continue to grow,

          (2)  passenger cars will be smaller and lighter;
               average miles per gallon will increase, and
                              -32-
-------
2.1.1.3.  Gasoline Market - Projections (Cont0)

          (3)  the average number of miles traveled per
               auto per year will remain constant.

Each of these assumptions is explained below.

          (1)  A 1974 projection of U.S.  population in-
               dicates that there will be 223  million
               persons in the UoSo in 1980 (ST-185).   This
               figure reflects a 1.04 percent  annual  in-
               crease from 1969 to 1990.   National  Petroleum
               News has projected that there will be  121
               million automobiles in 1980 (NA-171).   Thus,
               the projected ratio of persons  to automobiles
               in 1980 is expected to be 1.85  as compared
               with a 1972 ratio of 2.14.  Assuming that
               the ratios of persons per automobile will
               change in each state at the same rate, the
               projected number of automobiles has  been
               calculated for each state (see  Table 2.1-6).

          (2)  It has been assumed that a trend toward
               lighter, smaller automobiles, which  is
               already apparent to some degree, and the
               use of catalytic converters will continue
               with a resultant increase in the number
               miles per gallon of gasoline.

          (3)  For the purpose of this study,  it has  also
               been assumed that the average number of
               miles traveled per automobile will not in-
               crease,  but will remain at the  1973  level
               of 10,184 miles per year.
                             -33-
-------
C  O co



























CL
l-
<
L-
v

>-
PC

_ Qj
2!
* | —
. E-
CM ^
r'4i <
n ^
0.1 p
H h
1—
c
cr
^r
<<
C































4J O
0) CurH
bO 0 rH
C 3 n)
Cd CO W
.0 PI

0 0
•0 «rH
Q) Q) rH
4-> 0rH
0 .rH -rH
CU rH 0
•>-) O
O en C
V4 n) -H
PM O ^
CO
Pi
O
•rl
4J
n)
W CM
0) CT.
O rH
•rl
CU




O
i-H
vj*














O
^
rH




\
0 x-.
« 0 en
) -H C
4J O
PL,rH
t) ^^
* 
rj
<: c
•H

O
00
0^
O
m
CO
•*


o
rH



;„
CN
r~
cr\
rH
O
VO
r^
•
in

s-J* O
co

O C
•r4 Ct)
4-1 CO
CD 3
rH O

p 4J
O
Pn cj
•H
o
00
CT*


o
o
-
CO
rH


H
OJ
r—
cr.
rH
O
0
rH

CM
rH




CL
4^
rt
4--
cr.



t!
c
ctj
rH
bl

W
*^
0)
2:




CM rH
rH CO
1














 O
04 rH
CO CO








i-H


CT. O
in o
CM CM
CO


m o
rH in
CM m
•>
CM

CM O
CO 1-^
 £1
Pi U
6" co
\4 en
> 2




i — i
CO















rH
0
CT.





O
CT.
CO







S
CO



m
oo
in


in
r-^

CO



o
00
o
"
co


4J
jj
O
•H
4J
O
a

o
                                                     o  o  o   o  vo   o  *
                                                               en

                                                               >  4-)
                                                          a>   eu
                                                                    Q)   a)
                                                                   PM   O
                 o   o  o  o  o  o
                 VO   CM  O,  CM  in  O
                   CO  in   rH  CM
                 f~-  rH  CN  CO   t—I  00
                 CM  CT>  r~  CM   CM  rH

                 CM  oo  i—i  vo   o  m
                 o
                 VO
                 r-
                                                                                          OO
    o  o
       O  CO

                 CO  in   vO  CM   VO  CM
                 CM
                 o  o   o  o   o  o
                 ~d"  f**-   CT.  rH   O  1^^
                 CT.  CM   -d"  CO   CT.  CT»
                                                                                                   in  CM
                  000000
                  O  
Ctf
a>

O

0
3
bO
•H
r1,
U
•rH
2





o
•H
r^
O


cd
0
n)
•r-l
T)
c
H
                       •H
                        CO
                        0
                        O
                        O
                        co
                       •H
                             co

                             •iH

                             CO
                                                                                                                      CM   ,n
                                                                                                                      r^    ct)
                                              t-H   -H

                                              rH    >
                                               ctj   «^j
                     O
                    z
                                                         -34-
-------


























































^

4->
d
0
3
o
I—I

Os]

W
KH
CQ

H
C ° co
•H -"-I C
4-10
cu S1^
c 3 *
cd W M
f. C
u o c
00
T3 'rl
2S3
0 -rl -H
0)-^ 0
^| Cd -rl
CO
C
O
•H
4-)
cd
[ 1 J-
CO ^
CU °^
o rH
•rl
rl
0)
C~
O co
•rl C
4-1 O O
CXrH CO

CO CO 00
01 13 ON
rH C! rH
•rl Cd
,0 co
0 3
e o
Ord"
4-J 4-> CN

i — i








vj
o
CO
co
CM


O
CM
rH

vO



o
CO
ON

in



o
ON
rH

ON



o
If
00
rv!

o
o
rH
r^
rH

O
ON
in
vO
rH





co
•rl
cd
i-H







O O
CO 
r . rH
rH ON
•J" CN


0 0
vO OO
00 00
CO CN



cd
4J
o
CO
CU
£ Cd
C &
•H 0
S M







O
oo
rH








O
00
CM
VD



O

VO
M
rH



O
CO
m

rH



O
rH
m
*
CM



O
CO
O
CN

0
p^
O
in


o
in
r--
-*



•rl
^_|
3
0
CO
w
^







<)• o-
rH









O rH
rH r-
ON rH
rH



m CN
O CO
CM CN





ON vO
rH CO
CM CM





OO OO
O 
0 O
cd cd
Q 0

2 CO







O rH
r-
i








m ON
vO O
CN VO
CM CO



r^- CM
oo in
in oo





r-~ co
oo  ON r~* : — ! CO *-D rH SKK •**•* K
tH rH rH r-l iHCOrH rH



OVDOOOOOOOOOI^
ooNCNONCMr^ooor^ooooN
OOr^O^vCOCM^OOOrHr-lr^OO
K AHKAKAMMK
CM r-ICMCOi-HCOincNrHr-l



OONvOOOOOOOOOCN
r^vOrHcMCOOf^cOincNCMCO
rHvomooincMcoi—ir^cTNini^
CM rHrHCMrHCM-d'rH rH

oooooooooooo
ocorHvo^cMincomco^oN
cooovomi — oo'rHONr^cor^o
mi-ico-,CUrHr-l -HCCO
•rlbO^dcoOOcdcdcdcocdcd
CrlCJcO^rl-rlTJQcO-rlCO
•H -rl 3 0) Cd Cd M) -rl Cd -H CO C
txO>4J aUOrlrlrQCO-HCd
rl PiCi O O Cfl CO 3 Ai
•rl • CU 0) • -CUrHrH-rlOrl
>Sfc«iH2coOPn<;s>J
C








CM CM
rH 1
1








CO CM
ON r^
r-i r*»
rH



VO ON
I-- CM
CM r-l





CO iH
00 CO
CM rH





vl- vt
rH ON
-* rH





CM -*
oo r~
CO rH


00 rH
O CO
r^ CO



vO in
m -*
r-» co





bO
C
O -rl
-G 0
cd 0
H |3
-35-
-------


































































•
4-1
O
O

vD
1
r-l
CM
w
PQ
H
f2 o tn
•H .rl C
4-1 O
tU PJI— 1
60 B r-l
G 3 rt
n) to b£
-C £2
U 0 C
U O
T3 -rl
* oo in
ON OO t-~ r-l CM -d" 
r-i oo co
•c
4J

r-i m
p 00
) 0 1






rt
4-1
CO



4-1
O to
Tj Q)
rt £
M „ •&
O 42 4J
0 4J O
UP tO


O O CO O O
r-i oo r^ ON co
vo i — m CM o
r-l VO r-l 00
1-1

O O O CM O
co in o i — o
co in in cr* co
r-i m -*
r-l


O O O O O
vO O vO CO O
1-^ CM O CM ON
CM CM r-l CM 00
r-l CM


O O O O O
co o r- m o
vO vO O ON OO
CM i-l r-l r-l r*.
iH CM



o
u
rt -rl -U
B X rt to
o a) r2 a>
42 tn S 0 13
rt rt N
i-l X & -rl rl
^ o) tu ri rt
O E-* £3 ^ fe


to
T3 N-^
































to
o

4J
to
•rl
4J

iJ
CO
rt
tu

-*

>•
rt
C
•rl
B
oomoovo o 'SrS^ —i
cocooocMr^ o <
oin* r-i o co -* CM V
m co vo m co oo CM
- 14.
CO CM CM r
CM
4-
c
«* OO CM O CM O O I
r-lrt> 4-1 0
^OZOOJPS H . *"*
^.
\ -p~.
- C2 r-l
) 0)'^-'
K
O co
- 0, -
• B^
w<>-

1 . ^j-
d) in
J B
J o tn
i O tn
C >
4 4-> 0>
J rt >
0 4-1 V-l
o : co
CM





OO
vO
•~f
^J
2
N— '
*
ON
r-l
-
>j2
"o
o
4-1
U
fi,
>s
rt
2
i
T)
•rl
a
2
CM
2;
CO
tu
rl
CM
.
tu
T)
rt
H
r-i
•rl
rt
4-J
cS

to
tn
tu
C
•rl
tn
3
PQ
<4-l
O
to
r)
tn
C
V
O
CM
r--
r-l
o-
-36-
-------
2,1.1.3  Gasoline Market - Projections (Cont.)

          Based on assumptions (2) and (3) given above, the
average number of gallons consumed per automobile has been
projected for the years 1974-1980:
Year
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
             Miles/Year
               10,184
               10,184
               10,184
               10,184
               10,184
               10,184
               10,184
Miles/Gallon
    13.7
    14.0
    14.2
    14.4
    14.7
    15.0
    15.3
Average Gallons of
Gasoline Consumed
	Per Year	
        743
        727
        717
        707
        793
        679
        666
Source:  NA-168
Based on these averages, the estimated number of gallons of
gasoline to be consumed by automobiles has been calculated and
is given nationally and by state in Table 2.1-6.  The estimated
change in consumption between 1972 and 1980 is also indicated.

          The total number of motor vehicles (automobiles
plus trucks, buses, etc.) is projected to grow at an annual
rate of 3 percent between 1973 and 1980 (NA-171).  Based on
this growth rate, there will be 148 million vehicles in 1980;
121 million automobiles and 27 million other types of vehicles.
                              -37-
-------
2.1.1.3  Gasoline Market - Projections (Cont.)

Assuming that the average annual gasoline consumption by these
other types of vehicles will remain at the 1972 level of 1,303
gallons per year, these vehicles will consume some 35.2 billion
gallons of gasoline in 1980 bringing total gasoline consumption
to 115.8 billion gallons in 1980.

          In summary, the projected total gasoline consumption
for all vehicles represents an average-annual increase of 1.75
percent from 1973 to 1980.  Thus, gasoline consumption will
continue to increase nationally through 1980 but at; a slower
rate than in past years assuming increased passenger car gaso-
line mileage and no change in the average number of miles trav-
eled per year.

          Impact of Projected Gasoline Consumption

          (1)  By Region

               Increased gasoline consumption necessarily
               impacts all aspects of the gasoline marketing
               industry.  Distribution facilities must ex-
               pand to meet increased throughput.  Using the
               increase in gasoline consumption between 1974
               and 1980, as shown in Table 2.1-6, it is pos-
               sible to predict on a regional and state level
               the areas where growth in gasoline distribu-
               tion facilities will most likely occur.  Regions
               are ranked below on the basis of their pro-
               jected increase in automobile gasoline con-
               sumption.
                              -38-
-------
2.1.1.3  Gasoline Market - Projections (Cont.)
    Rank
     1
     2
     3
     4
     5
     6
     7
     8
 Region
Southeast
Great Lakes
Mideast
Far West
Southwest
New England
Plains
Rocky Mountain
      1972-1980
Change in Automobile
Gasoline Consumption
(millions of gallons)
        2,160
        1,460
        1,300
        1,200
          530
          410
          190
      No Growth
          (2)  Marketing Terminals

               Wholesale marketing facilities,  terminals and
               bulk stations,  will require expansion to meet
               the increased throughput required by gasoline
               consumption demands.   As previously mentioned,
               it is expected that bulk stations will be
               phased out for economic reasons  and the trend
               will be toward distribution through larger
               terminal facilities.

          (3)  Service Stations and Other Retail Outlets

               It is expected that the total number of gasoline
               service stations will continue to decrease over the
               next txtfo to three years as economically marginal
                              -39-
-------
               stations are closed.   The remaining stations
               are projected to be financially stronger and
               more profitable to oil companies once the mar-
               ginal stations are gone (EM-008).  Expansion
               of existing stations to meet increased consump-
               tion demands is to be expected.  The addition
               of more convenience store pumps is also expected.
               In addition, new gasoline service stations will
               continue to be built by oil companies to meet
               consumption demands in rapidly growing popula-
               tion areas.

2.1.2     Air Pollution Contribution

          The gasoline marketing industry contributes hydro-
carbon compounds to the atomosphere through the mechanism of
evaporation during the many handling processes involved in
transferring gasoline from the refinery to the automobile.  In
studying these evaporation losses it is important to assess the
nature and magnitude of the problems associated with hydrocarbon
emissions.  Although the hydrocarbons from gasoline marketing
do not contribute directly to smog and its adverse effects,
several of the hydrocarbons do undergo reactions to form pro-
ducts which do produce undesirable smog.  This section reviews
the direct and indirect adverse effects of such hydrocarbon
emissions, the quantity of atmospheric hydrocarbons contributed
by the gasoline marketing industry, and the seasonal character-
istics of these contributions„

2olo2.1   Adverse Effects of Hydrocarbon Emissions

          Very few hydrocarbons in the atmosphere directly
effect the environment.  However, many hydrocarbons termed
                              -40-
-------
2.1.2.1  Adverse Effects of Hydrocarbon Emissions (Cont.)

"reactive" participate to various degrees in photochemical re-
actions to form photochemical oxidants which do have adverse
effects on plants, animals, and materials.  The hydrocarbons
contained in gasoline vapor are reported to be composed of 427o
to 65% reactive hydrocarbons (MS-001, TR-042).  Appendix B
of this report presents the chemical composition of gasoline
and its vapors, lists the reactivities of several hydrocarbon
classes, and describes the photochemical reactic:,   Presented
here are some of the direct and indirect effects produced by
hydrocarbons such as those found in gasoline vapor.

          Effects on Human Health

          Effects on human health are of paramount importance
in any consideration of air pollutants.  However, the wide
variety of compounds in photochemical smog effectively prevent
singling out specific compounds as contributors to specific
adverse effects.  There is little evidence that hydrocarbons
as emitted to the air have direct adverse effects on the health
of the general public.  The documented health effects are limited
to eye, respiratory irritation, and aggravation of chronic
respiratory ailments due ti  exposure to photochemical oxidants
which are the result of subjecting hydrocarbons to the photo-
chemical reaction.

          The major contributors to eye and respiratory irrita-
tion are aldehydes, organic peroxides, peroxynitrates, and ozone.
Peroxyacetylnitrate (PAN) was found to induce increased oxygen
uptake under stressful exercise.  Studies in Los Angeles have
found that prolonged exposure of guinea pigs to ambient Los
 iigeies air increased pulmonary airflow rates.  There is also
wide spread concern over the potentially carcinogenic effects
of long term human exposure to the airborne polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons.
                              -41-
-------
2.1.2.1  Adverse Effects of Hydrocarbon Emissions (Cont.)

          In summer, although hydrocarbons do not directly
effect human health, their derivaties from the photochemical
reaction, in atmospheric concentrations, cause eye and respira-
tory irritation, and aggravation of chronic respiratory ailments
(TR-042).

          Effects on Vegetation

          Of the primary hydrocarbon air pollutants, ethylene
is the only one producing significant damage at atmospheric
concentrations.  Oxidants resulting from the photochemical
reaction produce the greatest amount of vegetation damage. This
damage is primarily in the form of growth supression.  It is
difficult to assess vegetation damage due to air pollution but
estimates of pollution vegetation damage in California were
$100 million annually and for the nation $500 million annually
(TR-042)„  Table 2.1-7 (TR-042) below details the contribution
of each pollutant to the California vegetation damage.
                          TABLE 2.1-7
           CONTRIBUTION OF POLLUTANTS TO VEGETATION DAMAGE
                         IN CALIFORNIA
          Pollutants                 Percentage of Damage
          Ozone                              50%
          Peroxyacetylnitrate                18%
          Fl                                 15%
          Ethylene                           14%
          S02                                 2%
          Particulates                         1%
                              -42-
-------
          Materials Damage

          Materials damage by atmospheric hydrocarbons and
their oxidant derivaties is not well documented.  Photochemical
oxidants cause cracking and loss of elasticity in rubber and
plastics, the formation of resistive coatings on electrical
contacts, and discoloration and deterioration of architectural
coatings.  The San Francisco Bay Area estimated their materials
damage due to hydrocarbons and photochemical oxidants to be
$15 million annually (TR-042).

          Other Effects

          In addition to effects on health, vegetation, and
materials, hydrocarbon and photochemical oxidant pollutants can
be visually offensive and contribute to offensive odors.  Of-
fensive odors are a nuisance and can result in property deprecia-
tion and degradation of the general quality of life.

2.1,2.2   How Gasoline Marketing Contributes to Atmospheric
          Hydrocarbons

          Gasoline is a mixture of many volatile hydrocarbon
compounds which evaporate upon contacting air.  The gasoline
marketing industry significantly contributes to atmospheric
hydrocarbon levels as a result of the numerous points of exposure
of gasoline with air throughout the handling steps in gasoline
marketing.  Hydrocarbon vapor in vessels containing gasoline is
displaced through vents to the atmosphere during refilling opera-
tions.  These vapors also expand during temperature increases,
venting hydrocarbons to the atmosphere.  In addition, hydro-
carbons are emitted from leaks and spills that occur throughout
the marketing transfers such as during vehicle refueling.
                              -43-
-------
2.1.2.3   Magnitude of Gasoline Marketing Emissions

          The gasoline marketing industry contributes signifi-
cantly to ambient hydrocarbon levels,  and if left uncontrolled
will become one of the three major sources of hydrocarbon
emissions.  Table 2.1-8 (FE-063) presents the national hydro-
carbon emissions determined in EPA's 1968 Emissions Inventory.
This data indicates that gasoline marketing emissions comprised
3.870 of the total hydrocarbon emissions.

          If left uncontrolled, the gasoline marketing industry
would become a greater contributor to future reactive hydrocarbon
emission inventories.  This is because other emission sources
are being brought under control, because gasoline sales are in-
creasing, and because of the increased reactivity of non-leaded
gasoline vapors.  Table 2.1-9   (TR-042) and Table 2.1-10 (TR-042)
estimate future hydrocarbon and reactive hydrocarbon emissions
for two Texas air quality control regions assuming no gasoline
marketing controls.  The Houston-Galveston region is typical of
a highly industrialized metropolitan area and the Austin-Waco
region is typical of a suburban-rural area.  Future national
emissions are expected to fall between the emissions of these
two regions.

          Table 2.1-11 summarizes data from Tables 2.1-9  and
2.1-10.  It indicates that gasoline marketing, if left un-
controlled will contribute 12%-21?0 of the ambient reactive hydro-
carbons in 1982, depending on the region.  This relative
increase in ambient hydrocarbon contribution is attributed to
a steady increase in gasoline sales and a decline in emissions
from other sources as they meet compliance schedules.

          One factor not accounted for  in Tables 2.1- 9, 2.1-10,
and 2.1-11 is the increased reactivity  of gasoline vapors re-
sulting from the switch to unleaded fuels.  The higher  aromatic

                              -44-
-------
                   TABLE  2.1-8
NATIONAL EMISSIONS OF HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS,  1968
                         Organic Compound Emissions
     Source
Transportation
  Motor Vehicles
  Aircraft
  Railroads
  Vessels
  Nonhighway Use
Fuel Combustion
Industrial Processes
O 1 * J T T  4—  T\ *      T

Organic Solvents
Gasoline Marketing
Miscellaneous
Total
106
Tons/Yr
15.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.7
4.6
1.6
3.1
1.2
4.2
Percent
48.7
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
2.2
14.4
5.0
9.7
3.8
13.0
                          32.0
100.0
                       -45-
-------
CN1



w

rJ

PQ

-
a
o
     to
     j^:
     o
     to
     to
     8
     cc
     o
o
t—
to



i




v.
*o
u
>-
c
o
r-
1
to
to
«/>
»-*
Cu
UI
t—
o
«£
liJ
o:
<
o
r-










CM
CO
tr>


o
co
cn


r>.
r-»
cn


en
r-~
cn


CM
r^
cn

0
r~
cn
SOURCE CATEGORY


>
t-
<
UJ
o:
	 i
<:
t—
0
UJ
=»
(—
*£
UJ
cc
	 I
«£
1—
O
r-
UJ
•>•
p
<_)

t—
c£
UJ
ce
_j

i_
O
 CM*^OCM«T*— met* CM
m incr*cocMCo^r'«3'cn r-.
CD ^r ro CM ro vo cn o O
in oj VQ vo •— «*
m oo ~- ro r>.
cn, ro iO O O r— vo «— *3" O
co CM in ro r**. ^- m CM
O3 n oo ro i— vo CM
\o *r »•— «± co
«T i— «J
m ^-rooomoor^cor^ *3-
«^ r^o^r^r— mour^-Ln
^r co roc\j(Nj»x>CMO CM
«f n tn in *— r—
n r^ r— m 10
ro Tt-inoocvjf— -ooco »—*
CT* COlT) VOUDC^CTv CO
^r m \o co r*. m ro
vo rs. r— co o>
ro »— in
r^ voi— cousocMinr^. oo
u> ocni-oocoo'^ro^ CM
•3- ro rocNjco^ocncn co
CM CO m ^— CM
CO iO r— CO ^J~
»— co«roo^-roo. • — cr» u3u-)^rr^. CM
oo ^3- o r- ••- vo ro
in r>* r*. ^- ^- «r
in •— *— en
CNI r*j
r~ coroijorocMO. — 10 O
10 CMinmroouDi — cr% o
ro o- — cr>^rcMCvju^r^. cu
o en CM •— co 0-4 «^r
CM CM «T CM rO
^3- r- VO
«^> r— m o O m tn i — ^J1 r-*
^r «^-co cno»— co vo
U3 CO CO VO r- «3" VO
in ro vo *— r— cr>
CM t— •— tn ,
CsJ COCM^-rO*3-COCO'^- O
ro lOTfOcoaiCDi — r*. i—
CNJ o *— coror-*or^'=r r^.
co ro o »— r-- CM ^r
CM r^. *& CM r*^
ro r- in
e>
^ 5
CD D: a
r: ^> O «=C
•- 1- 2: o
l^ _) 00 •— • —1
co u i— -.: <.T
uj <_> <_) >-. ;: uj
CJ *-< — J ID U. •— • LD
O K a: ca uj i/) n;
a: o <-J o o: oo --c
O- «S •— CC UJ C3 1^1
1/1 C3 a. z: i_> ct:
V>UJ_JO:^ •^Ott'll.J
LU c_> < ;- j _j uj ci- -r x
l/l C.1 rr: u tc _l  UJ O t — V1: h- O ' — ' _!
O CO II O uj *-• ui r~> ^i . 	 | c/*i
_j ^— i_> u- t; ;; o_ •_; co < _j
< ~ *i
CO UI •— i h-
iLi«-CfX( — CMmvLoior^co t— i
CJ
o
a. <£ co o
•— <
o

CT>
^3-
—
O

a
CM
•—
O

Ol
<••)
CO
O
O

CO
o
o

CM
CO
cr>
o
en
CXI
CTi
<
CO
o
Cl.
CO
5
UJ
h-
CO
<
0
*-<
	 1
co
•— «
•— *
C3O^~ en
cocncncMCjjLno f^
 co M r— PJ co
«»• •— n ^r ro r~ «r
ro r- co
•— •— vo r- fn «r .— m
CO C\4 f*l CM CM CTi f^ rO
n o en m co co «*• 'o
«r n i>» CM «j- co o
«r ^- cj en
COcM^Tt — OCC)CO CO
comcoi — Cuervo . —
r^cMCStcOCMcnco co
co .— m *r c») en r»-
m •— co
coo**«3"CT»mcoco r^»
^rcncncocMCT'io en
Cor~-CMCT>CO«g-O r-
O CVJ r^ CM T T CM
en i — CM o
VO^^f^OfTCM CM
rx.r^mrrcoocM ro
CnOCMCMCM^TLO P^
CM • — n en co ro en
en * — r--
COCQCO- — rOPTfO O
CMOJCOCOcMcnQ CD
COCO( — CTicOCMCO O
cr\ CM p** co *:f o cr>
CO « — CM i —
r^cnco, — O- — co ro
i^cOincricor*.' — r^.
&\ &\ r— «r CM c\i ro «a-
r^ ro eo ro CM ro
co •— en
cncocororococo co
• — r^i — *3-cMCn^r , —
*^» — ocoeoocrt crt
O CM r^ ^f" *r CO r~.
en r— r- ro
r—
oocjroo'^co i-
CNJ r-» i — en
ococoocMinro co
i — cncncncocoro CM
co i— co en ro co co
,— r— r— in


Lei
C3
< ^
eo O
P
-1 *S
UJ - >•
TT; ^ •-> _J<; ui
o ^ _J UJ 1-= eo
•-"UlCJCO^t— Q UJ
i — >• co uj o cu «-;: co *z
<(. ef *-, ~- • c£ O _J — ' CO
t— ci' e) o rr. ff. or. ui —i _i
C< O 1 C_J 	 1 CO CD «3t
O k- U- CU >— « CO CO h-
co z-l < — CM o •'-£ ct; ~>> o i —
?c
I— c^ rocjQUJU- tD
>
^-^
o

CM
en

o

CM
en

o

CM
en

0

CM
c.0

o

CM
en

0
CM
en
to
ID
O
UJ
«-£
—I
UI
c_>
CO
>
CO
ro
en
ro
r-*
CO
en
ro
ro
CO
ro
CO
en
ro
CO
en
O
CM
ro
ro
CD
O
cn
CO
ro
cn
CO
«r
CO
CO
0
CO
r-
*j
•3-
8
o
CM
ro
r^
CXJ
r-~
O
^j-
r^.
O
C
«T
co


to
_i
fC.
V--
o
1—
a
S.
t/5
>

en

CO
o

CM
CO

cr\

*r
m

vo
CM

CM
CO

cn







E;;T REDUCTION
C.J
a;
Ci-
                                                    -46-
-------
    19
    g
    O
    o
o
r-l
 I


CM

w

PQ

H
 1  8
S  26

p  I
Co  •-«
     o
     §
     a








1.
>a
0)
>-
I/)
c
^
I/I
z
o
00
00
>-<
UJ
UI
>
\-
o



tn
r~-
CTl

r^.
en

o
r^-
cr>
SOURCE CATEGORY


LU
>
P
<_)
UJ
a:
_j

t—
«£
UJ
o:
«c
o
f—
UJ
•>•
t—
«I
UJ
C£
_J
<:
i—
o
t—
UJ
r»
P
«
•-
C

ur
cr
ur
•-
c
c
c
1C
•""
c
ir
a:
LT
NOIISP.SUO:
	 1
Li)
U.
1 — t
O CMVOOOOQC* f^
in ^ o co «4- **
o\ cr» CM in r-.
CM **
00 l£> «CT «T ^*» r— r*- CM <^
**• ffr^rcM'tf' coco ^r
r^* o> ro CM r— cn •<*
*ef KT CM *n
r—
CO r^tnOOOOCT* L°
r— <^> o r^» *er r>>
cn cr» CM *n *o
CM «•
»— * cn o LO *3" ^**
CO CO CNJ LO LO
CM «*
U3 • r— co T CM *— co cn cn
LTI CMrocMr*. c\jr-N. • —
ro co ro CM O cn co
*T ^f CM CM
o o f— OUID o co r-x to
-=r r-* o *=r ^f o
CO CO CM LO LO
CM *3"
o roLOTLn. — «3-co o
o corofxjT , — r-* co
CM r^ ro CM O cn LT>
•^r ^r CM CM
r-x r— i — oooijor*- r~
cn co cn cn *r • —
r^. vo i — LO ro
CM *fr
-3- coco<=ro« — *— co M"
co ^ i — CM r*. CTI f^- ro
ot *=r ro CM o cn r—
ro «cr CM CM
vo ro 'OOOu^r^s «cj-
co LO m *^- o
rN. LO r LO r—
M •*
tsj «*•
cn Lnro^rO' — foco ro
CM Lnocxjr^ cnr^ in
cn  O
«-• t— 2:
OO — 1 OO >— '
oo ID I— r^: o
uj <_> t_> *-< ir
<_)>-• _J ID U_ >-<
O C^ «C CJ UJ OO
o: o t-> o a: oo
o_ «i »— « ct: uj oo
oo u a, r; c3 c:
oo uj — i c~j or ID C) ijj
uj c..) -^ _J *-t _j a- ^~
LU re. : j i — i __j c;. o o
oo i/j o : • o *c LU cj o
co cj t/j u o t— • ;' \— o 	 i
o oo _;.. o L.J »— < uj o — i uo
-_i F- (_j u_ ;; i_; a_ is >< _j
»l i: <
OO HI — . 1—
iijd,cX( — c\joo^rLnu}f~> i —
cj
o
a. <: Q o
O

uo
0
co
r»
0

CO

^r
IO
K'ASTE DISPOSAL
o
LO
>— *
*f to r-*. cn LTV *T o LO
LO ro ȣ> cn vo o co o
O vo r— • cn ro ^- co c\j
in CM «3" r- r*. CM
r- m
^- «* in ^- o o m *f
in r— •— ro ^— CQ CM CM
vo *3- co ro CQ ro , — LO
cn ^- ^- e*"> »— oj ro
r~ — •— LO
cn CM o co LO o LO en
O •— "3" LT> LO o~» r*- ^r
«r in .— o ro o o rs.
oo CM ir> «— r»» *r
^— ro
r"* O vo cn o r*"> uo O
cn LO LO co »— yo co UD
i— ro r-* *r co ro co co
*r r— *r ro ^— o u>
CM f— •— LO
LOCO. — r--. LO o co OC\J CD
co LO ro • — ro O O crv
U3 CM LO r— VQ . —
CM T
r-^ cn ro m o uo «3- n
LO i — cn c\j « — cvj r-- CD
r*- CM cvj r*-. co ro cxj «$•
m r— LO m r— cn r--
ro r— LQ
LQ O LO lO LO O"t i — CXf
r"-. f— *r o i£> c\j CM Lo
r— in «j CM ro O «y i —
^3" CM '-O f— U~> CT>
CO «3"
oj-^-^rnO'jDO c^
r^ m ro co . — co T LD
en, — *o
*^ •— r-
CMi — OCNJUnOLO LO
cT^«d-m*^rvr)r^-CD u^
cn^j-r-^rot^icn^j- c\j
r^. CM tn «3- CM
«4- vn
mor\j*3-oc\jr-> co
r^co. — *j-. — ,— r--. o
r-^CTi« — CMCOCMP--. cr^
LT> kO ^± • — UD IT)
UD r— crt


UJ
O
< 2:
oo o
r> *-«
fe
uj c2
to rD o
1-iJ U_ 0_
-J uj - >•
o :c —i ui i-: LO
>-« Lij c^> oo ru I — Q uj
i— ^- co uj o LU «i; co .TT
^c --c -- — -i o _j — co
I — c< o o x: c£ £*_ LU — j __j
a: o i c_j 	 i L/I o •
*-~4
o

n
«3-

O

m
•a-

0

n
•a-

0

ro
^r

O
m
»^r

O
ro
«!-
OO
r^
0
LU
<
— 1
'.U
CJ
oo
>"
CJ
un
en
UD
ro
P-*
c~l
r^.
y3
r^
«3-
e\j
«j"
cn
ro
LD
C~»
^r
cn
r^
LO
r~-
T
1JD
^r
1^5
CO
cn
00
CO
un

m
«r
o
KT

00
0

UD

CM
0

ro
ro

«3-
cn

UP
LT)






;:T REDUCTION
ej
n:
d
                                                -47-
-------
CM
•H "">

O *

CM | °°
ON |—
i-l _j CO
F~1 _^
o vo"
f . P**
5 CM
ti-*
H ON
5 CO
0 ° ,S

M ON in
H '-| ,_( ON

3 4J "
2 .H I"-*.
S
W K m
a JL r-
H xj *«d"
t-J O
f~j ^ v^
en m r-
•et -rlin
CJ 4J -
O OvO
p^ C^J \jO
P rH CU
p r~- p-!
K °^ "~
i— 1 vO
^ rH CO
O flcM
4J -
>4 OvO
Oft t*^ r~ 1
-. C
cd s* o
JS -H
1 r-4 CO
C cd co
•H 4J -rl
4-1 O B
M H CU
^
 rH ON
r** vO •
O P-
rH
P-



in r-i
oo vo r-
00
0' rH
rH

00 P~- O
CM CO
O CO
•» rH
vO

-
d-
r^- co •
CM . O
* rH
ON


rH CO
CM CM r-4
^^ "
O
U-l rH


O CO
-^ CM m
CO
•> 00
oo


m
o vo
si- o
vo
*^-

.

r-.
P~ 00
r- o
m
vO


O CO
00 rl rl C
c 
CO (»> rl 4J C r-l
cu C ^— o o cd
COM Cr-i mj2 o
•H -rl C -H P-. O 1-4 1
rH CO O O> Cd C
OC04J S-SrH &-SCJ O
CO-H 4J
cd B to
cj cu 3
O
ac
rH VO CM
vO O vo
m CN
• •
ON P*«
CO rH
rH
P- rH CM
OO P- VO
m -*
i-l vo
CO CM
CO
oo in r-.
co o *
CM CM
CO
CO CM P-
vO CM CM
o m
• *
ON CO
CO rH
rH
CO CO P-
m o CM
00 OO
•» «
«* O
rH CN
CO
vO vO vO
O r-4 r-4
00 CO
•• M
P~ CM
>* rH
rH
•vf OO vD
O -* rH
OO ON
•• •*
O OO
CN rH
CO
r-» m
CM rH
P~ vO O
rH o"
O rH
"*

P^ rH
O CO
O CO O
~ •»
rH vO
** r-l
CO

bO rl
C C 0)
O -rl >
rO 4-1 O
rl CU
n) >•* A! cu
CJ -^ ^ rl CO
O H cd cd cd
rl B CU CU
*O to co t^ to
>, C Q) C ~-~ 0
J2 O CO tO C rH
•H -rl -rl C -H P~
rH CO r-l CO O ON
CJfJCO OCO 4J 8-Sr-l
O 4J -H CO -H
HOB cd 0
M H CU CJ CU
0)
•A
CO
.
CN
rH


O
00


m
rH
r-|





in
•



P-.
•
ON




VO
.
VO





CO
•
OO



ON
in



vO
CM





ON

rH



O CO
to C
T3 O
&*i*H
X CO
CO
rH -rl
a) B
4J CD
O
4J C
O
M-l J3
O to
cd
s-a o




-48-
-------
content of unleaded fuels is expected to raise the reactivity
of gasoline vapors 127<> for premium and 287o for regular grades
(MS-001) .

2.1.2.4   Seasonal Characteristics - Photochemical Oxidant Levels

          The ambient level of photochemical oxidants is lowest
in the winter season.  This coincides with the season when the
efficiency of the vapor balance recovery system is the lowest.
Photochemical reaction rates are lowest during the winter months
when solar radiation is at a minimum and the ambient temperatures
are low.  Figures 2.1-4 through 2.1-11 present the one-hour
photochemical oxidant maximas and the frequency that ambient
standards were surpassed at several sampling locations (EN-182).

          At all sampling locations, the ambient photochemical
oxidant standard was not surpassed in the months of January and
December, and for most of the sampling locations the standard
was not surpassed in the months of January, February, November,
and December.  During these months, the average temperatures
were in the low 50's or lower.

          Photochemical oxidant production is greatest in the
warm summer season when ultraviolet radiation is at its peak.
Figures 2.1-4 through 2.1-11 reflect this trend, indicating
June, July, and August to be the months when this problem is
most acute.
                             -49-
-------
   .50
(X
0)


§'*
J-l
3
co
cti
CU
X
O
   75-
V-i

b

i


O -20
cfl
  .05 -
                               Months



  FIGURE 2.1-4 - MONTHLY  OXIDANT MAXIMA, LOSS ANGELES AND SAN
                 BERNADINO,  CALIFORNIA - 1972
                                   -50-
-------
     Oxidant Standard")
                            Months
FIGURE 2.1-5 - MONTHLY OXIDANT MAXIMA, CAMDEN,  NEW JERSEY AND
               DENVER, COLORADO - 1972
                                -51-
-------
ex
|25
-------
ex .30
ex
c
0)
S
w
  .2o
ex!
T3
•H
X!
O
 I
 cu
 G
Cfl
Oxidant
Standard
                              Months

 FIGURE 2.1-7  -  MONTHLY OXIDANT MAXIMA,  SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA
                 -  1972
                                 -53-
-------
  .30
e
Cu
(X
§ -25

6

                              Months
 FIGURE  2.1-8 - MONTHLY  OXIDANT MAXIMA,  BAKERSFIELD  AND STOCKTON,
                 CALIFORNIA - 1972
                                 -54-
-------
     zzo
   n /
   Oj
   T3
   c
   cd
   4-1
   CO

   4J IbO

   C
   w
   w
   QJ
   O
   X
   W

   a
   •H

   w
   bD

   •5
   13
   cfl
   QJ
   4J
   c
   cd
   T3
   •H
   X
   O
                                                 Azt/SA
J
                            A   *\   J    J

                                Months
FIGURE  2.1-9 - MONTHLY  OXIDANT MEASUREMENTS, AZUSA,  LOS ANGELES,
                AND SAN  DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - 1972
                                  -55-
-------
     200
     180
   en
   CO


   C >«>
   CO
   •U

   Jj


   I
   w
   w
   o>
   o
   X
   w
     IZO
     100
   CD

   W)
  Pi
  O
               Jr^At^jJASOUD

                                 Months


FIGURE 2.1-10 - MONTHLY OXIDANT MEASUREMENTS,  SAN BERflADITSO

                 AND SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA  -  1972
                                 -56-
-------
        200
     g -
     co
    C/3

    •U
    C
     co
     QJ
     o
     X
    w

     c
    •H

     CO
     W)
     c
    •H
    T3
     OJ
     0)
    Pi
    •rH
    X
    o
        190
       160
        J4O
too
        80
        60
        0
                                   Months
FIGURE 2.1-11  -  MONTHLY OXIDANT MEASUREMENTS,  BAKERSFIELD AND
                 STOCKTON,  CALIFORNIA, AND DENVER,  COLORADO  - 1972
                                 -57-
-------
2.1.3     Gasoline Marketing Systems

          The gasoline marketing network is composed of two
types of major intermediate facilities; bulk terminals and bulk
plants, and retail facilities commonly called service stations.
This section will briefly describe the main types of equipment
associated with each of these gasoline distribution facilities.

          The major sources of hydrocarbon emission in each type
of facility will be mentioned only briefly in this section.
Later sections of this document will present detailed discus-
sions relating to the amount of emissions produced by each
source and the technology available for emission control.

2.1.3.1   Bulk Terminals

          The primary distribution facility in the gasoline
marketing network is the bulk terminal.  Gasoline products
arrive at the bulk terminal by pipeline and are stored in large
above-ground storage tanks.  From these storage tanks the gaso-
line is loaded into tank trucks and transported to smaller bulk
loading stations and to service stations.  One million gallons
of gasoline may pass through one of the larger bulk terminals
dailyo

          Generally, the gasoline storage tanks are large enough
that they are subject to regulations requiring that they be
equipped with floating roofs.  Hydrocarbon emissions from tanks
of this design are limited to vapors escaping past the wall
seals and to gasoline evaporating from the wetted walls as the
liquid level is lowered.  These minor hydrocarbon emissions are
generally less than 0.3 gallons/1,000 gallons handled (DU-001).
Table 2„1-12 contains a compilation of the nation's bulk storage
                              -58-
-------
                           TABLE 2.1-12
              U.S.  BULK STORAGE CAPACITY BY TANK SIZE
                            (US-031)
                                           Storage Capacity
          Tank Size	        	(10Y gal)	
Less than 42,000 gallons                      95,975
 42,000 -  62,000 gallons                    242,837
 63,000 -  83,000 gallons                    249,542
 84,000 - 104,000 gallons                    137,078
105,000 - 209,000 gallons                    214,148
210,000 - 1,049,000 gallons                  186,960
1,050,000 - 2,099,000 gallons                221,792
2,100,000 - 6,299,000 gallons              1,386,821
6,300,000 - 20,999,000 gallons             2,357,165
Greater than 21,000,000 gallons            2,120,770
                                -59-
-------
capacities as a function of tank size (US-031).  'Figures 2.1-12
and 2.1-13 are diagrams of fixed and floating roof tanks.

          Hydrocarbon emissions from the tank truck loading
racks are potentially much greater than those from the storage
tanks at bulk terminals.  As the empty tank trucks are filled,
the hydrocarbons in the vapor space are displaced to the atmo-
sphere, unless vapor collection facilities have been provided.
The quantity of hydrocarbons contained in Ae displaced vapors
is dependent on the Reid Vapor Pressure, temperature, method
of tank filling, and the conditions under which the truck was
previously loaded.  Figure 2.2-14 is a schematic drawing of
liquid and vapor flow through a typical bulk terminal.

2.1.3.2   Marine Terminals

          There are no known marine terminals equipped with
secondary recovery units.  It is anticipated, however, that
new source facilities ultimately will be subject to control
and that equipment similar to that used in bulk terminals will
be applicable to recovering hydrocarbon vapors from marine
terminals.  Due to limited data, no further information is
provided on marine terminal vapor recovery systems.
                               -60-
-------
.PRESSURE-VACUUM
    VENT
GAUGE HATCH
 FIGURE  2.1-12 -  DIAGRAM OF  A FIXED  ROOF TANK

 (EN-071)
                        -61-
-------
    WEATHER SHIELD


         HATCHES
LIQUID LEVEL
              DRAIN
VENT
 ROOF SEAL
(NONMETALLIC
    OR
 METALLIC)
                                         HINGED CENTER SUPPORT
                                                     MANHOLE—+J I
FIGURE  2.1-13  - DIAGRAM OF A FLOATING  ROOF  TANK

(EN-071)
                              -62-
-------
o
4-1
4-1
CO •!-!
r-l C
o p
PH
cO ^i
> r-l
OJ
QJ >
00 O
CO O
5-1 QJ
O Pi
4-J
"
1
1
^
x-s
CO
H
QJ
00
cO
O
4-1
CO
Pipeline Gasoline
CD
o
C
OJ >>
r-l QJ
O > 4-1
PH O -H
co o c
£> qj p 	
t>
QJ
I T S
' 0
CD
Pi
o
4-1
QJ
c oc
•H a
rH -H
O T3
co cO
CO O
0 rH-
4-J
W) -H ,
t-1
O P 1
CO r~, Cfl 00 U
t> r-l| O C CO
QJ| H-5 -rH Pi
00 r' ' "
c o
•H O|
T3 OJ
CO Pi'
0 >.
4-1 4-1
1 	 - rH }-l
QJ CO O
oo a P.
CO -H co
V-i 6 C
O P cO
4-J QJ 5-i
CO H H
o I
4-1

Q)
C
•H
—1
O
co
cO
O
X
a
CO
Pi
i

O
o
o
 CO  QJ
rM  00
 C  cO
 cO  5-4
4-)  O
    4-1
 QJ  W
 00
 co UH
 5-i  O
 O
4-1 rH
 CO  O

 6  4-1
 O  C
 5-i  O
m  a

 CO  QJ
                             CO  QJ
                             r*  5-t
 co a1
Ai QJ

 co
 4-1 4-1
    O

 o
 O QJ
                             oo
                             c
                                CO
                               •H
                                c
 CO
 o
l[  I J_J
    OJ

 C O  co
•H O  QJ
 CO QJ  CO
 3 5-i  co
        o
 CO 5-1 rH
rH O
 co a 5-1
 C CO  O
•H >  p,
 6     CO
 5-i QJ  >
                                    P
                             C O  TO
                            M 4-1 4-J
                                             W
                                             H
                                             pq
                                             O
                  6
                                              Q
                                              cx
                                              M
                  Pi
                  O
                  PH
                                              rH
                                               I
                                              CN
                                              O
                                              M
                                              PH
-63-
-------
2.1.3.3   Bulk Plants

          Bulk loading stations are secondary distribution
facilities which receive gasoline from bulk terminals by large
tank trucks, store the gasoline in somewhat smaller above-
ground storage tanks, and subsequently dispense the gasoline
via smaller tank trucks to local farms, businesses, and service
stations„   Hydrocarbon emissions in bulk stations are generated
from the storage tanks and from the tank truck loading operations.
Emission factors mentioned previously for the loading of tank
trucks at bulk terminals also apply to the hydrocarbon emissions
generated during the loading of gasoline at bulk loading stations.
          Because the storage tanks are often horizontal and
cannot be fitted with floating roofs, or because they are below
the size at which floating roof regulations apply, the storage
tanks at bulk loading stations are generally uncontrolled and
are thus a significant source of hydrocarbon emissions.
                              -64-
-------
          The emissions from storage tanks may be divided into
two categories:  breathing losses and working losses.  Breath-
ing losses are associated with the thermal expansion and con-
traction of the vapor space resulting from the daily temperature
cycle.  Working losses are associated with changes in the liquid
level of the tank.  Although the magnitude of these hydrocarbon
emissions is dependent on numerous factors including tank para-
meters, Reid Vapor Pressure and weather conditions, they can be
estimated by applying the appropriate emission factors.  Figure
2.1-15 is a schematic drawing showing vapor and liquid flow
through a typical bulk plant.

2.1.3.4   Service Stations

          Service stations are the final facility in the gaso-
line marketing network.  At the stations, gasoline is received
by tank truck, stored in underground tanks, and dispensed to
automobile fuel tanks„  Unless a vapor collection system is
provided, hydrocarbons in the storage tank vapor space are dis-
placed as the tank is   1 led with gasoline from the tank truck.
The quantity of these emissions is dependent on filling rate,
filling method, Reid Vapor Pressure, and the system temperature.

          Breathing losses from the underground gasoline storage
tanks are another source of hydrocarbon emissions.  The losses
from underground service gasoline storage tanks has been estimated
at 1 lb/1,000 gallons throughput (CA-155).  Because the tanks
are underground, breathing losses due to diurnal temperature
effects are minimized,,

          Automobile refueling is the final source of hydro-
carbon emissions from gasoline marketing operations.   As with
                             -65-
-------
C/)
id
U 	 C
* >. J-i
u tj h d 01
C G 0) 4-1 • J bC
Cu CX > -H OJ CO
> O ;_> O
CU OJ ^ 4-1

.-H CO O
' 0 > 4->
4->| CO
•'-< O ^
C1 r— 	 ^ '-J
"J| ^ ^ ~J
)a> ' ca !-i
ij , Lii±-
£ 5 1
O 0
0 1 0) .
cui CK;
r^i ^ 4 . ..
Cl 0) ^-.
4->| b€ r-0
. ro -— -
M >-i ^
ol o C
a 4-1 cd
en ,,. , in H
>\ I l
l
-a I
OJ 44
0 ^
CO d( 4J
r-H Ql 	 _+ r-l J_l
Cu yj ra o
co rt CO,
•H CO -He/3
Q ^ S C
E- t-j CD
!-i CU M
O O H H
D.4-J
^ __L
> ^3
TJ
cu
r— 1
rH T) H
O r-l f',
M 3 -C
4-1 O -J
a 3 ^
o
CJ 4-1 '-^i
OJ P I-
.0 ^ £«

n ^' r:- •>:
V.y r-l I/ i_>
•H C P-l
i 1 'J >-<
C CU h '
X-v ^ ^4
O ^ "^
^— Ai) ^ O CLf
Co p. _p f<,
• -' rJ 4-1 M
rH M >,
< O H cd 0) _S
x 6 w o
CO O CO i-l
O 4-1 CO O f-^«
4-1
p x; n
cO O t-<
r-l "4 IU
cxx: o
3 ^
C ^ i-1
4_) , — | p
CU ^) -H Q
cu b£ JD ^
p cd - <
-<- -rl >-i (3 4-J
1-4 O OP »J
o 4J j-i a» c
03 en <4-i g PM
CO ' CU <
U 10 o >•
Op co
0 r-4. • 1
•H p,"C
o) w oi 'O
03 -H <-l r i
•H T3 CO 1
E C rH
/^~\ CU )-4 -H
LJ 0 E c-i
O 5-i {0.--I
O cd .-J iJl
p, p> CU P .
CO £.»
> >, Oi O
-66-
-------
the filling of tank trucks or underground storage tanks, the
hydrocarbon emissions are generated from the saturated gasoline
vapors displaced as the fuel tank is filled.  As previously
mentioned, the quantity of these hydrocarbon emissions is de-
pendent on the temperature and the Reid Vapor Pressure of the
fuel.  The uncontrolled emissions have, however, been estimated
to be about 11 lbs/1,000 gallons of gasoline throughput.
Figure 2.1-16 is a schematic drawing of vapor and liquid flow
through a typical service station.

2.1.4     Uncontrolled Emissions

          In uncontrolled bulk terminal, bulk plant, or service
station operations, the vapors displaced by the liquid during
tank fills contains hydrocarbons which are emitted to the atmos-
phere.  The quantities of these emissions are variable, depend-
ing on such factors as the Reid Vapor Pressure of the gasoline,
the method of loading, the temperatures of the vapors, and the
effects of geographical and meteorological conditions.

          The calculated t lantity of uncontrolled emissions
from average size terminals, bulk stations, and service stations
are shown on the following pages.  For purposes of illustration,
a 250,OOr gal/day bulk terminal, a 500,000 gal/month bulk sta-
tion,  nd a 25,000 gal/month service station were sizes arbi-
trarily selected.

2.1.4.1   Bulk Terminals

          Hydrocarbon emissions from bulk terminals come from
either storage tanks or loading operations.  Uncontrolled emis-
sions from each of these sources will be considered separately.
                             -67-
-------
o
4J
13
CU
c
J-l
3
4-1
CU
Pi
CO
J-l
0
o
cO
>
^
c
cO 0)
H C
•H
T-J HI , 	 i
C C 0
d -H CO
O i-J CO
J-i O
b£>4->
j-i a
CU CD
1>
^ *
co
J-i
O
ex.*
cO O
> 3
J-i . 	
T3 H -H
CU 1
rX
ctJ C
r-l CO
CXH *
co
•H O
g 4.1
r-l
CO
d
•H
CU
H



*L
G
CO
H
ierground
a
tD
NXT-*
^ 1 '
M 1
i *
CU_^
a^
CO
•H
g

j-i
o
^5
4J O
J^ d
O J-l
fXE-i
CO
s-s
J-i cO
H H
1


1
I
1 ,
1
° 1
i
1
i
o I
1
1
_l
	 L __>
A 	
L :
1 Dispensed
Gasoline ->-
| (to Vehicle
t
o
v^Jcu  >
PX O <•
CO 0 ^
> CU a
* Pi ^
r ' '



Underground
Storage
Tank






                         4J
                         C
                         CU

                         §
                         O
                         Pu
                         co
                         •r4
                         CO   •
                         J-l  4J
                         O -H
O
r-l
H

i-H O
r-l CJ
O CU
J-l J-l
4->
C J-l
0 O
0 CX
cO
c >
o
•H CO
4J
cO O
4-" >
CO Cfl
X!
CU
O 4J
•H O
> c
l_l
M
CU r-l
CO i-l

g
,_]
(JL,

g
H
:=>
ex
)_i
.j
rH
g
^
^
pi
o
PM
<<;
>

i
VO
r-l
-63-
-------
2.1.4.1  B.ulk Terminals (Cont.)

          Storage Tank Losses

          Two basic types of tanks are used in terminals:
fixed roof tanks and floating roof tanks.  Each of these basic
tank designs may, however, have several modifications associated
with it.

          Fixed Roof Tanks

          Fixed roof tanks are subject to both breathing and
working losses.  Breathing losses are associated with expansion
and contraction of the vapor space resulting from the daily
temperature cycle.  Working losses are associated with changes
in the liquid levels in the tanks.

          Breathing Losses:

               New tanks, 0.22 Ib/day for 1000 gal capacity
               Old tanks, 0»25 Ib/day for 1000 gal capacity

          Working Losses:

               9 Ib per 1000 gallon throughput (EN-071).

          It is assumed that new tanks are all-welded and are
vapor and liquid tight.  Consequently, all breathing losses
will occur through the tank vent.  Some old tanks are riveted,
and may have small leaks through which vapors can escape.

          Floating Roof Tanks

          Emissions from floating roof tanks come primarily
from two sources:  standing storage losses and wetting losses.
                              -69-
-------
2.1.4.1  Bulk Terminals (Cont.)

Standing storage losses result from the improper fit of the
seal and shoe to the tank shell and are the principal source of
emissions of floating roof tanks.  Wetting losses occur when a
wetted tank wall is exposed to the atmosphere, but these are
generally negligible.

          Emission factors for hydrocarbon losses from floating
roof tanks are:

          New tanks, 0.033 Ib/day per 1000 gal capacity
          Old tanks, 0.088 Ib/day per 1000 gal capacity

          Old tanks are predicted to have greater emissions
than new tanks predominantly because of inferior vapor seals
on the floating roof.  Riveted construction which is present on
some older tanks will also contribute to higher vapor emissions.
          By applying the above factors to the average terminal
with an assumed 30 day storage capacity, the following uncontrolled
emissions were determined.
                                               gm/gal
                                  Ib/day     Throughput
          I.  Fixed Roof Tanks:
              a.  New Tanks        3900         7.08
              b.  Old Tanks        4125         7.49

          2,  Floating Roof Tanks:
              a.  New Tanks         249         0.45
              b.  Old Tanks         660         1.20
                                -70-
-------
2.1.4.1  Bulk Terminals (Cont.)

          Loading Operation Losses

          During the loading operation vapor in the transport
truck is displaced into the atmosphere as it is being filled
from terminal storage.  The amount of emissions generated is
dependent primarily upon the type of loading operation.

          There are two basic methods of filling transport
tanks:  top loading and bottom loading.  The top loading pro-
cedure can be done with splash fill or submerged fill.  With
splash loading gasoline is discharged into the upper part of
the tank compartment through a short spout which never dips
below the surface of the liquid.  The free fall of the gasoline
droplets promotes evaporation and may even result in liquid
entrainment of some gasoline droplets in the expelled vapors.

          With subsurface or submerged loading, gasoline is
discharged into the tank compartment below the surface of liquid
in the tanko  This is accomplished for top loading operations
by the use of a long sp<~ "t or fixed pipe extanding internally
from the top tank entry tc the bottom of the compartment.  With
direct bottom loading, transfer piping is connected directly
to the tank bottom.,  This method achieves the same effect as
submerged cop loading while providing other advantages such as
ease of loading operations and safety.  Consequently, many
terminals have already been converted to bottom loading.

          The following hydrocarbon emission factors have been
developed that approximate the amount of emissions generated
by each of these loading operations (EN-071, AM-085):

          Splash Loading:   12.4 lb/1000 gal transferred
          Submerged Loading:  4.1 lb/1000 gal transferred
           (top and bottom)
                              -71-
-------
2.1.4.1  Bulk Terminals (Cont.)

Applying these factors to a 250,000 gallon per day terminal
results in the following emissions from loading operations.

                                            gm/gal
                                 Ib/day   Throughput
          Splash Loading:         3100       5.63
          Submerged Loading:      1025       1.85

          The total uncontrolled emissions from a terminal can
be estimated by summing the emissions attributable to tankage
and to loading operations.  For the worst possible, case (old
fixed roof tanks and splash loading) the uncontrolled emissions
are 7225 Ib/day (13.12 gm/gal throughput) and for the best case
(new floating roof tanks and submerged or bottom loading)  the
uncontrolled emissions are 1272 Ib/day (2.30 gm/gal throughput).
Table 2.1-13 contains a tabulation of the amount of uncontrolled
terminal emissions resulting from each of the possible combina-
tions of equipment usage.

                         TABLE 2.1-13
            UNCONTROLLED HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM
                 250,000 GAL/DAY BULK TERMINAL
                            Type of Truck Loading Operation
                          Splash Loading     Submerged Loading
                          Ib/day  gm/gal      Ib/day   gm/day
Fixed Roof Tanks:
  New Tanks                7000   12.71        4925     8.94
  Old Tanks                7225   13.12        5159     9.35

Floating Roof Tanks;
  New Tanks                3347    6,08        1272     2,30
  Old Tanks                3760    6.83        1685     3.06
                              -72-
-------
2.1o4.2   Bulk Plants

          Hydrocarbon emissions from bulk plants are also
generated from the storage tanks and from the tank truck load-
ing operations.  Uncontrolled emissions from each source will
be considered separately.

          Storage Tank Losses

          Because storage tanks typically found at bulk plants
are relatively small, the use of floating roof tanks is not
common.  In many cases, horizontal tanks which cannot be fitted
with floating roofs are used, and in others the tanks are not
large enough to be subject to regulations.  Therefore, only
fixed roof tanks will be considered in the compilation of un-
controlled emissions from bulk plants.

          The same emission factors used to predict the hydro-
carbon emissions from terminal fixed roof tankage can be applied
to bulk plants.  The uncontrolled emissions for bulk plant
tankage operations are based on storage capacity for 10 days
of operation.

          Estimated tankage emissions from a 500,000 gal/month
bulk plant:
                                          gm/gal
                             Ib/day     Throughput
          New Tanks:          186          5.09
          Old Tanks:          191          5.22

          Loading Operation Losses

          As in terminal loading rack operations, both splash
and submerged loading operations are used in bulk plants.  Uncon-
trolled emissions for each type of loading operation at bulk
stations have been compiled.  The same emission factors as used
for terminal loading operations are applicable to bulk plants.

                              -73-
-------
           The uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from a
500,000 gal/month bulk plant loading facility are:

           Splash Loading:   206.7 Ib/day (5.63 gm/gal)
           Submerged loading:   68.3 Ib/day (1.86/gm/gal)

           Summing the emissions from tankage and loading
operations results in the following total estimated uncontrolled
emissions from bulk plants.
                    Type of Truck Loading Operation
                Splash Loading      Submerged  Loading
                Ib/day  gm/gal       Ib/day    gm/gal
    New Tanks    393    10.71          255      6.95
    Old Tanks    398    10.85          260      7.08


 2.1o4.3    Service  Stations

           Uncontrolled  emissions of hydrocarbons at service
 stations  come from loading and  unloading losses  from  tank
 trucks and underground  tanks, refueling losses from vehicle
 tanks, and breathing  losses from the underground tank vent.

           Losses consist of:  (1)  organic liquid that evaporates
 into  the  air  that  is  drawn in during withdrawal  of the contents
 of a  tank compartment,  (2)  losses  from refilling the  underground
 tank  that results  when  the vapors  are  displaced  from  tank  as
 it fills,  (3)  vapors  displaced  from vehicle  tanks  during re-
 fueling,  and  (4) underground tank  breathing  resulting from
 changes in vapor and  liquid temperature.

           Emission factors developed for these sources are as
 follows  (EN-071, SC-167, CA-155):

           1.    Unloading:   1 lb/1000 gal gasoline  transferred

           2.    Underground Tank Filling:
                               -74-
-------
2.1.4.3  Service Stations (cont.)
                    Splash Filling:  11.5 lb/1000 gal transferred
                    Submerged Filling:  7.3 lb/1000 gal transferred

          3.    Vehicle Refueling:  11 lb/1000 gal dispensed

          4.    Underground Tank Breathing:  1 lb/1000 gal throughput

          5.    Spillage:  0.3 gin/gal dispensed

          Applying these factors to the selected service station
size of 25,000 gal/month throughput results in the following
calculated uncontrolled emissions.
                                                    gm/gal
                                        Ib/day    Throughput
          Unloading Losses:               0.83        0.45

          Underground Tank Filling:
               Splash Filling:           9.6         5.22
               Submerged Filling:        6.1         3.31

          Vehicle Refueling:             9.2         5.0

          Underground Tan,  Breathing:    0.83        0045
          Summing these values results in the following esti-
mates ^OTC total uncontrolled emissions from a 25,000 gal/month
service station.

                                                    gm/gal
                                        Ib/day    Throughput
          1.   With splash filling       20.46       11.15
               at underground tank:

          2.   With submerged filling    16.96        9.24
               at underground tank:
                                -75-
-------
2 o2       Emission Control Technology

2.2.1     Terminals

          The emission control technology for bulk terminals is
the most developed of those available to the gasoline marketing
industry.  Certain regions have for many years had regulations
requiring emission controls and have thus encouraged the develop-
ment of bulk terminal emission control technology.  The petroleum
industry has also viewed terminal control technology as an econom-
ical means of  conserving  valuable  fuel  products.   This  section
outlines the control measures available for bulk terminal emis-=
sions, and compares such parameters as cost, efficiency, and
reliability of these control systems.

2.2.1.1   Tankage Control Measures

          Uncontrolled storage tanks (Figure 2.2-1) can account
for half of the gasoline emissions from a bulk terminal.  As
detailed in Section 201.4, these tankage losses occur from
breathing, evaporation, filling, emptying, and wetted walls.
Bulk terminals apply two major approaches to controlling tankage
losses; installing floating covers and installing variable vapor
space tanks.

          Floating Covers-Description

          The purpose of equipping tanks with floating covers
is the elimination of vapor spaces.  This is accomplished by
floating a rigid cover on the surface of the stored liquid.
The roof then rises and falls according to the depth of stored
liquid.  The roof is equipped with a sliding seal at the tank
wall to keep the liquid completely covered.  With some floating
covers, those termed floating roofs, no additional tank roof
is required; however, many tanks are equipped with internal
floating covers which also require a standard fixed tank roof.
                               -76-
-------
  2.2.1.1  Tankage Control Measures (cont.)

           The  three basic  types of  floating roofs are the pan,
 the pontoon, and  the  double deck.   The  simplest  floating roof
 and the  one with  the  longest history  is the pan-type  (Figure
 2o2-2).   This  consists of  a flat metal  pan with  a vertical rim
and sufficient stiffening braces to maintain rigidity.  The pan
is sloped  to the center where a flexible drain is provided for
rain water.  Although simple and relatively inexpensive, the pan
floating roof  is now seldom used.  Tilting, holes, and heavy
snows and  rain loads have caused 2070  (DA-069) of these roofs to
sink.  Also, the single metal plate in  contact with the liquid
readily conducts solar heat with resulting high vaporization
losses.

           In order to overcome the problem of sinking, the pan-
type roof was modified by addition of pontoon sections to the
top of the deck around the rim (Figure  2.2-3).  The pontoons
are arranged and compartmented to give  good stability.  Pontoon
roofs are provided with drains similar  to those used with pan
roofs.  Although the problem of roof  stability is solved by the
use of pontoons, the high vaporization  losses resulting from
solar heating are not no,'ceably reduced over those of the pan
roof.

          Extending the pontoon sections to completely cover the
roof rfjults in the double deck roof  (Figure 2.2-4).  The added
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-
ment' d ^ead air space is usually over one foot deep and provides
enough insulation to significantly reduce vapor losses.  Rain
water is removed through a flexible drain pipe.

          The most common form of internal floating cover is
the internal pan (Figure 2.2-5).   Since the fixed roof protects
the floating roof from the weather, no provision is required

                              -77-
-------
FIGURE 2.2-1 - STANDARD FIXED CONE ROOF TANKS
 FIGURE 2.2-2 - PAN-TYPE FLOATING ROOF TANK
                        ~7 O
                        • / o-
-------
FIGURE 2.2-3 - PONTOON FLOATING ROOF TANK
   FIGURE 2.2-4 - DOUBLE DECK FLOATING ROOF
                      -79-
-------
                                       S COO/9*
FIGURE 2.2-5 - PAN-TYPE INTERNAL FLOATING COVER
       FIGURE 2.2-6 - LIFTER ROOF TANK
                     -80-
-------
2.2.1.1  Tankage Control Measures (cont.)

for rain water removal.   Maintenance is reduced since the in-
ternals, particularly the seals,  are protected from the weather
and the product is less likely to be contaminated by dirt or
water.  Existing fixed roof tanks can be converted to internal
floating covers without difficulty.

          Sliding seals are an important feature of all floating
roofs.  The ideal seal is vapor tight, long-lasting, and requires
little maintenance.  The seals play a significant role in deter-
mining the effectiveness of floating covers.

          Floating Covers-Efficiency

          The efficiency of floating covers varies depending on
the condition of the storage tank and its sliding seals.
Section 2.1.4 details the calculational procedure for determin-
ing the emission reduction from replacing uncontrolled fixed
roof tanks with floating covers.   The efficiency of floating
covers 957OJ and product recovery alone is sufficient to justify
the cost expenditure.

          Floating Covers-Cost

          The costs associated with storage tanks and floating
covers are continually rising, complicating cost analysis
studies.  Table 2.2-1 attempts to summarize current installed
and annual operating cost ranges  for a 90'  diameter 50,000 bbl
storage tank.  The overall economics of storage tanks is pre-
sented in detail in Section 3.6.   Due to the high value of gaso-
line, the yearly return on investment is greater than 30% for
all types of floating covers.
                             -81-
-------
                       TABLE  2.2-1

               SUMMARY OF STORAGE TANK COSTS

       (Basis:   50,000 bbl storage  tank,  90' diameter)


                                                 Annual
                                                Operating
                             Installed Cost       Cost
Fixed Roof                  $118,000-$161,000    $29,900


Pontoon Floating Roof       $146,000-$176,000    $25,500


Internal Floating Cover     $146,000-$210,000    $28,600


Retrofit Floating Cover In  $ 20,000-$ 40,000

   Existing Fixed Roof
                              -82-
-------
2.2.1.1  Tankage Control Measures (Cont.)


          Floating Covers-Safety

          The safety of floating covers with regard to fire and
explosions is very good.  Fires in floating roof tanks tend to
occur only along the sliding seal where they can be easily ex-
tinguished.  Minor seal and deck leaks can cause explosive
mixtures over internal floating covers.  To alleviate this
problem, air scoops are installed in the cone roofs over in-
ternal floating covers for prevention of air stagnation.  Ex-
ternal floating roofs are also subject to drainage and bouyancy
problems under water and snow loads.  The greater bouyancy of
pontoon and double deck floating roofs and the cone roof covering
internal floating covers greatly reduce the hazard of floating
covers sinking.

          Variable Vapor Space Tanks-Description

          The objective in employing a variable vapor space
tank at a bulk terminal is to provide storage for vapor emis-
sions until they can b  i  ocessed in a vapor recovery unit.
The variable vapor space i.ank is manifolded to the vapor space
of the fixed roof tanks, the loading rack, and the vapor re-
covery un4t through a vapor gathering system (Figure 2.2-7).
Expanded and displaced vapors are stored in the variable vapor
space, then sent to the vapor recovery unit when the vapor
holder is filled.  The two basic types of variable vapor space
tanks employed at bulk terminals are lifter roof tanks and
flexible diaphragm tanks.

          Lifter roof tanks normally are used for liquid stor-
age and to provide a variable vapor space.  The roof of the tank
has a dip skirt  that fits  loosely around the outside of the main
tank wall.   The  space between the skirt and the wall is closed
                              -83-
-------
                                                   H
                                                   c/3
                                                   ><
                                                   en
                                                   w
                                                   ffi
                                                   E-i
                                                   <
                                                   O
                                                   o
                                                   w
                                                   H
                                                   w
                                                   H
                                                    i
                                                   CM


                                                   CM


                                                   W
                                                   Pd
-84-
-------
2.2.1.1  Tankage Control Measures (Cont.)


by either a wet or a dry seal (Figure 2.2-6).  Usually the tanks
are designed for a five- or ten-foot lift.  When the lifter
roof tank is manifolded to fixed roof tanks as part of a vapor
gathering system, the operating pressure of the lifter roof
sets the operating pressure of the entire system.  The operating
pressure of lifter roof tanks ranges from 2.5 to 7 inches of
water, depending on the design.   This is often in excess of the
recommended working pressure for fixed roof tanks.  However,
fixed roof tanks can be designed or modified to withstand the
higher pressure.

          Flexible diaphragm tanks can be integral units, serv-
ing much the same purpose as lifter roof tanks (Figure 2.2-8)
or they can be installed as separate units to serve as variable
vapor spaces only (Figure 2.2-9).  The outer tank can be either
cylindrical or spherical with a plastic or rubberized fabric
diaphragm fastened to the wall midway up.  Since the diaphragm
is lighter than a steel roof, the operating pressure of these
tanks is lower than that for lifter roof tanks.  An operating
pressure of CL8 inches  .  water is normal and is less than that
of most fixed roof tanks.

          wa_rtable Vapor Space Tanks-Efficiency

          Because variable vapor space tanks and the manifolc 3d
fixed roof tanks are sealed from 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.
                              -85-
-------
Flexible
Diaphragm
     FIGURE 2.2-8 - COMBINED STORAGE TANK AND

                    FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM
                          -86-
-------
                                                                  FITTINGS INCLUDED DUT NOT SHOWN
                                                                   MEMBRANE POSITION INDICATOR
                                                                   EQUATOR AIR VENT-CONDENSATE DRAIN
                                                                   PRODUCT CONDENSATE DRAIN
COMBINATION MANHOLE AND AIR VCNT
  POSITION OF MEMBRANE (IN CONTACT WITH DOME)
     WHEN VAPORTANK* IS FILLED WITH VAPOR
FIXED LADDER
COMBINATION EQUATOR
MANHOLE AND AIR VtNl
 VAPOR INLET-
OUTLET NOZZLE
SHELL MANHOLE
   AIR SPACE
ABOVE MEMBRANE
                                                                 VAPOR CONFINED
                                                                 UNDER MEMBRANE
                                                    '/'//   \  PRESSURE AND VACUUM
                                                          RELIEF VENT SHAND & JURS
                                                           FIG. ST. 7575 OR EQUAL
                                                         7.65 LBS. (3/16 IN.) BOTTOM
                                                                                  CHI-ION® FLEXIBLE
                                                                               HEMISPHERICAL MEMBRANE
                                                                              SHOWN PARTIALLY INFIATED
                                                                               AND FLOATING ON VAPOR
                                                                                    DOME
                                                                                  /	LBS. (	IN)
                             TANK SHELL
                          7.65 IBS. (3/16 IN.)
                             ELEVATION
   SECTION
       FIGURE  2.2-9  -  INDEPENDENT  FLEXIBLE  DIAPHRAGM  TANK
                                               -87-
-------
2.2.1.1  Tankage Control Measures (Cont.)

          Variable Vapor Space Tanks-Cost

          The installed cost ranges for variable vapor space
tanks is presented below in Table 2.2.-2 (DA-069).  These
prices are vendor quotes from 1961 and have probably escalated
significantly.  More detailed cost breakdowns are presented in
the cost section (Section 3.6) of this report.


                          TABLE 2.2-2
        INSTALLED COSTS FOR VARIABLE VAPOR SPACE TANKS
                       (50,000 bbl-1961)

        Lifter Roof 5'                $68,000- $80,000

        Lifter Roof 10'               $81,000- $92,000

        Flexible Diaphragm            $80,000-$105,000
Some vapor recovery units require vapor holders and the
economics of variable vapor space tanks are improved by saving
the purchase of the vapor holder.

          Variable Vapor Space Tanks-Safety

          Properly maintained variable vapor space tanks are
virtually vapor tight and dangers of fire and explosion are
minimal.  Flame arresters are normally installed in safety
relief valves and vapor return lines.  Dangerous explosive
mixtures in the domes above flexible diaphragms can result from
vapor leaks, but these can be eliminated through regular
maintenance.
                              -88-
-------
          Summary

          In summary, there are two major approaches to con-
trolling hydrocarbon emissions from bulk terminal tankages.  The
first to float a rigid cover on the surface of the stored gaso-
line, thus eliminating the vapor space. The second approach is
to contain the tankage vapors within a sealed tank system in-
corporating a variable vapor space tank to act as surge capacity.
The efficiency of these two approaches in the control of tankage
emissions is greater than 90% over uncontrolled tankage losses.
The value of recovered gasoline has justified the cost of the
tankage control systems described above.

2.2.1.2   Loading Rack Vapor Controls

          A second source of emissions from bulk terminals
occurs at the tank truck loading rack.  As the truck is loaded,
gasoline vapors in the tank, unless contained, are displaced
to the atmosphere.  These emissions were quantified in Section
2.1.4.  They are depenc_u  on the previous drop made by the
truck, the method of gasoline loading, and climatic conditions.
Loading rack vapor control equipment attempts to capture these
emissions  nd transfer them to the loading rack.  At the loading
rack the  are combined with the vapors from other truck positions
and piped to a vapor recovery unit.  This section reviews the
cost and efficiency of loading rack controls.

          Description

          The type of vapor collection system at the truck rack
depends on how the truck is loaded.  If the truck is top loaded,
vapors are recovered through a top loading arm (Figure 2.2-10).
                              -89-
-------
                 MISCELLANEOUS PARTS
ITEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
1]
PART NO.
3420-F-30
2775*
3420-F-40
H-5936
D-837-M
H-5898-RP
H-5906-M
H-5905-M
H-S818-
C-1667-A
C-2479-f^
DESCRIPTION
Swivel Joint, 3"
Boom
Swivel Joint, 4"
Swivel Joint 3"
Handle
Hose
Elbow
Cord Grip
Collat Sub-Assembly
Link
Gasket
QTY.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
ITEM
12
13
14
IS
16



17
18
PART NO.
H-4190-M
D-836-M
3630-30
H-4189-M
H-5952
3840-FO-40
710
C-555-A
417-FKA-4"
3476-F-40
DESCRIPTION
Gasket, 4"
Upper Handle & Pipe
Swivel Joint. 3"
Gasket. 3"
Swivel Joint Sub-Assembly, 4"
Swivel Joint Only
4x278 Nipple Only
4" Flange Only
Loading Valve
Swivel Joint, 4"
QTY.
6
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
FIGURE 2.2-10 -
TOP LOADING ARM EQUIPPED WITH A
VAPOR RECOVERY NOZZLE
                         -90-
-------
2.2.1.2  Loading Rack Vapor Controls (Cont.)
Top loading arms consist of a splash or submerged loading nozzle
(Figure 2.2-11) fitted with a head which seals tightly against
the hatch opening.  Gasoline is loaded through a central channel
in the nozzle.  Displaced vapors flow into an annular vapor
space surrounding the central channel and in turn flow into a
hose leading to a vapor recovery system.  Since the vapor line
is incapable of handling liquid overflows a safety shut-off is
usually included in the nozzle.  Some of the advantages of top
loading vapor collection are:

               there are minimal, if any, modifications
               required for existing top loading trucks,

               it is relatively inexpensive to convert
               existing top loading racks for vapor
               recovery, and

               they are adaptable to existing top loading
               independent carriers.

Top loading vapor collection, however, is not compatible with
trucks equpped for vapor displacement at service stations.

          If the truck is bottom loaded, then the equipment
needed to recover the vapor is considerably less complicated.
Vapor and liquid lines are independent of each other with
resultant simplification of design.  Figure 2.2-12 shows a
typical installation.  The vents on top of the trucks are mani-
folded together and a single vapor vent line is brought from
the truck near the bottom loading fueling connections.  One or
both of the truck turnover rails are usually used as the vapor
manifold.  Vapor collection and gasoline dispensing lines are
flexible hoses and/or swing-type arms connected to quick acting
couplings on the truck.
                              -91-
-------
                               DUMP PASSAGE
  "UP/DOWN"
  CONTROL VALVE
  HANDLE
  DUMP  PASSAGE
  FLOATING COLLAR
  SEAL
  LEVEL  SENSOR
3)
           VAPOR RETURN
           ADAPTOR
FIGURE 2.2-11   DETAIL  OF A VAPOR RECOVERY NOZZLE
                          -92-
-------
FIGURE 2.2-12 - BOTTOM LOADING VAPOR RECOVERY
                    -93-
-------
2.2.1.2  Loading Rack Vapor Controls (Cont.)


          Bottom loading vapor recovery has many advantages
over top loading vapor recovery.  The operator does not have to
walk on top of the truck.  Bottom loading generates much less
vapor, generates almost no mist, and is safter from a static
electricity point of view.  Because of the capacity to simul-
taneously load several compartments, bottom loading allows
faster loading.  In addition, a truck equipped to pick up
vapors at the service station is equipped for bottom loading.

          Efficiency

          The vapor containment efficiency of bottom loading equip-
ment may approach 100% if there are no leaks in the truck.  When
properly operating, the  system remains sealed throughout the load-
ing operation.  Dry break couplings are used on the gasoline dis-
pensing lines and check  valves are used on the vapor return lines
to minimize spills and vapor escape during hook-ups and disconnects

          Although difficult to quantify the vapor collection
efficiency for top loading is lower than for bottom loading.
Vapors escape from the hatch opening during insertion and re-
moval of the top loading nozzle.  There are also losses due to
spills as the loading arm is raised from the truck.

          Cost

          FOB costs for 4-inch top loading vapor collection arm
assemblies, including nozzles, range from $2,000 to $3,000
(1974, AM-055 and BR-163).  FOB costs for bottom loading vapor
collection equipment range from $1,000 to $3,000 (BR-163),
depending on whether simple flexible hoses or complex counter
balance loading arms are employed.
                              -94-
-------
          A standard 250,000 gpd bulk terminal will have ap-
proximately 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 $15,000
and with bottom loading vapor collection arms would be $12,000.

          Reliability

          The safety and reliability of vapor collection equip-
ment for loading racks is extremely good.  Technology in this
area is well advanced because the petroleum industry has applied
vapor collection equipment on gasoline and other volatile pro-
duct loading facilities for many years.

          Summary

          In summary, there are two basic types of vapor col-
lection systems for truck loading racks, top loading and bottom
loading.  Although top loading vapor collection systems require
only minimal inexpensi-   modifications to existing top loading
trucks and loading racks, the trend is to go to bottom loading
vapor collection because of the reduction in generated vapors
and its compatibility with trucks equipped to pick up vapors at
service  nations.   The collection efficiency of both types of
loadii^ rack vapor collection systems approaches 10070 for leak
free truck tanks.   FOB costs for top loading vapor collection
assemblies range from $2,000 to $3,000 and for loading vapor
collection equipment range from $1,000 to $3,000.

2.2.1.3   Vapor Recovery Units

          Vapor recovery units are manifolded into the vapor
collection system at bulk terminals for either conversion of
                             -95-
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units (Cont.)

the gasoline vapors into liquid product or for disposal of the
vapors through such processes as combustion or adsorption.
Figure 2.2-7 shows an integrated vapor collection system chan-
neling excess vapors from the loading rack and the gasoline
tankage to the vapor recovery unit.  This section reviews the
vapor recovery systems applicable to bulk terminals and assesses
the efficiency, cost, reliability, safety and manufacturing
capacity of these systems.  A 250,000 gpd bulk terminal was
chosen as the basis for cost comparisons.

          Compression-Refrigeration-Absorption Systems

          The compression-refrigeration-absorption vapor re-
covery system (CRA) is based on the absorption of gasoline
vapors under pressure with cool gasoline from storage.  The
primary unit in CRA systems is the absorber with the remaining
components serving to condition the vapor and liquid entering
the absorber, improve absorber efficiency, reduce thermal losses,
and/or improve system safety.  Figures 2.2-13 and 2.2-14 show
two CRA vapor recovery systems.  Incoming vapors are first
passed through a saturator where they are sprayed with fuel to
insure that the hydrocarbon concentration of the vapors is
above the explosive level.  This is done as a safety measure to
reduce the hazards of compressing 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 hydrocarbons is vented from
the top of the absorber and gasoline enriched with light ends
is withdrawn from the bottom of the absorber and returned to
the fuel storage tanks.  The operating conditions in the absorber
                              -96-
-------
  2
  u

§s
     2
  ^ <
o, w ns

5^^
  * 2
at w o
W > "
« O ^
Bj U O
< U J
a, o; in
















k^



















_• «•
^^.
f~
*fc^
•K.
^^

•^.
^
"•fc
^^
— •••*
"••».

^^
••fc.
f^
*^.
^^
^fc




















c U
«= V
c ,
c

c !
C ;
C i
C 1
C

C
e
^ ;

c:






i

!


•

3
• I
IP
1 I

a

o u, o
u <
:
i'
c ;•
c
^
. !
1




2
O
R H
                                                    u
                                               nJ g W
                                               O u 2
                                               0, > Z
                                               < < O
                                               > t/5 u
                                                                            2 w
                                                                            U <
                                                                            > O
                                                                    PQ

                                                                    H
                                                                    O
                                                                    I—i
                                                                    H


                                                                    Q.

                                                                    C/3
                                                                    CQ

                                                                     I


                                                                    6
                                                                    M
                                                                    H
                                                                    w
                                                                    o
                                                                    M
                                                                    Pi
                                                                     I


                                                                    CO
                                                                     I

                                                                    CM
                                                                    CNI
                                                                                        fn
                                                                    W   Pd
                                                                    Pi   W
                                                                        PH
                     -97-
-------
                                     o
                                     M
                                     H


                                     O
                                     CO
                                     PQ

                                      i

                                     O
                                     M
                                     H
                                     w
                                     o
                                     K  O
                                      I   M
                                     2;  &
                                     o  w
                                     CO  CO

                                     K  !S
                                     p.  pq
                                     §  W
                                     
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units (Cont.)

vary with the manufacturer, and range from -10°F to ambient
temperature and from 45 psig to 210 psig.

          Although dependent on terminal operating schedules
and vapor storage capacity, for cost estimating purposes, it
has been assumed that a 250,000 gpd terminal will require a
150 CFM vapor recovery unit.  The FOB cost of a 150 CFM CRA
unit ranges from $83,000 to $90,000.  Yearly maintenance and
operating costs have been estimated at 27o to 3% of the capital
cost or $1,660 to $2,700.  Installation and site preparation
cost estimates range from $25,000 to $80,000, depending on vapor
holder requirements.  Terminals employing variable vapor space
storage tanks will not require vapor holders.  Utility costs
depend on power rates.  Power requirements for CRA vapor recovery
units are approximately 7.4 to 10.7 horsepower/1000 CF or 250
to 360 kwh/day for the sizes described above.

          The vapor collection efficiency of a CRA vapor re-
covery unit is difficult to define due to its dependency on
inlet hydrocarbon conce    tion.  The outlet hydrocarbon con-
centration, however, is es entially fixed by the absorber oper-
ating conditions.  Field tests have shown it to range from 1%
to 4.5%, by volume.  Current CRA systems on the market can surpass
90% reco11  .y (if so required) for inlet hydrocarbon concentra-
tions GJ: greater than 20% by volume.  One CRA unit supplies a
booster compressor to achieve 90% recovery at lower inlet hydro-
carbon concentrations.

          Compression-Refrigeration-Condensation Systems

          Compression-Refrigeration-Condensation vapor recovery
systems (CRC) were the first type utilized by the petroleum in-
dustry.  They are based on the condensation of hydrocarbon
                             -99-
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units (Cont.)


vapors by compression and refrigeration.  Figures 2.2-15 and
2.2-16 show the flow scheme of two CRC systems.  Incoming vapors
are first contacted with recovered product in a saturator, and
are saturated beyond the flamability range.  The saturated
vapors are then compressed in a two-stage compressor with an
inter-cooler.  Condensate is withdrawn from the inter-cooler
prior to second stage compression.  The compressed vapors pass
through a condenser where they are cooled, condensed, and re-
turned along with condensate from the inter-cooler to the gaso-
line storage tank.  Essentially, hydrocarbon-free air is vented
from the top of the condenser.  Each manufacturer has minor
variations from this basic flow scheme.  Operation conditions
vary with the manufacturer, with temperatures ranging from
-10°F to 30°F and pressures ranging from 85 psig to 410 psig.

          Although dependent on terminal operating schedules
and vapor storage capacity for purposes of cost evaluation, it
has been assumed that a 250,000 gpd terminal will require a 150
CFM vapor recovery unit.  The FOB cost for a 150 CFM CRC unit
ranges from $80,000 to $100,000.  The unit costing $80,000 also
requires a vapor holder which for this size unit ranges in cost
from $8,000 to $20,000.  Site preparation and installation cost
estimates range from $5,000 to $25,000, excluding vapor holder
costs.  Utility costs depend primarily on power rates.  Power
requirements for CRC vapor recovery units are approximately 11
hph/1000 CF or 370 kwh/day for the size described above.  Over-
all yearly operating and maintenance costs are estimated at 270
to 3% of the capital cost or $2,000 to $3,000.

          The efficiencies of CRC vapor recovery units are not
well documented and difficult to define due to their dependency
on inlet hydrocarbon concentrations.  Data from field tests
indicate that CRC units can recover 96% of the hydrocarbons in
                              -100-
-------
                                              o
                                              M
                                              H
                                              w
                                              o

                                              o
                                              o
                                               I

                                              o
                                              h-l
                                              H
                                               r*^

                                               2  o
                                               i   O
                                               ^  CO
                                               O  W
                                               H  O
                                               CO
                                               CO  >H

                                               53  w

                                               P-i  H

                                               o  s
                                               u  D
                                               r-l
                                               I
                                               CM


                                               CNJ


                                               W



                                               O
-101-
-------
  FIGURE 2.2-16 - COMPRESSION-REFRIGERATION-CONDENSATION
                  UNIT BY VAPOREX
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
                           -102-
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units  (Cont.)
saturated gasoline vapors and 8870 to 90% of the hydrocarbons in
subsaturated gasoline vapors from bottom loading operations.
Vendors claim that adjustments and optional equipment can improve
the efficiency of CRC systems to a minimum recovery of 94?0.

          Refrigeration Systems

          One of the most recently developed vapor recovery
systems is the straight refrigeration system, based on the con-
densation of gasoline vapors by refrigeration at atmospheric
pressure.  Figure 2.2-17 shows the flow scheme of such a system.
Vapors displaced from the terminal enter a horizontal fin-tube
condenser where they are cooled to -100°F and condensed.  Be-
cause vapors are treated on demand, no vapor holder is required.
Condensate is withdrawn from the condenser bottom and the re-
maining air, containing only a small amount of hydrocarbon, is
vented from the condenser top.  Cooling for the condenser coils
is supplied by a methyl chloride reservoir.  A two-stage re-
frigeration unit is used to refrigerate the stored brine solu-
tion to between -105°F a    125° F.

          The refrigeration vapor recovery unit recommended by
the vendor f>r a 250,000 gpd terminal is capable of handling a
vapor ratf   £ 370 CFM.  This high capacity is required because
of the lack of vapor storage capacity.  The FOB cost for this
unit is approximately $85,000 and transportation charges run
from $500 to $1,500.  Utility costs for refrigeration vapor re-
covery urn *\> depends on local utility rates, however, power
requirements are 9.4 hp/1000 CF or for the above unit, 320 kwh/
day.  Overall yearly operating and maintenance rates are reported
to be 27o of the capital cost, or $1,600.  No estimate was avail-
able for installation and site preparation costs but they are
in the range of those for CRA and CRC units.
                              -103-
-------
 CONDEWSCR
AIR DISCHARGE
                                              Condcnjoa Liquid
                                             Hydrocaibon Drain
                            „      M
                            Condensate
                                Drain
    A - AIR-COOLED CONDENSER, HIGH STAGE
    B - HIGH STAGE COMPRESSOR
    C - HIGH TEMPERATURE EVAPORATOR
       and LOW TEMPERATURE CONDENSER
    D - LOW STAGE COMPRESSOR
    E - LOW TEMPERATURE EVAPORATOR
    F - BRINE PUMP
    G -COLD BRINE STORAGE RESERVOIR
    H - DEFROST BRINE and EXPANSION CHAMBER
J - DEFROST PUMP
K - COOLANT PUMP
L - VAPOR CONDENSER
M- ELECTRIC WATER CONTROL VALVE
N - POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT METERING PUMP
   FOR CONDENSED HYDROCARBONS
p - FLOAT VALVE
                 FIGURE  2.2-17  - REFRIGERATION VAPOR RECOVERY
                                     UNIT  BY  EDWARDS
                                            -104-
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units  (Cont.)


          The vapor recovery efficiency of refrigeration  systems
is again dependent on the hydrocarbon concentration of the inlet
vapors.  Field tests of a unit with a condenser temperature of
-100°F indicate the outlet hydrocarbon concentration is rela-
tively fixed by the condenser  temperature at 0.670 to 2.67o by
volume.  Typical hydrocarbon recoveries are 93% to 97% with
recoveries reaching 99% for saturated inlet vapors.

          Lean Oil Absorption  Systems

          The lean oil absorption  (LOA) vapor recovery system
is based on the absorption of gasoline vapors into lean gaso-
line stripped of light ends.  Figure 2.2-18 is a flow scheme of
a LOA vapor recovery system.  Gasoline vapors from the terminal
are displaced through the packed absorber column where they are
absorbed by cascading lean gasoline (termed sponge oil or lean
air) at atmospheric temperature and pressure.  Stripped air is
vented from the top of the absorber column.  The enriched gaso-
line is returned to storage.  Lean gasoline for the absorber is
generated by heating gasoiu   from the storage tanks and evapora-
ting off the light ends.  The separated light ends are compressed,
condensed, and returned to storage, and the lean gasoline is
^tored separ tely for use in the absorption column.

          Cost figures were not available for LOA vapor recovery
systems.

          The vapor recovery efficiency of LOA systems is de-
pendent on the liquid to vapor ratio in the absorber and on the
hydrocarbon content of the inlet vapors.   The manufacturer re-
ports that normal practice is to adjust the lean oil feed rate
to the absorber such that the hydrocarbon content of the stripped
                              -105-
-------
                                   I
                                   H
                                   P
                                   O
                                   ai
                                   S
                                   w
                                   H
                                   CO
                                   >H
                                   CO
                                   o
                                   I— I
                                   H
                                   O
                                   CO
                                   pq
                                   CO
                                   I—I


                                   CM


                                   
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units (Cont.)

air is 370 by volume.  This corresponds to a 907o or greater re-
covery for inlet hydrocarbon concentrations of 247° or greater.
Higher lean oil rates are used when improved recovery is required.

          Flame Oxidation Systems

          One of the simplest vapor control systems for bulk
terminals is the flame oxidation system.  This system controls
hydrocarbon emissions by combusting gasoline vapors as opposed
to recovering them as a liquid product.  Figure 2.2-19 is a flow
scheme of a typical flame oxidation unit.  Gasoline vapors from
the terminal are displaced to a vapor holder as they are generated.
A hydrocarbon analyzer system adds propane to the vapor holder
when necessary to maintain the hydrocarbon/air ratio above its
flamability limit.  When the vapor holder reaches its capacity
the gasoline vapors are released to the oxidizer, after mixing
with a properly metered air stream and combusted to a carbon
dioxide and water.

          Although depend  " on terminal operating schedules
and vapor storage capacity i  was assumed that a 250,000 gpd
bulk terminal would require a 150 CFM flame oxidation unit.
The FOB cost of such a unit is $50,000.  Costs for vapor holders
for this si  • unit range from $8,000 to $20,000 FOB.  Although
site prej uration and installation costs were not available,
they are expected to be lower than those for other types of
vapor recovery units because no recovered product tanks and re-
covered product lines are needed.  Utility costs are low because
no oppressors or refrigerators are involved, however, there is
an undetermined propane fuel cost incurred.  The simplicity and
low capital cost of flame oxidation units is largely offset by
the economic loss by combusting the valuable gasoline product.
                              -107-
-------

f
                       ^
                                        CM
                                        W
                                        01
                                        ZD
                                        O
            -108-
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units (Cont.)

          Properly designed and operated flame oxidation units
usually achieve hydrocarbon removal efficiencies of about 997o
(VO-037).  Test results on the efficiency of a flame oxidation
unit designed for bulk terminal use indicated hydrocarbon con-
centrations in the stack gas to be less than 55 ppm.  This cor-
responds to 99+7o disposal of hydrocarbon vapors.

          Operating Reliability

          The operating reliability of terminal vapor recovery
systems is generally good.  The technology is proven through
use by industry over two decades.  Companies using CRA and CRC
units report average downtime for properly maintained units is
about one week per year.  Freezing problems have occurred with
CRA, CRC, and refrigeration systems where the vapors are subject
to temperatures below 32°F.  Water vapor contained in the air
freezes in the system, hindering heat transfer and clogging
lines.  The two solutions to this problem have been:

          (1)  include  n automatic defrost cycle which
               shuts down part of the system during off-
               periods and allows for defrosting the
               iced sections, and

          (2)  inject methanol into the system to lower
               the freezing point of the aqueous layer.

Both solutions to the icing problems generally work well, however,
isolated problems with icing still occur.

          Another major source of problems in CRA and CRC
systems is the gasoline vapor compressor.  Compressors handling
heterogeneous mixtures of air, light hydrocarbons, and water
                             -109-
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units (Cont.)

vapor have maintenance problems in rotors and bearings normally
encountered with closed loop refrigerant compressors.   There
have also been reports that some lean oil absorption units are
experiencing problems in obtaining adequately stripped lean oil
feed to the absorber.

          Safety

          Safety is always of paramount importance in designing
equipment to handle flamable materials.  The manufacturers of
vapor recovery equipment have been conscious of this,  and have
included safety features in their designs.  Flame oxidation,
ORC, and CRA units have potential safety problems whenever ex-
plosive hydrocarbon mixtures are being stored and processed.
To eliminate the possibility of explosion, these units are
generally equipped with means to saturate the incoming vapor
stream which raises the hydrocarbon content above the  explosive
     .   Refrigeration systems generally operate at temperatures
      which explosions are a threat.
          CRA and CRC systems have the problem of compressing
hydrocarbon vapors.  The adiabatic heat of compression increases
the outlet gas temperature to the point where it is much more
easily ignited than is the cooler inlet vapors.  Compression
ratios and the corresponding outlet gas temperatures must be
maintained at levels low enough to prevent excessive heating
and spontaneous combustion.

          Another potential safety problem in systems employing
vapor holders has been leakage creating explosive mixtures in
the air space above the diaphragm.  Regularly maintained and
inspected diaphragms should pose no safety problems.
                             -110-
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units (Cont.)

          Because these are largely custom made, none of the
vapor recovery systems currently have obtained Underwriters
Laboratory approval.  The majority of the systems, however, do
conform to Class I, Group D, Division 1 of the National Electric
Codes and in addition comply with all other applicable engineer-
ing codes and standards.

          Manufacturing Capacity

          The manufacturing capacity and installation time of
the vapor recovery industry is dependent on the availability of
supplies, equipment, contractors, labor, and weather.  Recent
estimates by the top eight manufacturers are that their yearly
production rate is four to five hundred units although this
rate could be expanded if the need arises.  CRA and CRC manu-
facturers have a nine to twelve month delivery time, while manu-
facturers of refrigeration, LOA, and flame oxidation units re-
port six month delivery times.  These manufacturing capacities
and delivery times may be optimistic in light of the current
economic situation anu ii iterial shortages.

          Summary

          The five major types of vapor recovery systems for
terminals are compression-refrigeration-absorption, compression-
refrigeration-condensation, straight refrigeration, lean oil
absorpiton, and flame oxidation.  The technology of each system
is well developed.  Each of these vapor recovery systems are
capable of meeting 9070 recovery although some may require ad-
justments or additional equipment to meet 9070 recovery on inlet
streams having a very low hydrocarbon concentration.  The reli-
ability of vapor recovery units for bulk terminals is good and
is continuously being improved.  Future stream factors, as-
suming proper maintenance should be in the 957o category.
                             -Ill-
-------
2.2.1.3  Vapor Recovery Units (Cont.)

          Manufacturers of vapor recovery units have been cogni-
zant of the importance of safety and have generally conformed
to applicable engineering codes and standards.   Care has been
taken to prevent ignition sources and to maintain the vapors in
non-explosive regimes„

          The current manufacturing capacity of the vapor re-
covery industry is four to five hundred units per year with a
delivery time of six months for refrigeration,  LOA, and flame
oxidation units and nine to twelve months for CRA and CRC units.

          Table 2.2-3 summarizes the information presented in
this section on vapor recovery units.  Greater cost breakdowns
are presented in Section 3.5.  Seasonal and inlet concentration
effects on the efficiency of vapor recovery units are discussed
in Section 3.8.

          Computer Simulation

          A computer modeling study was undertaken to predict
the recovery efficiencies and emission concentrations of three
types of vapor recovery systems.  The operating conditions of
each of the systems used for this study are listed below.
                             Operating     Operating
              System        Temperature    Pressure
          Refrigeration        -100°F       15 psia
                                           (Ambient)
               CRA               0          65 psia
               CRC               25° F      440 psia
          Two vapor concentrations were used to predict the
effects resulting from an increase in hydrocarbon concentration
of the vapors processed by a particular unit.  Hydrocarbon
                             -112-
-------
  U n)

  M U
  41 O
  CXi t-i
a > -H
nj o U
> O ••-*
                               1
        g  S
                             i u
                -113-
-------
concentrations chosen for this study were 15% and 407,.  The com-
ponent breakdown of the vapors used for each composition were
as follows.

                            Hydrocarbon Concentration
          Component           15% HC         40% HC
             Air              85.0%          60,0%
             C4                7.5%          20.0%
             CK                4.9%          13.2%
             C,.                1.7%           4.4%
             C7                0.9%           2.4%

          The results of this study are summarized in Table ?. .2-'i
As is illustrated in this table, the outlet concentration of  t!i-r;
vapors from a vapor recovery unit are relatively fixed by e.qvl i-
brium conditions of the unit's operating temperature and pres-
sure.  An increase of the hydrocarbon concentration of vapors
going to the unit will result in an increase in the unit's re
covery efficiency but will have little effect on the hydrocarb'-.i
concentration in the vapors from the vapor recovery unit.  Tin*
mass emissions will, however, decrease as the inlet hydrocarbon
concentration increases.  This is because the amount of air
being passed through the unit decreases while the hydrocarbon
concentration in the outlet vapors remains constant.

2.2.2     Service Stations

          The main sources of hydrocarbon emissions from service
stations are the underground tank refilling and vehicle refueJ-
ing operations.  There is considerable experience with emission
controls for both sources.  Emission control of underground
                              -114-
-------
                           TABLE 2.2-4

                SUMMARY OF COMPUTER CALCULATIONS
                   Inlet
                Hydrocarbon      Outlet HC                   Mass
 System Type

Refrigeration




     CRC




     CRA
Concentration
15
40
15
40
15
40
Concentration
0.9
0.9
2.5
2,6
2.5
2.5
/o
Recovery
94oO
98.0
83.0
93.5
83.0
94.0
Emissions
(gm)
541
381
1553
1092
1634
1126
 JU   Based on Volume % Recovery

 2_.   Assuming 1000 ft3 of Inlet Vapor at 70° F
                               -115-
-------
tank filling operations has been designated as Stage I controls
and control of vehicle refueling operations has been designated
as Stage II controls.  Emission control technology,  for both
stages of control, will be discussed in this section.

2.2.2.1   Stage I Control Technology

          Substantial test data exists which indicate that 95%
of the vapors displaced from underground tank refilling can be
recovered by simply returning the displaced vapors to the tank
truck.  Examples ot this data are shown on Tables 2.2-5, 2.2-6,
and 2.2-7 (ST-187, HA-256, SC-186).  These data indicate that a
well-designed vapor balance system will provide efficient con-
trol of underground tank refilling vapors with the use of emis-
sion control technology and equipment available today.

          The following discussion will be directed toward
several important parameters which affect the efficiency of re-
covering vapors from underground tank refilling.

          Submerged Fill Pipe

          A submerged fill pipe is used in order to discharge a
load of gasoline below the surface of liquid in the underground
tank.  Submerged loading eliminates the excess vapors which
would be generated from discharging the gasoline at the top of
the tank as the free fall of the gasoline droplets would promote
evaporation and could result in liquid entrainment ot some gaso-
line droplets in the expelled vapors.

          Tank Vapor Fittings

          There are two basic approaches to collecting displaced
vapors from underground tank refillings:  single and dual point
                             -116-
-------











m
i
CM
CN
TABLE






p
H
C/3
W
o
u
w
p^

o
PH
H
W
W
U
DISPLA
o
CO
H
CO
&
Q
,
rH L<
Pi > V<
nJ O
> o
"a
W G
£>
re, °F
Ambient
Ter.Deratu
Underground
Product
ct Unloaded
Temperature,
°F
3 •
•O 0)
JH 3 -p
P-( rH [JH
O
>
OJ
rt
P
•P •
w <3
EH*^
in O~N oj KN in C^-VQ t— .^ vn ^r co f— o o r-i rn rH
--»• CM 01 LTN -f *£? CM f~- 1— u; vp --f K\ o o r--*• co co b- rH \r> rA oj -* t^- o KNVO o o mco
OOOOOOOOOOOOOr-lr-)OOH
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
^^o7&o7S^c^^^o7o7^r^S?
oooooooooooooooooo
CMVO OAOCO OVO incO CT\C7\^d-CO O -f O t^--d-
CO CO CO CO CO >- 1-A.O v£) MD VO t^- t—CO CO O ON ON
rH
O O rH t— ^fCO t^-rHrHOOOOCO -*OJOJ
CO CO CO t— [-- C— t~-<£> COCOCOCOCOC- COCOCO
OCMHrHCOLTNONHrHOOOO t^-VO -* OJ OJ
COCOCO C-->-D-COCOCOCOCOCOCO C-C-COCOCO
ONONONOOOONONONOJOJON ONCOVOCO O^
r*~NrAKN^f^J---f KAf<^KNCOCOf

O

£_4
Q)
^_>
CX
nJ
TJ

"3
0)
j^
rQ
•>,
J^
Q
H
•P
O
o
•r-j
O
Cv.
rH
1
PH
W

H
<
In
P

W
QJ
•H
^_,
O
•P
n5
O
,0
c5
^
^
o

•*
_r^
P
bO p CO CO
.-' I .- . 	 J 1
t « r-H ' * ft
0)
*>
CU
4J *
O C K^N-^
SH
•rH
O

4)
w
£
CJ
C w
k O
D K
•P
K JH
CJ
fn >
0 iH
Cd 0
>P
<&
OJ
tn
OJ
•P
•P
0
o
w
& -a"
H-J 0)
•rH -P
^j o5
0)
•0' X!
(1)
E ^
O rH
f-. -H
aj o
CU -rH
-------
vO
CM




W
c> o :r.
:i i/i •
li. C) <-
1- ;-
(X •—'
4* 10 cJ
••- l/> U>
c: rj ->
~ "" U"
fZ
o
t/) -f- . — -
10 to !!
rj H I ' i
>. 'p '
lij
CJ
o> c
f: OJ
i- i) I.S.
O •.->—•
> 4-
4-
UJ
CJfO
c: 4~
_QJ " — *

f .c--)
L3 -U
r- 4-
>•
O. •—
O rj
i- C_)l
O ^

rj
XT
t:
o
u
01
i/j






in in
0
CM i-


CM (O
CD CJ CD
CD 0

in
«J- in
o
vf CO
r— CM



H- H-
cn 01 CD
cn 01 O



l£> CD
O

CO r— 0
«--J- UD CO
CD r- •—

CD in CD
CD CO O
CO loD CO
r- co co
u
^
~o
0
to V-
o .V n.
•r- 5.-
C ro to
CJ (• 00
i- 1^ 0
•i- C) O
> J > CJ
e i; i.
UJ •-< (X































x>
C)
u
t:
fO
r —
fO
DJ







0 0




CO «;)-
0 0



CD CO
 CM
r^* tn
cr> o>



CO CO
UD O-J
CM CM
»-
ro
o ro
r— CM
r— U3
o in
in in
CM m
CO vj-






"O
J-

"V")
4- t:
r— <"J
""3 4-'
O OO







X)
01
S—
OJ
>•
CT)
o
00
•r —
XJ

^>^
1— -
•M
Ct

^3
cr
QJ
00
JD
L3
OO

1/1
rO
^

.cr
o
JT:
^
^:
"ru
QJ
f-~ •
„
fO XJ
CLP
XJ ^~
ra -i-
-C rd
CL
C 01
0 <-
io.i?
4-J
t/> J^^
ra
 QJ1
•i — r—
»C
4-> QJ1
CI
-M '-4-J
n3
t.
D> Q>
C •!-»
•r- 4-
D- cO
•r"
rx s^
a
XJ  o
o
L- >>
Oi ai
i- fJ
QJ
XJ O)
d C
rs -i—
4 J
QJ C
JLZ (U
h- :=•


*


TJ Q)
r: u
CJ r— •
Ci) S- _s'
i. CJ r.
O) f). CO
X) ro 4J
CI) £-
.CT 4J 13
cJ ro o
ro S- i-
OJ id 01
D. 5^-
O GJ OJ
4J 00 "0
t: t:
•r- tO LJ
OJ
00 t/i CJ
r: :J ji-
CJ -4-J
»— r:
r— O Ol
ro •.- IT
as 4-J
CD -IJ CJ
CD CO QJ
CD e
vi XJ i~
5- CJ
>, rj 0
r— XJ
QJ t: -CJ
-<-> rO r-
nl 4-> O
r; co 4-
x o.j e
o .t- -J
O.
n. Q) ro
ro oo
n oj
^- AJ 00
CJ CJ ::s
QJ
ri- x) to
o c.-
S^- XJ 0
XJ OJ •<•-
4-> 4->
r— (O fU
> L* V-/ T
f: T- oo
S.- XJ
0 f~ i-
t: T- cj
_t.T
r\5 to I J
•r- CD
00
4-* V
c "d •
QJ ro 4->
IO -l-> O
(L) rj
5-- -U XJ
CX QJ O
fl) 4 ' i.
5- to 0.
QJ
XJ -(-> 4-
QJ O
O QJ
c; .c: o
rO 4-> '(.J
1 	 C'J
ro >> 5_
CO r— I')
cr
XJ CD .e
(_ o
ra (O
XJ . QJ
C ~ \'
ai "e S-
4-> rd o
CO 4J l(-

^
+:









.
*rj-
f-^
ei
( — •

4-'
fl
n
O)
--;'
^-^~

*^
oo
1 -
( J
(/!
c/j1
.
c _
C)

o
(J
CJ
O-

o
C V
^

J .
( )
4 -
o-i
t-I
IJ
5- •
! -

C1'
.* "
c^
f'">
C '3

t; •
t^

C"
-"
• r-
. J
r1
JJ
1 — •
A1*

Ui

4J
t/1
a
1" "


* *
r
c";
>-
U-




*-.*
rt:
1 —
t ^
fV
1-lJ
                                   -118-
-------
CN
w







CO
H
CO
w
H
CO
P^l M
W H
> CO
1— 1 >'
rJ CO
W
P r-l
0

U H
Pi O
H CJ

, ^.
& 6
H
r*^
7^
1
CO










~
0) C>
(•0 -.1
> 1 f;
cj -,-•;
> i:
tH
O 0
f'O T
u) T!
> C
-'4 M













n
o
C)
r :

"
v
f^
o
^ .
r>
CJ
Cj
^ ^







CO
CO
a
rH H
0
i-) \i~{
0 0
H
O

4J
n
CJ
p.

U
•H
^ j
It
('<
^^
- 	
0 C.I
o o
0 0
^v
^ — /
0 0
0 0
0 O









rt
0
•H
4J
(J
^
d
•o
C il
o o
£> O
'H 1
rt -a
0 G)
4. J
Tj l\J
O H
U f1)
nl / n
IU C-iJ
> vH
•H 1-4
4-1 ', 1
U tj











*^t" vQ








f^
O 0
U *H
V-i f"*




CO csl ,-{ o
O rH VO vy-
-~r -j- n cs

rH CM l/^ O
to r-( r^ ^3-
LI-> H T<
n a o o











CO rH CO OO
t— f







o c: o
O O O 60
a o ;•:*->
V4 |1 !•' >H
•<  VD tH •J"
CO -J r-4 M >-l
•H -H -H -H
« O Q Q











r- CT> oo oo
f"H i™i





^H
rt
rH rH O
•H rH |
r! rO C) -X3
^J Q rc2 4J
to >4 to co

                                                             U













*
to
4.J
Vi
CJ
4J

rH
«tj
•a
QJ
4J
O
P!

CJ
to
•H
i*
CJ
.£-
J.J
o

CO
CO
CJ
rH
C
•J
C)
(J
^
rH
0


t*>
Jft

to
CO
o
rH

t-5
QJ
C)
b
CO
OJ
4J
C)
f-3
CJ
CJ
CO
tH
P.
M
•rl
4J
0
O
i 1
•r 1
n

rH
rj
p.
i? ^
O
W -tl
Cj W
Cl
QJ -H
H H
(j cU
to
f. ^ n
i-H .
C) Q
4.J
.t j l)H
[J 0

X 0
O C3
t^ C5
IX tH
rd rH

to v
CJ
to n
CO O
O -rl
rH U
rj
CJ |-l
11 W
:.i r.
iH OJ
O U
> t:
o
£s? U


£
f 	 1
rH
U
• J
Lf
0

4J
CO
a
.rt
'c;
d


to
c;
•H
>-*
T<
',;

.-»
01
4_i
CO
0
4_>

r;

fi
O
1)
c\)
rH
Pu
CO
T-l
Q
4J
(J
rj
V-i
•H
^

IM
O

CJ
t J
u
^
C)
J>
-4;



































•
CO
4J
to
CJ
4 J
, 	 ^

(J
•H
r^
j,^
4 J
rj

t 0
£*
•iH
Vl
;3
r-H
( >

f'i
                            -119-
-------
2.2.2.1  Stage I Control Technology (Cont.)

systems.  The dual systems employ two tank fittings; one for
product delivery and one for vapor collection.  The single
point systems employ only one fitting; a coaxial or concentric
fuel-vapor coupler.  See Figure 2.2.-20 for a diagram of a
coaxial fitting.

          The advantage of the coaxial-type fitting is that an
interlock system can be built in which will prohibit product
delivery unless the vapor return line is connected.  A dis-
advantage of the coaxial coupler is that it will result in
lower product delivery rates than could be achieved with a
standard four-inch drop tube as the space required for vapor
collection creates a flow restriction in the gasoline entry
line.

          Vent Pipe Restrictions

          The use of vent pipe restrictions have been suggested
as a means of encouraging drivers to hook up the vapor return
hose in a dual point system.  If the vapor return line is not
hooked up, the vent pipe restriction will create a back pressure
in the underground tank and hence impede the rate of product
delivery.  It has been suggested that a restriction should
double the time required for a truck drop to be effective.

          Calculations have been performed to determine the
effect on drop rate of different sized orifices.  A one-half
inch vent pipe orifice will result in a drop delay of 4770,
while a three-eighth inch orifice will delay the drop time by
667o.  The smaller orifice, however, places more stress on the
tank, plus it takes the system longer to vent down to a safe
level before the product delivery hose can be disconnected.
                             -120-
-------
                icxJ
                           Coaxial Fitting
                          Adapter and
                          Drop Tube
FIGURE 2.2-20.   DIAGRAM OF A COAXIAL FITTING

                AND FILL TUBE ADAPTER
                     -121-
-------
 2.2.2.1   Stage  I  Control  Technology  (Cont.)
           Safety Considerations

           Creation of pressure in  the underground tank  is  the
main  safety  problem associated with recovering displaced vapors
from  refilling  operations.  Relatively  low pressures can be
created by the  use of a pressure-vacuum valve or a restrictive
orifice in the  tank vent  line under normal operations.  However,
if  the orifices become plugged or  the P-V valve becomes stuck,
high  pressures  can result.

           The effects of  pressure  in the underground tank  can
be  catastrophic.  In most instances, however, it will probably
result in  poor  operation  of the vapor recovery system.  Some of
these pressure  effects are listed  below.

           (1)   Rupture of the underground tank,

           (2)   Transfer through the vapor return line
                to a vehicle tank which  can result in
                gasoline spitback,  but will definitely
                prohibit the transfer of vapors to the
                underground tank.

           (3)   Gasoline can be forced out of the gaso-
                line delivery hose  if a  system containing
                a restrictive orifice is not vented down
                before the hose is  disconnected.

           Routine inspections of all vapor recovery equipment,
especially pressure-vacuum valves  and restrictive orifices,
should be  performed to insure proper operations.  The frequency
of  inspections  should be  increased during freezing and  icy
weather.   At these conditions a pressure-vacuum valve or orifice
is most likely  to freeze  up.
                             -122-
-------
2.2.2.1  Stage I Control Technology (Cont.)
          Truck Inspections

          Truck inspections are a necessary and integral part
of any vapor recovery program.  The inspections should be de-
signed to detect any leaks in the truck vapor compartments
through periodic pressure checks in each truck.  Leaks in the
truck will permit collected gasoline vapors to escape to the
atmosphere and thus greatly reduce the recovery efficiency.

          Design Criteria

          The following specifications have been recommended
by EPA to aid in the design and installation of a system to
recover vapors resulting from underground tank refilling opera-
tions .

          (1)  Drop Tube Specifications

               Submerged fill is specifically required by certain
TCP regulations while o
-------
2.2.2.1  Sta^e I Control Technology (Cont.)


tanks which cannot be converted to submerged fill, e.g., tanks
with offset fill lines or poor accessibility.

          (2)  Gauge Well

               If a gauge well separate from the fill tube is
used, it must be provided with a drop tube which extends to
within 6 inches of the tank bottom.  This will prevent vapor
emissions in case the gauge well cap is not replaced during a
drop.

          (3)  Vapor Hose Return

               Existing data indicate that a 3-inch ID hose is
needed to transfer vapors from the storage tank to the truck.
Smaller diameter hoses may be satisfactory where fill rates are
appreciably less than 400 gallons per minute.  If a hose smaller
than 3 inches is to be used, the owner/operator is required to
show that the hose will achieve the required vapor recovery.

          (4)  Size of Vapor Line Connections

               Where separate vapor lines are used with 4-inch
product tubes, nominal 3-inch or larger connections should be
utilized at the storage tank and truck-trailer.  When smaller
product tubes are used, a smaller vapor line connection may be
used, provided the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the con-
nection to the cross-sectional area of the product tube is 1:2
or greater.  If the ratio is smaller, test data must be provided
to show the required recovery efficiency will be met.

          For concentric or other tube-in-tube fittings, operating
characteristics are unique to the particular design.  To date,
adequate test data have been supplied for 4-inch and 6-inch
tube-in-tube adapters.
                              -124-
-------
2.2.2.1  Stage I Control Technology (cent.)
           (5)  Type of Liquid Fill Connection

               Vapor tight caps are required for the liquid fill
connection for ail systems.  A positive closure utilizing a
gasket or other similar sealing surface is necessary to prevent
vapors from being emitted at ground level.  Cam-lock closures
meet this requirement.  Dry-break closures also are acceptable,
but are not required.

           (6)  Tank Truck Inspection

               Vapor tight tank trucks are specifically required
by TCP regulations.  This is interpreted to mean that the truck
compartments won't vent gases or draw in air unless the settings
of the pressure-vacuum relief valves are exceeded.  An inspection
procedure should be submitted to include frequent visual in-
spection and leak testing at least twice per year.  Leak testing
should demonstrate that the tank truck when pressurized to 5
inches W.C. will not leak to a pressure of 2 inches W.C. in
less than 3 minutes.  ~   {uent visual inspection is necessary
to insure proper operatic  of manifolding and relief valves.

          (7)  Closures or Interlocks on Underground Tank Vapor
               Riser

               Closures or interlocks are required to assure
transfer of displaced vapors to the truck and to prevent ground
level gasoline vapor emissions due to failure to connect the
vapor return line to the underground tanks.   These devices must
be designed:
                                -125-
-------
2.2.2.1  Stage I Control Technology (Cont.)
               (a)  to keep the storage tank sealed unless
                    the vapor hose is connected to it; or

               (b)  to prevent delivery of fuel until the
                    vapor hose is connected, i.e., an inter-
                    lock.

Concentric couplers are required to have acceptable closures on
the vapor line connection in the coupler itself rather than on
the riser pipe from the storage tank.

          (8)  Vapor Hose Connection to the Tank Truck

               A means must be provided to assure that the vapor
hose is connected to the truck before fuel is delivered.  Accept-
able, means of providing this assurance include:

               (a)  permanent connection of the vapor hose
                    to the truck;

               (b)  an interlock which prevents fuel delivery
                    unless the vapor hose is connected, such
                    as a bracket to which the product and vapor
                    hose are permanently attached so that
                    neither hose can be connected separately;
                    and

               (c)  a closure in the vapor hose which remains
                    closed unless the hose is attached to
                    the vapor fitting on the truck.
                             -126-
-------
2.2.2.1  Stage I Control Technology (Cont.)


          (9)  Vent Line Restrictions

               Vent line restrictions improve recovery efficiency
and provide assurance that the vapor return line will be con-
nected during transfer.  If the liquid fill line were attached
to the underground tank and the vapor return line disconnected,
closures would seal the vapor return path to the truck forcing
all vapors out the vent line.  Restriction of the vent line
through the use of an orifice or pressure-relief valve greatly
reduces fill rate in such instances warning the operator that
the vapor line is not connected.

          Where concentric or tube-in-tube connections are
utilized, a restriction should be installed in the underground
tank vent pipe.  These connectors provide considerably less
cross-section area in the vapor return passage than do 3-inch
connectors.   Hence, a restriction in the vent pipe is required
to insure that the required emission limit will always be met.
If systems utilizing tube-in-tube connections are to be installed
without vent pipe restrictions, testing data will be required
to show that the emission limit is being met.

          Suitable restrictive orifices or pressure-relief
valves arr required whenever the systems would otherwise be in-
capable of achieving 90% control or would otherwise not assure
that the vapor return line is connected.  For available hardware
this means that these restrictive devices are necessary for all
except systems with interlock connections at both the truck and
storage tank.

          Either of the following restrictive devices are accept-
able :
               (a)  Orifice of 1/2 to 3/4 inch ID.
                              -127-
-------
               (b)  Pressure-vacuum relief valve set to open
                    at 8 oz per square inch or greater pressure
                    and 4 oz per square inch or greater vacuum.
                    The vacuum relief feature of a P-V valve is
                    not required for Stage I recovery purposes
                    but may be required by safety authorities.

          Figure 2.2-21 shows a schematic sketch of a well-
designed vapor displacement system for recovery of underground
storage tank vapors.  The system depicted employs a concentric
or coaxial vapor-liquid connector.

2.2.2.2   Stage II Control Technology
                                                              t
          Stage II controls refer to control during vehicle
refueling.  It is in this area where much disagreement remains
on the effectiveness of different means of emission control.
Most of the controversy centers on the relative advantages/
disadvantages of two basic types of emission control systems:
vapor displacement and vacuum assist.

          The vapor displacement, or vapor balance system oper-
ates by simply transferring vapors to the underground tank where
they are stored until final transfer to a tank truck.  Pressure
created in the vehicle tank and vacuum created in the underground
tank are the principal agents of vapor transfer.  The main
pieces of equipment associated with a vapor balance system are
a specially designed nozzle which is designed to form a vapor
tight seal at the fill neck interface, a flexible hose, and an
underground piping system to transport the vapors to the under-
ground storage tank.  The underground storage tank vent line
can either be open to the atmosphere or equipped with a P-V
valve to aid in retaining a vacuum in the underground tank.
                              -128-
-------
H
C/D
o
CJ
w
Pi
o
P-.
M
X

g
o
CM



CM

 •

CM
g
                                      -129-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)

          Retaining a slight vacuum (2-4" H^0) in the underground
aids the operation of a displacement system in two manners.
First of all, it reduces the pressure drop through the vapor
piping system which aids the flow of vapors to the underground
tank and it also eliminates outbreathing.

          Designs of commercially available vacuum assist systems
vary widely.  All do, however, employ a blower or vacuum pump
and a secondary recovery device.  The vacuum pump creates a
negative pressure in the vehicle fill neck which "pulls" hydro-
carbon vapors either directly to the secondary unit or to the
underground tank with the excess vapors going to a secondary
unit.  The amount of vapor collected by this type system is
greater than the amount that would be displaced by the balance
system filling operations.  The additional air ingested causes
the evaporation of additional hydrocarbons.

          The main processing operations employed by secondary
control devices are compression, refrigeration, absorption,
and oxidation.  One secondary control device may use one or
several of these operations to achieve the necessary control.
The equipment associated with these type systems is generally
complex, expensive, and subject to mechanical failure.  Equip-
ment associated with a balance system on the other hand is simple,
less expensive, contains no moving parts (except for the nozzle)
arid is thus not subject to operational downtimes„

          This section of the document will provide technical
assessments of each type vapor recovery system.
                              -130-
-------
2.2.2.2   Stage II Control Technology  (Cont.)


           (1)  Vapor Balance or Displacement

               Description of System

               The major components of a vapor balance  system
are a vapor recovery nozzle, a flexible hose, and underground
piping.   The function of the vapor recovery nozzle is to effect
a  leak-free seal at the fill pipe interface.  When the  seal is
made, vapors displaced from the vehicle tank will flow  through
a  vapor passage in the nozzle, but may also escape collection
through vents or leaks in the vehicle tank.

           The function of the flexible hose is to provide a
means of  transferring the displaced vapors from the nozzle to
the underground pipe.  The hose is connected to the outlet of
the nozzle vapor passage and to the inlet of the underground
pipe which provides a path of vapor flow to the underground
tank.  Experience with these systems has indicated that a flexible
hose size of at least 3/4" and an underground pipe size of at
least 2"  are necessary to prevent excessive system pressure
drops.  Furthermore, exp^ ience has shown that a slope  of 1/8
to 1/4 "  per foot will provide a sufficient gradient for any
condensed vapors to flow to the underground tank.  Figure 2.2-22
shows a f3 .agram of a vapor balance system with manifolded vent
lines.

          The major differences in vapor balance systems are
found in  designs of nozzle,  piping configurations, and under-
ground tank vent line controls.  Some systems return the dis-
placed vapors to individual tanks while others manifold them
together.  Pressure-vacuum valves can be used to control breath-
ing of the underground tank.   In addition,  they have the capa-
bility of taking advantage of the vacuum developed in the
underground tank upon vehicle refueling.
                              -131-
-------
                                o
                                                H

                                                C/3
                                                w
                                                o
                                                1-1
                                                <:
                                                PQ
                                                O
                                                P-.
                                                Pn
                                                O
                                               O
                                               
-------
 2.2.2.2   Stage  II  Control  Technology  (Cont.)

                Vapor  Growth  in  Balance  Systems

                The operation of the displacement  system includes
 the phenomena of vapor  growth or vapor  shrinkage.  Vapor growth
 refers to  a  situation in which  the volume  of  vapors  displaced
 from  a vehicle  tank is  greater  than the volume  of dispensed
 gasoline.  When the volume displaced  is less  than the  volume
 dispensed, it is called vapor shrinkage.   Vapor growth results
 in outbreathing of hydrocarbon  vapors from the  underground tank
 vent  line  while vapor shrinkage produces inbreathing followed
 by partial saturation,  expansion, and possible  outbreathing.
 In each  case it is assumed that there are  no  leaks at  the nozzle-
 fill  neck  interface.

           The degree  of vapor growth  is determined in  part by
 the relative temperatures  and volatilities (RVP's) of  the dis-
 pensed fuel  and residual fuel in the vehicle  tank.   Dispensing
 cool  gasoline into a  warm  tank  or dispensing  low  RVP fuel into
 a tank containing  higher RVP fuel causes vapor  shrinkage while
 the reverse  conditionr   ^use growth.

           Of these two  effects,  the temperature gradient appears
 to have  the  greatest  impact  on  vapor growth.  EPA source testing
 has indi dted that there is  little difference in  the RVP's of
 dispei jed  gasoline and  gasoline in the  vehicle  tank.   Tempera-
 ture  differences (vehicle  tank  temperature minus  dispensed fuel
 temperature), however, may vary from a  &T  of  -25  to  +25.
Figure 2.2-23,  which is  based on measured values,  shows  the effect
of RVP on hydrocarbon losses.  Figure 2.2-24,  which  is based on
calculated values,  assuming equilibrium between the displaced
vapor and dispensed fuel,  illustrates how  the temperature
gradient affects the amount of hydrocarbon emissions.
                             -133-
-------
Q
W
w

CO
M
Q


CD



e>

pd



CO
cn
CO
o
o
CQ
Pi
O
Pi
Q
    16-
    12-
          FIGURE 2.2-23.  SENSITIVITY OF

          DISPLACED LOSS TO TEMPERATURE AT

          VARIOUS VALUES OF RVP  (SC-167)
    10-
     G-
     ?~
     oLJ
                                                      'RV

                                                      RV
                                                      RV
                                         = 13  PSI

                                        	A
                                                            11 PSI
                                         - 9  PSI
                                                          = 7 PSI
        30
'10       50        60        70        80

    DISPENSED FUEL TEMPERATURE °F


      ^TDisp. Fuel = TRet.  Vapor^
                                                                 90
                              -134-
-------
Q

W

CO



W
IS
o
CO
O
     5  1
     4 1
                       :      FIGURE 2.2-24



                      EFFECT^OF T$MP-ERATURE


                       pN EMISSION RATES,  RVP






                       ;AT=TT - T7
                       i     _L    ^



                       iwhere:     ;
                       :t-i  =; vehicle -t-ank
                           = dispensed :fuel
                                             DIFFERENTIAL
temp

                                                                -20  AT
                                                             7  -10  AT
CO
CO
o
13
O
PQ
O q -
O J
Pd '
2 "


2
/X X ,/"' - ''' +10 AT
1 • : / x" _x . ./ '"

- - x X^X^^X_ .^ ^ _^ ^ •"'•420 AT
- 'i^:':''^- '"-' " -', -- '
i
, _
* ( 4 ( V
3 30 ; 40 : 50 ; f'60 , ' 70 i
                         Dispensed Fuel Temp,  F
                                  -135-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)

          Other factors which may influence vapor growth are the
solubility of oxygen in dispensed gasoline, the fullness of the
vehicle tank upon refueling, the amount of fuel dispensed, the
rate of fuel dispensing the back pressure caused by the vapor
recovery system, and leakage around the fillneck-nozzle inter-
face.  Only limited work has been completed at this time in
attempts to quantify these effects, although further work is
planned.

          Source testing performed by EPA on vapor balance
systems has confirmed the phenomenon of vapor shrinkage during
warm weather.  It has been reported but not confirmed that large
vapor growths occur during winter conditions (FU-035) resulting
mainly from dispensing relatively warm fuel (at say 60°F) to
cold vehicle fuel tanks (at say 30°F).   It is also possible that
vehicle fuel tanks may become heated by the exhaust: system
during winter driving in which case vapor shrinkage could occur.
Further testing is planned to study this effect during cold
weather.

               EPA - Source Tests

               The following paragraphs contain discussions of
test results performed with the objective of demonstrating re-
covery efficiencies of balance systems under a variety of con-
ditions .

               Balance System Efficiencies

               Source testing performed by EPA in San Diego,
June 1974, showed daily percent recovery averages ranging from
62% to 8870 at two different balance systems.  The only apparent
difference in the two systems was in piping which was somewhat
                             -136-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology  (Cont.)

more tortuous at the station with the lower overall average ef-
ficiency for the test period (72% versus 82%)  (EN-182).  Pre-
liminary analysis of source testing data which was also taken
by EPA in Hayward and Davis, California, August 1974, showed
daily percent recovery averages ranging from 58 to 86 at two
different stations.  Reasons for the difference in overall
average efficiencies (7070 versus 84%) have not been fully ex-
plained .
          The efficiencies reported refer to the difference
between actual emissions and baseline emissions.   Data from
both sets of EPA tests indicate that the baseline emissions
average about four grams/gallon.  Baseline emissions were deter-
mined from those vehicles which had no leaks at the nozzle-fill
neck interface and whose tank indicated no leak when submitted
to a leak check after the fill.  Applying the recovery efficiencies
to the baseline emissions results in average hydrocarbon losses for
the vapor balance systems of 1.12 gm/gal and 0.72 gm/gal for the
two San Diego Systems and 1.2 gm/gal and 0.64 gm/gal for the Bay
Area systems.

            Test report?  t  esented by several oil companies have
shown recovery efficiencies greater than 85%.  The higher recov-
ery efficiencies obtained appear to result from greater dilligence
by the oper tor in effecting a seal at the nozzle fill neck inter-
face .
               Scott Laboratories - API Tests

               Testing performed by Scott Laboratories for the
APT (SC-186)  indicated that recovery efficiencies of 9670 (ap-
jroximately 0.16 gm/gallon loss) were achievable  with the balance
system when the following criteria are met:

                   A leak-free seal is made at the
                   fill neck interface.
                             -137-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)

                   Vehicles being refueled have emission
                   control devices (carbon canisters).

          These criteria were met during the study by testing
only post-1970 vehicles and by forcing seals at the nozzle-fill
neck interface.  These tests illustrate the effectiveness of
the balance system under good conditions and thus represent
actual data on the maximum expected efficiencies.

               SHED Tests

               Field test data indicate that baseline hydro-
carbon emissions from vehicle refueling are 4 gm/gallon.  SHED
test data (SC-167) indicate that normal uncontrolled hydro-
carbon emissions from vehicle refueling operations is 5 gm/
gallon.  Possible reasons for the 1 gin/gallon difference in the
two values may be attributed to the use of vapor recovery
nozzles which may restrict hydrocarbon emissions from the fill
neck over completely uncontrolled systems and possible leaks
through carbon canisters or the vehicle tanks.   Further study
is required in this area to investigate the difference in emis-
sion values.

               Likely Emission Sources

               Vapors lost from a balance system are currently
being lost from either the fill-neck interface or out a vehicle
gasoline tank external vent.  EPA testing during warm weather
has shown zero outbreathing from the underground tank.

          External vents are found on two-thirds of pre-1970
vehicles.  The other one-third of pre-1970 vehicles vent through
the fill neck where capture is possible.  The magnitude of the
                             -138-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)


vent loss has been reported to be only six percent of the total
vapors displaced from each vehicle (ST-187,  PO-100).   By 1977,
at the current rate of phasing out, there should not be more
than 20 percent of pre-1970 vehicles on the road (EN-182) at
which time this source of vapor loss will become small.

          The majority of reported hydrocarbon losses, therefore,
result from a poor seal at the nozzle-fill neck interface.  If
the problem of leakage around this interface can be solved,
the displacement system will then become an efficient and re-
liable method of recovering vehicle refueling vapors.

          There are a multitude of vehicle fill neck configura-
tions and sizes found in vehicles on the road today.   It is
highly unlikely, therefore, that a single nozzle will be de-
veloped to provide leak-free seals on all vehicles.  One means
of ensuring a tight seal could, however, be through development
of fill neck adapters which have been standardized for fill
necks on all vehicles.   Agreement of automobile manufacturers
to supply standardized fill necks with all cars would, of
course, greatly simplify implementation of this plan.

               Balance System Costs

               Service station modification costs,  including
both equipment and labor have been reported to vary from a low
of $5,000 to a high of $8,000 (RE-107,  SC-186, EN-184).  The low
values are based on bid prices and actual installed costs while
the high values were based on mid-1974 dollars allowing for
recent material escalation.  Installation costs for a new service
station will be from $2,000 to $3,000 (RE-107, SC-186).  Main-
tenance cost for the displacement system, which mainly involves
repairs to the nozzles and hoses has been estimated to be from
a low of $30/year (RE-107) to a high of $620/year (SC-186).
                             -139-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)

               Balance System Reliability

               Once a vapor balance system is installed and
fully leak-tested, simple routine maintenance on the vapor re-
covery nozzles and hoses should ensure successful operations.
The system contains few moving parts and is not dependent on
the performance of electrical switch gear.  Inefficient opera-
tions can be caused, however, by the deterioration of the rub-
ber boots on the nozzles, poor seals at the fill neck interface,
and liquid blockage of the vapor return line.

          Deterioration of the rubber boot on one of the nozzles
used for source testing by EPA during the Bay Area tests was
observed after less than one week's operation.  Replacement of
the boot was a very simple operation taking less than 15 minutes.
Frequent replacement of the nozzle boots may be anticipated.

          Poor seals at the fill neck interface are to be ex-
pected on some cars.  Standardized fill necks appear to be one
solution, although diligence of the operator in positioning the
nozzle on the fill neck is important.  Certainly, leaks may occur
at any interface if the nozzle is not positioned properly.

          It is possible that condensed vapors can collect in
the vapor return lines and impede the flow of displaced vapors.
Liquid blockage can result in overpressuring of a vehicle fuel
tank which may result in gasoline being sprayed from the tank
when the nozzle is removed.  Liquid blockage of the vapor return
line is a potential problem of importance, but one that can be
controlled by designing the system to eliminate any pockets in
the vapor return hose in which condensed vapors can collect.
                            -140-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)
               Safety Considerations

               Implementation of vapor balance systems will
result in a decrease of safety hazards over present refueling
operations as vehicle refueling vapor emissions will no longer
be present around the pumping islands.  There is, however, a
possibility of overpressuring a vehicle fuel tank during re-
fueling which could ultimately result in the rupture of a
vehicle fuel tank.  This possibility is, however, remote.  A
safety relief system in the nozzle would be desirable.

          Hydrocarbon leaks may occur in balance systems from
unused nozzles with faulty seals,  from vapor return connections,
from external vents on vehicles, and from poor seals at the
nozzle-fill neck interface.  Of these leaks only the vapor
return connections present a greater hazard than those found
with current refueling operations  as explosive hydrocarbon
mixtures could be released at ground level.  Periodic maintenance
inspection of the connections, however, should allow for suitable
control of these leaks.

          (2)  Compression-Refrigeration Condensation-
               Description of System

               The major pieces of equipment associated with a
compression-refrigeration-condensation (CRC) vapor recovery
system are:

               vapor recovery nozzle,
               flexible hose,
               vacuum pumps,
               underground piping  system,
                             -141-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)


               vapor holder,
               two stage compressor, and
               refrigeration heat exchanger.

          One commercially available system operates by pumping
the collected vapors through a bed of liquid contained within
a surge tank where the vapors become saturated.  The purpose of
the surge tank is to ensure that the vapors are saturated be-
fore they are compressed and to even out large volume surges
which may occur during bulk drops.   The saturated vapors from
the vapor holder, or surge tank, are compressed and cooled in
a two-stage high pressure refrigeration unit.  The condensed
gasoline is returned to the underground storage tank and the
hydrocarbon-free vapors are vented.  Figure 2.2-25 presents a
diagram of a compression-refrigeration-condensation vapor re-
covery system.

          A carbon canister can be used in this system in place
of the vapor holder and saturator.   When the canister is used,
all excess vapors pass through it and the hydrocarbons are
adsorbed while essentially hydrocarbon-free air exits.  The
carbon is regnerated by heat assisted vacuum stripping and the
recovered vapors are condensed in the CRC unit.

               System Efficiency

               A system manufacturer claims the recovery ef-
ficiency across its process unit to be 9470 to 99% with most
units averaging 97% recovery.  EPA testing of a CRC vapor re-
covery unit indicated that a processing efficiency of 96% was
achievable if there were no leaks in the storage bladder and if
all equipment was properly operating.  The total system efficiency
                             -142-
-------
z.
>
           X
         O °  -5
         c: < Q- ui
         > t-  * uj
         h- 00 X Di

                     •
 -H
UJ   N
                          -143-
                                        p
o
                                                           2; CM
                                                           O  i
                W H
                O i—I
                                                           tn
                                                           i
                                                             W
                O O
                M O
                CO W

                w

                P-j O

                o <
                o >

                < z
                  o
                (j-l I—I
                O H

                5 CO

                K W
                O O
                                                           Q

-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)
could not be determined,  however,  due to leaks  in the system.
Hydrocarbon emissions were measured at 9.89 gm/gal compared to
mass emissions of about 4 gm/gal normally encountered in balance
systems.  The vacuum measured at the nozzle during the EPA test
ranged from 10 to 15 inches of water.  This high vacuum coupled
with a relatively good nozzle fit was responsible for the large
amounts of vapor pulled out.

          Energy consumption values have been reported as 0.25
and 0.37 kwh/day per 1,000 gallons dispensed per month (EN-184).
Using the larger value (0.37) still results in a positive energy
balance; i.e., the energy recovered (as gasoline) is greater
than the energy consumed.  Using these values results in an
equivalent value of hydrocarbon consumption of 1.12 gal/day
and a hydrocarbon recovery of 2.32 gal/day per 1,000 gal per
month dispensed.  Net equivalent energy recovery is 1.1 gal/day
per 1,000 gallons per month (AT-047).

               System Costs

               The capital cost for a CRC processing unit as
reported by a unit manufacturer is $6,000.  This price includes
only the vapor holder, vacuum blower, and processing unit.
Costs of the underground piping system, nozzles and fittings,
must be added, which is about $8,000 for retrofitting an existing
station and $4,000 for a new station (VI-023).   The yearly main-
tenance and operating costs are reported by a system manufacturer
to be approximately 3% of the capital cost.

               System Reliability

               The manufacturer reports a 0.98 on-stream factor
for this system.  This means one week per year downtime for
                              -144-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)


preventative maintenance and repairs.  Actual CRC operating
experience, however, has indicated a much lower on-stream factor

          During an EPA test of this system an exhaust valve
froze up causing raw liquid to be discharged from the exhaust
vent.  It was also determined that the expandable vapor holder
bladder was torn, allowing vapors to leak to the atmosphere.

          Improvements are still being made on these systems.
While reliability is low today, it can be expected to improve
with experience and further advances in system design.

               Safety Considerations

               CRC processing units present several potential
safety hazards.

               Explosive conditions in the underground
               piping caused by introduction of air at
               the nozzle-fill neck interface.

               Explosive conditions in the vehicle tank
               caused by pulling in air through an ex-
»
               ternal vent when no liquid is dispensing.

               Leakage of hydrocarbon vapors under high
               pressure.

               Hazards created by using non-explosion
               proof electrical system components.

          These safety hazards can be eliminated.  UL or Factory
Mutual certification of packaged systems would certainly elimi-
nate many of them.   Presumably explosion  proof  components will

                             -145-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)

be required for certification.  Nozzle modifications to elimi-
nate the accumulation of excess air in the vehicle tanks and
at the nozzle-fill neck interface can also be anticipated.
Approval of this type system by a certifying laboratory will
not only decrease the safety hazards, but will also increase
the performance reliability.

          (3)  Carbon Adsorption

               Description of System

               Hydrocarbon vapors emitted from vehicle refueling
are collected by a vacuum blower and returned via a vapor mani-
fold to the underground tank dispensing the fuel.  Excess
vapors are displaced through the vapor manifold to carbon
canisters.   These canisters employ activated carbon to adsorb
and store the hydrocarbon vapors.

          The canisters would be regenerated offsite (air or
vacuum stripping) at a central location where the vapors would
be processed.  The regeneration cycle time of each canister
will depend on many factors, such as gallons throughput, fuel
volatility, and canister size.  Figure 2.2-26 is a diagram of
a carbon storage vapor recovery system.

               System Efficiency

               The adsorption efficiency of a well maintained
carbon adsorption system has been measured as high as 99.7%
(LE-132).   Assuming a nozzle collection efficiency of 98%
(VO-032) and regeneration efficiencies of 90%, 95%, and 98%
results in the predicted potential system efficiencies tabu-
lated in Table 2.2-8.
                            -146-
-------
                              w
                              o
                              o
                              H
                              13
                              O
                              PQ  H
                              Pi  M
                              ft< W
                              O >
                                 O
                              O O
                              M W
                              H PS
                              w  o
                              K  PH
                              O  <
                              CO  >
                               I
                              O4

                              04


                              W
                              Pd

                              <3
                              M
                              PM
-147-
-------
                      TABLE 2.2-8

 PREDICTED POTENTIAL EFFICIENCY OF A CARBON STORAGE SYSTEM



 Assumed
 Regeneration                  Total System Efficiency*
 Efficiency               Summer                   Winter

     98                    96.5                     95.7


     95                    94.8                     92.8


     90                    91.8                     88.0
* Efficiencies for systems not returning a volume of vapors
 equal to dispensed liquid volume to underground tank would
 be  lower.  A vacuum regulating valve would be necessary to
 maintain the low V/L ratios assumed and to prevent "pullout,
 (V/L =  1.6 in the summer, 2.0 in the winter).  Saturation
 of  excess air due to liquid vaporization in the under-
 ground  tank was assumed.
                        -148-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)
               System Costs

               Installation costs for this system will approach
those of  a displacement system.   Extra costs are for the vacuum
blower, carbon canisters, and associated pipe and fittings.
Installation costs, including labor, are estimated to be $4,400
for a new station, and $6,900 for a retrofit (RE-107).

               System Reliability

               Due to its simplicity, the reliability of this
system should be relatively high if the system is properly
maintained.  Potential problems exist, however.  For example,
a carbon canister may become saturated with hydrocarbon vapors,
in which case all collected hydrocarbons will be emitted to the
atmosphere.  Saturation of the canisters can be avoided by
regeneration at the proper time.

               Safety Considerations

               Explosive mixtures in the vapor recovery piping
and vehicle tank are possible hazards with this system.  A
properly designed nozzle should,  however, greatly reduce the
probability of these hazards occurring.

          (4)  Oxidation

               Description of System(s)

               There are two types of oxidation systems used to
eliminate hydrocarbon emissions.   They are defined as catalytic
oxidation and thermal oxidation processes.  Both employ the same
basic equipment:  vapor recovery nozzles, vacuum blowers, piping
                             -149-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)


systems, excess vapor holders, and an oxidation unit.   Both
expandable bladder tanks and carbon canisters have been used for
vapor holders.

          For regeneration of carbon bed vapor holders, a
vacuum blower pulls air through the canister in a reverse
direction, purging the adsorbed hydrocarbons.  The regeneration
gases are then passed to the oxidation units.  Both the catalytic
and thermal units add air to the hydrocarbon stream in a con-
trolled amount to support combustion.  After adsorbed hydro-
carbons have been removed, the fuel/air mix passing to the
oxidation units becomes leaner.  The catalytic unit automatically
shuts off when the temperature drops below a certain level (say
1100°F) and the thermal oxidation unit is automatically shut off,
when combustion is no longer supported.  Figures 2.2-27 and
2.2-28 provide diagrams of catalytic and thermal oxidation vapor
recovery units.

               System Efficiency

               A catalytic oxidation unit was tested as part of
the EPA source testing program conducted in San Diego.  The ef-
ficiency across the processing unit itself was measured to be
93.3.  The overall processing efficiency, however, was calculated
to be 89.4.  The low recovery in this case was due to the intro-
duction of a large amount of excess air into the system while
operating the nozzle-fill neck interface at a very high vacuum
(about 20 inches of water).  In addition, relatively poor nozzle
fits which were attributed to a rather bulky modification of the
regular dispensing nozzle precluded obtaining tight seals on
many vehicles.  Assuming a nozzle collection efficiency of 98%
for the vehicle emissions, an overall system efficiency of 88.1%
was achieved.
                              -150-
-------
    ^7
UJ
z
z
0<

  Q
  Z
   UJ
  HXj
1
I ^
1
1
CARBON
BED IB




J

        UJ
            'ON Q33
                       V.
                     -151-
-------
                                                      VAC t
FIGURE 2.2-28.
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A
THERMAL OXIDATION UNIT
                 -152-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)
          Tests on a thermal oxidation unit have been reported
by the Bay Area APCD (LE-132).   The efficiency across the process-
ing portion of that unit was 99%.  Assuming a vapor liquid re-
turn ratio (V/L) of 1.6 for summer operations and 2.0 for winter
operations plus a nozzle collection efficiency of 98%, estimated
potential efficiencies  for this system were 97.17, for summer
conditions and 96.570 for winter conditions.

          It must be noted that these systems recover none of
the vapors adsorbed on the carbon; all collected hydrocarbon
are oxidized to C02 and H20.

          Calculations performed by using energy consumption
data from an oxidation unit which adsorbed and combusted all
collected vapors indicated energy consumption for this system to
be 3.83 gal/day per 1,000 gallons per month dispensed (AT-047).
Calculations performed by EPA indicated that there would be a net
production of energy of 1.06 gal/day per 1,000 gallons per month
dispensed if the vapors were returned to the underground tank
and only the excess vap    were burned.  In this case, 2070
excess vapors were assumed.  Another calculation was performed
assuming 407o excess vapors which resulted in a net expected pro-
duction of energy of 0.16 gal/day per 1,000 gallons dispensed
per month   Greater than 407o excess vapors will result in a net
consumption of energy.

              System Costs

              Capital costs reported by a vendor of adsorption-
catalytic oxidation unit are shown below.
                            -153-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)
          Station Size     Maximum Drop
             gal/mo          Gallons       Cost ($)
             12,000           5,000         3,100
             12,000           8,400         3,600
             70,000           8,400         4,295
            100,000           8,400         5,395
          These costs included only the processing equipment.
Labor and capital costs of installing the vapor return piping
plus the costs of vapor return nozzles and other fittings must
be added.  These costs range from $5,000 to $8,000 for a retro-
fit and $3,000 to $5,000 for a new station (VI-023).

          Costs were not available for the thermal oxidation
system.

              System Reliability

              The major problem experienced in catalytic oxida-
tion units has been catalyst overheating.  When this occurs, the
catalyst is usually destroyed.  The danger of explosion or fire
is also created by this unstable period.  Improved fuel-air
ratio controllers appear to have greatly minimized this problem,
however.  During EPA source testing of a catalytic oxidation
unit no major operational problems were experienced.

              Safety Considerations

              The creation of explosive mixtures in the vehicle
tank and in the underground piping system is a potential safety
hazard with this system.  A properly designed vacuum limiting
device should, however, greatly reduce the probability of these
hazards occurring.
                             -154-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)

          An additional potential hazard in these systems is
fire in the combustion section of the units.  Flame arresters
should require equipment on these units.

          (5) Refrigeration-Adsorption

              Description of^ System

              Commercially available refrigeration vapor recovery
systems are designed to process the excess vapors from the
underground tank.  When the system pressure reaches a designated
level (say 3" H20) the refrigeration unit is activated and
vapors are passed across the low temperature cooling coils.   This
causes some of the excess vapors to be condensed, reducing the
volume of uncondensed vapors.   Condensed product and contracted
vapors are returned to the underground tank.

          Under extreme conditions,  when large quantities of
excess air are suddenly introduced into the system, the system
pressure may rise above ^ 0" H20 operating level.  When the
pressure reaches a maximum of seven inches of water excess vapors
vented through a carbon canister which may be regenerated off-
line after the system pressure -is lowered to its normal operating
level.  F'gure 2.2-29 is the schematic diagram of a refrigera-
tion vppor recovery system.

              System Efficiency

              Evaluation of the vapor recovery efficiency of a
refrigeration system was planned as part of the EPA testing con-
ducted in San Diego.  An overall system efficiency could not be
determined because of leaks in the underground piping.
                             -155-
-------
-156-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)
              System Costs

              Capital costs of a refrigeration unit provided by
a manufacturer are listed below.

              Service Station         Capital
                 Capacity              Cost
                  gal/mo                 $
                  10,000               2,500
                 100,000               3,000
                 200,000            3,500-3,900

These costs include only the processing unit.  Costs of piping
including labor must be added to obtain a total system cost.

          Total system costs have been estimated at $12,677 for
a retrofit and $10,177 for a new station.  Yearly operating
costs have been estimated at $730 (RE-107).

              System Reliability

              Refrigeration technology is well established and
has been demonstrated to be reliable.   The application of this
technology to service station vapor recovery should present little
or no problems assuming the refrigeration units are given proper
maintenance.  One manufacturer reports only three days downtime
on a unit operating for 1% years.

              Safety Considerations

              The creation of explosive mixtures in the vehicle
tank, in the underground piping system and at electrical connec-
tions are potential safety hazards in this unit.  Properly
                             -157-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)

designed nozzles and the use of explosion proof equipment should
greatly reduce the magnitude of these hazards.

          (6) Gasoline Engine

              Description of System

              Hydrocarbon vapors are collected from the dispens-
ing nozzle by a vacuum blower and discharged into a vapor mani-
fold.  The major portion of the collected vapors are returned to
the underground tank dispensing the gasoline.  Excess vapors are
conveyed either to an activated carbon bed or to the carburetor
of a one cylinder, four-cycle engine.  The engine and blower are
automatically started when the gasoline dispenser is activated.
Excess vapors generated at rates greater than the engine can
consume bypass the engine and are stored on the carbon bed.  The
engine is connected to a load blower which simply serves as a
sink for energy output.

          When the nozzle and blower are cut off the engine con-
tinues to operate on hydrocarbons purged from the carbon bed by
reversed air flow.  When the carbon bed is fully regenerated
the engine cuts off from lack of fuel.   A special carburetor
maintains the fuel air ratio constant.   The engine is equipped
with a catalytic muffler to oxidize any trace quantities of hydro-
carbons or carbon monoxide in the exhaust.  Figure 2.2-30 is a
schematic of the gasoline vapor recovery system (CL-048).

              System Efficiency

              Efficiency tests on this system were performed by
San Diego APCD test engineers.  Their analysis indicated the ef-
ficiency of the processing unit to be 95% (CL-048).   This high
                             -158-
-------
                                    W
                                 M  CO
                                 nJ
                                 o  >;
                                 CO  C^
                                 <;  w
                                 o  >
                                    o
                                 w  o
                                 w  PJ
                                 H  tf

                                 PH  Pi
                                 o  o
                                    (^
                                 o  <;
                                 M  >
                                 H
                                 
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)


efficiency is attributed to the complete oxidation in the engine
and catalytic muffler.  Variations in hydrocarbon concentration
entering the recovery system do not affect the system efficiency
since the carburetor maintains a constant fuel-air ratio to the
engine.

          Under present operations (utilization of a load blower)
no useful work is performed by Che gasoline engine.  The load
blower serves only to circulate air and to keep a load on the
engine.   This blower can, of course, be replaced by a generator
or compressor which will recover energy produced by the engine.

              System Costs

              The following costs have been reported by the
system manufacturer.

          Station Size       Maximum Drop     Capital Cost
          Gallons/Day           Gallons            $	
               500               4,500           2,600
             1,000               9,000           3,000
             2,500               9,000           3,560
             5,000               9,000           4,550
             7,500               9,000           5,000
            10,000               9,000
            12,000               9,000           7,500

These system costs include a vacuum blower,  carbon bed, engine,
full instrumentation and a load blower.  Costs of underground
piping and vapor recovery nozzles (5,000 to $8,000 for retrofit
and $3,000 to $5,000 for new stations) must be added to obtain
the total system costs (VI-023).
                            -160-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)
              System Reliability

              As of September, 1974 only four of these systems
have been delivered, thus little information on reliability is
available.

              Safety Considerations

              Explosive hydrocarbon air mixtures in the vehicle
tank and in the vapor recovery piping is a potential hazard with
this system.  Proper nozzle design should greatly reduce the
probability of these hazards occurring.

          Vapor ignition from both electrical components and
the engine are further potential hazards.   Flame arresters and
explosion proof components should be employed to control this
problem.

          (7) Systems Under Development

              Several au^ tional recovery units for use in vacuum
assist systems are under development.  Prototypes of these
systems are being tested and commercial units are likely to be in
production  by 1976.   In this section, each of these basic types
of systems  will be described.

              Compression-Absorption-Adsorption

              This system operates by compressing hydrocarbon
vapors to 22.5 psia and passing them through an absorption
column where they are contacted with 0°F gasoline.   Air and un-
absorbed hydrocarbons are subsequently vented through a carbon
bed cooled by heat exchange with cold gasoline.  The carbon bed
                             -161-
-------
2.2.2.2  Stage II Control Technology (Cont.)

is vacuum regenerated, with recycling of the  desorbed hydrocarbons
through the absorption unit.  Figure 2.2-31 is a schematic of
this type vapor recovery system (EV-013).

          The capital cost for this processing unit is projected
to be $5,000 for the largest service stations.  Installation
costs must be added to obtain a total system cost.

              Compression-Refrigeration-Condensation

              A CRC system under development  offers a new re-
covery technique.  It separates and bottles collected propane
and butane products.  The collected hydrocarbon vapors are first
cooled to 60 F in an exchanger where pentanes and heavier fractions
are condensed and returned to the underground product storage
tanks.  Uncondensed vapors are next compressed to 125 psig and
again cooled to 60°F where propanes and butanes are condensed
and bottled for sale.  The small quantities of methane and
ethanes remaining in the vapor stream are adsorbed in a carbon
bed and air and unabsorbed hydrocarbons are vented from the bed.

          For service stations pumping 35,000 to 90,000 gallons
per month, the complete system cost, including nozzles and
piping, is estimated to be $8,000.

              Open Refrigeration

              This system is in design stage  only.   Hydrocarbon
vapors generated during refueling are vacuum collected and re-
turned to the underground product storage tank through a common
vapor manifold.  Excess vapors are displaced through a refrigera-
tion-condenser unit and cooled to -85°F.  The hydrocarbon com-
ponents of the vapor are condensed out and returned to product
storage.
                             -162-
-------
[\M\VA\VW-N
                                                   Pi S
                                                   O W
                                                   co H
                                                   CQ to
                                                   < >->
                                                    I  CO
CO
w
Pi
                                                      (Si
                                                      W
                                                      >
                                                      o
                                                      O
                                                   P- W
                                                   2 (^
                                                   o
                                                   U pi
                                                      o
                                                   < On
                                                   u  o
                                                   M  M
                                                   H  H
                                                   
-------
              Adsorption-Absorption

              This system also utilizes on-site regeneration with
a carbon adsorption system.  Vacuum assist is used to return the
collected hydrocarbon vapors to the underground storage tank.
Excess vapors are vented through a carbon canister where the
hydrocarbon vapors are adsorbed.  Regeneration is accomplished
by vacuum stripping the off-service carbon canister.  The re-
covered hydrocarbons  are returned to the underground storage tank
(premium grade)  and absorbed into the liquid fuel.

          A prototype system has been field tested which demon-
strated an overall efficiency of 98.2% including losses from
vacuum regeneration.  Figure 2.2-32 is a schematic of this proto-
type system (WA-147).
                                                       \

          (8) Summary of Systems

              Table 2.2-9 is a summary of efficiency ai>. cost
data for each of the vapor recovery systems discussed in this
section.

2.2.2.3   Nozzle Design-Effects on Vapor Recovery

          Three design parameters appear dominant in the suc-
cessful operation of a vapor recovery nozzle; the fill neck seal,
the pressures created in both the vehicle tank and the vapor
recovery system, and the nozzle durability and reliability.
E<^ch of these parameters will be discussed individually.

          (1) Fill Neck Seal

              Due to the wide variety of fill neck sizes, fill
neck locations, and the cosmetic treatments of vehicle areas
                              -164-
-------
                                         H
                                         a
                                         o
                                         CO
                                         PQ
                                         O
                                         M
                                         H
                                         PM
                                         Pd  S
                                         O  W
                                         co  H
                                         Q  w
                                         <  >H
                                            CO
                                         fn  W
                                         o  >
                                            o
                                         O  CJ
                                         M  [£]
                                            p.
                                        W  O
                                        K  (^
                                        cj  <;
                                        CO  >
                                        CM
                                        CO
                                         I
                                        CN1

                                        04

                                        W
                                        P4
                                        t3
                                        o
-165-
-------






































ON

CM

CN

a
«
<:
H






















































co
!s
W
H
CO
>•
CO

JH
Pi
g
o
u
§

Pi
o
Pi

t>

r-l
M

W
o
^J
H
CO

z
o
M
H
<:
H
CO

W
ej
M
tS
W
CO

fn
o

^4
Pi
^
Sn
§
5
CO
















co "O
CU >>O co (U
•rl CO O C W
4J -OO O d
•rl ~^ r-l r-l (U
r— 1 _f? t— 1 (X
•rl S rl CO W
4-J .M 0) Cj -rl
r=> CX Q


m
B
0) 4->
4-1 CO ^x
W O>d
rl CO (Ux-x
3 -rl£S

CO CO -rl
 0)
•O 4J -rl
0) 09 O
1 1 ^K, rt
O CO CU/-^
•rl -rlS-S
T3 •-! O^-"
0) ctj -rl
rl 4J4^
Pi O4-I
HW

CO
oo at
d -rl
•rl 0
W 4-1 (2
W -rl tl)/-x
0) d'rlS-S
O £3 O ^"^
0 -rl
M *W
0-4 *4-i
W










0)
0-
^
H

s
(U
4-1
M
^
CO








rx
CO

O
1
co r**
Oj

O




o o
0 0
0 0
K K
\o •*
*~*





vO
CT^
1
0
r**.










1 CO
1 cy\











i r^
1 ON







1
c
o
•1-1
4->
cO
^
cu
00
•f^
^1
14-1
UJ C
Pi 0
1 -rl
4J C! 4-1
4J CO O CO
d -rl -rl CO
ID CO CO d
g CO CO 01
CU 
r-»
CM
.
1 1 t-l
1 1 1
1 1 CO
1 1 vo
.
O




o ' o
2 °
0 0
00 o
f^






1 1  *X3
(X CO 'rl
rl T) X
0 -rl O
to X
TJ O O

CO
M
0)
00
•rl
M
4-1
0)





1 III
1 III
1 III
1 III






O 0
0 0
O O
rl CO
r— 1 r 4







i iii
i iii
i iii
i iii










 <
d d o oo
W O-rl -rl d
•rl 4-1 M O
0) CO (X 4-1 -rl
d CO rl 0> 4-)
•ri 
(U
U 4-1
d o
o
0 Jx,
u
rl d
o cu
CX-rl
cfl U
r> 'rl
4-1 co
d 4-1 a)
O (U o

rl d CCJ
CO 0 r-l
0 -rl CO
O 4-> n
no "^
T) 0) r-l
^»t-4 (0
»C t— 1 >rl
O u
^-v o a)
{Q 1 I
^-^  rJ R ™
0 0 m
<1) CX >-i g
rl Cfl l£ g
cfl >
CO 4-1
CO ^*, el) co
0 4D .rl i-l
O N-' CJ CO
•rl d 2
4J-55 *
OS^S -rl B
•rl 0 0 1
X)


r-l CM CO


-166-
-------
2.2.2.3  Nozzle Design-Effects on Vapor Recovery (Cont.)
surrounding the fill necks it is unlikely that a single nozzle
will be developed that will insure a tight seal on all vehicles
on the road today.  A leaking seal at the fill neck will generally
produce the following effects:

          (a) A displacement system will lose hydrocarbon
              vapors out the leak.  The hydrocarbons col-
              lected will be less than those displaced and
              the efficiency will be lower.

          (b) A vacuum assist system will pull in excess
              air through the leak.  The volume of air-
              hydrocarbon mixture to be processed by the
              secondary control device will range from 20
              to 100 percent or more of the volume of
              liquid dispensed.  System efficiencies, if
              effected, will be lowered.

          The effect of a leak at the nozzle-fill neck inter-
face is significantly greater for a displacement system than a
vacuum assist system.  li.  vapors lost in a displacement system
are unrecoverable; while the excess air introduced into a vacuum
assist unit will not significantly affect the operation of many
secondarv recovery facilities.

          To aid in producing a tight interface seal, nozzle
manufacturers have incorporated the following concepts:   ex-
pandable bellows,  magnetic disc with flexible boot, hemispherical
nosepiece, conical concentric tube, expanded annulus, bell-
shaped housing,  and ball joint flanges (OL-022).   One manufacturer
has used modifications to the vehicle fill neck to achieve tight
seals on a fleet of test cars.   It is conceivable that even
further nozzle modifications may be utilized in attempting to
obtain a tight seal at the fill-neck interface.
                             -167-
-------
2.2.2.3  Nozzle Design-Effects on Vapor Recovery (Cont.)
          The issue of nozzle design is definitely unresolved.
Considerations should be given to requiring standardization of
fill necks by the vehicle manufacturers.   This could be accom-
plished with vehicles on the road toady by the use of fill neck
adapters.

          (2) Reliability

              The factors to be considered in assessing the
reliability of vapor recovery nozzles are its durability,
simplicity,  ability to prohibit vapor leaks, and dependability.
Simplicity is an important feature for nozzles to be used in
self-service operations.  The mechanism affecting the seal at
the fill neck should be easy to activate and should be ef-
fective when hand held.

          Nozzle durability is an important function of collec-
tion efficiency.  As the vapor recovery components (expandable
bellows, flexible boots, etc.) start to wear out, significant
amounts of vapors may be lost to the atmosphere.

         Vapor leaks from unused nozzles are a potential source
of hydrocarbon emissions, especially during an underground tank
drop.  Check valves needed to be designed to prohibit these
leaks.   Nozzles can also leak in air when not in use.  The excess
air inbreathed through a nozzle will lower the vapor collection
efficiency of a system.  Designs should eliminate this source of
leaks.

          Nozzle dependability refers, in this case, to its
automatic shutoff controls.   Vapor recovery nozzles, due to
their extra components, do not generally extend as far into the
fill neck as do conventional nozzles.  Consequently, more
                              -168-
-------
2.2.2.3  Nozzle Design-Effects on Vapor Recovery (Cont.)


sensitive automatic shutoff mechanisms may need to be designed
to prevent overfills.

          (3) Pressure

              Vapor recovery nozzles may produce a pressure
effect both in the vehicle tank and in the vapor recovery system
itself.  The driving agent for vapor recovery in a displacement
system is a slight negative pressure in the underground piping
system coupled with a positive pressure in the vehicle tank.
The tank pressure "pushes" the vapors into the underground
piping.  They are "pulled" into the underground storage tank.

          Excess pressure can be built up in the vehicle tank
which normally results in gasoline "spitback."  Excess pressure
in a tank can also interfere with the automatic shutoff mechanism
on a nozzle.  In an extreme situation, pressures could arise
that would rupture a vehicle tank.  Vehicle tank pressure build
up normally results from blockage of the vapor return line.

          An apparently sinple and effective means of prohibiting
pressure build up is to eliminate traps in the vapor return line
where condensed liquid can collect and stop the flow of vapors.
Another r thod is to install a pressure relief system in the
nozzle

          Maintenance of low resistance in the vapor return line
is advantageous to the recovery efficiency.  Check valves which
are necessary to prevent nozzle leaks can increase the resistance
to flow towards the underground storage tank.  Care must be taken
in their design to prevent excess pressures from occurring.  The
vapor return line through the nozzle should be an effective 3/4"
diameter to help eliminate flow resistance.
                              -169-
-------
          U.L. approval of vapor recovery nozzles will probably
result in performance specifications for vapor recovery nozzles.
Adherence to performance criteria will eventually result in the
same type of reliability experienced by non-vapor recovery
nozzles.

2.2.3     Bulk Stations
          Very few studies have been conducted on bulk station
emission controls, however, research on service station and
terminal control techniques is largely applicable to bulk stations
The two primary emission sources at bulk stations are transfer
operations and tankage.  Emissions from transfer operations are
attributed to vapors displaced during the filling of bulk station
storage tanks and the filling of delivery trucks.  Tankage emis-
sions are attributed to diurnal breathing losses.  The two basic
approaches to controlling these emission sources is straight
vapor balance and vapor balance in conjunction with vapor re-
covery systems.

T.2.3.1   Vapor Balance

          The control of transfer losses from bulk stations
centers mainly around vapor balance and bottom loading.  Con-
verting to bottom loading and reducing transfer rates will tend
to reduce the generation of gasoline vapors.  In Section 2.2.2.1
(Stage I Controls) it is reported that vapor balance systems at
service stations fuel drops achieve an average emission reduc-
tion efficiency of 95% to 96%, with very few efficiencies falling
below 907o.  The same efficiency should be possible when applying
that system to bulk station transfer losses.

          Bulk station storage tanks are usually truck portable
horizontal or vertical tanks.  It is uneconomical to install
                            -170-
-------
variable volume vapor storage or floating covers on these tanks
to control breathing losses.   One economical solution to breath-
ing losses is the installation of pressure-vacuum vents on the
tanks.  Figure 2.2-33 (NI-027) indicates that tankage breathing
losses can be virtually eliminated by using a P-V vent with a
40 oz/in2 (2.5 psig) pressure setting and a reduction of 707o
can be achieved by using a P-V vent with a 16 oz/in2 (1 psig)
pressure setting.  Since API tankage is already stressed for
higher working pressures than these, additional tankage costs
would not be incurred.

          As pointed out in Section 3.9, air is soluble in gaso-
line.  The gasoline delivered to bulk stations should be sub-
saturated with respect to air.  Because of this it is expected
that some vapor shrinkage will occur within the tankage as air
is absorbed from the vapor space.  This shrinkage further en-
hances the efficiency of the balance system.

2.2.3.2   Vapor Recovery Systems

          If the ef f icj-etvy of the balance system proves in-
sufficient,  bulk stations can be equipped with vapor recovery
systems.   The vapor recovery systems would be installed in con-
junction  ,'ith balance systems piping to process only the excess
vapors which the balance system fails to control.  Large bulk
stations would employ one of the terminal size vapor recovery
systems outlined in Section 2.2.1, for terminals, and a small
bulk station would employ one of the service station size 'vapor
secondary recovery systems outlined in Section 2.2.2.

2.2.3.3.   Cost

          No data is available on the cost of installing a
balance system in a new bulk station or on the cost of retrofitting
                             -171-
-------
     so
\\
\\
      -
  \
\1 M     O
  v*
 FIGURE 2.2-33. LOW PRESSURE TANK EMISSIONS VS TANK
              OPERATING PRESSURE RANGE
                       -172-
-------
existing bulk stations with the balance system.  Costs for
terminal vapor recovery systems and for service station vapor
recovery systems are presented in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2,
respectively.

2.2.3.4   Operating Reliability

          The operating reliability of the balance system is very
high.  It is simple with very few parts to fail.  Vapor recovery
systems on the other hand are constructed of complex equipment
and are therefore more subject to failures.  Considering the
sophistication of vapor recovery equipment, the lack of motiva-
tion at bulk stations to maintain non-profitable equipment, and
the fact that bulk stations are often situated in areas remote
to repair services, the vapor balance portion is significantly
more reliable than the secondary recovery portion of the systems
described above.
                             -173-
-------
2.3       Other Environmental Effects

2.3.1     Impact on Water Pollution

          The control of air pollution from gasoline marketing
facilities need not adversely affect water pollution problems
at all.  Liquid hydrocarbons removed in terminal secondary
recovery units can be recycled directly to fuel storage.  In-
cidence of spillage and runoff to water collection systems is
likely to be lowered in recovery units than in primary gasoline
handling and storage areas.

2.3.2     Impact on Solid Wastes

          In all cases, gasoline handling involves liquid and,
to a lesser degree, vapor phases.  There are no naturally
occurring solids, nor are there chemical reactions that will
tend to form and precipitate solids.  While gasoline liquid
discharged to the sewer can have solvent action on many solids
and liquids, this does not in itself promise to have an impact
on solid wastes.
2.3.3      Energy Considerations

           There are  two aspects of energy usage .in vapor
recovery units.  One  is net conservation because of recovered
liquid  fuel.  The other is energy  (primarily electrical)
consumed in operation of secondary recovery units.
                              -174-
-------
           Table 2.3-1 contains a summary of relative energy
conserved or spent at marketing locations for various typical
vapor recoveries.  Overall, the energy value of fuel recovered
far outweighs energy consumed in recovery.  For a typical ser-
vice station handling 25,000 gallons per month gasoline recover-
ies in the order of 700 gallons per year from the tank trucks
and terminal and 300 to 400 gallons per year refueling can be
realized at the anticipated control levels.

2.4        Advantages/Disadvantages of Various Regulation
           Criteria

           There are three regulation types which may be imple-
mented for hydrocarbon vapor emission controls.  They are:

           (1)  a percent reduction regulation,

           (2)  a mass emission regulation,  and

           (3)  an equip^^nt standard regulation.

The relative advantages/disadvantages of each regulation type
will be discussed in this section.

2.4.1      Regulations Based on Percent Reduction

           Regulations based on a percent reduction criteria will
require rigorous monitoring procedures to evaluate compliance.
Monitoring procedures must be designed to determine the amount
of vapors emitted to the atmosphere under both controlled and
non-controlled conditions  so that a percent reduction can be
calculated.
                              -175-
-------



!>•>
bO
J-i
0) rH
C rt
W bC
4J 0
C 0
cu o
rH rH
CO ^
K* P
•r-l 4-1
P PQ
cr
w




CO
U
M
H
Q h4
W M
CO CJ
z> <
. Pd fa
700
00 Q M
^ > W
W W Pd
i-J CO _/
0
O
>^
«
O
CM



» — \
CM
•^
13
CU
JH
CU
^
O
O
CU
Pd



O
O
O
«
O
CN
rH



K*1
JH
CU
O
0
CU
Pd



O
ON




rH
cO
bC
O
O O
M
4J
P
O
CJ
CO
C
O -X
•H rH
co '>-'
CO T3
•rH CU
S r-H
W rH
O
J-i
4-1
C
o
o
p
13



















o
I—I
-•»,
rH
Cfl
b£


rH
rH
•
O








rH
cfl
W

o
o
o
rH
*^^
rH
CO
W




O
rH
.
rH










CO
__J
r™i
CO
C
•r-l
E
fa
CU
H

•^
rH
P
PQ

^-^
 0
jHrH
CU
CO
CO
•^^
O
0
o
*,
CO
m
rH





O
o
o
-
r^.
m
rH






o
ON






CO
rH
.
O












>^"
^^
.
rH




/~+.
4J
CO
•r-l
CO
CO
CO

bO
C
•H
rH
0)
P

CU
}_l



^^
<}•
^^
O









o
o
o
.,
CN
Z
W
^— '

13
CU
4-1
cfl
8

4-1
co
W



































.
cu
0
rH
Cfl
£>

rH
CU
P
M-l

C
0
i — i
rH
cfl
bO

j_i
CU
P-i

j3
4J
PQ

O
O
O
-
O
CN
rH

T3
CU
g
£3
CO
CO
 J-l
O *•>. Ct) CO T4
•H CO CO CO M-l
4-J rH p4 3»
Cfl ,E! CU rH
JH [5 rC2 4-* CU
CU r^ PJ HH J3
bO O M-l
•H m o
J-lrH I • C
M-l C P.O
CU 13 O CU
J-l CU -H 4-1 fx,
E 4-> CO O
C P cfl C
CU co J-i hO CU
P, CO CU C -H
O CO bO-r-l O
•rH rH -H
C CO J-l CUM-I
Cfl Cfl M-l PM-I
J5 CU M-l CU
CU J-l CU
4-14-11 J-l 4-J
CO M C C
JH O CU CU
CU -rH ,d O
PL, • CO 4-1 J-l
O CO CO CU
rH CU E P,
O cfl J-i O
4-J C P. J-l CO
•H E M-l CO
T3 fi O
CU H U CO CO
rH CU CU
13 4-1 cO co ,£
C CO 4-1
cfl E bO O -H
4-1 O P! r-l £
J-l *rH
co M-l 4-1 J-i 13
C cfl CU CU
0 J-l J-i > 4-1
rH O CU O Cfl
rH P, P, O J-i
cfl cO O CU CU
bO> J-i C
C cu
O t3 -H O bO
O CU 4J
O O 13 CO C
rH Cfl CU CO Cfl O
~^rH E 4-1 [S -rH
CO pu P -H 4-1
J-i co co C J-i cfl
4-1 -H C P CU 4-1
£ T3 O I? CO

J-i M p, bO
CM cu cu cu p:
> J-| > rH -H
faO O cO O cfl 4->
CO O O cfl
•H CU CO CU -H J-i
co J-i £ J-l J-< CU
3 O 4-) C
O rH f^O CU
C 4J rH J-l 0) bO
O Cfl CflrH
E bOT3 CU CU
13 CU C .*"!
CU 4-1 O O 4-1 4-1
co co O O cfl
CO >-,O CU fi 4-J
PQ CO rH CO 4-1 Cfl

13
C
cO

CO
p.
o
J-l


rH
cu
£3
M-l

J_l
o
M-4

bO
C
•H
T)
CO
o
rH

8
0
4J •
4-1 CU
O P.
43-rH
P.
^
4-1 rH
•rH rH
S *rH
M-l
E
cu cu
4-J .*,
CO 4-1
^~,
CO 4-1
cfl
CU
O 4-1
C  CU
J-l
Cfl 3
O
bO CU
C co
•rH
CO T3
P C
cO
a
O CU
bO
T3 Ctf
CU JH
co O
CO 4-J
PQ co
      CN  CO
-176-
-------
2.4.1  Regulations Based on Percent Reduction (cont.)
           Regulations based on this criteria will require a
vapor recovery system which will produce less emissions during
the winter season than the summer season for a given percentage
recovery.  This is because the non-controlled emissions tend to
be greater during the hotter months.

           The percent reduction regulation has one advantage.
Monitoring procedures can provide data to support detailed ma-
terial balance calculations.   The results of these calculations
can aid in detecting leaks in the vapor recovery system.  A
regulation of this type would be applicable to all systems in
the gasoline marketing network.

           The major problem in evaluating the percent reduc-
tion of hydrocarbon emissions from a bulk terminal is involved
in measurement of the vapors  displaced from the truck as it is
filled.  If three products are loaded simultaneously, the
vapor displacement rate can approach 270 CFM.  Instruments cap-
able of measuring such a high of a flow rate are not readily
available.  They are al^o quite expensive.

           The percentage reduction of hydrocarbon vapors result-
ing from \\iderground tank filling operations could require that
all vapors being emitted from the underground tank to both the
truck and the underground tank vent line be monitored.  For re-
cent test procedures, it has  been assumed that the vapor to
liquid ratio is 1:1 and only  the excess vapors emitted from
the underground tank vent have been measured.  This is because
monitoring vapors returned to the truck is a difficult measure-
ment.
                              -177-
-------
2.4.1  Regulations Based on Percent Reduction (cont.)

           Service station vehicle refueling operations present
the largest monitoring problem.   For both vapor balance systems
and vacuum assist systems no monitoring procedure has  yet been
agreed upon.  In order to determine the percent reduction of
emissions, uncontrolled emissions must first be defined and
methods for doing this have not been developed.

           Questions arise as to the type of test procedure to
be used in evaluating uncontrolled emissions, and whether or
not the uncontrolled emissions will be evaluated on an average
or a car-to-car basis.  These questions must be resolved before
this type of regulation can be enforced.

2.4.2      Regulations Based on Mass Emissions

           Regulations based on a mass emission criteria will
require a less complicated monitoring procedure than a regula-
tion based on percent reduction.  This is because only the
vapors emitted to the atmosphere need be monitored to evaluate
compliance.  This assumes, of course, that the system being
monitored has no leaks and that all vapors being emitted to
the atmosphere are being emitted at the location of the monitor-
ing equipment.

           Seasonal operations will not affect a regulation based
on a mass emission.  This is an advantage in that lower emission
levels will not be required during the winter months when oxidant
levels are low.  Regulations based on this criteria would be
applicable to all systems in the gasoline marketing network.

           Monitoring bulk terminals for mass emissions can be
relatively simple if it is assumed all displaced vapors are
captured and that the system is leak-free.  The off-gas from
the secondary recovery unit would simply be monitored for quantity
and hydrocarbon concentration.

                              -178-
-------
2.4.2  Regulations Based on Mass Emissions (cont.)

          An examination of test data taken at various bulk termi-
nals has indicated, however, that leaks in the transport trucks
may be a significant source of hydrocarbon emissions.   Because
of this, complete material balance data may be necessary to eval-
uate compliance with mass emission regulations for bulk terminals,

          Service station underground tank filling operations
would be evaluated by monitoring only the excess hydrocarbon
vapors emitted from the tank vent during filling operations.
Again, an assumption of leak-free transfer operations must be
made.  All vapor connections can be checked with an explosimeter,
however, to verify the system is leak-free.

          Mass emissions from vehicle refueling operations may
be easily determined for a vacuum assist recovery system by
measuring the hydrocarbon emissions from the exhaust line of the
secondary recovery unit.  This assumes there is no leakage from
the nozzle-fill neck interface, an assumption that can be chal-
lenged.  There is currently no common method of determining the
quantity of emissions from the nozzle-fill neck interface for
vacuum assist systems.

          The major source of hydrocarbon emissions from a vapor
balance sv jem is through leakage at the nozzle-fill neck inter-
face.  Monitoring methods to determine the quantity of these
leaks are currently being evaluated.  If and when a "tight seal"
nozzle is developed,  mass emissions may be determined by simply
 sonitoring the underground tank vent vapors.

1.4.3     Regulations Based on Equipment Standards

          The main advantage to a regulation based on equipment
standards is the virtual elimination of compliance monitoring.
Compliance could be achieved through only periodic inspections  of
                               -179-
-------
2.4.3  Regulations Based on Equipment Standards (cont.)

vapor recovery facilities to check equipment for proper operation.
Detailed designs of each system would, however, probably need
to be approved by regulatory personnel.

          Equipment specifications for secondary recovery systems
would not be practical due to the variety of processing opera-
tions which may be employed in the recovery of hydrocarbon vapors.
A regulation of this type would, therefore, not be practical as
a method of controlling emissions from bulk terminals and service
stations employing vacuum assist recovery systems.

          Regulations'based on equipment specifications can, how-
ever, be an effective method of controlling hydrocarbon emissions
from vehicle refueling operations when a vapor balance recovery
system is employed and from underground tank filling operations.
In both cases, vapor recovery operations consist primarily of
containing the displaced vapors.  Neither operation employs pro-
cessing equipment to recover vapors on-site; only vapor connec-
tors and transfer piping are used in the recovery operations.
Equipment specifications for these connectors and piping is
feasible as a method of insuring that a system will be capable of
collecting the vapors in a proper manner.

          Leak tests should be performed on these systems.  Once
a system is leak-free, periodic inspections of the equipment
should be satisfactory for assuring its proper operation.
                                -180-
-------
                              BIBLIOGRAPHY
AA-007   Aalund, Leo R. ,  "Big Refining Riddle:  What Kind,  How Much
         Gasoline", Oil Gas J. 26. Aug. 1974, 41.

AL-031   Altshuller, A.P., W.A. Lonneman, and S.L.  Kopczynski, "Non-
         Methane Hydrocarbon Air Quality Measurements",  J..  APCA 23(7)
         597 (1973).

AM-055   American Petroleum Inst.,  Hydrocarbon Emissions from Refineries,
         Pub. No. 928, Washington,  B.C., 1973.

AM-065   American Petroleum Inst.,  Div. Statistics  and Economics,
         Annual Statistical Review.  U.S. Petroleum Industry Statistics
         1956-1972, Washington, B.C., 1973.

AM-078   American Society for Testing and Materials, Effect of Automo-
         tive Emission Requirements on Gasoline Characteristics,  STP
         487, Philadelphia, Pa.

AM-080   American Petroleum Institute, Evaporation  Loss Committee,
         Evaporation Loss _f_r- -1 Low Pressure Tanks,  Bull. 2516, Washington,
         B.C.

AM-081   American Petroleum Inst.,  Committee on Safety and Fire Pro-
         tec ti n, Guide for the Safe Storage and Loading of Heavy Oil,
         In -luding Asphalt, 2nd Ed., PSB 2205,  N.Y., 1969.

AM-082   American Petroleum Inst.,  Committee on Safety and Fire Pro-
         tection, Flame Arresters  for Tank Vents, 1st Ed.,  PSB 2210,
         Washington, B.C., 1971.

AM-083   "American Petroleum Institute's 0 and E Committee Hears  Vapor
         Recovery Costs for Marketing", NPN Jan. 1972, 46.
                                      -181-
-------
AM-084   American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee,
         Evaporation Loss in the Petroleum Industry,  Causes and
         Control, API Bull.  2513, Washington,  D.C.,  1959.

AM-085   American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss  Committee,
         Evaporation Loss from Tank Cars,  Tank Trucks,  and Marine
         Vessels, Bull. 2514,  Washington,  D.C., 1959.

AM-086   American Petroleum Inst.,. Evaporation Loss  Committee, Use
         lit Plastic Foam to Reduce Evaporation Los s,  Bull. 2515,  N.Y. ,
         1961.

AM-087   American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss  Committee, Evapora-
         tion Loss from Fixed-Roof Tanks,  Bull. 2518, Washington, D.C.,
         1962.

AM-088   American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss  Committee, Use of
         Variable Vapor-Space Systems _tp_ Reduce Evaporati on Loss,
         Bull. 2520, N.Y. ,  N.Y., 1964.

AM-080   American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss  Committee, Use of
         Pressure Vacuum Vent Valves for Atmospheric  Pressure Tanks
         t:o Reduce Evaporation Loss, Bull. 2521,  N.Y.,  1966.

AM-090   American Petroleum Inst., Committee for Air and Water Con-
         servation, Recommended Procedures for Estimating Evaporation
         and Hand 1 ing Losses of Volatile Petroleum Products in Market-
         ing Operations, Bull. No. 4080, Washington,  D.C.,  1971.

AM-091   American Society for Testing and Materials,  "Standard Speci-
         fications for Automotive Gasoline", D 439-73, 1973 Annual
         Book of ASTM Standards, Pt. 17, Philadelphia, Pa., 1973.
                                   -182-
-------
AM-092   American Society for Testing and Materials, "Standard Method
         of Test for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid Method)",
         D 323-72, 1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards,  Pt.  17, Philadelphia,
         Pa., 1973.

AM-093   American Society for Testing and Materials,  "Standard Method
         for Calculation of True Vapor Pressures of Petroleum Distillate
         Fuels", D 2889-71, 1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Pt.
         17, Philadelphia, Pa., 1973.

AM-099   American Petroleum Institute, Annual Statistical Review.
         Petroleum Industry Statistics 1964-1973,  Washington, B.C.,
         1974.

AM-100   American Petroleum Institute, Div. of Environmental Affairs,
         EF-14 Task Force Meeting, Sept. 1974; Report,  Washington,  D.C.,
         1974.

AM-101   American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee, Tentative
         Methods of Measurin'r Evaporation Loss  from Petroleum Tanks and
         Transportation Equipme. t:, Bull. 2512, Washington,  B.C., 1957.

AM-102   American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee, Compara-
         tive ^  ;thods for Evaluating Conservation Mechanisms for Evapora-
         tion Loss, Bull. 2522, Washington, D.C.,  1967.

AT-040   Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries.  A Guide
         for Measurement and Control, PHS 763, PHS, Division of Air
         Pollution, 1960.

AT.-045   Atlantic Richfield Co. , Products Div. , Service Station Vapor
         Recovery.  Vapor Balance System Performance, Diamond Bar,
         Ca., March 1974, Harvey, 111., 1974.
                                    -183-
-------
AT-047   Atlantic Richfield Co.,  Vapor Recovery During Vehicle  Refueling.
         Response to EPA Questions on Gasoline Vapor Recovery,  Federal
         Register 18 June 1974,  Harvey, 111.,  1974.

AU-020   Audits and Surveys Inc., "1974 Nationwide Retail  Census
         Reveals", Press Release, N.Y., Sept.  1974.

BA-221   Bay Area Air Pollution  Control District,  Engineering  Services
         Div., Status of Emission Abatement Equipment in Gasoline
         Retailing, San Francisco, Ca., July 1973.

BA-222   Batchelder, A.H. and D.I. Kline, Vapor Recovery at Service
         Stations, Revised, San  Francisco, Ca., Technical  Committee,
         State of California Air Resources Bd., May 1974.

BA-246   Babcock, Lyndon R., "Cost Effectiveness of Emission Control",
         J. APCA 23(3), 173 (1973).

BL-050   Bleakley, W.B., "Vapor  Recovery Increases Profits in  West
         Texas", Oil Gas J. .22 March 1965, 78.

BL-051   Bleakley, W.B., "Gas Processing, Vapor Recovery Ease  Shell's
         Montana Problems", Oil  Gas J. 13 Dec. 1965, 108.

BO-108   Bodley, R.W., "When Covered Floaters are Used", Hydrocarbon
         Proc. 10(9), 159 (1971).

BR-163   Broderson, Cornelius, "Vapor Recovery: How it Will Cost You",
         NPN 1973 (April).

BU-117   "Bulk Storage Plants Must Meet EPA's Spill Rules  by Early
         1975", NPN Feb. 1974, 66.
                                    -184-
-------
BU-118   Burr,  Richard K.  and Paul A.  Boys,  Systems  and  Costs  to
         Control Hydrocarbon Emissions from  Stationary Sources,
         Research Triangle Park,  N.C., EPA,  1973.

CA-099   Cantrell,Ailleen, "Annual Refining  Survey",  Oil Gas J.  2
         April 1973,  99.

CA-155   California Air Resources Bd., L.A.  Co.  APCD,  and Western
         Oil and Gas Assoc., Gasoline  Modification—Its Potential as
         an Air Pollution Control Measure in Los Angeles County,
         Final Report, Nov. 1969.

CA-156   California Air Resources Bd., Consideration of  Rules  for
         Vapor Recovery at Service Stations, Staff Report, San Francisco,
         May 1974.

CH-159   Chass, Robert L. , et al., "Emissions from Underground Gasoline
         Storage Tanks",  J. APCA 13(11),  524 (1963).

CI-005  ' Citizen's Advisory r ,>mmittee  on  Environmental Quality,  Citizen* s
         Action Guide to  Energy  Conservation, Washington, B.C.,  1973.

CL-035   The Clean Air Act, Washington, B.C., EPA, 1970.

CL-048   Clean Air Engineering,  Response  to  EPA  Questions on Vapor
         Recovery, Federal Register 18 June  1974,  Anaheim, Ca.,  1974.

CO-105   "Control of Atmospheric  Emissions from  Petroleum Storage
         Tanks", J. APCA  21(5),  260 (1971).

CQ-182   Code of Federal  Regulations.   40 Protection of  Environment,
         Revised Edition,  Washington,  D.C.,  General Servides Admin.,
         Office of the Federal Register,  1973.
                                   -185-
-------
DA-004   Danielson,  John A.,  Air Pollution  Engineering Manual, PHS
         Publication No. 999-AP-40,  National  Center  for Air Pollution
         Control, 1967.

DA-069   Danielson,  John A.,  Comp.  and  Ed., Air  Pollution Engineering
         Manual, 2nd Ed., AP-40, Research Triangle Park, N.C., EPA,
         Office of Air and Water Programs,  1973.

DA-100   Davis, E.R., Hydrocarbon Vapor Studies,  Laguna Hills, Ca.,
         E.R.  Davis  Co., 1973.

DE-114   Deeter, W.F. and R.G.  Jewell,  "A Brief  Look at Vehicle  Fuel
         System Temperatures",  31st Midyear Mtg., API, Div. Refining
         Houston, Tx., 1966.

DE-123   Dept. of the Navy, Naval Facilities  Engineering Command,
         System Selection Guidance  for  Bulk Fuel  Tank Vapor Emission
         Control, AD 748009,  Washington, D.C.,  1972.

DI-063   "Diaphragm  Protects  Pressure Vessel", Oil Gas J. 7 Feb.  1966,
         79.

DR-035   Driscoll, J., et al.,  Evaluation of  Monitoring Methods  and
         Instrumentation for  Hydrocarbons and CO  in  Stationary Sources,
         EPA-R2-73-106,  PB 226  657,Cambridge, Mass., Walden Research
         Corp.,  1972.
DU-001   Duprey, R.L., Compilation  of Air Pollutant  Emission  Factors.
         PHS  Pub. No. 999-AP-42, October 1969.

EM-008   Emond, Mark, "Petroleum Shortage Quickens Pace of  Station
         Demolition", NPN March 1974, 19.

EN-027   Engineering - Science, Inc., Exhaust -  Gases from  Combustion
         and  Industrial Processes.PB 204 861, Washington,  D.C.,  1971.
                                   -186-
-------
EN-071   Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant
         Emission Factors, 2nd Ed. with Supplements,  AP-42,  Research
         Triangle Park, N.C.,  1973.

EN-072   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and  Water Programs,
         Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Background Infor-
         mation for Proposed New Source Standards:  Asphalt  Concrete
         Plants,  Petroleum Refineries,  Storage Vessels, Secondary
         Lead Smelters and Refineries,  Brass or Bronze Ingot Produc-
         tion Plants,  Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants,
         Vols. 1 and 2, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1973.

EN-114   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
         and  Standards, Private Communication, June  1974.

EN-126   Environmental Protection Agency, "Transportation and Land
         Use Controls; Texas  Plan", Fed.  Reg.  38.(213) , 30626 (1973).

EN-128   Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of  Air Quality
         Planning and  Standards ,  Standard Support Document.  An
         Investigation of  the  Hest Systems of  Emission Reduction
         for Electric  Submerged Arc Furnaces Producing Ferroalloys,
         Draft, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,  1974.

EN-129   Environmental Protection Agency, "Vapor Recovery Regulations:
         Changes  in Initial Compliance  Dates and Request for Comments
         on Alternative Systems", Fed.  Reg. 39,(118),  21049-53 (1974).

EN-130   "EPA Says Nation  Will Follow Texas' Vapor Recovery  Lead",
         NPN Jan. 1974, 46.

EN-178   Environmental Protection Agency, Private Communication, 1974.
                                   -187-
-------
 EN-179  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Office  of Air  and Water  Pro-
         grams,  Office of Air Quality Planning  and Standards,  Back-
         ground  Information for New  Source Performance Standards:
         Asphalt Concrete Plants Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels,
         Secondary Lead Smelters and Refineries,  Brass or  Bronze Ingot
         Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants Sewage Treatment
         Plants, Vol.  3, Promulgated Standards, EPA 450/2-74-003,
         APTD 1352C, Research Triangle Park,  N.C. , 1974.

EN-180   Environmental Protection  Agency,  "Air  Programs; Standards
         of Performance for New Stationary Sources.  Additions and
         Miscellaneous Amendments",  Fed.  Reg. 31(47),  9308 (1974).

EN-181   Environmental Protection  Agency,  Private Communication,  1974.

EN-182   Environmental Protection  Agency,  Emission Standards  and
         Engineering Div., Private Communication, Sept.  1974.

EN-183   Environmental Protection  Agency,  Private Communication,  1974.

EN-184   Environmental Protection  Agency,  Private Communication,
         12 Sept. 1974.

EV-013   EVC Corporation, Summary of Performance'Evaluation EVC Vapor
         Recovery System, Rolling  Hills Estate, Ca.,  1974.

EW-005   Ewing,  Robert C., "Planned Maintenance Means  Better  Mileage
         from Storage Tanks", Oil Gas J.  .23 Jan.  1967,  80.

FA-073   Factory Mutual Research Corp. (FMRC),  Technical Proposal.
         A Survey of Available Equipment to Limit Vehicle  Refueling
         Emissions, 1974.
                                    -188-
-------
FE-063   Feldstein, Milton, "A Critical Review of Regulations for the
         Control of Hydrocarbon Emission from Stationary Sources",
         J. APCA 24(5), 469 (1974).

FO-001   Fogel, M.E.,  et al.,  Comprehensive Economic Cost Study of
         Air Pollution Control Costs for Selected Industries and
         Selected Regionas. Final Report, CPA 22-69-79,  PB 191 054,
         Durham, N.C., Research Triangle Inst., 1970.

FO-027   Ford Foundation, Energy Policy Project,  Exploring Energy
         Choices, Preliminary  Report,  Washington, D.C.,  1974.

FO-036   Ford Motor Co., A Cost-Effectiveness Appraisal  of Alternate
         Systems for No-Lead Safeguard and Refueling Vapor Containment,
         Dearborn,  Mich., 1971.

FU-035   Fusco, Richard A., Calgon Test of Gasoline Service Station
         Emissions  and Control of Same with BPX-Type Activated Carbon,
         April 1973.

FU-036   Fusco, Richard A., Con :rol of Gasoline Vapor Emissions
         Through Forced Displacement,  Memo to San Diego  Air Pollution
         Control District, Calgon Corp., 1974.

FU-037   Fu. co, Richard A. and B.L.  Grandjacques, An Evaluation of  the
         Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness of Vapor Balancing Versus
         Secondary  Controls for Service Stations, Revised, Calgon
         Corp., 1974.

VLi-038   Fusco, Richard A. and Raymond L.  Poltorak, "The Use of Activated
         Carbon to  Control Gasoline Marketing Loss Emissions", Pre-
         sented at  the National Petroleum Refiners Association Annual
         Mtg., Houston, Tx., September, 1973.
                                  -189-
-------
GC-005   GCA Corp.,  Technology Div.,  Transportation Controls  to Reduce
         Motor Vehicle Emissions J.n  Baltimore,  Md. , EPA 68-02-0041,
         APTD-1443,  Bedford, Mass.,  1972.

GC-006   GCA Corp.,  Technology Div.,  Transportation Controls  to Reduce
         Motor Vehicle Emissions in  Pittsburgh  Pa., EPA 68-02-0041,
         APTD-1446,  Bedford, Mass.,  1972.

GC-007   GCA Corp. ,  Technology Div. ,  Transportation Controls  _to Reduce
         Motor Vehicle Emissions .in  Boston, Mass. ,  EPA 68-02-0041,
         APTD-1442,  Bedford, Mass.,  1972.

GC-008   GCA Corp.,  Technology Div.  and TRW, Inc.,  Transportation
         Controls to Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions in Mai or  Metro-
         politan Areas, EPA 68-02-0041 and 68-02-0048, APTD-1462,
         Bedford, Mass.,  1972.

GR-106   Grandjacques, B.L., Quantification of  Service Stations
         Gasoline Vapor Emissions in Summer Conditions, Calgon Corp.,
         1974.

HA-256   Hasselmann, D.E.,  Test Evaluation of Gasoline Transfer Vapor
         Recovery Systems,  Draft Report, Contract 68-02-0235, Redondo
         Beach, Ca., TRW, Inc., 1974.

HE-088   Herlihy, J., Summary Transportation Control Seminar, Ann
         Arbor, Mich., 12 March 1974, EPA, Emission Standards and
         Engineering.

HI-079   Hill, Kenneth C.,  "Ways to Control Evaporation from Storage
         Tanks", Design News Feb. 1974, 74.

IN-036   Institute of Public Administration and Teknekron,  Inc., Evaluating
         Transportation Controls to Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions in
         Mai or Metropolitan Areas, Interim Rept, Contract No. 68-02-0048,
         APTD-1364, Washington, D.C.,  1972.
                                    -190-
-------
IN-037   "Inside-the-Tank Deck Cuts Evaporation Losses", Oil Gas
         J. 14 June 1965, 124.

JO-106   Johnson, Kenneth L., "The Transportation and Land Use Elements
         in State Air Quality Implementation Plans", in The Relationship
         of_ Land Use and Transportation Planning to Air Quality
         Management, George Hagevik, Ed., New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers
         Univ., 1972, pp. 12-19.

LE-121   Lee, Lanson and  Richard A. Nichols, An Isothermal Vapor
         Transfer Model, Contract No. 68-02-1311, Irvine, Ca., Parker-
         Hannifin, 1973.

LE-132   Levaggi, D.A., Private Communication, Bay Area Air Pollution
         Control District, 19 Sept. 1974.

LI-088   Liston, Edward M., Private Communication, Stanford Research
         Inst., 1974.

LU-044   Lundberg Survey, Inc., "Service Station Throughput",
         Lundberg Letter 046, . >pt. 1974.

MC-106   McKee, Jack E., F.B. Laverty, and R.M. Hertel, "Gasoline in
         Groum1 ater",  J. WPCF 44(2), 293 (1972).

MA-291   Maynard, J.B.  and W.N. Sanders, "Determination of the Detailed
         Hydrocarbon Composition and Potential Atmospheric Reactivity
         of Full-Range  Motor Gasolines", J.  APCA 19(7), 505 (1969).

   •1: 13   Mayrsohn, Henry, et al., A Trend Study of Two Indicator Hydro-
         carbons in the South Coast Air Basin, Sacramento, Ca.,
         California Air Resources Bd., 1974.

MA-314   Maxey, Robert, Private Communication, EPA, Mobile Source
         Enforcement Division,  10  September  1974.

                                   -191-
-------
MS-001   MSA Research Corp.,  Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems  Study,  Vol.  1,
         Stationary Sources,  Effects,  and Control, APTD-1499,  PB 219  073,
         Evans City, Pa., MSA Research Corp.,  1972.

MS-002   MSA Research Corp.,  Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems  Study,  Vol.  2,
         Appendices, APTD-1500, PB 219 074,  Evans City,  Pa., MSA Research
         Corp., 1973.

MS-003   MSA Research Corp.,  Research  Proposal Brief.   Vehicle Refueling
         Emissions—Survey of Available Equipment, Evans City, Pa.,  1974.

NA-009   National Air Quality Criteria Advisory Committee,  Air Quality
         Criteria for Hydrocarbons, NAPCA Pub. No. AP-64, March 1970.

NA-032   National Air Pollution Control Administration,  Control Techniques
         for Hydrocarbon ana Organic Solvent Emissions from Stationary
         Sources, AP-68, March 1970.
NA-161   National Petroleum Council, U.S. Petroleum Inventories and  Storage
         Capacity, Washington, D.C., 1970.

NA-162   "National Seminar Evaluates Progress  in Service -  Station Vapor
         Recovery", Nat'1.  Petroleum News Feb. 74, 56.

NA-168   National Petroleum News, Fact Book, Mid-May 1974,  N.Y., McGraw-
         Hill, 1974.

NA-171   National Petroleum News, Fact Book, Mid - May 1973, N.Y.,
         McGraw-Hill, 1973.

NE-069   Nelson, A.H., "Industry Experience Shows Internal  Floating  Covers
         Score High", Oil Gas J.  13 Sept 1973.

NE-070   "New Effective Low-Cost Seal", OU Gas. J^_ .18. Oc_t.  1965, 97.
                                   -192-
-------
NI-026   Nichols, Richard A. ,  Comparison of API and Exxon Fue 1 Model,
         Contract No.  68-02-1311,  Irvine, Ca.,  Parker-Hannifin, 1973.

NI-027   Nichols, Richard A.,  Control of Evaporation Losses in Gasoline
         Marketing Operations,  Irvin, Ca.,  Parker - Hannifin.

NI-028   Nichols, Richard A.,  Hydrocarbon Emission Sources at Service  Sta-
         tions, EPA 68-02-1311,  Irvine,  Ca., Parker - Hannifin, 1973.

NI-029   Nichols, Richard A.,  "Hydrocarbon—Vapor Recovery",  Chem.  En%.
         80(6), 85 (1973).

NI-030   Nichols, R.A.  and Lanson  Le, Vapor Transfer Considerations Dur-
         ing Fuel Drops at Service Stations, Contract No. 68-02-1311,
         Irvine, Ca.,  Parker -  Hannifin, 1973.

NI-033   Nichols, Richard A.,  Unit Recovery Relative Efficiency,  Irvin,
         Ca., Parker -  Hannifin.

NI-034   Nichols, Richard A.,  Private Communication, Parker - Hannifin,
         27 Sept. 1974.

OL-017   Olson Laboratories, Research Proposal Brief.  Vehicle Refueling
         Emiss"1' ons - Survey of  Available Equipment, Anaheim,  Ca. ,  1974.

OL-018   Olson Labs.,  Inc., Control of Refueling Emissions with an  Acti-
         vated Carbon  Canister  on  the Vehicle - Performance and Cost
         Effectiveness  Analyses,  Project EF-14, Int. Rept, Anaheim, Ca.,
         1973.

OL-022   Olson Laboratories,  Inc., A Survey of Service Station Vapor Control
         Systems and Equipment,  Interim Report, Preliminary Draft,  API
         Project EF-14, Anaheim,  Ca., 1974.
                                    -193-
-------
PA-138   Parker - Hannifin,  Systems  Div.,  Proposal  for Vehicle  Refuel-
         ing Emissions  -  Survey of Available  Equipment,  Irvine,Ca.,  1974.

PE-090   Percy, Allan W.,  Report to  the Marketins Facilities  Subcommittee
         of Operations  and Engineering Committee, Div. of Marketing,
         API, Subject:  EF-14,  Los Angeles,  Ca., Union Oil,  1973.

PE-101   Perardi, T.E., Results of Source  Test No.  74158; Gasoline
         Vapor Control  System,  Shell Service  Station, Concord,  California,
         San Francisco, Ca., Bay Area APCD Source Test Section, 1974.

PI-040   Pitts, James N.,  Jr.,  "Environmental Appraisal: Oxidants, Hydro-
         carbons, and Oxides of Nitrogen",  J_. APCA  19(5) , 658 (1969).

PO-100   Potter, G.C. and W.E.  McDonald, Hydrocarbon Emission Control  at
         Service Stations, Houston,  Tx., Exxon Co., U.S.A.,  1974.

RE-067   "Restriction of Emission.   Mineral-Oil Refineries",  Translated
         from German by Israel Program for Scientific Translations,  Verein
         Deutscher Ingenieure VDI 2440,  1-9 (1967).

RE-107   Refinery Management Services Co.,  Cost Effectiveness of Methods
         to Control Vehicle Refueling Emissions, API Project  EF-14,  Phase
         1 Interim Report, Pasadena, Ca.,  1973.

RO-102   Ross, R.D., Air Pollution and Industry. Van Nostrand Reinhold
         Environmental  Engineering Series,  N.Y., Van Nostrand Reinhold,
         1972.

SA-121   Saenz, Oscar,  Jr., et al.,  Measurement  of  Non-Methane Hydrocar-
         bons. APTD-0905, PB 205-893, Houston, Tx., Southwest Research
         Inst., 1971.
                                    -194-
-------
SA-128   Saltzman, Bernard E.,  Wm.  R.  Burg,  and Gopalakrishnan  Ramaswamy,
         "Performance of Permeation Tubes as Standard Gas  Sources",  Env.
         Sci. Tech. 5_(11), 1121 (1971).

SA-129   San Diego Co. APCD,  Analysis  of_ the Displacement  System,
         San Diego, Ca., 1974.

SA-130   San Diego County, APCD,"Presentation of Air Pollution  Control Rules
         and Vapor Recovery Systems",  El Cortez Hotel, San Diego,  Ca.,
         7 Feb. 1974, San Diego Country  APCD Index of Information,
         Vol. 1.

SC-167   Scott Research Labs.,  Investigation of Passenger  Car Refueling
         Losses,  Contract No. CPA 22-69-68,  San Bernadino, Ca.,  Sept.
         1972.

SC-184   Schwartz, F.G., Storage  Stability of Gasoline.  Development
         of a_ Stability Prediction  Method and Studies of Gasoline  Compo-
         sition and Component Reactivity, Bull 660,  Washington,  D.C.,  1972.

SC-186   Scott Research Labs.,  °erformance of Service Station Vapor
         Control  Concepts, API  Project EF-14, Phase  2, Interim  Report
         CEA-8, San Bernadino,  Ca., 1974.

SH-121   Shell Oil, The National  Energy  Outlook, Houston,  Texas, 1973.

SH-137   Shelton, Ella Mae, Motor Gasolines, Winter  1971-72,  Petroleum
         Products Survey No.  75,  Washington, D.C.,  Bureau  of  Mines.

SH-138   Shelton, Ella Mae, Motor Gasolines, Summer  1973,  Petroleum  Pro"
         ducts Survey No. 83> Washington, D.C., Bureau of  Mines.

SH-139   "Shape of Tank Can Affect  Amount of Heat Absorbed from the  Sun",
         Oil Gas  j;. 18_ Dec. 1967, 101.
                                    -195-
-------
SO-063   Society of Automotive Engineers,  Inc.,  Preprint,  "SAE Recommended
         Practice-SAE J 285:  Gasoline Dispenser  Nozzle Spouts",  N.Y.,
         1973.

ST-185   "State Projections of Income, Employment,  and Population to
         1990", Survey of Current Business 54(4),  19 (L974).

ST-187   Standard Oil Co. of California,  The 'Displacement'  System:  An
         Effective Method of Controlling  Hydrocarbon Losses  at Service
         Stations, Revised, San Francisco, Ca.,  1973.

SU-049   Survey of Energy Consumption Projections,  92nd Congress, 2nd
         Session, Serial No.  92-19,  Washington,  GPO, 1972.

TA-057   "Tank-Emission Limits Set by EPA", NPN  Oc_t. 1973, 84.

TR-037   TRW,  Inc.,  Transportation Control Strategy  Development  for  the
         Greater Houston Area,  EPA Contract No.  68-02-0048, Redondo  Beach,
         Ca.,  1972.

TR-042   TRW,  Inc.,  Transportation and Environmental Operations, Photo-
         chemical Oxidant Control Strategy Development for Critical  Texas
         Air Quality Control Regions, Contract No.  68-02-0048, Redondo
         Beach, Ca., 1973.

TR-043    TRW, Inc., Transportation  and Environmental  Operations, A  Trans-
          portation  Control Strategy for  the Phoenix - Tucson Air Quality
          Area, EPA  68-02-0048, APTD 1369, Redondo  Beach,  Ca., 1973.

TR-044   TRW,  Inc.,  Transportation and Environmental Operations,  Prediction
         of the Effects of Transportation Controls  on Air  Quality in
         Major Metropolitan Areas,  EPA 68-02-0048, APTD-1363, Mclean,  Va. ,
         1972.
                                     -196-
-------
US-031   U.S. Dept. of Commerce,  Bureau of the Census,  1967  Census  of
         Business, Vol. Ill, Wholesale Trade Subject Reports, Washington,
         GPO, 1971.

VA-084   "Vapor-Recovery Equipment:  What's Required hy  States",  Reprint,
         National Petroleum News  1973.

VE-032   Vehicle Refueling Emissions Seminar, Proceedings, Anaheim, Ca.,
         D_ec. 1973, Washington, B.C., API, 1974.

VI-019   Vincent, Edwin J., Private  Communication,  EPA,  1974.

VI-020   Vincent, Edwin, J., Private Communication, EPA,  1974.
VT-023   Vincent,  Edwin,  J.,  Private Communication,  EPA,  1975.

VO-031   Vong, Richard J., Private Communication, EPA,  1974.

VO-032   Vong, Richard J., Private Communication, EPA,  30 Oct.  1974.

WA-086   Walters, R.M., "How <  Urban Refinery Meets Air Pollution Require-
         ments", CEP 68.(11), 85 (1972).

WA-123   Walker, B.C., Demonstration of Reduced Hydrocarbon Emissions
         from '  isoline Loading Terminals, Contract No.  68-02-1314,  Whiting,
         Intl. , 1973.

WA-124   Walsh, Robert T., Private Communication, EPA,  29 April 1974.

WA-142   Walsh, Robert T. and Richard Kozlowski,  Private Communication,  EPA,
         1974.

WA-143   Walsh, Robert T., Private Communication, EPA,  9 Sept.  1974.

WA-144   Walsh, Robert T., Private Communication, EPA,  June  1974.

                                    -197-
-------
WA-147   Walsh, Robert T.,  Private Communication,  EPA,  23  Oct.  1974.

WE-111   West Coast Technical Service,  Inc.,  Report of  Lab Analyses
         of Vapors from Gasoline Marketing Operations,  San Gabriel,  Ca.,
         1973.

WI-100   Williams, F.A., et al., Technical Review  and Evaluation  of
         Vapor Control Systems,  La Jolla,  Ca., Univ. Calif,  at  San
         Diego, Dept. Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, March
         1974.
                                    -198-
-------
Equipment Manufacturers'  Brochures and Specifications

   Chicago Bridge and Iron Co.,  Oak Brook,  Illinois
     Hortondome roof, vaporsphere, and vapor tank.

   Edwards Engineering Co.,  Pompton Plains,  N.J.
     Hydrocarbon vapor recovery unit.

   Emco-Wheaton,  Inc., Conneaut,  Ohio
     Loading arm assemblies.
     Niagara B 4000 Marine loading arms.
     Transfer p_f gasoline vapors in petroleum marketing
       operations.   Revised.   Catalog  EF  10/72.   (1973)
     Vapor recovery with bottom loading.

   Environics,  Inc., Huntington Beach,  California
     Vapox vapor disposal units.   (1973)

   EVC Corporation, Rolling  Hills Estate,  California
     Summary of performance  evaluation, EVC vapor recovery
       system.
     Gasoline vapor recovery systems;  design and development

   Gulf Environmental Systems Co., San Diego, California
     CRC vapor recovery systems.
     CRC vapor recovery systems:   terms of sale  and
       specifications.
     GESCO systems.

   Hydrotech Engineering, Inc.,  Tulsa,  Oklahoma
     Vapor recovery systems.
                             -199-
-------
Ingersoll-Rand, Southwest Industries Division
  Gasoline vapor recovery systems.
  Proposal for a southwest industries gasoline vapor
    recovery system, unit ~1_.

Intermark Industries, Inc.,  Anaheim, California
  Narrative description of the Intermark vapor recovery
    system - models Mark I,  Mark II, and Mark III.
  Narrative description of_ the Intermark vapor recovery
    nozzle adapter.
  Fuel economy of vapor recovery.

OPW Division, Dover Corp., Cincinnati, Ohio
  Bottom loading and tank equipment.  Catalog TTE (1971).
  V-63-F and V-63-FT vapor recovery loaders. H-5970-PA (1972)
  V-63-FS vapor recovery loader.  H-7838-PA (1971).
  Service station vapor recovery system.  Catalog SVR (1972).

Parker-Hannifin, Fueling Division,  Irvine, California
  Now...provides for vapor collection, tight fill and
    top loading.
  Parker vapor recovery system maintenance record.
  Compressor safety.
  Petroleum handling systems and components.
  Water problems in vapor recovery systems.
  Saturator-compressor-vapor holder safety.

Process Products, Inc., Gardena, California
  Vapor-savor gasoline station vapor recovery system.
  Vapor-savor installation instructions.
                          -200-
-------
Rheem Superior, Houston, Texas
  Special operating data proposed to comply with the 90%
    recovery required by Philadelphia under all conditions

Vaporex, Anaheim, California
  Introduction to the Vaporex system.
  Total on-line vapor recovery systems.
  Vaportrol vapor recovery system.
                          -201-
-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT I. \T
                               ' read Instri.ctums on the reverst .'n 'ore
                                                           ^ tint. >
1 -iLPORT NO.
 EPA-450/3-75-046-3
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  A Study of Vapor  Control  Methods for Gasoline
  Marketing Operations
  Volume I - Industry Survey and Control Techniques
            5. REPORT DATE
               April  1975
            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
      C.  E.  Burklin, E. C. Cavanaugh,
      J.  C.  Dickerman, and S. R.  Fernandes
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Radian Corporation
  8500 Shoal Creek  Boulevard
  P. 0. Box 9948
  Austin, Texas   78766
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO,
            11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

               No.  68-02-1319
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
  Office of Air and  Waste Management
  Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards
  Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina 27711
            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                Final  Report	
            14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
It SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
       Background  information is given on the  size and extent of the  gasoline
  marketing industry and the magnitude of hydrocarbon vapor emissions.   The
  principal sources  of emissions, tank truck filling at bulk terminals,  service
  station storage  tank filling and vehicle refueling are characterized.   Vapor
  control techniques for bulk terminals are described:  compression,  refrigeration,
  absorption, adsorption, incineration, and combinations of these techniques.
  The two types of control  systems for service stations are evaluated,  vapor
  balance systems  and vacuum assist/secondary  processing systems.  Test  data are
  given.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                          c. COSATI Field/Group
 Air Pollution
 Gasoline Service  Stations
 Gasoline Bulk  Terminals
 Vapor Processing
 Vapor Balancing
 Vapor Recovery
Air Pollution  Control
Stationary  Sources/
  Mobile Sources
Organic Vapors
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
       Unlimited
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                                  Unclassified
                          21. NO. OF PAGES

                                 211
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                  Unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                           202
-------