United States Office of Air Quality EPA-340/1-85-017
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards September 1985
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
Stationary Source Compliance Series
4>ERA Survey of
Mechanical
Reliability of Vapor
Control Systems for
Gasoline Bulk
Terminals
-------
~"EDS7'",,,
.;:,~ <$'~
f~\
'" '"
o C>
~ ~
«'+ "'~
~t PRO,\-;;.(j
I
I
I Regional Center far Envkanmental Infonnatlon
US EPARegian ill
1650 Arch St,
I Philadelphia, PA 19103
I,
-------
EPA-340/1-85-017
Survey of Mechanical Reliability
of Vapor Control Systems
for Gasoline Bulk Terminals
Prepared by
Margorie J. Fitzpatrick
Harry W. Baist
JACA Corp.
550 Pinetown Road
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034
Contract No. 68-02-3962
Work Assignment No. 81
EPA Project Manager: John Busik
EPA Work Assignment Manager: Dwight Hlustick
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Washington, D.C. 20460
September 1985
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-3962,
Tasks 30, 60, and 81, by JACA Corp. under the sponsorship of the Stationary Source
Compl i ance Di vi si on of the U. S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency. The contents of
this report are reproduced herein as received from the contractor(s). Portions of
this report were taken directly from an earlier report by Pacific Environmental
Services conducted under EPA Contract 68-01-6319. Any mention of process control
techniques or patented products does not constitute endorsement by the authors or the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-i -
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The results of a study conducted by Pacific Environmental Services (PES) during
1982 and 1983 (EPA Contract 68-02-3962) have been incorporated into this report.
Portions of this report, as indicated in the text, have been taken directly from the
PES report entitled, Mechanical Reliability of Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline
Terminals (Volumes 1 and 2, December 1983). We wish to acknowledge the authors of
the PES report, Greg LaFl am, Robert Norton, and Scott Osburn as well as Doreen
Cantor, the EPA Project Officer, for their efforts.
The cooperation of the terminals who participated in the study is greatly
appreciated. The control equipment vendors -- Edwards Engineering, MtGill Incorpor-
ated, and John Zink Company were also very cooperative.
-i i-
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bulk gasoline terminals are a source of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
which are generated during the tank truck loading of gasoline and other petro)eum
liquids. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and State Implementation Plans
(SIP) which limit emissions from bulk gasoline terminals have led to the use of
various types of vapor recovery or processing units such as carbon adsorption,
refrigeration, thermal oxidation, and lean oil absorption to control vapors displaced
during truck loading activities. Most of the above technologies have been subject to
emissions testing; however, there existed an apparent void in the area of information
available on maintenance requirements and mechanical reliability of vapor control
un it s .
This study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 was performed by Pacific
Environmental Services in 1982 and 1983. Phase 2 of the study was conducted by
JACA Corp. from January through September 1985. The study approach and goals of the
two phases of the study are similar in nature -- to develop a database of mechanical
reliability and maintenance data for vapor control units. The second phase was added
to gather additional data. A total of 30 vapor control units were included in the
study -- sixteen carbon absorption units, nine refrigeration systems, three thermal
oxidation systems, one lean oil absorption system, and one refrigeration/absorption
system. The combined geographic areas of Phases 1 and 2 of the study were the
metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
Two to five visits were made to each facility for purposes of gathering data
over time periods ranging from five months to one year. The objective of the survey
was to collect operating and repair records, daily checklists, stack test data, etc.
from each of the 30 units over a time period which was sufficiently long to span
seasonal differences inherent to the areas. The goal of the study was to review all
operating and maintenance data and compile the results of the study in a form that
would be of greatest assistance to local, state, and federal regulatory enforcement
personnel in highlighting maintenance and repair problem areas; most common reasons
for downtime excursions; the strong points of a good preventive maintenance program;
and the use of significant routinely recorded operating parameters as yardsticks of
proper system operation.
The results of this study are compiled with respect to the following measures of
mechanical reliability and maintenance requirements: age of unit, climatological
differences, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, preventive maintenance programs,
and accumulated downtime. Terminal personnel could not offer any definite opinions
or conclusions regarding any observed correlation between weather and system relia-
bility. Based on data gathered during the study, the summer months (June through
August) showed the lowest percent downtime. In order to evaluate the effects of
preventive maintenance programs and O&M practices, each terminal was assigned a
"maintenance program rating". Based on this subjectively assigned rating, there does
appear to be a lower percent downtime for terminals categorized as having an exten-
sive mai ntenance program when compared wi th termi na 1 s categori zed as havi ng a moderate
program or little or no established maintenance program. An evaluation of the age of
the system on system reliabi~ity act~ally showed an inc~ease ~n system reliability
for older (8 to 11 years) unlts. ThlS suggests that unlts WhlCh have been in opera-
tion the longest may be operated by workers who have become extremely adept at
troubleshooting and repairs.
-i i i -
-------
Section
1
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclaimer. . . . . . .
.........
. . . . . . . .
Acknowl edgments.
.......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Executive Summary. .
. . . . . iii
. . . . . . viii
. . xi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Tables. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
List of Figures.
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . .
INTRODUCTION. . .
. . . . . . . . . .
......
. . . .
General Description/Background of Project.
St udy fv'e t hod 01 ogy . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....
.....
Discussions with Control System Manufacturers.
Selection of Study Sites. . . . . . . . . . .
General Discussion of Visits to Terminals. . .
DESCRIPTION OF VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS STUDIED. . . . . . .
Selection of Vapor Control Systems Included in
the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vapor Control System Descriptions. . . . . . . . . .
Carbon Adsorption Systems. . .
. . . .
. . . .
McGill Carbon Adsorption System. . .
link Carbon Adsorption System. . . .
Refrigeration Systems. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
Edwards Engineering Refrigeration
Sy stem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rheem Superior Refrigeration/
Absorption System. . . . . . . . . .
Thermal
Oxidation. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
AER Thermal Oxidizer System. . . . .
McGill Thermal Oxidizer System. . . .
NAO Thermal Oxidizer System. . . . .
Lean Oil Absorption. . . . . . . . .
.....
Presentation of Emission Testing Data. .
......
-i v-
Page
i i
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-4
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-4
2-5
2-7
2-7
2-14
2-15
2-15
2-18
2-18
2-18
2-21
-------
Section
3
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( Co n tin u ed )
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
Development of Checklists. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vapor Recovery System Inspection Procedures. . . . .
Amount of Data Collected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIELD STUDY DATA AND O&M PROBLEMS. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Carbon Adsorption Systems. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Plant A -- Zink Carbon Adsorption System. . .
Plant B -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System. .
Plant C -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System. .
Plant D -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System. .
Pl ant F -- Zi n k Ca rbon Ad so rpt i on System. . .
Pl ant G -- Zi n k Ca rbon Ad sorpt i on System. . .
Plant H -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System. .
Plant N -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System..
Pl ant P -- Me Gi 11 Ca rbon Ad sorpt i on System. .
Pl ant T -- Me Gi 11 Ca rbon Ad so rpt i on System. .
Pl ant U -- McGi 11 Carbon Adsorption System. .
Plant V -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System. .
Pl ant W -- Zi nk Carbon Adsorption System. . .
Plant Y -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System. .
Plant AA -- Zink Carbon Adsorption System. . .
Plant BB -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System. .
Summary of Operating and Maintenance Data
for Carbon Adsorption. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Refrigeration and Refrigeration/Absorption Systems. .
Page
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-6
4-6
4-7
4-9
4-11
4-13
4-13
4-16
4-19
4-20
4-23
4-25
4-27
4-27
4-33
Pl ant E -- Rh eem Superi or Re fri gerati on/
Absorption System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33
Pl ant I -- Edwards Re fri gerat ion System. . . . 4-35
Pl ant J -- Edwards Engi neeri ng Re fri 9 erat ion
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36
Plant L -- Edwards Engineering Re fri gerat ion
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38
Pl ant M -- Edwards Engi neeri ng Refrigeration
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40
Pl ant 0 -- Edwards Engi neeri ng Re fri 9 erat ion
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43
Pl ant R -- Edwa rds Engi neeri ng Refrigeration
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
-v-
-------
Section
5
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Plant X -- Edwards Engineering Refrigeration
Sy 5 t em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plant Z -- Edwards Engineering Refrigeration
Sy stern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summa ry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal Oxidation. . . . . .
. . . .
........
Plant K -- NAO Burner System. . . . . . . . .
Pl ant Q -- McGi 11 Incorporated Thermal
Oxidati on System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plant S u AER-Thermal Oxidation System. . . .
Summa ry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lean Oi 1 Absorpti on . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Pl ant CC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF OPERATION OF MAINTENANCE
PROBLEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
Characteristic Problems Inherent to Each Type of
Co n t r 01 S y stem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ca rbon Ad so rpt i on Systems. . . . . . . . . . .
Refrigeration Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal Oxidation Systems. . . . . . . . . . .
Lean Oil Absorption Systems. . . . . . . . . .
Operation and Maintenance Costs, Preventive Main-
tenance Programs and Downtime. . . . . . . . . . . .
Climatological Effect on System Reliability. . . . .
Impact of Age on System Re 1 i abil ity . . . . . . . . .
Continuous Emission Mbnitoring of Vapor Control
Sy 5 t em 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effect of Product Throughput on System Reliability. .
CONCLUSIONS. .
...............
. . . . . . .
Summary of Reliability Data. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of St rong and Weak Poi nts for Predomi nant
Control Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-vi -
Page
4-47
4-48
4-49
4-49
4-49
4-56
4-57
4-58
4-58
4-58
4-61
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-7
5-7
5-10
5-10
6-1
6-1
6-1
-------
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont i nued)
Recommended Inspection Procedures for Predominant
Control Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommended Preventive Maintenance Programs. . . . .
Appendix A -- Blank Checklists. . . . . . . . .
.....
-v i i -
Page
6-3
6-3
A-I
-------
Table
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
LIST OF TABLES
Control Systems Selected for Bulk Terminal Study.
Profile of Terminals Used in Study.
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
Bulk Terminal Site Visits Schedule.
. . . . . .
. . . . .
Emission Testing Data -- McGill Carbon Adsorption Systems.
Emission Testing Data -- link Carbon Adsorption Systems.
Emission Testing Data -- Edwards Engineering Refrig-
erat i on Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Vapor Control Unit Inspections Performed by
Termi nal Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Daily Checkl i st Data Pl ant B -- Me Gill System.
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant C -- McGill System.
Summary of Dai ly Checkl i st Data Pl ant F -- li nk System. .
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant G -- link System. .
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant H -- McGill System.
Summary of Daily Checkl i st Data Pl ant N -- McGill System.
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant P -- McGill System.
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant T -- McGill System.
Summary of Da i 1 y Checkl i st Data Pl ant U -- Me Gi 11 System.
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant V -- McGill System.
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant W -- link System. .
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant Y -- McGill System.
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant AA -- link System. .
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant BB -- McGill System.
Summary of Maintenance and Repair Data for McGill Carbon
Adsorption Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-v i i i -
Page
1-3
1-5
1-12
2-23
2-24
2-26
3-2
4-4
4-5
4-8
4-10
4-12
4-14
4-15
4-17
4-18
4-21
4-22
4-24
4-26
4-28
4-29
-------
Table
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
4-25
4-26
4-27
4-28
4-29
5-1
5-2
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Summary of Maintenance and Repair Data for Zink
Carbon Adsorption System. . . . . . . . . . . .
.....
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant E -- Rheem Superior
Sy stem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant I -- Edwards
Refri gerat ion System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Da il y Checkl i st Data Pl ant J -- Edwa rds
Refri gerat ion System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Daily Checkl i st Data Plant L -- Edwa rds
Refrigeration System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant M -- Edwards
Refrigeration System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant 0-1 -- Edwards
Refrigeration System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Daily Checklist Data Plant 0-2 -- Edwards
Refrigeration System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Maintenance and Repair Data for Rheem
Superi or Refrigerati on/ Absorpt i on System. . . . .
. . . .
Summary of Maintenance and Repai r Data for Edwards
Engineering Refrigeration System. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amount of Product Recovered by Vapor Control Systems. . .
Summary of Maintenance and Repair Data for Thermal
Oxidation Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summa ry of Da i 1 y Checkl i st Data Pl ant CC -- Lean Oi 1
Adsorption System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Maintenance and Repair Data for Southwest
Industries Lean Oil Adsorption System. . . . . . . .
Summary of O&M Costs and Preventive Maintenance Programs
Monthly Downtime for Systems in 1985 Study. . . . . . . .
-i x-
Page
4-31
4-34
4-37
4-39
4-41
4-42
4-45
4-46
4-50
4-51
4-55
4-59
4-60
4-62
5-3
5-8
-------
Table
5-3
5-4
6-1
LIST OF TABLES
( Conti nued)
Age of Control Device Versus Downtime.
. . . .
. . . . . .
Gasoline Throughput Versus Downtime. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Summary of Percent Downtime of Vapor Control Systems. . .
-x-
Page
5-9
5-11
6-2
-------
Figure
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
LIST OF FIGURES
Typical Bulk Gasoline Tenninal and Vapor Control System. .
Typical McGill Carbon Adsorption System.
. . . . . . . . .
Typical Zink Carbon Adsorption System. .
. . . .
.....
Typical Edwards Engineering VC t-bdel Refrigeration
Sy stem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
Typical Edwards Engineering DE t-bdel Refrigeration
Sy stem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rheem Superior Refrigeration/Absorption System. .
. . . .
AER Thermal Oxidizer System Valve Operating Sequence. . .
Typical McGi 11 Thennal Oxidi zer System
Typical NAO Thermal Oxidizer System. .
. . . .
......
..........
Southwest Industries Lean Oi 1 Absorption System. . . . . .
-xi-
Page
2-2
2-6
2-8
2-11
2-12
2-16
2-17
2-19
2-20
2-22
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND OF PROJECT
As a result of federal, state, and local volatile organic compound (VOC) emission
regulations, there has been an increase in the number of bulk gasoline terminals
using vapor control systems to reduce VOC emissions. The purpose of this project was
to determine the reliability of the different types of vapor control systems and the
effectiveness of the existing operation and maintenance procedures currently used at
bulk gasoline terminals. Prior to the study, little information had been gathered on
the mechanical reliability and maintenance requirements of the control systems.
The predominant technologies currently used at bulk gasoline terminals to
control VOC emissions are carbon adsorption, refrigeration, and thermal oxidation.
Several older technologies, still used by the industry, although not as frequently,
include lean oil absorption and refrigeration/absorption.
On August 18, 1983, EPA issued a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for bulk
gasoline terminals (40 CFR 60, Subpart XX) constructed or modified after December 17,
1980 or reconstructed after August 18, 1983 (if the reconstruction was undertaken to
comply with a state or local regulation). The NSPS requires that affected facilities
install a vapor collection system to capture VOC emissions generated during gasoline
tank truck loadings and a vapor control system to reduce captured VOC emissions to 35
milligrams of total organic compounds (TOC) per liter of gasoline loaded. For unre-
furbished vapor control systems (i .e. existing control systems) installed before
December 17, 1980, TOC emissions shall not exceed 80 mg/l. A less stringent emission
standard is applied to existing vapor control systems so that firms that modify or
reconstruct loading racks are not required to install new vapor control equipment if
the existing control system can meet the 80 mg/l emission limit, unless the control
equipment is also modified.
The Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) of EPA initiated a two phase
field study in order to determine the principal types of control system operating
problems; how the operating problems affect the efficiency of the control system; and
how maintenance practices, weather, and age of the control system affect the operation
of the system. The first phase of the study was conducted by Pacific Environmental
Services between 1982 and 1983. The second phase of the study was conducted by JACA
Corp. The results of both phases of the study are incorporated in this report.
The principal goal of the study was to build a database on the mechanical
reliability of vapor control systems in use at bulk gasoline terminals. The database
and this report will provide federal, state, and local enforcement personnel with a
guide to expected operation and likely failures for the control systems. The report
will assist enforcement agencies in the assignment of resources where the need is
greatest.
Both phases of the study are similar in design and approach. Several meetings
were held with manufacturers of the predominant technologies (carbon adsorption,
refrigeration and thermal oxidation) to familarize the investigators with the control
1-1
-------
systems. However, the primary source of information, in both phases of the study,.
was daily checklists completed by terminal employees. The checklists contain pertln-
ent instrument readings and generally describe any maintenance performed or downtime
experienced at the vapor control unit. Also, the terminals were visited (by either
JACA or Pacific Environmental Services, depending upon the study phase) throughout
the study to gather background information on the terminal and control system,
observe the control system in operation, and obtain copies of daily checklists and
maintenance/repair logs.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Discussions with Control System Manufacturers
JACA met with several manufacturers of vapor control systems -- Edwards Engineer.
ing (refrigeration), John Zink Company (carbon adsorption and thermal oxidation), and
McGill Incorporated (carbon adsorption and thermal oxidation). Two meetings were
held with each manufacturer; one meeting in December 1984 prior to the start of the
terminal site visits and data collection of Phase 2 of the study and one in June 1985
approximately two-thirds of the way into the data gathering portion of Phase 2. The
initial meetings with the manufacturers were extremely helpful for technical descrip-
tions of the control systems, discussion of recommended operating and maintenance
practices, and emission testing data. During the second meeting with the manufactur-
ers, maintenance problems and technical questions were discussed. The second meeting
also gave the manufacturers the opportunity to make technical comments on the portion
of this report that describe their control systems.
Prior to data gathering and terminal visits in Phase 1 of the study, Pacific
Environmental Sciences met with the following control system manufacturers in March
and April of 1980: National AirOil Burner Company, John Zink Company, McGill Incorpor-
ated, Tenney Engineering, Edwards Engineering, and AER Corporation.
Selection of Study Sites
Bulk terminals included in the study are from several different geographical and
climatological areas of the country -- the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Georgia;
Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; New York, New York; and Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania. Southern California (representing a hotter climate) was a potential study
area; however, the area was eliminated due to the high travel costs involved.
Within the study areas, an attempt was made to include terminals representing a
mix o~ the different prevalent c?ntrol technol?gies, ages of the control equipment,
gasollne throughputs at the termlnal, and termlnal ownership (major or independent
oil company). Locations of the terminals within the study areas were also considered
in selecting the terminals in order to minimize travel costs.
In Phase 1 of the study, there were six control systems selected in the Atlanta
area and eight systems selec~ed in the ~leveland area. In Phase 2 of the study,
three systems were selected ln the Baltlmore area, three systems in the metropolitan
New York area (includes northern New Jersey), and ten systems in the Philadelphia
metropolitan area (includes central New Jersey). Table 1-1 shows the number and type
of control systems included in each study area.
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1.
CONTROL SYSTEMS SELECTED FOR THE BULK TERMINAL STUDY
Terminal location
Type of New
control system At 1 anta Ba ltimore C1 eve1 and Yorka Phi1ade1phiab Tota 1
Edwards Engineering,
refrigeration 1 2 2 2 2c 9
McGill,
carbon adsorpti on 2 4 4 10
Zi nk ,
carbon adsorpti on 2 1 1 2 6
I-' Thermal oxidationd 1 1 1 3
I
w
Southwest Industries
lean oil absorptione 1 1
Rheem Superior, refrig-
eration/absorptione 1 1
Total 6 3 8 3 10 30
aInc1udes northern New Jersey
bInc1udes central New Jersey
cOne termi na1 had two control systems
dInc1udes one each McGill, NAO, and AER thermal oxidizing systems
eNot a prevalent control technology
-------
At the request of several oil companies, the names of the terminals have been
coded (such as Plant A, Plant B, etc.) so that the terminal identity remains anony-
mous. Table 1-2 is a profile of the terminals and control systems used in the
st udy .
General Discussion of Visits to Terminals
The terminals were visited several times throughout the study. The purpose of
the visits was to obtain copies of daily checklists completed by terminal personnel,
discuss maintenance and repairs on the unit, and perform an inspection of the unit.
During the inspection of the unit, gauges and sight glass readings were recorded on
the same checklist that the terminal personnel were using. In most cases, terminal
personnel used a checklist that they developed. However, in several cases, check-
lists were developed by either JACA or Pacific Environmental Services for use through-
out'the study period.
Table 1-3 shows a schedule of the terminal visits. EPA Headquarters, EPA
Regional, state, and local personnel as well as oil company corporate personnel were
invited on all site visits.
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-2. PROFILE OF TERMINALS USED IN STUDya
Plant A B C D E
Type of unit Adsorpti on Adsorption Adsorption Adsorpti on Refrigeration/
Absorption
Manufacturer Zi nk McGi 11 McGi 11 Zi nk Trico-Superior
No. of units 1 1 1 1 1
Model no. AA 825-9-8 404 184 AA 709
Start-up date 1984 1976 1981 1983 1974
Major modifications None Changed carbon None None None
since installation? 2 yrs. ago
Terminal operating schedule 24 hr/day 24 hr/day 12 h r/day 24 hr/day 24 hr/day
...... Terminal always staffed? Yes Yes No
I Yes Yes
U1
Typical gasoline throughput, 100-150 >150 <50 100-150 <50
mi lli on gal/yrb
Total no. loading arms 20 8 14 13
Total no. gasoline 9 12 6 9 7
loading arms
Gasoline top or bottom 6 - Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom
loading 3 - Top
In-house maintenance or Routine: In-house In-house c Rout i ne: In-house Contract
service contract Major: Contract Major: Contract
Spare parts on hand None Mfg. None Gaskets None
recommended
/
Capital cost of unit, $ 180,000 250,000 135,466 Un kn own 260,000
Installation cost of unit, $ 300,000 100,000 38,800 Un kn own Unknown
Annual maintenance costs, $ 4,800 10,000- 750 8,000 4,200
20,000
Tank before unit? Kn ockout Knockout Knockout Bl adder Bl adder
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
Plant F G H
Type of unit Adsorption Adsorpti on Adsorption Refrigeration
Manufacturer Zi nk Zi nk rtGill Edwards
No. of units 1 1 1 1
Mode 1 no. AA-355-6-7 116-2 VC800
Start-up date 1982 12/84 1977 1976
Major modifications None No Recently added Made mi nor
since installation? charcoal changes to
facil itate
maintenance
~ Terminal operating schedule 24 hr/day 24 hr/day 24 hr/day 24 hr/day
I
0'1 Terminal always staffed? No No Yes Yes
Typical gasoline throughput, <50 <50 100-150 >150
million gal/yrb
Total no. loading arms 20 7 8 22
Total no. gasoline 6 3 4 9
1 oadi ng arms
Gasoline top or bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom
loading
In-house maintenance or In-house Contract (sti 11 In-house Combination in-
service contract under warranty) (Corporate) house and serv-
ice contract
Spare parts on hand Computer chi ps None None at Sea 1 s t fi Hers t
gauges, probes, terminal 503 gas, com-
valve parts presso r
Capital cost of unit, $ Un kn own 160,000 250,000 (approx.) Un known
Installation cost of unit, $ Un kn own 130,000 Un kn own Un known
Annual maintenance costs, $ 10,000 10,000 1000-1500 20,000
Tank before unit? Knockout Knockout Knockout Knockout
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
Plant J K L M
Type of uni t Refri gerat ion Therma 1 Oxidizer Refri gerat ion Refrigerati on
Manufacturer Edwa rds National Ai rOi 1 Edwards Edwards
No. of units 1 1 1 1
Model no. VC250 converted VC600 VC800
to DEL 1500
Start-up date Original - 1975 1974 1977 1975
Modifi ed - 1984
Major modifications Converted to direct Refractory None Installed sealess
since installation? expansion redone compressor
........ Terminal operating schedule 24 hr/day 24 hr/ day 24 hr/day 24 hr/day
I
-....J
Terminal always staffed? Yes No Yes Yes
Typical gasoline throughput, 50-100 50-100 50-100 >150
million gal/yrb
Total no. loading arms 12 8 4 13
Total no. gasoline 6 6 4 9
loading arms
Gasoline top or bottom Bottom Bottom Top/Submerge Bottom
loading
In-house maintenance or Routine: In-house Routine: In-house Cont ract Contract
servi ce contract Maj or: Contract Major: Contract
Spare parts on hand None Unknown None None
Capital cost of unit, $ Un kn own 22,128 120,000 250,000
Installation cost of unit, $ Un kn own Included in above 500,000 60,000
Annual maintenance costs, $ Un kn own 200 7500 - parts 16,000
9600 - labor
Tank before unit? Knockout Knockout No None
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
Plant N 0
Type of unit Adsorpti on Refrigeration
Manufacturer Mc Gi 11 Edwa rds
No. of units 1 2
Model no. 594-1 OE3200
Start-up date 1981 1981
Major modifications None Compressors.
since installation? nipples
Terminal operating schedule 24 hr/day 24 hr/day
...... Termi nal always staffed? No Yes
I
OJ Typical gasoline throughput. <50 100-150
million gal/yrb
Total no. loading arms 6 31
Total no. gasoline 3 18
loading arms
Gasoline top or bottom Top Bottom
loading
In-house maintenance or In-house/d In-house/
servi ce contract Cont ract Cont ract
Spare parts on hand None Regional stock
of spare parts
Capital cost of unit. $ Un kn own 227.000/unit
Installation cost of unit. $ Unknown 438.000/2 unitse
Annual maintenance costs. $ Unknown
Tank before unit? Knockout Knockout
(continued)
P Q R
Adsorption Thermal oxidation Refrigeration
Mc Gi 11 McGi 11 Edwards
1 1 1
AT94 V-200 OE2000
1980 1979
No
50-100
Bottom
In -house/
servi ce
contract
Knockout
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
Plant S T U V W X
Type of unit Therma 1 Oxidation Adsorpti on Adsorpti on Adsorption Adsorpti on Refrigeration
Manufacturer AER Mc Gi 11 Mc Gi 11 McGill Zink Edwards
No. of units 1 1 1 1 1 1
Model no. 600 AT 94 AT 185 184 DT 355-9-6 DE2400
Start-up date 1981 1980 1982 1981 1981 1981
Major modifications
since installation?
Terminal operating schedule 24 hr/day 24 hr/day 24 hr/day
...... Terminal always staffed? No Yes Yes Yes
I
\.0 Typical gasoline throughput, <50 100-150 <50 100-150
million gal/yrb
Total no. loading arms
Total no. gasoline
load i n g arms
Gasoline top or bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom
loading
In-house maintenance or In-house/ In -house/
service contract service service
contract contract
Spare parts on hand
Ca pita 1 cost of unit, $
Installation cost of unit, $
Annual maintenance costs, $
Tank before unit? Knockout Knockout Knockout
(conti nued)
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
y Z AA BB CC
Adsorpti on Refrigeration Adsorption Adsorption Lean oil absorption
McGill Edwa rds Ii nk Mc Gi 11 Southwest Industries
11 1 1 1 1
184 DT DE 1200 AA-261-7-7S AT 704 9
1981 1980 1981 1980 1980f
Plant
.....
I
.....
o
Type of unit
Manufacturer
No. of units
Model no.
Start-up date
Major modifications
since installation?
Terminal operating schedule
Terminal always staffed?
Typi cal gasoli ne throughput,
million gal/yrb
Total no. loading arms
Total no. gasoline
loading arms
Gasoline top or bottom
loading
In-house maintenance or
service contract
Spare parts on hand
Capital cost of unit, $
Installation cost of unit, $
Annual maintenance costs, $
Tank before unit?
>150
Bottom
Service
contract
Knockout
(continued)
-------
~
I
~
~
TABLE 1-2.
(concluded) -- FOOTNOTES
aplants A through 0 are part of Phase 2 of the study. Plants P through CC are part of Phase 1 of the study.
bThroughout the report, units of measurement are reported primarily in English units as these are the units used
by the bulk terminal industry.
cMcGill services emergencies; local electrician services minor problems.
dIn-house until 5/85.
eUnusual piping requirements and soil instability caused high installation costs.
fAs a reconditioned unit.
-------
TABLE 1-3. BULK TERMINAL SITE VISITS SCHEDULE
Dates of $i te Vi sitsa
Terminal Vi sit 1 Vi sit 2 Vi sit 3 Vi sit 4 Vi sit 5
Pl ant A 4/3/85 5/29/85 9/85b
Plant B 4/10/85 6/4/85 9/85b
Pl ant C 4/1/85 5/23/85 8/85b
Pl ant 0 4/10/85 5/24/85 9/85b
Pl ant E 4/2/85 5/22/85 9/85b
Pl ant F 4/12/85 5/23/85 9/8 5b
Pl ant G 4/4/85 5/30/85 9/85b
Pl ant H 3/25/85 5/22/85 9/8 5b
Pl ant I 4/12/85 5/23/85 9/8 5b
Pl ant J 4/11/85 5/23/85 9/85b
Pl ant K 4/3/85 6/6/85 9/85b
Pl ant L 4/3/85 5/29/85 8/85b
Pl an t M 4/1/85 5/23/85 9/8 5b
Pl ant N 4/24/85 5/30b85 9/85b
Pl ant 0 - 6/17/85 9/85
Pl ant P 9/29/82 11/17/82 1/12/83 3/2/83 8/10/83
Pl ant Q 10/27/82 1/24/83 3/7 /8 3
Pl ant R 9/29/82 11/17/82 1/13/83 3/3/83 8/12/83
Pl an t $ 9/29/82 11/18/82 1/13/83 3/3/83 8/11/83
Pl ant T 9/30/82 11/19/82 1/13/83 3/3/83 8/11/83
Pl ant U 11/1/82 12/6/82 1/25/83 3/8/83 8/11/83
Pl ant V 11/3/82 12/7 /82 1/25/83 3/8/83 8/11/83
Pl ant W 11/2/82 12/6/82 1/24/83 3/7 /8 3 8/10/83
Pl ant X 11/2/82 12/7 /82 1/25/83 3/8/83 8/11/83
Pl an t Y 9/29/82 11/18/82 1/13/83 3/2/83 8/11/83
Pl an t Z 1/14/83 3/4/83 8/12/83
Plant AA 11/1/82 12/6/82 1/24/83 3/7 /83 8/10/83
Pl ant BB 9/30/82 11/19/82 1/14/83 3/2/83 8/10/83
Pl ant CC 9/30/82 11/19/82 1/14/83 3/4/83 8/12/83
aplants A-O, part of Phase 2 of the study, were visited by JACA. Plants P-CC, part
of Phase 1 of the study, were visited by Pacific Environmental Services.
bIn formation gathered by telephone conversation.
1-12
-------
SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS STUDIED
SELECTION OF VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY
The control systems were selected to achieve a mix of the types of current
control technologies used at bulk gasoline terminals to control VOC emissions. The
predominant technologies currently used by the industry are carbon adsorption,
refrigeration, and thermal oxidation. Also included in the studies were two less
prevelant technologies -- lean oil absorption and refrigeration/absorption.
VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS
Carbon adsorption systems control gasoline emissions by adsorbing the vapors
onto activated carbon, desorbing the vapors during carbon regeneration, and absorbing
the vapors generated during carbon regeneration into a stream of gasoline. Refriger-
ation systems operate by condensing the hydrocarbon vapors out of the air stream at
low temperatures (typically -90 to -120°F). Lean oil systems scrub gasoline vapors
in an absorption tower, using some form of lean oil (often gasoline from which the
light ends have been previously removed, and usually chilled). Refrigeration/absorp-
tion removes hydrocarbon vapors from the air stream by absorbing vapors into a
countercurrent flow of chilled (30 to 40°F) gasoline. Thermal oxidation systems burn
the vapors, with a supplementary fuel', in a flare or combustion chamber. There is no
gasoline recovered with the thermal oxidation system, as there is with the other
control technologies.
Figure 2-1 shows the location of a typical vapor control system relative to the
other components of a bulk gasoline terminal.
This chapter discusses the control systems included in the study. At the end of
the this chapter is a presentation of emission testing data from the plants included
in the study as well as data from the control system manufacturers.
Carbon Adsorption Systems
John link Company and McGill Incorporated (formerly HydroTech Engineering) both
manufacture carbon adsorption vapor recovery units. In both the link and McGill
systems, hydrocarbon vapors are adsorbed from the air stream by activated carbon
beds. The carbon beds are regenerated, under a vacuum, and the hydrocarbon vapors
having been desorbed from the carbon beds are absorbed by gasoline and returned to a
gasoline storage tank. Because the link and McGill systems operate on the same
adsorption/absorption principles, the operation of both systems will be discussed
collectively in this section. The McGill and link systems will also be discussed,
individually, following this section.
Both carbon adsorption systems have two carbon beds -- one carbon bed is on-line
and adsorbing hydrocarbon vapors while the second bed is off-line and regenerating.
Hydrocarbon vapors are displaced from a tank truck into the base of the on-line
carbon bed, adsorbed by the activated carbon, and the clean air is vented directly to
the atmosphere at the top of the carbon bed.
2-1
-------
N
I
N
LOADING RACK
VACUUM RELIEF
VALVE W/FLAMEARRESTOR
GASOLINE
STORAGE
TANK
KNOCKOUT
TANK
:~Asod~~jRECbVE.~tri :...', .::
1!~!~{51
',: "".' '.
.'.,: :.'.:::- '..,
Fi gure 2-1.
Location of typical
vapor control
system relative to other components of a bulk terminal.
-------
Because the carbon beds can only adsorb a finite amount of hydrocarbon vapors,
the beds must be regenerated. Typically, a bed is on-line for 15 minutes. The bed
is regenerated by applying a vacuum, to reduce the partial pressure of the hydrocarbon
which reduces the hydrocarbon loading on the carbon, and then injecting a small
amount of air. Air is introduced at the end of the regeneration period (when the
vacuum is high) and is critical in cleaning the top of the carbon bed. Hydrocarbons
desorbed from the carbon bed are absorbed by a gasoline spray in an absorbing tower.
The concentration of hydrocarbon vapors leaving the regenerating carbon bed is high
-- 80 to almost 100 percent by volume. At this high concentration, gasoline alone
can be used as the absorbing agent. The gasoline, with the recovered hydrocarbons is
returned to storage. Air from the top of the absorbing tower is returned to the
vapor/air inlet stream for processing in the adsorbing bed.
The vacuum required during carbon bed regeneration is provided by a liquid-ring
vacuum pump which uses an ethylene glycol and water mixture as a compressant. A
separator following the pump is used to separate the hydrocarbon vapor/air from the
compressant mixture, and to separate any hydrocarbons that may have condensed in the
liquid-ring vacuum pump. The compressant is cooled, using a shell and tube heat
exchanger, before returning to the liquid-ring vacuum pump.
Typically, a vacuum of 27 to 28 inches of mercury is required to desorb the
hydrocarbons from the carbon bed. The air purge used at the end of the regeneration
cycle is activated typically at a vacuum of 27.5 inches of mercury. The air purge
helps remove higher molecular weight hydrocarbons from the carbon.
The flow of fluids (both air and gasoline) throughout the system is controlled
by a series of motor operated valves (MOV). The use of MOVs and the sequence of the
MOVs is vital to the proper operation of the control system.
The vapor recovery system is activated by a signal from the loading rack --
generally the connection of the tank truck grounding system or the start of the
loading pumps. After the loading is completed, the system continues to operate for a
certain time period in order to provide additional carbon bed regeneration ("polish-
ing" the beds).
The adsorption of vapors onto an activated carbon bed is an exothermic process.
Both the McGill and Zink units include temperature indicators at three or four levels
on the carbon bed. The temperature of the carbon rises vertically as successive
levels adsorb vapors. The working carbon bed is generally 20 to 40°F warmer than the
ambient temperature. An elevated temperature at the top of the carbon bed generally
indicates that the bed is approaching the point of carbon saturation and if loading
continues there may be a "breakthrough" of the carbon bed. In a bed breakthrough,
the carbon is no longer adsorbing hydrocarbon vapors and the vapors are emitted to
the atmosphere.
Leaded gasoline does not affect the operation of the carbon adsorption system
because the lead does not vaporize and remains in the tank truck as a liquid. Other
gasoline additives, as well as gasohol and methanol have not affected the operation
of the units. However, distillate fuel vapors can decrease the performance of the
units. Distillate fuel vapors are 97 percent air. Unless the system is sized to
handle distillate vapors, the distillate vapor stream may displace gasoline vapors
from the bed.
2-3
-------
The units are sized based on expected maximum gasoline throughput rates and
loading schedules. The beds are comprised of either a wood or coal based carbon.
Carbon beds must be preconditioned prior to use to prevent overheating of the carbon.
A carbon bed can be regenerated to higher working conditions, if desired, although
this is not normal practice.
McGill Carbon Adsorption System--
There are approximately 375 McGill carbon adsorption systems in use at bulk
terminals. McGill Inc. installed the first system in 1976. There were six McGill
adsorption units in Phase 1 of the study and four units in Phase 2 of the study. The
installation dates of the units in the study range from 1976 to 1982.
McGill units usually contain a coal based carbon because McGill Incorporated
feels that they achieve more predictable and safer results with the coal variety.
Coal based carbon has a higher auto-ignition temperature, but also has a higher
capital cost. The electronic control system in the unit is either a conventional
industrial design (which incorporates mechanical timers, relays, and switches to
perform sequencing steps) or a solid state design. Selection of the electronic
control system depends on specifications from the terminal.
Hydrocarbon vapors are distributed across the base of the carbon with a proprie-
tory vapor distribution system to assure an even distribution of vapors into the
carbon bed. McGill Incorporated uses heated air (150°F) rather than ambient air to
purge the carbon beds during regeneration. McGill Incorporated feels the heated air
enhances the "polishing" of the carbon beds.
The following is a typical adsorption/regeneration cycle:
Time
( mi n . )
0-10
10 -14
14-16
15-25
25-29
Process Step
Bed A processing vapors
Bed B regenerating - vacuum between 0 and 27.5 in. Hg
Absorber processing desorbed vapors from Bed B
Bed A processing vapors ~
Bed B regenerating - vacuum greater than
Warm air purge activated for Bed B
Absorber processing vapors from Bed B
Transition Step --
Beds A and B both processing vapor
Warm air purge shut off
27.5 in. Hg
Bed A regenerating - vacuum between 0 and 27.5 in. Hg
Bed B processing vapors
Bed A regenerating - vacuum greater than 27.5 in. Hg
Bed B processing vapors
Warm air purge activated for Bed A
Absorber processing vapors from Bed A
2-4
-------
29-30
Transition Step --
Beds A and B both processing vapor
Warm air purge shut off
31
Repeat cycle
The systems include automatic shutdowns to assure the system is operating within
safe limits. In most cases, an alarm is sounded and a red light flashes if there is
an upset in the operation of the system. Annuniciators for upsets include: MOV
sequence failure; gasoline supply and return pump failures; vacuum pump failure;
extremes in glycol absorber, and separator levels; low glycol flow; and an optional
carbon bed high temperature control.
Instrumentation on the unit includes: bed temperatures, vacuum gauges on each
bed, gasoline supply and pump pressures, gasoline supply temperature, absorber tower
gasoline pressure, seal pump discharge pressure, glycol temperatures to and from
vacuum pump. glycol flow rate to the vacuum pump, and sight gauges on the separator
and absorber. There is also a rotometer on the vacuum pump seal fluid flow. There
are no recording gauges on the unit.
Figure 2-2 shows a typical McGill Incorporated vapor recovery unit.
link Carbon Adsorption System--
link Company has installed approximately 130 vapor recovery units since 1980.
There were two link units in Phase 1 of the study and four units in Phase 2 of the
study. The link units included in the study were installed between 1981 and 1984.
link Company uses a solid state control board on all units; there are no mechan-
ical relays on the newer units. link feels it is easier to troubleshoot with solid
state logic. The programmable logic controller stores a specific control sequence to
provide outputs in the form of relay contact closures, to drive solenoids, motor
starters, etc. Inputs are provided by pressure switches, temperature switches,
pushbuttons. etc. Software instructions within the memory chip simulate hardwired
relay sequencers, resulting in simple program modification and reduced hardware
costs. A disadvantage of this form of sequence control is that terminal personnel
unfamiliar with microprocessor circuitry may require outside assistance if electrical
servicing is needed. However, the units contain modular electronic controls with
indicator lights so that terminal personnel can just snap in replacement modules.
Hydrocarbon vapors are distributed evenly across the carbon beds by a void-head,
baffle screen arrangement at the bottom of the bed. (The screen is also used to
support the carbon.) All units are equipped with gasoline circulation coils and high
temperature shut off switches. The high temperature switches and the gasoline coils
are provided as a safety precaution to minimize the potential for excessive tempera-
tures within the carbon beds. The unit will shut down if an excessively high temper-
ature is measured at the top or the bottom of the carbon beds. Normal heats of
adsorption do not create temperatures sufficient to shut the system down.
The system includes automatic shutdowns to assure the system is operating within
safe limits. In most cases, an alarm is sounded and a red light flashes if there is
an upset in the operation of the system. Upsets include: high temperature at the
top or bottom of the carbon bed; MOV sequence failure; gasoline supply and return
2-5
-------
CARBON BED
N
I
0"\
VACUUM PUMP
SEAL COOLER
PURGE AIR
AIR
HEATER
PURGE AIR
DESORBED VAPORS
VAPORS
SEAL PUMP
SEAL FLUID
~igure 2-2. Typical McGill Carbon Adsorption System
GASOLI E
CARBON BED
(/)
IT!
-0
~
~
-I
o
;:0
:;x:.
OJ
(/)
o
;:0
OJ
IT!
;;0
GASOLINE
SUPPLY
PUMP
GASOLINE
TANK
AIR/HYDROCARBON VAPOR
KNOCKOUT
TANK
GASOLINE RETURN
LOADING RACK
PUMP
-------
pump failures; vacuum pump failure; extremes in glycol absorber and separator levels;
and low vacuum seal fluid flows.
Instrumentation on the Zink vapor recovery system includes: temperature gauges
on the carbon beds, vacuum gauges on each bed, glycol pump inlet temperature and
pressure, heat exchanger outlet temperature and pressure, glycol temperature to the
vacuum pump, sight gauges on the separator, glycol and gasoline temperatures in the
separator, gasoline return pressure, and gasoline supply temperature and pressure.
None of the gauges are recording type gauges.
The following is a typical adsorption/regeneration cycle:
Time
(min.)
0-10
10-15
15-16
16-26
26-31
Process Step
Bed A processing vapors
Bed B regenerating - vacuum between 0 and 27.5 in. Hg
Absorber processing desorbed vapors from Bed B
Bed A processing vapors
Bed B regenerating - vacuum at 27.5 in. Hg
Air purge activated for Bed B
Absorber processing desorbed vapors from Bed B
Transition Step --
Beds A and B both processing vapor
Air purge 'shut off
Bed A regenerating - vacuum between 0 and 27.5 in. Hg
Bed B processing vapors
Bed A regenerating - vacuum greater than 27.5 in. Hg
Bed B processing vapors
Air purge activated for Bed A
Absorber processing desorbed vapors from Bed A
Repeat Cycle
A schematic of the Zink unit is shown in Figure 2-3.
Refrigeration Systems
There were two types of refrigeration vapor recovery units included in the study
-- the Edwards Engineering system and the Rheem Superior system. The Edwards Engi-
neering system uses low temperatures, typically -90 to -120°F, to condense hydrocarbon
vapor from the air stream. The Rheem Superior system is a combination refrigeration
and absorption system which uses chilled gasoline (30 to 40°F) to absorb hydrocarbons
from the air stream. The Rheem Superior units are no longer manufactured.
The Edwards Engineering and Rheem Superior systems are discussed in detail in
the two sections that follow.
Edwards Engineering Refrigeration System--
There were nine Edwards Engineering refrigeration systems included in the
study -- three systems were in the older VC (vapor condenser) model series, five were
in the newer DE (direct expansion) model series, and one was a VC model converted to
a DE model series. The DE model series expands the refrigerant (R503) directly into
the refrigeration coils; while the VC model series, which is no longer produced,
2-7
-------
LOADING RACK
N
I
ex>
KNOCKOUT
TANK
GASOL I NE .
STORAGE
GASOLINE RETURN
AIR/HYDROCARBON VAPORS
GASOLINE SUPPLY
RICH GASOLINE
:k -SOLENIOD VALVE
CARBON BED
~- I
-">
<:- I
--~I
--
-<- - I
--=- -=---1
Figure 2-3. Typical Zink Carbon Adsorption System.
PUR~E AIR
PURGE AIR
LEAN
GASOLIN
RECYCLE AIR/HYDROCARBON
ABSORBER
SEPARATOR
GASOLINE !GYCOL ~
HYDROCARBON
DRAIN
CARBON BED
VACUUM PUMP
SEAL FLUID/GASOLINE
EXCHANGER
-------
expands the refrigerant in
to chill the refrigeration
to meet a 80 mg/l emission
the design of the systems.
emission standard.
a storage tank and circulates a methylene chloride brine
coils. The VC models and the older DE models were designed
standard, which was the prevailing standard at the time of
The newer DE models are designed to meet a 35 mg/l
Edwards Engineering installed 76 VC models between 1974 and 1977. A total of
approximately 155 DE units have been installed since 1977. Ten to twelve of the VC
units have been upgraded to DE units. There are also an additional 35 Edwards
Engineering units installed in other industrial applications (solvent recovery).
The Edwards Engineering unit cools the vapor laden inlet air stream to condense
the hydrocarbon vapors out of the air stream. Because the Edwards Engineering unit
is a refrigeration system, a brief discussion of refrigeration principles is appro-
priate. The purpose of refrigeration is to reduce the temperature of a substance
below the temperature of the surroundings. Single-stage refrigeration is a continuous
cycle involving a compressor, condenser, expansion valve, and an evaporator. The
liquid refrigerant, which flows through evaporation coils, boils as a result of
picking up heat from the fluid that is being cooled. The refrigeration fluid vapors
are then compressed, which raises the temperature and pressure of the vapors, and
liquefied in a condenser. The cycle is completed by reducing the temperature
and pressure of the refrigerant liquid by allowing the liquid to flow through
an expansion valve.
To achieve the low temperatures needed to efficiently condense hydrocarbon
vapors from the air stream, it is necessary to use a multiple stage refrigeration
system. Edwards uses a cascade-type multiple stage refrigeration system. In the
cascade system, multiple refrigeration cycles are interconnected, usually employing
different refrigerants for each cycle, such that one refrigeration cycle picks up the
heat generated by another cycle.
Edwards Engineering commonly uses the following refrigerants in their vapor
recovery units:
o
R22 -- Chlorodifluoromethan~, boiling point -40°F
o
R502 -- Azeotrope of dichlorofluoromethane and chloropentafluoroethane,
boiling point -50°F
R13 -- Chlorotrifluoromethane, boiling point -115°F
o
o R503 -- Azeotrope of trifluoromethane and chlorotrifluoromethane, boiling
point -128°F
o
R14 -- Carbon tetrafluoride, boiling point -198°F
The Edwards Engineering unit cools the inlet air stream in two major steps --
precooling and low stage refrigeration.
The first step, precooling, cools the vapor stream down to 34 to 35°F (using
R22) to remove water vapor from the inlet stream. The precooler is designed not to
freeze the water vapor. The precooler condenses 70 to 80 percent of the water from
2-9
-------
the air stream as well as heavy hydrocarbon components. Water and hydrocarbons drain
from the bottom of the precooler to a decanter, which separates the water from the
recovered product. The air velocity through the precooler coils is approximately 150
feet per minute, a relatively low velocity designed to prevent entrained water/hydro-
carbon droplets from blowing into the low temperature refrigeration system.
The second refrigeration step, the low temperature refrigeration system, cools
the inlet stream down to -90° to -120°F (typically) to remove hydrocarbon vapors from
the air stream. There are three types of low temperature refrigeration systems, each
employing various combinations of refrigerants to achieve the desired temperature in
the low temperature refrigeration system. The first type of low temperature refrig-
eration system, the most common type in the study, uses a cascade system of refriger-
ants R502 and R503 to reduce the temperature of the low temperature refrigeration
system down to -90 to -120°F. The second variation of the low temperature refrigera-
tion system employs a cascade system consisting of one R502 stage and two R503
stages, each set at different temperatures, to bring the temperature down to -125°F.
The third variation uses two cascade refrigeration systems -- the first cascade
system uses R502 and R13 to bring the temperature down to -60°F (approximately
two-thirds of the air stream heat load) and the second cascade system uses R502 and
R503 to bring the final temperature down to -125°F. It is also possible to include
another cascade system using R502, R503,rand R14 to reduce the temperature of the low
temperature refrigeration system down to -195°F, although this arrangement is cur-
rently not in use at a gasoline bul~terminal.
Heat transfer in the low temperature refrigeration portion of the unit is
accomplished through a fin/coil set-up. The initial coil spacing is greater than the
coil spacing at the end of the low temperature refrigeration step because more vapors
and water are frozen out of the air stream at the beginning of the low temperature
refrigeration step. The water and hydrocarbons condensed from the air stream form a
hydrate on the coils which is drained into a decanter during a defrost period.
It is necessary to defrost the Edwards Engineering unit at least once a day. A
brine solution is used to defrost the low temperature refrigeration coils and to keep
the decanter ice-free.
Figure 2-4 shows a typical VC model Edwards Engineering unit and Figure 2-5
shows a typical DE model unit.
The following describes the flows of air, recovered product, and refrigerant in
a typical Edwards Engineering cascade refrigeration system:
o Air/vapor flow -- Vapor-laden air is displaced from the loading racks into a
knock-out tank, then into the precooler coils, passed through the low temper-
ature refrigeration system, and exhausted to the atmosphere.
o Recovered product and condensed water vapor flow -- Condensed water and
hydrocarbons drain from the precooler and the low temperature refrigeration
system into a decanter which separates the water from the hydrocarbons.
Recovered hydrocarbons spillover a weir in the decanter and are pumped,
through a meter, to a storage tank.
2-10
-------
SINGLE CONDENSER
PRECOOLER r- - - ::l
GL YCOL I II
BRINE I I It R-502 CONDENSER
I . Ir='=) I I R-50J DE-SUPERHEATER
I 1'---,
I I I r---' DEFROST
+ I L.:::...-) TANK R502
I I
VAPORS R502
I R502
FROM I I I PRE. LOW- THIPERATURE
DROPOUT TANK I I COOLER REFRIGERATION
I I HYDROCARBON 1
I I
I t DRAIN TO DEFROST
N t I DECANTER BRINE
I
I-' I I R-50J R502
I-' I
I LOW STAGE
I I CONPRESSOR R- 502
I I LOW STAGE
PRECOOLER REFRIGERATION COMPRESSOR
SYSTEM
R50J R-502 EVAPORATOR
PRECOOLER R503 (LIQUID) R-502 CONDENSOR
EVAPORATO (SUCTION) DEFROST
BRINE
R50J EXPANSION
Figure 2-4. Typical Edwards Engineering VC Model Refrigeration System.
-------
SINGLE CO'NDENSER
EFFLUENT
N
I
I-'
N
R-5O'3
LDW STAGE
C0I1PRESSO'R
DEFRO'ST
BRINE
I I
R-5D2 CO'NDENSER
R-5O'3 DE-SUPERHEATER
DEFRO'ST
TANK
FRO'M I
DRO'PO'UT TANIdI
I
I
I
J
I
LO'W TEMPERATURE
REFRIGERATIO'N
HYDRO'CARBO'N
DRAIN TO'
DECANTER
DEFRO'ST
BRINE
R5O'2 (SUCTI O'N)
R5O'3
PRECO'O'LER REFRIGERATIDN SYSTEM
Figure 2-5. Typical Edwards Engineering DE Model Refrigeration System.
R5O'2
R502
R-5O'2 EVAPO'RATO'R
R-5O'2 CO'NDENSO'R
5D2
R5O'2
R-5D2
LO'W STAGE
CO'MPRESSO'R
DEFRO'ST
BRINE
-------
o
Precooler refrigerant and precooler flows -- R22 is the precooler refrigerant.
R-22 is evaporated to cool a glycol/water brine which circulates through the
precooler coils. The temperature of the circulating glycol/water solution is
approximately 32°F which reduces the inlet air stream temperature to 34° to
35°F.
o
Low-stage refrigeration cycle -- The low temperature portion of the refriger-
ation system consists of two stages, the low- and high-stage cycles. R503 is
used as the low stage refrigerant. R503 is evaporated in the low-stage
refrigeration coils; the air temperature in the low stage refrigeration coils
is typically -90 to -120°F. The gaseous R503 is then compressed, condensed,
and circulated back to the low-stage refrigeration coils to complete the
cycle. The low-stage compressor is activated when a temperature increase in
the condenser causes an increase in the suction line pressure beyond a preset
limit.
o
High-stage refrigeration cycle -- The high-stage refrigeration cycle works in
combination with the low-stage cycle to form the cascade refrigeration
system. R502 is the refrigerant used in the high-stage cycle. R502 is
evaporated by R503 and then the gaseous R502 is compressed. The R502 is then
passed through a heat exchanger (used to heat a defrost brine), then is
condensed, and is circulated back to the evaporator to complete the cycle.
Defrost brine cycle - A circulating brine (generally glycol/water or limonene)
picks up heat from a heat exchanger located between the R502 compressor and
R502 condenser (in the high-stage refrigeration cycle). Defrost brine is
circulated through the low-stage coils once or twice a day to defrost the
coils. The system is generally defrosted for 1 to 2 hours during an off-peak
loading period. The circulating defrost brine is also used to prevent ice
from forming in the decanter.
o
The refrigeration system described above consists of a single bank of low and
high-stage compressors. Several of the refrigeration systems in the study consisted
of two banks of compressors. Two banks allow for more flexibility in the operation
of the system and continuous 24 hour a day operation of the control system.
The refrigeration system cycles on and off according to preset high- and low-
stage compressor suction pressure limits -- the refrigeration system is not activated
by activity at the gasoline loading racks. The suction pressure limits can be varied
to produce higher or lower condenser temperatures, thus producing a higher or lower
vapor collection efficiency.
Most of the system components (such as the compressors) and most of the instru-
mentation are contained in a walk-in enclosure. The enclosure is pressurized to
assure that ambient hydrocarbon vapors will not collect in the enclosure and create
an explosion hazard. The enclosure also protects the equipment from exposure to the
elements.
Edwards Engineering equips the units with continuous chart recorders to record
the temperature of the low-stage coils. The temperature is measured at the bottom of
the low-stage coils and, although it is not necessarily the temperature of the air
stream itself, the air temperature is generally within 1°F of the recorder temperature.
2-13
-------
The DE models are also equipped with a manually operated hydrocarbon vapor analyzer.
The vapor analyzer uses activated carbon to measure inlet and outlet hydrocarbon
vapor concentrations on a volume percentage basis.
As mentioned previously, there are two basic models of Edwards Engineering
systems, the VC and DE models. The technical discussion in this section has focused
on the DE model, the newer and most predominant model. The basic difference in the
models is that the DE models expand the refrigerant directly in the low-stage coils;
the VC models use a refrigerant to chill a methylene chloride brine, which in turn
circulates through the low-stage coils. In other words, the VC models use an extra
heat transfer step that was eliminated in the DE model. Edwards Engineering estimates
that because of the elimination of the methylene chloride tank, piping, and pumps
(and several other changes) the DE model uses one-half the power of the VC model,
reduces the capital cost by 50 percent, improves performance, and reduces maintenance.
A high maintenance area on the VC units is the compressors. Edwards Engineering
designed a liquid/suction interchange on the DE models which eliminates compressor
problems seen on the VC models.
Rheem Superior Refrigeration/Absorption System--
There is one Rheem Superior unit included in the study- The units are no longer
produced. The Rheem Superior unit uses chilled gasoline to enhance the absorption of
hydrocarbon vapors into a gasoline spray.
Gasoline vapors enter the unit either by direct displacement from tank truck
loading or from a bladder tank. The gasoline vapors pass through a flame arrestor
and into the bottom of a saturator, where a countercurrent flow of gasoline (at
ambient temperature) raises the concentration of gasoline vapors above the upper
explosive limit for gasoline. Saturated vapors are compressed, passed through heat
exchanger and a liquid/gas separator. The vapors are compressed further in a second
stage compressor. As a result of the two gas compression steps, the vapor stream is
now at approximately 240°F. A series of two heat exchangers reduces the temperature
of the vapor stream to approximately 100°F. The vapor stream then enters the bottom
of an absorber which is packed with pall rings. Chilled gasoline (30-40°F) from a
refrigeration unit flows down through the absorber and vapor laden gas flows up
through the absorber. Vapors from the vapor stream are absorbed into the chilled
gasoline stream and clean air is exhausted at the top of the absorber. Air leaving
the absorber passes through a heat exchanger to cool gases going into the absorber,
and exhausted to the atmosphere. A portion of the clean air stream is dried and used
for instrument air.
The refrigeration unit is a fixed tube type system which uses Freon 22 as the
refrigerant. There are two streams of gasoline through the chiller; one stream is
chilled to 30 to 35°F and the second stream is chilled to approximately 40°F. There
is no need to defrost the chiller because the temperatures are generally above
freezing.
Units installed in colder climates are also equipped with an antifreeze (glycol)
package to prevent the flame arrestor (the first component of the unit) from freezing
as a result of ambient moisture (from tank truck compartments) in the inlet air
stream. The glycol circulates through the system and is dropped out at the flash
tank.
2-14
-------
Figure 2-6 is a schematic diagram of a Rheem Superior system.
Instrumentation on the unit includes: saturator temperature, pressure, and
level; separator pressure and temperature; pressure, temperature, and pump oil levels
in the first and second stage compressors; flash tank and dryer pressures; absorber
pressure and temperature; refrigeration unit temperatures; heat exchanger tempera-
tures; and pump oil levels.
Thermal Oxidation*
There were three thermal oxidation systems in the study-
Thermal oxidation control units burn hydrocarbon vapors, using a pilot flame, to
produce harmless products of combustion. In these systems, no gasoline is recovered.
Thermal oxidation units are most often used at small bulk terminals where the amount
of potential recovered product is relatively small.
While there are several designs of thermal oxidizers in operation, all of them
operate on the same basic principles. Some operate as incinerators, with an enclosed
firebox, while others can be considered "enclosed flares," with the burning taking
place in a stack. Both of these types are simple relative to carbon adsorption and
refrigeration systems, with relatively few component parts to maintain or repair.
The basic steps in the operation sequence are as follows:
When gasoline-dispensing equipment at the loading racks is activated, a combus-
tion air fan starts in order to purge the combustion chamber of any remaining com-
bustible vapors. (However, some systems operate solely on natural draft.) After the
purge period, the pilot fuel (usually propane or fuel oil) is admitted and a spark
igniter lights the pilot flame. At this point vapors from the loading tank truck
enter the unit. A mechanical flame arrestor, water seal, and/or isolating valve is
usually employed at the unit to prevent flame flashback toward the loading racks.
Some installations route the vapors first to a vapor holding tank, and the thermal
oxidizer processes vapors when the vapor holder becomes filled.
AER Thermal Oxidizer System--
There was one AER system in the study. The system is a "straight-through"
system with no intermediate vapor holder. The refractory-lined combustion chamber is
served by a series of burner assemblies. No secondary fuel is consumed in the main
burners; gasoline vapors become the sole source of combustion once they are ignited
by the pil ots.
A system of four valves at the unit is designed to maintain pressure in the
vapor line. Included are two purge valves, an isolation valve, and a safety shutoff
valve. These valves open and close in a preset sequence to maintain safe and effi-
cient combustion in the unit. After any 5-minute. period during which no loading
activity occurs, the valves return to the pre-loading sequence. Thus, a critical
measure of this system's proper operation is the correct configuration of these
valves before, during, and after loading, and the proper sequencing order. Figure
2-7 shows the valve operating sequence for the AER oxidizer installation.
*This section, except for the discussion of NAO systems was taken, essentially
verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline
Terminals, Volume 1, Pacific Environmental Services, December 1983.
2-15
-------
I~-""----"'-\
/ VAPOR "
HOLDER
N
I
......
0'\
GASOLI NE
STORAGE
TANK
COOLING SOLUTION
.- "I HEAT
: COMPRESSOR I EXCHANGER
I L
I
I
I
~
SATURATOR
r-- -,1 ATMOSPHERE
COMPRESSOR
I t
I I
I I r------T----------i
I I I I
I I A1R I
I I DRYER
1 I I I
I I I I I
I I I I JI
I I I I
I I I ~
HEAT I I AIR
EXCHANGE I I
EXC~~~ERctr~jJ----- -
EXPANSION
GLYCOL TANK
AND PUMP
VAPORS .
GASOLINE (OR COOLING SOLUTION. AS NOTED)
Gl YCOl
,
1
I
QWADING 1
RACK ?ll r
FLAME I
ARRESTOR I
I I
Lit
. L___-
35°F
OaF
-------
__qjI.!:.l~R- ----
------
-------
I I
L_____J
REfRIGERATION
UNIT
Figure 2-6. Rheem Superior Refigeration/Absorption System.
-------
to purge 1 i ne
safety shut-off va1ve
/
,
(;.C\
FCJ-~
2~1
cQ--Q
f
purge va 1 ves
,.
,op
to oxidizer
8
I
~
,
I
pressure booster
isolation valve
I
i
butteI"'T! y va 1 ve
,"
t'
from 1 cad; rig
!"ad
PRE-lOADING S~QUENCE
VALVE POSITION OPEN C1.0SaJ
VALVE A I X
VALVE B-1 X
VALVEB-l I X
VALVE C X
LOADING SEQUENCE
VALVE A X
VALVE B-1 I I X
VALV£ B-2 X
VALVE C X
NO-LOADING SEQUENCE
VAL'IE A X
VALVE B-1 X I
VAL 'IE B-2 I X I
VALVE C X
Source:
Mechanical Reliability of Vapor Control Systems at
Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Volume 1, Pacific Environ~
mental Services, December, 1983,
Figure 2-~ AER Thermal Oxidizer System Valve Operating
Sequence.
2-17
-------
McGill Thermal Oxidizer System--
There was one McGill Incorporated thermal oxidizer in the study. This combus-
tion system can be described as an enclosed flare. Vapors from the loading racks
first pass through a hydraulic seal, and then a flame arrestor, before entering the
unit. The vapors flow up a 4-inch vapor tube in the 15-foot elevated combustor and
are ignited by the pilot. A fan at the base of the combustor is used to prevent
smoke formation. Figure 2-8 shows the basic components of the McGill thermal oxi-
dizer system. The operating sequence for the system is outlined below.
On signal that a tank truck is beginning loading, a spark ignites the air-propane
mixture at the pilot. When a thermocouple detects an approximate 300°F temperature,
the ignition system deactivates, the fan starts, and the inlet vapor valve opens,
allowing the pilot to ignite the vapors. Ignition of the pilot must be verified (by
a UV detection system) within a 3-minute period. If the pilot does not light, a
timer will cycle every 20 seconds for 4 minutes in an attempt to light the pilot.
After 4 minutes, the annunciator will sound and a reset button must be pressed in
order for the cycle to be repeated. The system stays on until a loading operation
has not occurred for 30 minutes, at which time the pilot will extinguish, the inlet
vapor valve will close, and the blower will shut off.
NAO Thermal Oxidizer System--
There is one National AirOil Burner (NAO) thermal oxidizer system in the study.
The unit in the current study is an enclosed flame system with three burner nozzles.
Propane (formerly fuel oil) is used to ignite the burners. A fan propels vapors and
propane to the burners. There is a glycol/water seal prior to the forced air fan.
Figure 2-9 shows a typical NAO system.
Lean Oil Absorption*
Lean oil absorption control systems are not in widespread use at bulk terminals.
Only two such systems were found in the study areas, one of which was included in
Phase 1 of the study.
The lean oil absorption system collects gasoline vapors through absorption of
the vapors in IIlean oilll, which in this case is unleaded gasoline from which light
ends (low molecular weight components) have been previously removed. Lean oil is
produced by warming unleaded gasoline from storage, then sending it into a stripper
column where the light ends are flashed, compressed, and returned to storage. The
remaining lean oil is recovered at the bottom of the column. A portion is recycled
through a condenser/reboiler to preheat incoming gasoline, and then is reheated
before returning to the stripper column. The bulk of the lean oil is cooled in a
series of heat exchangers and pumped to three refrigerated storage tanks.
Vapors from tank truck loading accumulate in a vapor holder until a high level
switch activates the control system. Vapors enter the base of the absorber column
and create a pressure differential across an orifice in the inlet line. This creates
a signal proportional to the vapor flow rate, which starts a lean oil pump and
*This section is taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
2-18
-------
Elevated
Combustor
.Pilot, TIC
Stainless Steel
Windscreen
Vapor Tubes
Flame Arrestor
. Contra 1
Panel
Hydraulic
Sea1
Vapors from
Loadi ng Racks
0°00
..
....
Combustor Fan
Propane Supply
Source:
Air Compressor
Mechanical Reliability of Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline
Terminals, Volume 1, Pacific Environmental Services, December
1983.
Figure 2-8. Typical McGill Thermal Oxidizer System.
2-19
-------
N
I
N
C>
VAPOR DISPERSAL RING
VAPOR BURNER
SHELL
INNER LINER
REFRACTORY
WATERPROOF HOUSING
~MAIN BURNER
LIQUID SEAL
AIR DAMPERS
PILOT BURNER
FLAME ARRESTOR
Figure 2-9. Typical NAO Thermal Oxidizer System.
KNock-oUT
TANK
VAPORS
LOADING
RACK
-------
controls the amount of lean oil pumped from storage to the column (about 415 liters
per minute, or 100 gpm). The system generally processes vapors for 24 to 36 hours at
a time. The stripper begins manufacturing more lean oil as necessary to maintain an
adequate supply in storage. Figure 2-10 shows a schematic diagram of the lean oil
absorption system.
PRESENTATION OF EMISSION TESTING DATA
A presentation of emission testing data gathered during the study is shown on
Tables 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 for the McGill, Zink, and Edwards Engineering vapor control
systems, respectively. The tables summarize all the emission test data gathered
during the study. Data was obtained from vendors and terminals participating in the
study. The tables are shown simply to summarize data gathered during the study.
There are many factors which affect emissions from vapor control systems, including
(but not limited to) operational problems, actual gasoline throughput, emission limit
that the unit was designed for, designed gasoline throughput, and system upsets. The
factors affecting emissions should be kept in mind when reviewing the data on Tables
2-1, 2-2, and 2-3.
2-21
-------
Absorber
Column
N
I
N
N
Air-vapor
from
Vapor Holder
Air
Exhaust
Lean Oil
Storage
Recovered
Product
Cooler
Lean Oi 1
Production/
Stripper
Column
Light Ends
to Storage
Heaters
Gasoline
Supply
Source: Mechanical Reliability of Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals. Volume
1, Pacific Environmental Services. December 1983.
Figure 2-10 Southwest Industries Lean Oil Absorption System.
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSION TESTING DATA -- MCGIll CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEMS
Test
Test results Source
Pl ant date (mg/l) of Data
Pl ant 1 2/25/83 37.0 Edwa rds
Pl ant 1 3/15/84 4.9 Edwa rds
Pl ant 2 3/4/83 2.36 Edwards
Pl ant 2 3/15/84 161.37 Edwards
Pl ant 2 4113/84 9.27 Edwa rds
Pl ant 3 4/80 7.20 Re po rt
Pl ant 3 4/28/82 122.34 Report
Pl ant 4 11/17/82 1.116 Edwards
Pl ant 4 7113/83 NAa Edwa rds
Pl ant 4 12/6/83 NAa Edwards
Pl ant 4 2/23/84 9.5 Edwa rds
Pl ant 5 311/78 1.16 Report
Pl ant 5 3/2/78 2.14 Re po rt
Pl ant 5 3/3/85 2.51 Report
Pl ant 6 8/24/82 1.13 Edwa rds
Plant 6 1/17/83 2.52 Edwa rds
Pl ant 7 8/11/83 1.22 Edwards
Pl ant 8 9/3/82 68.6 Edwards
Pl ant 8 12/6/83 26.3 Edwa rds
Pl ant 9 5/25/77 63.40 Repo rt
Pl ant 9 5/26/77 26.42 Re po rt
Pl ant 9 5/27/77 2.64 Re po rt
Pl ant 9 10/24/78 10.80b Re po rt
Pl ant 9 10/25/78 9.51b Report
Pl ant 9 10/26/78 63.40b Report
Plant 10 10/21/83 1.27 Edwa rds
Pl ant 10 12/8/83 47.2 Edwa rds
Pl ant 11 10/22/81 2.1 Edwa rds
Pl ant 11 12/2/82 39.3 Edwards
Pl ant 11 11/8/83 74.1 Edwa rds
Pl ant 12 11112/81 13.92 Edwards
Pl ant 12 11/2/83 7.77 Edwa rds
Pl ant 12 1/24/84 6.39 Edwa rds
Pl ant 13 3/25/82 12.65 Edwards
Pl ant 13 6/23/83 3.9 Edwa rds
Pl ant 14 4/79 11. 99 Re port
Pl ant BB 9/29/80 15.6 Report
Pl ant T 9/26/80 4.53 Report
aUnit malfunction
bOvernight regeneration on 10/23/78
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-2. EMISSION TESTING DATA -- ZINK CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEMS
Test
Test results So urce
Pl ant date ( mg/ 1) of Data
Pl ant 15 10/13/82 6.4 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 15 10/19/82 2.9 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 16 9/26/84 1.9 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 17 6/21/84 1.8 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 18 NA 3.8 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 19 5/20/83 62.9 Edwa rds
Pl ant 20 6/24/81 1.1 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 20 6/25/81 0.52 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 20 6/26/81 0.97 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 21 12/8/83 8.3 Edwards
Pl ant 22 7/20/83 0.2 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 23 10/8/81 0.7 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 24 9/11/81 5.8 Edwards
Pl ant 24 8/26/82 18.9 Edwards
Pl ant 24 7/13/83 9.2 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 24 7/31/84 78 Edwards
Pl ant 25 4/10/85 2.7 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 26 11/4/82 76.3 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 26 7/7/83 1.4 Edwa rds
Pl ant 27 7/16/81 61 Edwards
Pl ant 27 7/15/82 46.9 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 27 6/29/83 2.9 Zi nk/Report
Plant 28 9/16/80 1.16 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 28 9/17/80 0.34 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 28 9/17/80 0.42 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 29 9/26/84 38.40 Report
Pl ant 30 4/7 /83 0.0 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 31 3/2/83 1.0 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 32 8/8/81 1. 97 Zi nk/ Repo rt
Pl ant 33 8/21/81 21. 27 Edwards
Pl ant 33 5/25/82 29.3 Edwa rds
Pl ant 33 5/26/82 48.8 Edwards
Pl ant 33 5/27/82 9.0 Edwards/Zi nk
Pl ant 33 12/9/83 109.95 Edwa rds
Pl ant 33 3/22/84 10.79 Edwa rds
Pl ant 34 7/9/81 1. 56 Edwards
Pl ant 34 8/17/82 103.62 Edwards
Pl ant 34 7/14/83 79.36 Edwa rds
Pl ant 34 7/11/84 0.42 Edwards
Plant 35 1/6/83 6.8 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 36 7/17/81 4.24 Edwa rds
(continued)
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-2. (continued)
Test
Test results Source
Pl ant date (mg/l) of Data
Pl ant 36 8/20/82 104.3 Edwards
Pl ant 36 12/10/82 13.1 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 36 7/12/83 135.02 Edwards
Pl ant 36 10/21/83 10.3 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 37 8/25/82 184.21 Edwa rds
Pl ant 37 12/16/82 57.9 Edwa rds
Pl ant 37 NA 45.73 Edwa rds
Plant 38 5/4/83 9.4 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 38 1/10/85 12.1 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant 39 1/12/83 61.6 Edwards
Pl ant 39 11/17/83 1.6 Edwa rds
Pl ant 40 12/14/82 4.8 Zi nk/Report
Pl ant D 2/16/84 2.3 Re port
Pl ant F 2/24/83 6.1 Report
Pl ant G 2/21/85 1.2 Re po rt
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-3. EMISSION TESTING DATA -- EDWARDS ENGINEERING REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS
Test
Test results Source
Plant date (mg/l ) of Da ta
Pl ant 41 11/20/79 25.0 Edwa rds
Pl ant 42 7/14/81 22.4 Edwards
Pl ant 42 11/3/83 11.53 Edwards
Pl ant 43 10/22/79 22.16 Edwards
Pl ant 44 5/13/81 19.4 Edwards
Plant 45 7/16/81 18.7 Edwards
Pl ant 45 3/2/83 4.5 Edwa rds
Pl ant 46 6/4/81 27.8 Edwards
Pl ant 46 6/11/82 20.16 Edwards
Plant 47 9/11/80 27.8 Edwards
Pl ant 48 9/15/80 27.8 Edwards
Pl ant 49 3/26/81 22.59 Edwards
Pl ant 50 5/21/81 26.8 Edwards
Plant 51 5/19/81 29.42 Edwa rds
Pl ant 52 5/12/81 33.72 Edwa rds
Pl ant 53 5/26/81 33.43 Edwards
Pl ant 54 6/29/82 33.32 Edwards
Pl ant 55 2/19/81 22.68 Edwards
Pl ant 56 7/8/82 28.46 Edwards
Pl ant 57 6/3/82 17.44 Edwa rds
Pl ant 58 6/78 41. 98a Re po rt
Pl ant 58 6/18/78 18.83b Edwards
Pl ant 58 8/26/80 34.63 Re po rt
Pl ant 59 5/29/80 23.88 Edwards
Plant 60 9/17/80 28.1 Edwa rds
Plant 61 6/2/82 16.81 Edwards
Pl ant 62 6/8/82 26.39 Edwards
Pl ant 63 9/9/80 23.8 Edwa rds
Pl ant 64 7/15/82 27.0 Edwa rds
Pl ant 65 6/3/81 30.0 Edwa rds
Pl ant 66 11/5/81 14.1 Edwards
Pl ant 67 10/11/81 21. 68 Edwards
Pl ant 68 1/9/81 28.9 Edwa rds
Plant 69 10/31/81 14.9 Edwards
Pl ant 70 9/22/82 27.6 Edwards
Pl ant 71 11/18/81 25.3 Edwa rds
Pl ant 72 6/24/81 12.9 Edwa rds
Plant 73 5/13/82 34.7 Edwards
Pl ant 74 5/24/83 32.7 Edwa rds
Plant 75 5/28/81 22.0 Edwards
Plant 76 10/10/81 14.6 Edwards
(continued)
2-26
-------
TABLE 2-3. (continued)
Test
Test results Source
Pl ant date ( mg/ 1) 0 f Oa t a
Pl ant 77 11/12/81 16.34 Edwards
Pl ant 78 6/2/81 29.8 Edwa rds
Pl ant 79 3/2/82 20.0 Edwa rds
Plant 80 12/1/83 22.1 Edwards
Pl ant 81 1/9/81 13.5 Edwa rds
Pl ant 82 12/3/82 25.3 Edwa rds
Pl ant 82 11/29/83 126.3 Edwa rds
Pl ant 83 1/9/81 7.2 Edwards
Pl ant 84 8/3/82 21.6 Edwa rds
Plant 84 2/3/83 19.8 Edwa rds
Pl ant 85 2/10/83 23.6 Edwards
Pl ant 86 7/28/82 18.9 Edwa rds
Pl ant 87 6/16/81 19.0 Edwards
Pl ant 88 6/21/81 28.5 Edwards
Plant 89 6/10/81 25.98 Edwa rds
Pl ant 90 2/1/83 27.0 Edwa rds
Pl ant 91 6/17/81 7.5 Edwards
Pl ant 92 7/27/82 13.7 Edwa rds
Pl ant 93 8/4/82 33.9 Edwards
Pl ant 94 4/9/81 24.8 Edwa rds
Pl ant I 9/5/79 58.4 Report
Pl ant I 9/6/79 50.76 Report
Pl ant I 9/7 /79 52.38 Re po rt
Pl ant J 1/11/83 71. 32 Re po rt
Pl ant J 3/84 64.1 Company
Pl ant R 1/12/83 67.2 Report
Pl ant R 1/12/83 68.4 Re port
Pl ant R 1/11/83 69.6 Re po rt
aOuring pipeline delivery.
bOuring truck loading.
2-27
-------
SECTION 3
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD STUDY
DEVELOPMENT OF CHECKLISTS
An important source of data throughout the study has been the daily checklists
of the vapor control system completed by terminal personnel. The checklists contain
the results of the daily surveys performed by terminal personnel and include gauge
and fluid level readings, as well as a discussion of unusual noises, vibrations,
odors or fluid leaks. Several terminals in the study also recorded downtime and
maintenance and repair information on the checklist. If terminal personnel were
completing their own checklist before the study begun, the terminal-designed check-
list was used throughout the study. This was done to minimize the time terminal
personnel would spend learning to fill in a different checklist and because many of
the terminals later send the checklists to corporate personnel and the format of the
checklist could not be changed. In several cases, terminals personnel were not
completing daily checklists and system-specific checklists were developed.
Appendix A contains blank copies of the checklists used in the current study.
VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Periodic visits were made to the terminals to discuss operating and maintenance
problems and to observe the vapor control system in operation. During the site
visits, JACA (or Pacific Environmental Services) personnel completed a checklist
identical to the daily checklists completed by terminal personnel. The results of
the JACA (or Pacific Environmental Services) checklists were compared to checklists
completed by terminal personnel.
AMOUNT OF DATA COLLECTED
Table 3-1 shows the amount of data (in the form of daily checklists) collected
to date from the terminals. Although the first terminal visits for Phase 2 of the
study were conducted in March and April 1985, copies of daily checklists as of
January 1, 1985, if available, were requested from terminal personnel.
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1. NUMBER OF VAPOR CONTROL UNIT INSPECTIONS PERFORMED BY TERMINAL PERSONNEL
Time period
Bulk Type of of checklist No. of days
termi na1 control system Manufacturer ava i 1 abi 1 itya inspected
Pl ant A Carbon adsorption Zi nk _b _b
Pl ant B Carbon adsorption McGi 11 1/1/85 to 8/31/85 224
Pl ant C Carbon adsorption Mc Gill 5/15/85 to 8/9/85 30
Pl ant D Carbon adsorption Zi nk _b _b
Pl ant E Refrigeration/absorption Rheem Superi or 3/21/85 to 7/31/85 107
Plant F Carbon adsorption Zi nk 12/31/84 to 5/22/85 41
Pl ant G Carbon adsorption Zi nk 1/24/85 to 8/29/85 129
Plant H Carbon adsorption McGi 11 1/2/85 to 8/15/85 201c
Pl ant I Refrigeration Edwa rds 4/25/85 to 8/23/85 49
Pl ant J Refri gerat ion Edwa rd s 1/2/85_60 8/30/85 159
Pl ant K Thermal oxidation NAO _b
Pl ant L Refrigeration Edwa rd s 12/31/84 to 8/15/85 129
w Pl ant M Refri gerat ion Edwa rd s 12/31/84 to 5/22/85 93
I
N Pl ant N Carbon adsorption McGill 5/20/85 to 8/7/85 54
Pl ant 0 Refrigeration Edwards 1/1/85 to 8/30/85 210
P1 ant P Carbon adsorption McGill 9/27/82 to 8/5/83 214c
Pl ant Q Thermal oxidation Mc Gill 1/24/83 to 2/25/83 24
Plant R Re fr i gerati 0 n Edwards 10/1/82 to 7/30/83 209
Plant S Thermal oxidation AER Un known NA
Plant T Carbon adsorption McGi 11 11/15/82 to 8/5/83 141
Pl ant U Carbon adsorption McGi 11 11/29/82 to 8/5/83 176
Pl ant V Carbon adsorption McGi 11 11/3/82 to 7/1/83 159
Plant W Carbon adsorption Zi nk 10/4/82 to 8/5/83 128
Pl ant X Refrigeration Edwa rds 11/3/82 to 4/30/83 128
P1 ant Y Carbon adsorption McGill 9/27/82 to 8/11/83 200
Pl ant Z Refr i gerat ion Edwa rds 8/24/82 to 8/13/83 196
Plant AA Carbon adsorption Zi nk 10/25/82 to 8/10/83 72
Plant BB Carbon adsorption McGill 9/27/82 to 8/10/83 156
Pl ant CC Lean oil absorption Southwest Ind. 9/30/82 to 8/12/83 89
aAdditional data regarding downtime may also be available through conversations with terminal personnel.
bCopy of repair log available.
cGenera11y performed checks of system twice dail
-------
SECTION 4
FIELD STUDY DATA AND O&M PROBLEMS
,
The implementation of the daily checklist and site visit procedures discussed in
the previous section led to a complete information package on each terminal and
control unit included the study.
This section of the report describes the terminals used in the study and dis-
cusses operation and maintenance (O&M) problems experienced at the vapor control
systems. The section is divided into subsections by the control technologies studied --
carbon adsorption, refrigeration (including refrigeration/absorption), thermal
oxidation, and lean oil absorption. A summary of O&M problems, specific for each
control technology, follows the discussion of each control technology.
In the study, the term maintenance includes periodic actions by terminal per-
sonnel in an attempt to assure the proper, uninterrupted operation of the system.
Examples of maintenance activities are: lubrication of motors, compressors, or pumps;
changing filters; and maintaining proper fluid levels. The term repair is used only
when a component of the system malfunctions or fails.
Information on O&M problems and subsequent repairs was generally gathered
during one of the periodic site visits to the terminal. Occasionally the information
was written directly on the daily checklists. Other sources of O&M and repair data
include bills from maintenance contractors and maintenance logs. Unfortunately, the
actual amount of downtime of the control system during a failure was generally not
recorded by terminal personnel. Downtime as a result of a failure was generally
estimated by terminal personnel during the site visits to the terminals.
CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEMS
There are a total of sixteen carbon adsorption systems in the study. Of the
sixteen systems, ten are manufactured by MtGill Incorporated and six are manufactured
by John link Company.
Both MtGill and link provide terminal personnel ~th recommended maintenance
procedures. Both companies also recommend daily checks of the control system to
verify that the system is operating as designed.
The terminals included in the studies that use carbon adsorption control
systems are discussed individually in this section. An overall summary of carbon
adsorption O&M problems follows the discussions of the individual terminals.
Plant A -- link Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Plant A is a 100 to 150 million gallon per year gasoline, 50 to 100 million
gallon per year distillate oil terminal. The terminal operates 24 hours per day, 365
days per year and is always staffed; however, the actual dispensing of gasoline is
automated through the use of loading cards by trained and authorized drivers. Plant
personnel could not estimate what percentage of the loadings were from areas with
4-1
-------
vapor balance. The loading facility includes three loading bays with three arms
each. Two of the bays have bottom loading and one has top loading arms. All nine
arms have connections to the vapor recovery unit. The vapor recovery unit is a link
Model No. AA 825-9-8 carbon adsorption system. The unit was designed for a through-
put of 1.5 million gallons per day and an emission level of 30 mg/liter for the six
bottom loading and three top loading arms. The maximum vacuum is 28 inches Hg.
There is a knockout tank between the loading rack and the link unit. The distance
from the vapor recovery unit to the gasoline recycle tank is 200 yards. There are
high level shut off switches at both the loading rack and the knockout tank.
Maintenance Summary--
Maintenance personnel check the unit daily for departures from the link suggested
operating parameters. A malfunction log is maintained and only operating parameters
and departures are recorded. The terminal has a service contract with a company that
performs all maintenance/ repairs plus quarterly and annual inspections. About $400
per month is spent on maintenance. Glycol is checked once a month and changed twice
per year.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
Terminal personnel claim an overall control system availability of more than 99
percent. There have been no major modifications to the unit and the only downtime
recorded thus far has been icing of a strainer which took about fifteen minutes to
clean following the unit shutdown. A faulty switch on the gasoline supply pump has
also caused the unit to shut down. In the event of any type of unit shut down, a
highly visible red light comes on. The plant personnel have not been able to draw
any conclusions about seasonal variation in breakdowns although they felt that severe
cold may pose some problems such as the icing incidents. Plant A experienced a
recurring problem with separator high pressure during January which shut the unit
down on eight occassions. The screen was changed twice, the microswitch float was
repaired, the gasoline supply pump motor was repaired, and a cam switch on the
modulating valve was replaced during the month. Similar problems occurred during
February with two shutdowns due to high pressure from the screen icing up. The
screen was changed twice and a new micro-switch and cam were installed. The only
other operational problems during the study were in April when the supply and return
pumps tripped. A chip was replaced.
Plant B -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
This facility has a gasoline throughput greater than 150 million gallons per
year and an oil throughput of less than 50 million gallons per year. The operating
hours are 24 hours per day, 6.5 days per week, and 52 weeks per year during which it
is always staffed. All vehicles arriving at the loading rack are filled with gaso-
line vapors. The loading rack includes four bays with three arms each for gasoline.
All twelve gasoline arms are bottom loading and connect with the McGill unit. There
are also eight distillate oil arms including four top loading and four bottom loading
arms. The distance from the vapor recovery unit to the gasoline recycle tank is
about 500 feet. The vapor recovery unit is a McGill Hydrotech Model 404 carbon
adsorption unit that was installed in 1976. The unit was designed for 900,000
gallons per day throughput or an instantaneous 6,000 gallons per minute flow. There
is a knockout tank between the loading area and the unit that is equipped with a
high level alert. The unit uses a coal-based carbon, has a fifteen minute per bed
cycle time and a maximum carbon bed vacuum of 27 inches Hg during regeneration.
4-2
-------
Maintenance Summary--
Personnel at this facility perform a checklist inspection of the McGill unit
daily. Table 4-1 is a presentation of the recommended operating parameters for the
McGill unit. A corporate employee performs monthly checks, preventive maintenance,
and all necessary service on the unit and four other company owned units. The
monthly maintenance check involves a glycol check, strainer cleaning, and knockout
tank draining. The estimated availability of the unit is 95%. A spare parts inven-
tory is kept on site. Annual maintenance costs run $10,000-20,000.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
Breakdown and major maintenance that have been experienced on the unit include
the replacement of vacuum pump bearings (3 days), replacement of carbon beds (2
weeks), and several miscellaneous repair instances (2-3 hours average). The unit has
shut itself down several times due to faulty relay switches. No seasonal variation
has been noticed in the occurrence of breakdown at the unit.
Plant C - McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
This facility is less than 50 million gallon (gasoline) per year independently-
owned terminal. The distillate oil throughput is also less than 50 million gallons
per year. The terminal is always staffed and operates twelve hours per day. The
facility has a loading rack with six bbttom loading gasoline arms, one bottom-loading
oil arm, and one top-loading oil arm. The seven bottom-loading arms are controlled
by the vapor recovery unit. All of the loadings come from areas where tank vapors
are displaced into the truck. The terminal also loads some gasoline through a rack
at a neighboring facility. The facility uses a McGill Model 184 carbon adsorption
unit that was designed for a 20 million gallon per year throughput and a 30 mg/liter
emission level. Each bed is on line for 15 minutes and the maximum vacuum is 29 in.
of Hg. There is a 1000 gallon knockout tank between the loading racks and the McGill
unit (about 50 feet from the vapor recovery unit). There are high level shutoff
switches at both the loading rack and the knockout tank.
Maintenance Summary--
Table 4-2 presents the recommended operating parameters for the McGill unit.
This facility does not have a service contract. A local electrician who has some
experience with vapor recovery units performs some of the minor service and mainten-
ance work. There is no one on-site qualified to do any maintenance or service work
on the unit. Before the start of this study, there were no formal daily checklist
procedures used at the facility. As part of this study, plant personnel have agreed
to participate in a daily checklist procedure. Since 1981 the ethylene glycol
has been changed once and carbon was added to the beds once.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
The only major modification to the unit was the replacement of both air vacuum
motors. A different motor was installed because of availability problems. Automatic
shutdowns have occurred due to low gasoline flow and also due to the knockout tank
becoming full. A breakdown of the unit in April and May 1985 involved an accumulated
downtime of over one month. After replacing a switch on the seal flow pump, a reset
switch, and a third unknown switch, a McGill representative located a wiring short
between the panel box and the seal pump. Company personnel felt the problem had been
present since installation. Approximately eight persondays (three of a local elec-
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT B McGILL CARBON SYSTEM --
JANUARY - AUGUST 1985
No. readi ngs
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Pa rameter rangea observations readings range
Hot ai r heater warm? Yes 219 Yes - No 34
Gasoline supply pump pres., 40-88 psig 223 36-92 psig 19
PI-4A
Gasoline supply temp., Max. 85°F 223 36-92 psi 9 20
TI-1A
Gasoline return pump 40-88 psig 224 40-82 psi 9 1
pres., PI-1A
Glycol level 1/3-2/3 221 1/3-2/3 6
Gasoline level 1/10-9/10 221 1/3-2/3 0
Absorber tower gasoline 11-14 psi 9 224 11-22 psi 9 143
pres., PI-3B
Seal pump discharge pres., 34-35 psig 221 31-36 psig 147
PI-3A
Glycol temp. to vacuum Max. 90°F 45 52-98°F 8
pump, TI-1C
Glycol temp. from vacuum Max. 125°F 189 62-114°F 0
pump, TI -2A
Glycol temp. from vacuum Max. 125°F 115 39-84°F 0
pump. TI-2B
Glycol flow rate to vacuum 10 9 pm 192 9-11. 5 gpm 63
pump, P-3FI/FSL1A
Glycol flow rate to vacuum 6 gpm 192 5-6 gpm 11
pump, P-4FI/FSL1B
Clock Meter Range 49811.5-54766.0
Bed temperature, A-top Max. 200°F 5 30-70°F 0
Bed temperature, A-middle 221 20-106°F 0
Bed temperature, A-bottom Max. 200°F 223 20-92°F 0
Bed temperature, B-top Max. 200°F 5 24-70°F 0
Bed temperature, B-midd1e - of 222 20-108°F 0
Bed temperature, B-bottom Max. 200°F 222 20-74°F 0
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Pl ant Band McGi 11 personnel.
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT C McGILL CARBON SYSTEM --
MAY - AUGUST 1985
No. readings
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Pa ramete r rangea observations readings range
Max. vacuum pulled, PI-2A 27 . 5 28 i n Hg 30 27-29.2 in Hg 29
Max. vacuum pulled, PI-2B 27.5-28 in Hg 30 27.5-29 in Hg 28
Hot air heater warm? Yes 30 No, Yes 6
Gasoline supply pump pres., 30 34-45 psig
PI-4A
Gasoline supply temp., Mlx. 850F 30 62-750F 0
TI -1A
Gasoline return pump 30 27-30 psig
pres., PI-1A
Glycol level 1/3-2/3 30 1/2-1/2 0
Gasoline level 1110-9110 30 1110-1/2 0
Absorber tower gasoline 29 13-28 psig
pres., PI-3B
Seal pump discharge pres., 30 48-51 psig
PI-3A
Glycol temp. to vacuum Max. 900F 30 60-800F 0
pump, TI-1C
Glycol flow rate to vacuum 30 7-8.5 gpm
pump, P-4FI/FSL1B
Bed temperature, A-top Mlx. 2000F 30 50-700F 0
Bed temperature, A-middle 30 68-80°F 0
Bed temperature, A-bottom Max. 200°F
Bed temperature, B-top Mlx. 200°F
Bed temperature, B-middle - of
Bed temperature, B-bottom Max. 200°F
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Mc Gi 11 personnel.
4-5
-------
trician and five of a McGill representative) were required to locate the problem.
Carbon was also recently added to the unit.
Plant D -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
The facility has a gasoline throughput between 100 and 150 million gallons per
year. The operating hours are continuous for 365 days per year and the terminal is
always staffed. All of the loadings are from areas where tank vapors are displaced
into trucks. The loading rack consists of three gasoline bays with three bottom
loading arms each and three fuel oil bays with five arms total. One of the fuel oil
arms is bottom loading. A total of ten bottom loading arms (9 gasoline plus 1
kerosene) connect to the vapor recovery unit. Pl ant D uses a Zi nk rtJdel AA709 carbon
adsorption unit which was designed for a 1.2 million gallon per day throughput and a
35 mg/liter maximum emission rate. The Zink unit has a 15 minute operating cycle and
a maximum carbon bed vacuum of 25-27 in. Hg during regeneration. Coal-based carbon
is used. A bladder tank is situated between the rack and the vapor recovery unit.
Mai ntenance Summary--
The maintenance supervisor completes a monthly checklist using the complete Zink
checklist format. He also spot checks the unit several times daily. The terminal
also has a service contract with a company who performs annual and quarterly mainten-
ance inspections. The annual maintenance costs at Plant D run about $8,000 per year.
Glycol is changed twice a year and is tested weekly by the maintenance supervisor.
Concentrations of 50 percent in the winter and 85 percent in the summer are maintained, , ,
The maintenance supervisor estimated that he spends an average of 1.5 hours per day
checking the unit. A limited number of spare parts are kept on site. The service
contractor is responsible for the remaining needed parts. The maintenance supervisor
keeps a maintenance log, an ethylene glycol log, and a file of daily checklists.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
The terminal personnel estimate the overall avaibility of the unit to be 95
percent. There have been no major modifications to the unit. Downtimes have been
attributed to pump cavitation at startup and a 20 day shutdown stemming from a
switchloading episode.* The carbon beds became over loaded with toluene and benzene
vapors and had to be flushed with water. The unit has an automatic high temperature
shutoff set of 200°F for the bottom bed and 150°F for the top of the bed.
Between June and August 1985 the unit was down for 5 minutes to replace a
solenoid valve.
Plant F -- Zink Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Plant F has a gasoline throughput of less than 50 million gallons per year and a
distillate throughput between 100 and 150 million gallons a year. The terminal
operates 24 hours a day for 52 weeks a year and is staffed from 5:30 am until 5:30
*When a tank truck is loaded with a different product than the previous load, the
industry calls this loading a switchload. For example, if a carrier loads distillate
fuel into a tank truck that previously contained gasoline, the carrier has switch-
loaded from gasoline to distillate fuel.
4-6
-------
pm. There is a total of 20 loading arms
arms, 1 bottom loading fuel oil arm, and
loading arms (gasoline and fuel oil) are
system, model number A355-6-7. The unit
AirOi1 burner.
at the facility -- 6 bottom loading gasoline
13 top loading diesel oil arms. The bottom
connected to a link carbon adsorption
was installed in 1982 and replaced a National
The carbon beds are set on an 18 minute regeneration cycle. There is a knockout
tank between the loading racks and the recovery unit. There are high level floats at
the loading racks and the knockout tank. The link unit and the gasoline recycle tank
(a leaded gasoline tank) are separated by a distance of approximately 600 to 1000
feet. Only loading rack vapors go to the control system; none of the tanks are
connected to the unit. The maximum carbon bed vacuum during regeneration is 27
inches of mercury. The unit is designed to handle distillate emissions and to
achieve a 30 mg/1 emission standard under a maximum gasoline throughput of 32,000
gallons per hour.
Maintenance Summary--
An outside service contractor performs a thorough
Terminal personnel perform a weekly check of the unit.
been performed by terminal personnel. There have been
unit since installation.
check of the unit quarterly.
All maintenance to date has
no major modifications to the
The terminal has never replaced a carbon bed or added carbon to a bed.
Terminal personnel estimate that they spend 10 hours a week and about $10,000
per year (includes maintenance operators time) maintaining the unit. The spare parts
inventory at the terminal includes a complete computer chip board, all computer
chips, gauges, temperature probes and valve parts.
Table 4-3 shows the recommended operating parameters for the control system and
summarizes the data from the checklists completed by terminal personnel. The check-
list readings performed by JACA personnel during terminal visits agree with the
readings performed by terminal personnel.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
Maintenance performed on the unit over the years has
includes the following: computer chip replacements, float
minor MOV problems.
been for minor problems and
valve replacements, and
Between January and August 1985, the terminal experienced the following problems:
o January 1985 -- Float level in separator failed. Unit down for approximately
20 hours.
o May 1985 -- Replace a relay computer chip -- a relay was down on the MOV
sequence. Unit down for 2 hours.
o June-August 1985 -- Replaced a vacuum pump. Unit down for 4 hours.
Plant G -- link Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Plant G has a distillate throughput of less than 50 million gallons per year as
well as a gasoline throughput of less than 50 million gallons per year. There is a
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-3.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT F ZINK CARBON UNIT --
JANUARY - MAY 1985
No. readi ngs
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Pa ramete r rangea observations readi ngs range
Bed temperature, TI 101 Max. 200°F 38 50-90°F 0
Bed temperature, TI 102 40 50-90°F 0
Bed temperature, TI 103 39 50-100°F 0
Bed temperature, TI 104 39 50-110°F 0
Bed temperature, TI 201 Max. 200°F 41 50-90°F 0
Bed temperature, TI 202 41 50-95°F 0
Bed temperature, TI 203 41 50-96°F 0
Bed temperature, TI 204 41 50-100°F 0
Bed vacuum PI 101 Max. 27 in Hg 41 0-27 1
Bed vacuum PI 201 Max. 27 in Hg 40 0-27 0
Glycol inlet to pump, Max. 105°F 41 5-80°F 0
temp, TI 401 5 psib
Glycol inlet to pump. 35 5-70°F 2
pres., PI 401
Outlet of heat exchanger Max 100°F 40 40-78°F 0
temp, TI 303
Outlet of heat exchanger 14 psi 39 14-75 psi 3
pres., PI 302
Glycol temp from pump to Max 135°F 41 60-92°F 0
separator, TI 402
Separator 1 evel 1/4-1/2 glass 35 O.K. 0
Gasoline pres. to top of 10-12 psig 38 8-14 psi 3
absorber, PI 301
Glycol temp. in separator, Max 135°F 39 22-93°F 0
TI 301
Gasoline temp. in separator, Max 135°F 41 40-78°F 0
TI 302
Gasoline outlet pres. 37 43-45° F
from separator, PI 601
Gasoline supply pres., 39 40-50 psi
PI 701
Gasoline supply temp., Max 1000F 38 34-690F 0
TI 701
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant F and Zink personnel
b5 psi at 27 in. Hg.
4-8
-------
total of 7 loading arms at the terminal -- 3 bottom loading gasoline arms, 3 bottom
loading fuel oil arms and 1 top loading fuel oil arm. The terminal operates 24 hours
per day for 52 weeks a year.
All of the gasoline loading arms and three of the fuel oil loading arms are
connected to a Zink vapor recovery unit. The unit was started-up in December 1984,
with debugging and testing occurring in February and March 1985. The Zink unit
replaced a McGill system which the terminal had outgrown. The capital cost of the
unit was approximately $160,000; the installation cost was $130,000. Since this was
a replacement unit, most of the associated equipment (such as piping and electrical
power/control systems) was already in place.
There are high level shut-off switches at the loading racks. The knockout tank,
located between the loading racks and the link unit, does not have a shut-off switch,
but a pump is activated if the liquid reaches a certain level. The link unit and the
gasoline recycle tank are located approximately 100 feet apart. The carbon beds are
on a 15 minute rotation cycle. The beds contain a wood-based carbon. During the
winter months, terminal personnel run the unit continuously to prevent any cold
weather freeze-ups.
The unit was designed to meet a 35 mg/l emission level at an annual gasoline
throughput of 38 million gallons.
Maintenance Summary--
Terminal personnel perform a daily check of the unit. Maintenance is performed
by a local contractor. No spare parts are kept at the terminal; the service contractor
maintains a spare parts inventory. Terminal personnel estimate that they will spend
approximately $10,000 per year for maintenance of the recovery unit.
Table 4-4 shows the recommended operating parameters for
summarizes the data from the checklists completed by terminal
performed by JACA personnel during terminal visits agree with
terminal personnel.
the control system and
personnel. The readings
the readings made by
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
The first several months of 1985 were the debugging period for the link unit.
The unit was down sporadically for various start-up related problems; the most common
being MOV (motor operated valve) related sequencing problems. The MOV sequencing
problem was corrected sometime in April 1985. There were two other maintenance
problems with the unit during April and May 1985. A coupling on a vacuum pump (on a
carbon bed) failed causing a several day shut down. Shortly after the coupling was
repaired and the unit was back on-line, an actuator on one of the carbon beds broke.
A new actuator had to be built. The unit was down between April 29 and May 6, 1985.
Between June and August 1985 there were several minor problems with the unit: a fail
safe valve was replaced and the unit.was down for 45 minutes; the unit was down for 2
hours to reallign the vacuum pump and coupling; there was an actuator failure causing
a 2 hour downtime -- a computer chip was replaced; and the unit was reset twice (no
downtime).
Plant H - McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
This facility is a 100 to 150 million gallon per year terminal. The terminal
operates 24 hours per day and is always staffed. The loading rack has twelve bottom
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-4.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT G ZINK CARBON UNIT --
JANUARY - AUGUST 1985a
No. readi ngs
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Parameter rangeb obse rvati ons readings range
Outlet of heat exchanger 127 36-102°F
temp, TI 303
Outlet of heat exchanger 9-14 psi 9 127 0-16.5 psig 36
pres., PI 302
Separator 1 evel 1/4-1/2 of glass 127 1/4-7/8 4
Gasoline outlet from 127 0-37 psi 9
separator pres, PI 601
Gasoline supply pres., 127 0-35 psi 9
PI 701
Glycol level 1/4-1/2 of glass 127 0- 3/4 6
Gl yc 0 1 temp. i n separator, 127 38-114°F
T I 301
Gasoline supply temp., Max. lO00F 127 lO00F 0
TI 701
Gasoline pres. to top of 10-12 psi 9 127 0-11 psig 83
absorber, PI 301
Bed vacuum, PI 101 0-27 i n Hg 127 0-27.5 in. 2
Bed vacuum, PI 201 0-27 in Hg 126 0-28.5 in. 2
Glycol temp. from pump Max. 135°F 127 48-116°F 0
to separator, TI 402
Glycol inlet to pump pres., 5-12 psi gC 127 5-14 psig 3
PI 401
aUnit in debugging period January - March 1985.
bSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant G and Zink personnel.
CTypically 5 lb at 27 in. Hg.
4-10
-------
loading gasoline arms, one bottom loading fuel oil arm, and one top loading fuel oil
arm. Oil products arrive by pipeline. The vapor recovery unit is a M:Gill Model No.
116-2 carbon adsorption unit that was installed in 1977. It was designed for a
maximum 500,000 gallon per day throughput. Terminal personnel estimate 99.9% of the
trucks arriving at the loading rack are filled with vapors. A knockout tank is
located underground about fifteen feet from the vapor recovery unit. The distance
from the vapor recovery unit to the gasoline recycle tank is about 70 yards. There
are overflow shutoff switches at both the loading rack and the knockout tank.
Maintenance Summary--
Personnel at this facility perform checks on the system twice daily. Table 4-5
is a list of recommended operating parameters for the unit and a summary of daily
checks of the unit performed between January and August 1985. Maintenance duties on
this unit and four other company-owned vapor recovery units are by a "roving" mainten-
ance man who operates out of one of the other terminals. The unit receives a thor-
ough quarterly check, a glycol change twice a year and other service as needed.
Carbon had recently been added to the beds (for the first time). There is no outside
service contractor. Spare parts are not kept at the terminal. The terminal repre-
sentative1s estimate of maintenance costs for this plant is $1000-$1500 per year.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
Plant personnel reported that the unit had a very high percent availability.
The unit will upon occasion shut itself down, although this is usually due to a low
glycol level. The unit was shut down on five occasions during June, July, and August
because of low seal flows for a total of 24-1/2 hours.
Plant N -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Plant N is an independent oil company and has a gasoline throughput of less than
50 million gallons per year. There is a total of 6 top loading arms at the facility
-- 3 gasoline loading arms, 1 fuel oil loading arm, 1 diesel loading arm, and 1
kerosene loading arm. The terminal operates 24 hours a day for 52 weeks per year and
is staffed from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays. Gasoline is brought to the terminal
by tank trucks.
The terminal uses a McGill unit (Model No. 94 DT) to control vapor emissions.
The unit was installed in 1981. All gasoline loading (from storage tanks to trucks)
and unloading (from tanker trucks to storage tanks) operations are connected to the
McGill unit except for the loading of premium gasoline. The M:Gill unit is approxi-
mately 75 yards from the gasoline tanks.
There is a knockout tank located between the loading racks and the control
system. There are high level shut off switches at the loading racks and the knockout
tan k .
The unit contains a coal based carbon. The beds are set on a 13.5 minute
process time and a 1.5 minute equalization time.
Ma i ntenance Summary--
Until May 1985, all maintenance on the unit was performed in-house. However, as
a result of an extended sick leave of the maintenance operator, Plant N retained a
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-5. . SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT H McGIll CARBON SYSTEM --
JANUARY - AUGUST 1985
Parameter
Hot air heater warm?
Gasoline supply temp.,
TI-1A
Gasoline return pump
pres., PI-1A
Glycol level
Gasol i ne 1 evel
Absorber tower gasoline
pres., PI-3B
Seal pump discharge pres.,
PI-3A
Glycol temp. to vacuum
pump, TI-1C
Glycol flow rate to vacuum
pump, P-3FI/FSl1A
Bed temperature, A-top
Bed temperature, A-middle
Bed temperature, A-bottom
Bed temperature, B-top
Bed temperature, B-middle
Bed temperature, B-bottom
Recommended
rangea
No. of
observationsb
Range of
read i ngs
Yes
Max 85°F
53
119
246
Yes-No
30-89°F
40-45 psig
30-60 psig
1/3-2/3
1/10-9/10
9 psig
154
250
4-18 psig
0-7 psig
Max 90°F
20-91°F
251
242
6 gpm
Max. 200°F
0-10 gpm
20-102°F
20-100°F
20-100°F
0-115°F
20-97°F
20-85°F
237
252
252
246
252
250
Max. 200°F
Max. 200°F
Max. 200°F
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant H and McGill personnel.
bReadings are made twice daily.
4-12
No. read i ngs
outside
recommended
range
15
13
100
115
1
237
o
o
o
o
-------
maintenance contractor in May 1985 to perform maintenance on the unit as well as a
semi-annual inspection of the unit.
Terminal personnel began performing daily checks of the McGill unit in May 1985
as a result of this study. Table 4-6 shows the recommended ranges of the operating
parameters and summarizes the data gathered by plant personnel.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
Between April 1985 and August 1985 there was no downtime
the absence of the maintenance operator, maintenance, repair,
from January through March 1985 could not be determined.
at the unit. Due to
and system downtime
Plant P -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Vapors are controlled by a McGill carbon adsorption system, model number AT-94,
which was installed in 1980.
Maintenance Summary*--
A very basic maintenance program is applied to the system at Plant P. The
glycol system is checked periodically; in November 1982, the system was flushed and
refilled with a solution of the proper specific gravity. In order to prevent con-
densation at key electrical components, an electric heater and thermostat were
installed at the control panel and heating coils were installed in the motor operated
valves prior to the study. These heaters were routinely inspected by Plant P personnel.
In January 1983, carbon was added to both beds (the first addition since startup
in April 1980). Approximately 900 pounds were added to bed A and 600 pounds were
added to bed B. At this time, probes to monitor temperatures at several points were
install ed in the beds, and a Mi dwest Test Ki t was used to adjust operati ng pressures
in the gasoline circulation system. Personnel from McGill came into the terminal for
1 or 2 days in June 1983 to make adjustments to the system.
Table 4-7 summarizes the typical control system operating parameters and high
and low values observed during the Phase 1 of the study.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
The system operate~ well throughout the period of the study. The only problem
which affected the unit's operation involved motor operated valve V2B (regeneration).
This valve stuck in position, preventing bed B from cycling properly. It was taken
off line, greased, and returned to service.
Plant T -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
The truck loading facilities at Plant T have a throughput of 100 to 150 million
gallons per year. All fuel is bottom loaded. Emissions are controlled by a McGill
carbon adsorption system, model number AT-94, which was installed in 1980. There is
a knockout drum between the loading racks and the vapor control unit.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-6.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT N MCGIll SYSTEM --
.MAY - AUGUST 1985
Pa ramete r
Air heater warm?
Gasoline supply pump pres.,
PI-4A
Gasoline supply pump temp.,
TI-1A
Gasoline return pump pres.,
PI-1A
Gasoline level, lG-1B
Glycol level, lG-1A
Absorber gasoline pres.,
PI-3B
Seal pump discharge pres.,
PI-3A
Glycol Temp. to vacuum pump,
TI-1C
Glycol temp. from vacuum pump,
TI-2A
Gas temp. out, TI-1B
Bed Temperatures, TI-3A
TI - 3B
TI-3C
T I - 3D
TI - 3E
T I - 3F
Flow indicator, FI/FSl/-1A
Recommended
rangea
No. of
observations
Range of
readings
Yes
Gauge
broken
58-80°F
38-44 psi
1/4-1/2
1/8-1/2
12-15 psig
42.5-47 psi
54-90°F
70-109°F
58-84°F
50-110°F
50-110°F
60-90°F
50-145°F
55-115°F
60-85°F
3.5-4 gpm
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant N and McGill personnel.
Yes
53
Max. 85°F
54
53
1/10-9110
1/3 -2/3
10.7 psig
53
45
54
54
Max. 90°F
53
53
Max. 125°F
Max. 200°F
Max. 200°F
Max. 200°F
Max. 200°F
Max. 200°F
Max. 200°F
5gpm
53
51
51
52
53
54
54
47
4-14
No. readi ngs
outside
recommended
range
o
o
o
1
54
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
47
-------
TABLE 4-7.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT P MCGIll SYSTEM --
SEPTEMBER 1982 - AUGUST 1983
Typical
value
low
value
Hi gh
value
Pressures (psig)
Gasoline supply
Gasoline return
Absorber supply
Glycol seal
Vacuum pump
Carbon bed vacuum
Bed A
Bed B
( in. Hg) b
48 39 57
25 20 50
29. 14a 12 35
48 44 52
27.5 24.4 31
27.5 28.2
27.5 28.2
Temperatures (OF)
Gasoline in
Gasoline outC
Glycol supply
Glycol return
Li ne A
Li ne B
2 84
39 86
9d 42 101
9d 43 97
5.0 5.0 5.0
Glycol flow rate (gpm)e
aTypical value was 29 psig until 1/24/83. and 14 psig after this date.
bTypical values shown are approximate maxima during most regeneration cycles.
cThis parameter was not recorded; thus. no temperature differential is
s ho wn .
dTypical values shown are temperature differences between the glycol sup-
plied to the vacuum pumps and the glycol in the two return lines.
eAll values recorded for both glycol flow rotameters were 5.0.
4-15
-------
Maintenance Summary*--
Plant T implements a fairly extensive maintenance program at its terminals due
in part to the relatively harsh winter climate often experienced in the area. In
preparation for winter, the specific gravity of the glycol-water solution is adjusted
as necessary to an 80 percent solution. During extremely cold weather (below -10°F),
the system is placed in the HAND mode so that it runs continuously. This is also
done at least every 60 days, on holidays, or slow weekends to "polish" the carbon
beds.
The buildup of a waxy deposit on the glycol screen makes cleaning of the screen
necessary every 1 to 3 weeks. The level of activated carbon in the beds is checked
periodically, and topped off as necessary.
Table 4-8 summarizes typical, high, and low operating system parameters observed
during Phase 1 of the study.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
The system experienced a few minor problems during the study. In October 1982,
a motor operated valve at the inlet to one carbon bed had to be realigned when the
valve was failing to reposition itself properly. In November, the pressure switch in
the purge air system was replaced. In December, the system shut down due to low
glycol flow. In June 1983, a check valve at the vacuum pump was replaced.
In an effort to enhance system collection efficiency, a heating coil was installed
in the outlet vapor line at the top of the absorber column (to prevent condensation
in the line and potential saturation of the carbon beds).
Plant U -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Plant U bottom loads gasoline, Jet A fuel, and diesel fuel. The terminal has a
throughput of less than 50 million gallons per year of gasoline. The terminal is
staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Vapors are controlled by a McGill carbon
adsorption system, model number AT-184. Each bed has a process time of 13.5 minutes
and an equalization time of 1.5 minutes. The unit was started-up in 1982.
Maintenance Summary*--
At Plant U, the glycol system strainer is checked weekly and cleaned as necessary.
In November 1982, the glycol system was drained and refilled with a 60 percent glycol
solution. The level gauge was also cleaned at this time. Approximately once per
month, the covers of the motor operated valves are removed, the actuators are air
dried, and a drying agent is sprayed on the actuator assemblies. Twice per year, a
check is made of the carbon level in the beds, and carbon is added as necessary. A
check in February 1983 showed that no carbon addition was necessary.
Table 4-9 shows the typical operating parameters observed during the study.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-8.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT T MCGIll SYSTEM --
NOVEMBER 1982 - AUGUST 1983
Typical
value
low
value
Hi gh
value
Pressures (psig)
Gasoline supply
Ga so 1 i ne ret ur n
Absorber supply
Glycol seal
Vacuum pump
Carbon bed vacuum
Bed A
Bed B
(in. Hg)a
44 35 46
42 40 48
12 12 12
53 50 55
28 28 28
27.0 27.7
27.8 28.8
Temperatures (OF)b
Gasoline in
Gasoline out
Glycol in
Glycol out
Glycol flow rate (gpm)
8 27 76
29 83
3 34 82
40 90
5.5 5.5 5.5
aTypical
cyc 1 es .
bTypi ca 1
low and
values shown are approximate maxima during most regeneration
values shown are common temperature changes across heat exchanger.
high values reflect the effect of ambient temperature.
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-9.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST PATA FROM
PLANT U MCGILL SYSTEM -- .
NOVEMBER 1982 - AUGUST 1983
Typical
value
Low
value
Hi gh
value
Pressures (psig)
Gasoline supply
Gasoline return
Absorber supply
Glycol seal
Vacuum pumpa
Carbon bed vacuum
Bed A
Bed B
(in. Hg)b
36 34 60
36 25 45
13 13 14
48 41 50
27.2 28.5
27.2 28.0
Temperatures (OF)C
Ga so 1 i ne in
Gasoline out
Glycol in
Glycol out
Glycol flow rate (gpm)d
9
40
43
57
40
9
85
87
101
90
9
2
12
aThis parameter was not recorded.
bTypical values shown are approximate maxima during most regeneration
cyc 1 es .
CTypical values shown are common temperature changes across heat exchanger.
Low and high values reflect the effect of ambient temperature.
dAll flow rate values recorded were 9 gpm.
4-18
-------
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
The first breakdown of the carbon system at Plant U occurred on January 4, 1983,
when the actuator motor and gear drive unit at the top of bed B malfunctioned. A
limit switch in the actuator failed, allowing the motor to continue turning until a
gear was broken. The problem was further complicated when the actuator was misad-
justed in the repair attempt and a second gear was broken. The system was not put
back on line until January 28.
In March 1983, two plastic fan blades which had broken in pump motors were
replaced.
In April 1983, the gear drive broke on the valve actuator at the top of bed A,
causing the system to be shut down for 9 days.
On June 27, 1983, a blown relay and a defective limit switch shut the system
down for 3 days, until they were replaced.
It can be seen that by far the major problem area with the Plant U system has
been the rotary actuators, and more specifically the limit switches. The terminal now
stocks an entire spare actuator assembly to minimize the chance of excessively long
downtimes reccurring.
Plant V - McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Three oil companies operate out of Plant V and share stock in common. Diesel
fuel and three grades of gasoline are bottom loaded at the facility. Product is
received through two pipelines. The terminal is staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days a
week. Gasoline throughput is between 100 and 150 million gallons per year. The
terminal can load through four arms simultaneously.
Vapors are controlled by a McGill carbon adsorption system which was installed
in 1981. There is a 2000 gallon knock-out tank between the loading rack and the
McGill unit. Vapor check valves to prevent vapors from passing through tank trucks
have not been installed.
Maintenance Summary*--
The level of maintenance applied to the carbon adsorption system at Plant V can
be categorized as minimal. The primary area of necessary maintenance involved the
glycol circulation system. It was found that frequent additions of glycol-water
solution were necessary to maintain the proper levels, especially in warmer weather.
The following additions were made during the study:
October 1982 - 30 gal.
April 1983 - 30 gal.
May 1983 - 66 gal.
June 1983 - 15 gal.
July 1983 - 20 gal.
August 1983 - 15 gal.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-19
-------
Also, the glycol system was flushed and refilled in April 1982, after the solution
had turned cloudy.
The only other maintenance activity reported was the addition of carbon to both
beds in October 1982.
Table 4-10 summarizes the data collected during the study.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
Two repair items are noted on Plant V maintenance and repair log for the period
before the study began. In September 1982, the tripping mechanism in the main
breaker failed (no mention of downtime). In July 1982, a 3-way solenoid valve
failed, and was repaired by replacing the coil (also no mention of downtime). Also,
both vacuum pumps had to be rebuilt (under warranty) shortly after startup.
During the initial inspection (by Pacific Environmental Services) in 1982, it
was noted that the hour meter on the unit was nonfunctional. This meter was replaced
on November 8, 1982.
The system was shut down for 48 hours on November 27-28, 1982, after the level
switch for the gasoline in the separator tanks went out of adjustment and initiated
automatic shutdown. The problem was diagnosed and corrected on November 29.
The system was manually shut down on January 24, 1983, when excessive quantities
of impurities were found in th~ pipeline receipts to the gasoline storage tank
serving as a reservoir for the carbon adsorption system. This tank could not be
cleaned immediately, and the system was down until February 4. The gasoline filters
were cleaned and system operation was restored.
A short circuit in the purge air heater caused it to be nonoperational during
March 1983. The problem was corrected on March 28.
Plant W -- Zink Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Vapors are controlled by a Zink carbon adsorption system, model number 355-9-6.
The unit was installed in 1981.
Maintenance Summary*--
In addition to the personnel who handle the daily maintenance of the system at
Plant W, the terminal employs a technician to service the carbon system. This
technician, whose specialty is electrical and electronic troubleshooting, is called
when problems cannot be solved by local personnel. No specific routine maintenance
practices were reported by Plant W. Terminal personnel reported that no problems
with biological growth in the glycol system had been experienced.
Table 4-11 summarizes the daily checklist data gathered during the study.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-20
-------
TABLE-4-10.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT V MCGILL SYSTEM --
NOVEMBER 1982 - JULY 1983
Typi cal
value
Low
value
Hi gh
value
Pressures (psig)
Gasoline supply
Gasoline return
Absorber supply
Glycol seal
Vacu urn pump 1
Carbon bed vacuum
Bed A
Bed B
(in. Hg)b
43, 55a 39 58.5
44 40 47
12 9.5 15
52 48 58
26.8 24 27.5
27.2 28.0
27.2 28.0
Temperatures (OF)
Gasoline in
Ga so 1 i ne outC
Glycol supply
Glycol return
Li ne A
Li ne B
Glycol flow rate (gpm)
Li ne A
Li ne B
41 90
52 119
10 55 124
14 50 126
7 5 8
7 5 9
aTypical value was 43 psig until 1/24/83, and 55 psig after this date.
bTypical values shown are approximate maxima during most regeneration
cyc 1 es .
cThis parameter was not recorded; thus, no temperature differential is
shown.
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-11.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT W ZINK SYSTEM --
OCTOBER 1982 - AUGUST 1983
Typical
value
Low
value
Hi gh
value
Pressures (psig)
Gasoline supply
Gasoline return
Absorber supply
Glycol seal
Vacuum pump
Carbon bed vacuum
Bed A
Bed B
(in. Hg)a
38 35 41
39 30 41
10 8 13
5 5 5
27 26 27
27.5 28.0
27.5 27.8
Temperatures (OF)b
Ga so 1 i ne in
Gasoline out
Glycol supply
Glycol return
7
10
46
52
52
61
88
95
98
120
aTypi eal
eycl es.
bTypical
Low and
values shown are approximate maxima during most regeneration
values shown are common temperature changes across heat exchanger.
high values reflect the effect of ambient temperature.
4-22
-------
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
Most of the problems experienced at the terminal involved the electrical/elec-
tronic system and the motor operated valves. In October 1982, the main breaker for
the gasoline return pump failed, shutting down the system for 8 hours. Later in the
month, a fuse blew on the main circuit board which controls the system. Prior to the
study, several periods of downtime were caused by power outages in the vicinity of
the terminal.
In March 1983, MOV sequence faults caused automatic shutdowns on several occa-
sions. The system was down continuously from May 9 to June 27 because of the same
type of sequence faults combined with a power failure in the system.
In April 1983, a switch for a motor operated vent valve and a vacuum pump
coupler were replaced. The system was down for 2 days while the glycol system was
being flushed.
In July 1983, a problem with the system's microprocessor shut down the system
until a new one could be installed (July 4-15). The system went down again on July
18 when the gasoline level control valve in the separator tank failed. A new diaphragm
was installed and the valve seat was repaired, allowing the system to resume operation
on July 26.
Plant W has begun replacing the original gauges with oil-filled gauges on its
carbon systems to dampen the vibrations caused by pumps and motors. They found that
gauges were being damaged and becoming inaccurate in certain areas of the unit, and
that many readings were difficult to take because the needles were shaking excessively.
Plant Y -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Vapors are controlled by a model number DT184 McGill carbon adsorption system.
The unit was installed in 1981.
Maintenance Summary*--
Routine maintenance practices for this system during the study were few. A
principal practice involved periodic cleaning of the glycol and gasoline strainers
because of problems with partial blockage of the gasoline flow and clouding of the
glycol level gauge. In addition, the level of activated carbon in the two beds is
checked twice per year, and topped off as necessary (carbon drops due to gradual
pulverization of the carbon during system cycling).
Table 4-12 summarizes the typical operating parameters for the system during the
st udy .
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
The only major replacement between 1981 and 1983 was the replacement of the
glycol seal pressure pump. Most of the operational problems with the system were
related to irregularities in the glycol and gasoline flows. Automatic shutdowns were
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-12. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT Y MCGIll SYSTEM --
SEPTEMBER 1982 - AUGUST 1983
Typical low Hi gh
Pa rameter value value va 1 ue
Pressures (psig) 37 45
Gasoline supply 40
Gasoline return 44 32 47
Absorber supply 11 10 13
Glycol seal 44 43 46
Vacuum pump 25 13 28
Carbon bed vacuum
(in. Hg)a
Bed A 27.5 28.5
Bed B 28.0 29.0
Temperatures (OF)b
Gasoline in 28 72
5-7
Gasoline out 30 80
Glycol in 28 80
5-7
Glycol outC 34 78
Glycol flow rate (gpm) 11 10 12.5
aTypical values shown are approximate maxima during most regeneration
cycles. Values were not always recorded during peak vacuum.
bTypical values shown are common temperature changes across heat ex-
changer. low and high values reflect the effect of ambient temperture.
cThis value was not recorded after March 2, 1983.
4-24
-------
caused by low absorber gasoline level and low flow to the glycol seal pump. The
system was restored to normal operation in these instances without any repairs being
necessary. In early August 1983, the unit was shutting down with a diagnostic for
improper regeneration. A relay was replaced and normal operation was restored. A
few other system shutdowns are recorded on the checklists without causes being
listed. Operation was restored manually in these cases without repairs.
The only other reported repair involved a replacement of switching coils
controlling both the vacuum pump and glycol seal pump (March 1, 1983). Considerable
downtime had been experienced in January and February due to this fault. An elec-
trical contractor was required to make these repairs.
Plant AA -- Zink Carbon Adsorption System
~te Description--
Vapors are controlled by a Zink carbon adsorption system, model number AA-261-7-7S.
The unit was installed in 1981.
Ma i ntenance Summary*--
Most of the maintenance efforts at Plant AA are concerned with an attempt to
keep the proper quantity of glycol solution in the system and to minimize biological
growth in the solution. A so-called "fungus test II for biological growth was period-
ically performed on the glycol solution, and a biocide ~as added as required. The
system was also topped off with glycol-water solution as necessary. This maintenance
was performed during the study as follows:
November 1982 - 10 gal. (fungus test)
December 1982 - 13 gal. (fungus test and biocide)
January 1983 - 10 gal.
February 1983 - 10 gal. (fungus test and biocide)
May 1983 - (fungus test, biocide, and clean strainer
June 1983 - 6 gal. glycol
only)
The glycol/gasoline heat exchanger is removed and steam cleaned periodically;
this was performed April 4, 1983, and again in July. A check of the bed carbon
levels on July 5 showed them to be okay.
Table 4-13 summarizes the daily checklist data gathered during the study.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
In the early phase of the system operation, some electrical problems, such as
burned out rotary actuators on motor operated valves, were encountered. Since these
early problems, Plant AA had relatively little trouble with the unit during Phase
1 of the study. In April 1983, a supply pump switch and a solenoid coil were replaced.
In May 1983, a small leak in the glycol seal pump was repaired. Also, the
bearings on the vacuum pump. which had been running noisily since the study began,
were replaced. At the same time, the vacuum pump motor and the vacuum gauge were
replaced.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-25
-------
TABLE 4-13.
SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT AA ZINK SYSTEM --
OCTOBER 1982 - AUGUST 1983
Parameter
Typi cal
value
Low
value
Hi gh
value
Pressures (psig)
Gasoline supply
Gasoline return
Abso rber supply
Glycol seal
Vacu urn pump
Carbon bed vacuum
(in. Hg)a
Bed A
Bed B
Temperatures (OF)b
30
27
10
5
27.5
25
25.5
9.0
5
24.5
35
28.5
10.0
5
28.5
26.0
27.4
27.6
28.7
Gasoline supply
6
42
48
46
64
84
92
92
94
Gasoline return
Glycol in separator
Glycol in
Glycol out
10
Glycol in separator
75
66
102
102
aTypical values shown are approximate maxima during most regeneration
cyc 1 es .
bTypical values shown are common temperature changes across heat ex-
changer. Low and high values reflect the effect of ambient temperture.
4-26
-------
Besides these relatively minor problems, the unit has run quite reliably.
During the study, no status logs indicating system shutdowns were completed.
Plant BB -- McGill Carbon Adsorption System
Site Description--
Terminal BB has a throughput of more than 150 gallons per year at
loading facility. Vapors are controlled by a MtGi11 carbon adsorption
number AT-704. There is a knockout drum between the loading racks and
unit.
its bottom
system, model
vapor control
Maintenance Summary*--
Due to the relatively harsh winters, Plant BB has implemented a fairly extensive
maintenance program at the terminal. In preparation for winter, the specific gravity
of the glycol/water solution is adjusted to an 80 percent solution. During extremely
cold weather (below -10°F). the system is placed in a continuous operating mode to
prevent system freeze ups. This system is run continuously every 60 days (on holidays
or slow periods) to "polish" the beds.
The buildups of a waxy deposit on the glycol screen makes cleaning of the screen
necessary every 1 to 3 weeks. The level of carbon in the beds is checked periodically
and topped off as necessary. Carbon was added to both beds in November 1982. The
cams in the rotary actuators are noted as being greased in November 1982 (frequency
of service not known).
Table 4-14 summarizes information from the daily checklists.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
The carbon system at Plant BB experienced a number of predominantly minor
operational problems during the course of the study. In November, 1982 the purge air
heater ceased functioning, and a new heater element was ordered. The element was
received and installed in January 1983. In February 1983, the unit shut down
due to a blown fuse on the 110V control. In May 1983 the motor starter on the vacuum
pump motor was replaced. In June 1983, a solenoid valve in the glycol line was
replaced after the solenoid was found to be overheating. In July 1983, carbon was
discovered in the separator tank, and the glycol level gauge was found broken. The
system was flushed and run on plain water. The cause of the carbon infiltration into
the circulating glycol stream had not been determined when the Phase 1 of the study
was concluded.
Summary of Operating and Maintenance Data for Carbon Adsorption Systems
Summary tables for maintenance and repair data, down time calculations, opera-
tion and maintenance costs for the MtGi11 and Zink carbon adsorption systems appears
on Tables 4-15 and 4-16, respectively. Table 4-15 presents, installation date,
annual O&M costs, amount of available data, percent downtime during study, and O&M
problems experienced during study for the ten MtGi11 carbon adsorption systems in the
study. Table 4-16 presents the same information for the six Zink carbon adsorption
units in the study.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-27
-------
TABLE 4-14. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT BB MCGILL SYSTEM --
SEPTEMBER 1982 - OCTOBER 1983
Typi ca 1
value
Low
value
Hi gh
value
Pressures (psig)
Gasoline supply
Gaso 1 i ne return
Absorber supply
Glycol seal
Vacu urn pump
Carbon bed vacuum
Bed A
Bed B
(in. Hg)a
50
45
15
33
25
28.2
28.2
47
43
14
27
19.1
53
46
15.5
35
28.3
28.8
28.7
Temperatures (OF)b
Ga so 1 i ne in
16
22
35
40
74
87
104
Gasol i ne out
Glycol in
Glycol out
12
Glycol flow rate (gpm)
15
58
10.5
110
18
aTypi cal
cyc 1 es .
bTypi ca 1
Low and
values shown are approximate maxima during most regeneration
values shown are common temperature changes across heat exchanger.
high values reflect the effect of ambient temperature.
4-28
-------
TABLE 4-15. SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DATA FOR
MCGIll CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEMS
Amount % Downtime
Install ation Annual of data of un it O&M problems experienced
Pl ant date of un it O&M costs avail ab 1 e during study during study
B 1976 $10,000-20,000 8 months 0 0 None
C 1981 Typi cally 5 months 27 0 Down April 1 - May 11,
$750 for 1985 because of a short
repairs in the wiring from the
panel box to the seal
pump
H 1977 $1,000 - 1,500 7-1/2 months 0.4 0 Added carbon to beds
for maintenance 0 low seal flow 0 n 5
occasions. Down 24-1/2
hours
N 1981 Termi nal did 5 months 0 0 None
not know
P 1980 Unknown 9 months 1 0 MOV V2B (regeneration)
stuck, taken off line
and greased
T 1980 Unknown 7 months 3 0 MOV at carbon bed inlet
fa i1 ed
0 Pressure switch in air
purge system replaced
o Shut down due to low
glycol flow
0 Check value at vacuum
pump repl aced
U 1982 Unknown 7 months 14 0 Actuator motor and
gear drive on bed B
ma 1 funct i oned. Down
1/4-28/83
0 Repl aced two fan
blades in pump motors
o Gear drive broke on
valve actuator at top
of bed A. Down for
9 day s
0 Relay blew and limit
switch defective.
Down for 3 days
(continued)
4-29
-------
TABLE 4-15.
(continued)
Amount % Downtime
Installation An n u a 1 of data of unit O&M problems experi enced
Plant date of un it O&M costs avail ab 1 e during study during study
V 1981 Un known 8 months 2 0 Level switch for gaso-
line separator tank out
of adjustment. Down
for 48 hours.
0 Gasoline impurities in
gasoline in tank acting
as reservoi r for carbon
adsorption system.
Down 1/24-2/4/83 (not
included in downtime
calculation).
0 Short circuit in purge
air heater. Purge air
heater down during
Ma rch 1983.
y 1981 Unknown 10-1/2 months 10 0 Replacement of switch-
ing coils. Considerable
downtime in January and
February, 1983. "
o Replaced relay control-
ling regeneration.
BB 1980 Un known 10-1/2 months 3 0 Replaced air purge
heater
0 Shut down due to blown
fuse
0 Replaced motor starter
on vacuum pump
0 Solenoid valve in gly-
col 1 i ne repl aced
o Carbon in separator
tank, tank flushed
o Replaced glycol level
gauge
4-30
-------
TABLE 4-16.
SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DATA FOR
ZINK CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEMS
Amount % Downtime
Install ati on Annual of data of un it O&M problems experienced
Pl ant date of unit O&M costs avail ab 1 e duri ng study during study
A 1984 $4,800 for 6 months Oa 0 Strainer iced over,
se rvi ce down for 1/4 hour
contractor 0 Faulty gasoline supply
pump switch caused unit
to shut down, down less
than 1 hour
0 Maintenance log indi-
cates problems with
separator in January
1985. The amount of
downtime is not shown
in the log. If avail-
able, this information
will be included in the
fi na 1 repo rt
D 1983 $8,000 for 5 months 0 0 None
maintenance
F 1982 $10,000 for 8 months 0.4 0 Float separator failed,
maintenance down for approximately
20 hours
0 Relay down on MOV se-
quence (relay, driver
chip replaced), down
for 1 hours
0 Replaced vacuum pump.
Down for 4 hours
G 1984 $10,000 for 5 months 5.7b 0 Coupling on vacuum pump
maintenance and actuator on carbon
bed failed, down from
4/29-5/6/85
0 Repl ace fai 1 safe valve.
Down for 45 mi nutes
o Re-align vacuum pump
and coupling, down for
1-1/2 hours
0 Actuator failure, re-
place computer chip.
Down 2 hours
(continued)
4-31
-------
TABLE 4-16. (continued)
Installation
Plant date of unit
An nua 1
O&M costs
Amount % Downtime
of data of unit
available during study
G
(cont. )
W
1981
Un known
10 months
35
AA
1981
10 months
1
Un known
, ,
O&M problems experienced
during study
o
Unit reset twice, no
downt ime
o
Main breaker for gaso-
1 i ne return pump
failed, down for 8
hours
Down between 5/9-
6/27/83 because of MOV
sequence faults and a
power fail ure
Switch on motor oper-
ated vent and vacuum
pump coupler were re-
p1 aced. Down for 2 days
while glycol system
slushed
Down 7/4-15/83 because
of microprocessor
problem
Down 7/18-25/83. Level
control valve on sep-
arator tank failed
o
o
o
o
o
Supply pump switch and
solenoid coil replaced
Vacuum pump motor and
vacuum gauge replaced.
o
aMaintenance log available from January to August, 1985, however, % downtime figure only
includes March to August, 1985 data. Number of hours of downtime could not be deter-
mined based on information in maintenance log for January and February 1985.
bCheck1ist data available from January to May 1985, however, % downtime figure only
includes April and May 1985 data. There was insufficient information on the checklist
to calculate a percent downtime figure. The unit, installed in December 1984, was
in a debugging period for the first portion of 1985.
4-32
-------
REFRIGERATION AND REFRIGERATION/ABSORPTION SYSTEMS
There is one refrigeration/absorption system, which was manufactured by Rheem
Superior, in the study. Rheem Superior no longer manufactures refrigeration/absorp-
tion control systems. There are nine Edwards Engineering systems in the study. As
discussed in Section 2, there are two model series for Edwards Engineering refrigera-
tion systems -- the older VC model and the newer DE model. Edwards Engineering no
longer produces the VC model. Refer to Section 2 for a discussion of the differences
between the VC and DE models.
Plant E -- Rheem Superior Refrigeration/Absorption System
Site Description--
Plant E has a gasoline throughput of less than 50 million gallons per year. The
terminal is open 24 hours a day, 52 weeks a year and "is staffed from 5:00 am to 9:00
pm on weekdays and 6:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturdays. There is a total of thirteen
loading arms at the terminal of which seven are bottom loading gasoline arms.
Gasoline loading emissions and distillate switch loading emissions are controlled
by a Rheem Superior compression refrigeration/absorption unit. The unit was installed
in 1974. There is a knockout tank followed by a bladder tank between the loading
racks and the control system.
The cost of the unit was $260,000 (including an enclosure of the unit which was
built approximately 6 months after the unit was installed). The unit was designed to
handle 164 cubic feet per minute of gas and to meet an 80 mg/1 emission standard.
The unit recovers approximately 0.9 gallons per 1000 gallons of throughput.
Maintenance Summary--
The terminal has a service contract to maintain the control system and perform a
monthly check of the system. Terminal personnel also perform a daily check of the
system, although they did not complete a written checklist until March 1985.
There are no spare parts for the unit at the terminal.
maintains a spare parts inventory.
The service contractor
An enclosure was built over the unit within six months of the original installa-
tion of the unit. This was done as a preventive maintenance measure based on cor-
porate experience gained from operating other mechanical equipment out-of-doors.
Because the unit is installed in a northern geographical area, it is also equipped
with the optional antifreeze and instrument air dryer packages.
Table 4-17 summarizes the data gathered during the study.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
The only operational problem during the study appears to be the replacement of
the separator pressure gauge in April 1985. The gauge replacement involved no
downtime of the unit.
According to terminal personnel and service contactor bills, the unit experi-
enced no downtime between January and August 1985. Terminal personnel attribute
their excellent success with the unit to: scheduled monthly maintenance performed by
4-33
-------
TABLE 4-17. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT E RHEEM SUPERIOR REFRIGERATION/ABSORPTION SYSTEM --
MARCH - AUGUST 1985
No. readi ngs
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Parameter rangea observations read i ngs range
V-I saturator pres. 0-10 lb. 107 0-12.5 lb. 95
V-I saturator temp Ambient 107 33-80°F 0
V-I saturator liquid level 1/2 - 3/4 107 OK 0
V-2 separator pres. 10 - 37 1 b. 104 3-65 1 b. 30
V-2 separator temp. 107 42-108°F
1st stage compressor temp. Max. 2300F 107 40-144°F 0
1st stage compressor To line on 107 OK 0
oil 1 eve 1 glass
2nd stage compressor temp Max. 2300F 107 38-1660F 0
2nd stage compressor To line on 107 OK 0
oil 1 eve 1 glass
V-3 flash tank pres. 5 - 12lb.b- 107 10-20 lb. 74
V-3 flash tank liquid level 1/2 - 3/4 107 low - OK 1
V-4 dryer pres. Max. 60 lb. 107 18-20 1 b. 0
V-5 absorber pres. 40 - 120 lb. 107 45-120 lb. 0
V-5 absorber temp. 107 40-60°F
V-5 absorber liquid level 107 OK 0
V-6 0hiller left temp. 40°F 107 36-54°F
V-6 chiller right temp. 30°F 107 30-42°F
P-2 pump oil level, oiler 1/2 - full 107 OK 0
P-2 pump oil 1 eve 1, To 1st line 107 OK 0
crank case
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant E personnel.
bTerminal personnel think that the gauge is out of calibration.
4-34
-------
a knowledgeable service contractor, daily checks of the unit, and a bladder tank
(prior to the control unit) to regulate the flow of vapor into the unit.
Plant I -- Edwards Refrigeration System
Site Description--
Terminal I has a gasoline throughput greater than 150 million gallons per year.
There is a total of 22 active loading arms at the facility -- 9 bottom loading
gasoline arms, 2 top loading fuel oil arms, 2 top loading kerosene arms, 2 top
loading diesel arms, 4 top loading heating oil arms, 2 top loading Varsol arms, and 1
bottom loading diesel arm. The terminal operates 24 hours a day for 52 weeks a year
and is always staffed.
The terminal
control emissions
1976. There is a
recovery unit.
uses an Edwards Engineering model VC800 refrigeration system to
generated at the bottom loading racks. The unit was installed in
knock-out tank located between the loading racks and the vapor
The refrigeration system
south bank) which can operate
on only one compressor bank.
low temperature refrigeration
consists of dual banks of compressors (a north and
independently. Often, in the winter, the unit operates
Plant I personnel try to keep the temperature of the
system at approximately -90°F.
The unit is defrosted twice daily at 12 hour intervals -- during the night shift
and between the two daylight shifts. The defrost periods last for approximately 1
hour each. Terminal personnel feel that the two daily defrost periods are better
than a longer defrost period once per day because they minimize the ice build-up.
The unit was designed to meet an 85 mg/l emission standard.
Maintenance Summary--
Over the years, terminal personnel have made several changes to the Edwards
Engineering unit, primarily to facilitate maintenance of the unit. These changes
include the following:
o Relocation of the molecular sieve from inside the unit enclosure to up on the
roof. The molecular sieve was fairly inaccessible inside the enclosure,
making any repairs on the sieve very difficult.
o Installation of a power meter. This was done 3 to 4 years ago.
o Installation of a trichloroethylene supplemental heater. This was done to
save wear-and-tear on the compressors.
o Addition of a tank in the area of the unit to drop recovered product into and
a meter to measure the flow of recovered product out of the tank.
a Addition of a sight gauge on the methylene chloride tank.
A preventive maintenance (PM) check of the system is performed daily by terminal
personnel. The PM sheets only confirm that the unit is operating properly; no gauge
or level readings are actually recorded on the PM sheets. Terminal personnel began
completing daily checklists in April as a result of this study.
In addition to the daily preventive maintenance program, the terminal also has
scheduled preventive maintenance activities. The scheduled maintenance takes an
4-35
-------
estimated 96 hours a year.
and maintain.
The unit costs approximately $20,000 per year to operate
Routine maintenance on the unit is performed in-house.
handled by an outside contractor.
Table 4-18 summarizes the daily checklist data gathered during the study.
Major repairs are
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
During April and May 1985, the terminal experienced the following problems ~th
the unit:
o Crystals formed in the refrigeration brine; there was no heat exchange and
therefore, no cooling. The unit was down for 4 to 5 days to allow the brine
to dry out. Terminal personnel also changed the K-4 in the molecular sieve.
o The unit was down for 2 hours to repair some wires on the north bank of
compressors.
o A pressure/temperature gauge on the unit broke; there was no downtime on the
unit.
o The unit was shutdown for 1/2 hour to add liquid to one of the low stage
compressor banks.
During June, July, and August 1985 the follo~ng maintenance and repairs were
performed on the unit (no downtime for the unit was experienced for any of the
operations although one of the two compressor banks may have been down):
o
o
o
o
o
o
North bank of compressors off on low stage because of low oil.
North bank off because of R503 leak.
New solenoid valve installed.
New bearings and seal installed.
New terminal block installed on compressor.
Monthly inspection performed by service contractor.
Plant J -- Edwards Engineering Refrigeration System
Site Description--
The terminal has a total gasoline and distillate throughput between 50 and 100
million gallons per year. There are 12 loading arms at the terminal -- 6 bottom
loading gasoline anns and 6 bottom loading distillate arms. The terminal operates 24
hours per day, for 52 weeks a year and is always staffed. Product is brought to the
terminal by pipeline and barge.
All loading arms are connected to an Edwards Engineering refrigeration unit.
The unit was originally installed in 1975 as a model VC250 but was converted several
years ago to a model DEL1500. The model conversion was done at the Edwards Engineering
plant and took place between September 1983 and January 1984.
The upgraded Edwards unit was designed for the following conditions:
4-36
-------
TABLE 4-18. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT I EDWARDS REFRIGERATION UNIT --
APRIL - AUGUST 1985
Pa ramete r
North-low stage oil level
North-high stage oil level
North-R502 discharge press.
North-R502 suction press.
North-R503 discharge press.
North-R503 suction press.
South-low stage oil level
South-high stage oil level
South-R502 discharge press.
South-R502 suction press.
South-R503 discharge press.
South-R503 suction press.
3-way valve temp.
Recorder temp.
Brine pump pres.
Unusual noises, smells, or
vibrations
Any red lights on indicator
panel?
Any chem or refrig. leaks
Level of MC tank
Temperature of MC
Level of brine tank
Temperature of brine
Vapor condensor inlet temp.
Vapor condensor outlet temp.
Coolant pump pres.
Defrost pump pres.
Recovered product meter range
Decanter: small side full,
large side - no ice
Any chem. leaks?
Recommended
rangea
No. of
observations
vi sib 1 e
visible
150-250 psi
2-15 psi
150-250 psi
2-15 psi
vi sib 1 e
visible
150-250 psi
2-15 psi
150-250 psi
2-15 psi
-75--105°F
-80--100°F
47
46
47
47
47
47
47
47
45
45
45
45
49
48
49
49
49
None
None
None
Approx. 1/2
-70--90°F
1/2
90-100°F
-70--90°F
-65--85°F
20 psi
31 psi
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
48
None
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant I personnel.
4-37
Range of
readings
OK
OK
170-240 psi
2-12 psi
14-290 psi
2-15 psi
OK
OK
190-290 psi
4-16 psi
150-240 psi
4-20 psi
-40--96°F
-40--95°F
OK
None, yes
None, yes
Yes-No
OK
-46--92°F
OK
88-105°F
-45--82°F
-45--82°F
20-20 psi
31-40 psi
OK
OK
None
No. readi ngs
outside
recommended
range
o
o
o
o
22
o
o
o
15
3
o
1
2
30
1
3
10
o
5
o
5
8
8
o
1
o
o
o
-------
Instantaneous
Hourly
Daily
35 mg/1
It800 gpm
50tOOO ga1/hr
300tOOO gal/day
80 mg/1
3t600 gpm
100tOOO ga1/hr
300tOOO gal/day
Gasoline Flow Rate
There is a knock-out tank between the loading racks and the Edwards unit.
Automatic unit shutdown switches at the loading racks and the knockout tank were
installed in January 1985. Recovered product is pumped to an unleaded tankt located
approximately 750 feet from the unit.
The unit is defrosted daily between 1:00 and 2:00 am.
Maintenance Summary--
Terminal personnel currently perform a daily check of the unit. Minor repairs
are done in-house. They use a maintenance contractor on an "as needed" basis.
During the model conversion several years agot the following changes were made
to the unit:
o Brine storage tank and related piping were removed.
o Refrigeration circuits were repiped.
o Addition of electric immersion heaters (for defrost
o Vapor condensing coil was removed and replaced.
o Electrical rewiringt as needed.
system).
Table 4-19 shows the recommended operating parameters for the system and
summarizes the daily checklist data gathered to date.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
The unit was down for the following reasons between January and August 1985:
o January -- High stage oil reset arm broken; unit down for 24 hours
o April -- Unit tripped on oil pressure re1aYt low pressure control replaced.
Service contractor recommended rewiring the unit. Unit down for 44
hours.
o July -- Low stage compressor downt replaced compressor. Unit down July
12-17t 1985.
Plant L - Edwards Refrigeration System
Site Description--
This facility is a 50 to 100 million gallon per year gasoline terminal. The
terminal operates 24 hours per daYt 365 days per yeart and is always staffed. Only
about 20 percent of the loadings come from areas with vapor balance. The loading
rack includes four modified top-loading arms ~th submerged fill t all of which vent
to the vapor recovery unit. Plant L uses an Edwards Engineering VC 600 refrigeration
system. The system has dual banks which can operate independently. The system was
designed for 10-14 million gallons per month throughput and a 95% recovery rate.
Terminal personnel track the gasoline recovery rates which range from 2.5 gallon per
3000 gallon loaded (with previous top-splash loading arrangement) to 0.6 gallons per
3000 gallons loaded for submerged modified bottom-loading during the winter.
4-38
-------
TABLE 4-19. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT J EDWARDS REFRIGERATION UNIT --
JANUARY - AUGUST 1985
Pa ramete r
High stage suction pres.
High stage discharge pres.
High stage oil level
Low stage suction pres.
Low stage discharge pres.
Low stage oil level
Defrost tank temp.
Defrost tank pres.
Thermal expansion
valve pres.
No. readings
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
rangea observations readings range
2-15 psi 159 0-25 psi 33
150-270 psi 73 0-300 psi 15
winter
130-250 psi 81 230-280 psi 6
summer
1/4-1/2 glass 159 OK 0
6-20 psi 158 4-35 psi 23
150-270 psi 72 120-375 psi 13
wi nte r
130-250 psi 82 160-260 psi 5
summer
1/4-1/2 glass 158 0- 3/ 4 4
80-125°F 159 100-120°F 0
10-15 psi 158 12-15 psi 0
15-30 psi 159 21-39 psi 51
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant J personnel.
4-39
-------
Maintenance Summary--
Plant personnel conduct a daily checklist procedure on the unit. Table 4-20
presents the recommended operating parameters for the unit and summarizes available
data. The terminal also has a service contract with a company that performs all of
the maintenance on the unit plus routine quarterly and annual inspections. The
service contractor is responsible for maintaining a spare parts inventory for the
unit although terminal personnel have indicated that at times the inventory has been
inadequate.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
The company has estimated an overall availability of 90 percent on the unit.
Although no major modifications have been done on the refrigeration unit, the service
contractor had replaced all of the compressors at least once and the coolant pump was
replaced by a seal less pump. The breakdowns were characterized as several 3-4
day shutdowns plus about ten one day breakdowns since the date of startup in 1977.
Plant M - Edwards Refrigeration System
Site Description--
Plant M is a greater than 150 million gallon per year gasoline terminal. The
terminal is operated 24 hours per day, seven days per week and is always staffed
during operation. All of the returning Plant M trucks are loaded with vapors and
about 90 percent of the independent trucks return with vapors. The loading area
consists of three bays for gasoline with a total of nine bottom loading arms, two top
loading fuel oil arms, and two bottom loading fuel oil arms. The Edwards model VC
800 refrigeration unit was installed with two banks of compressors capable of indepen-
dently handling the emissions from the eleven bottom loading arms. The unit was
designed for 10-15,000 barrels per day throughput and an emission level of 80 mg/1
liter. Company personnel estimate that 8 to 12 gallons of gasoline are recovered per
8,700 gallons loaded. The terminal has a Skelly Permissive System for gasoline
loading. There is an optical sensor on the truck and a flow indicator and vapor
sensor in the vapor line between the loading rack and the unit. The defrost cycle is
once per 24 hours during, and is scheduled during a period of low activity.
Maintenance Summary--
The maintenance personnel perform a daily checklist procedure using a format
supplied by the service contractor hired by the company. Table 4-21 presents the
recommended operating parameters of the unit. Annual maintenance runs about $16,000.
Plant personnel have provided JACA with a compilation of repair invoices for the unit
from the service contractor for January to May 1985.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
The terminal personnel claim an overall 95 percent availability for the unit.
No major modifications have been performed on the unit. The minor modifications
include the installation of sea11ess compressors, addition of insulation, and the
installation of pressure gauges and an in-line filter. Typical repairs which involved
no downtime included: a rebuilt three way valve, a replaced pressure gauge on a
defrost filter, changing the compressor contactors, replacement of the left side No.2
motor and addition of oil to low stage No.1.
4-40
-------
TABLE 4-20. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT L EDWARDS REFRIGERATION UNIT --
JANUARY - AUGUST 1985
No. readi ng s
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Parameter rangea observations readings range
Low stage #l oil 1 eve 1 1/4 - 3/4 129 1/4 - 1/2 0
Low stage #2 oil level 1/4 - 3/4 129 1/4 - 3/4 0
High stage #1 oil 1 eve 1 1/4 - 3/4 129 1/4 - 1/2 0
High stage #2 oil 1 eve 1 1/4 - 3/4 129 1/4 - 3/4 0
3-way valve temp. -70° to -lOO°F 129 -90 to -102°F 6
Recorder temp. -70° to -lOO°F 129 -75 to -86°F 0
Brine pump pressure 15-60 lb. 129 15 to 20 lb. 0
Un usual noises, smells, or None 129 Yes, No 10
vibrations?
Inside - any chern. or None 129 None 0
refrig. leaks?
M/ C tan k 1 eve 1 g 1. val . may 129 1/4 - 1/2
be closed
Trichlor. tank level gl. val. may 129 1/4 - 2/3
be closed
Trichlor. tank temp. 800 to 1100F 129 68-1100F 3
V.C. inlet temp. -80° to -105°F 129 -78 to -86°F 3
V.C. outlet temp. -60° to -lOO°F 128 -75 to -85°F 0
Coolant pump pres. 15-60 lb. 129 33 to 40 lb. 0
Defrost pump pres. 15-30 lb. 107 4to 241b. 11
(if running)
Decanter sm. s i de - 129 OK 0
full
19. side - 129 OK 0
no ice
Is the V.C. coil iced No 129 No 0
over or plugged?
Outside - any obvious None 129 No 0
chern. leaks?
a Source of recommended value ranges -- Plant L personnel.
4-41
-------
TABLE 4-21. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT M EDWARDS REFRIGERATION SYSTEM --
JANUARY - MAY 1985
No. readings
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Parameter rangea observations readings range
Low stage #1 oil 1 eve 1 1/4 - 3/4 88 0-1. 25 4
Low stage #2 oi 1 1 eve 1 1/4 - 3/4 78 Low - 1. 25 9
High stage #1 oil level 1/4 - 3/4 90 1/4 - 1. 5 3
High stage #2 oil 1 eve 1 1/4 - 3/4 80 1/4 - 1.5 6
3-way valve temp. -70° to -lOO°F 93 -80 - -100°F 0
Recorder temp. -70° to -lOO°F 93 0 - -105°F 24
Brine pump pressure 15-60 1 b. 93 18 - 56 1 b. 0
Unusual noises, smells, or None 93 None 0
vibrations?
Inside - any chern. or None 93 None 0
refri g. 1 eaks?
M/C tank level gl. val. may 93 Frozen, OK
be closed
Trichlor. tank level g 1 . val. may 93 OK 0
be closed
Trichlor. tank temp. 80° to 110°F 93 78 - HO°F 2
V. C. in 1 et temp. -80° to -105°F 93 -15 - -139°F 13
V.C. outlet temp. -60° to -lOO°F 93 +60 - - 98°F 6
Coolant pump pres. 15-60 lb. 93 22 - 76 43
Defrost pump pres. 15-30 lb. 85 2 - 24 1
(if ru n n i n g)
Recove red prod. meter
readi ng range
Decanter sm. sid e - 93 OK 0
full
19. side - 93 OK 0
no ice
Is the V.C. coil iced No 93 Frosted, OK 1
over or plugged?
Outside - any obvious None 93 OK 0
chern. 1 eaks?
a Source of recommended value ranges -- Plant M personnel.
4-42
-------
Plant 0 -- Edwards Engineering Refrigeration System
Site Description--
The terminal has a gasoline throughput of between 100 and 150 million gallons
per year of gasoline and less than 50 million gallons per year of distillate fuel and
kerosene. The terminal is open 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. There is a total of 31
loading arms at the terminal -- 18 bottom loading gasoline arms, 2 bottom loading
distillate arms and 21 top loading distillate and kerosene loading arms.
The 20 bottom loading gasoline and distillate arms are connected to the vapor
recovery system. The vapor recovery system consists of two Edwards Engineering model
number DE3200 refrigeration systems. The units were installed in 1981. The two
systems, which operated in parallel, are two complete systems -- they do not share
any components. Two units were installed because of throughput and to assure contin-
uous control of gasoline vapors. The units are numbered unit No.1 and No.2.
Generally, both units operate during the day and only one unit operates at night.
Each refrigeration system is designed for a throughput of 3200 gallons per
minute of gasoline.
There is a 1000 to 1500 gallon knockout tank between the control units and the
loading racks. There are high level shut off switches at the loading racks and the
knock-out tank.
Each unit is defrosted for 5 to 6 hours during the night. The two units are not
defrosted simultaneously. A typical temperature for the low temperature refrigeration
coils is between -110 and -115°F.
The capital cost for each unit was $227,000. The installation cost for both
units was $438,000. The installation cost was high for several reasons:
o The soil in the area was unstable and had to removed to a depth of 8 to 9
feet and reinforced.
o Installation of 350 feet of piping was necessary to return recovered product
to the adjacent refinery. Recovered product is returned to one of three
tanks.
o Installation of MOVs to control flow of recovered product. Flow of recovered
product is controlled in a blending area located approximately 1000 feet from
the refrigeration units.
o Power and control lines (contained in conduits) had to be installed between
the refrigeration units and the blending area.
Maintenance Summary--
Terminal personnel perform checks of the units three times daily and perform
minor mechanical repairs. A service contractor, with a field office in an adjacent
refinery, performs a monthly check of the system and performs some repairs on the
system. Major repairs on the unit are performed by another service contractor.
Since the unit was installed, several modifications were made which terminal and
corporate personnel feel improve the operation of the system. These modifications
include: installation of stainless steel nipples at defrost tank heater (the original
iron nipples corroded), addition of a de-superheater (common equipment on the newest
units), and modifications to the compressors.
4-43
-------
Terminal personnel recently began flushing out the decanters; aluminum filings
were building up and the units were losing the water seal. This will be done 2 to 3
times a year.
Tables 4-22 and 4-23 summarize the operating parameters and checklist data
between January and August 1985 for units No.1 and No.2.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
Unit No.1 experienced the following problems or maintenance between January and
August 1985:
o January 1985 -- supplemental glycol heaters down. The unit was down for 1
day to install improved heating elements.
o February 1985 -- Coupling on pump no. 1 malfunctioned. The pump is used to
pump recovered product from the decanter to storage. The unit was not down;
the pump at the knock-out tank handled the pumping.
o March 1985 -- Flushed out decanter tank, down 1 hour.
o April 1985 -- De-superheater motor tripped, down 12 hours. Flushed out
decanter, down 1 hour.
o August 1985 -- leak in hydrocarbon decanter, down 4 hours.
For the same time period, Unit No.2 experienced the following:
o January 1985 -- The limonene circulator malfunctioned. The circulator was
taken off stream for 3 hours and repaired. The refrigeration unit was not
shut down.
o February 1985 -- Belts were readjusted because of a screeching sound no
downtime.
o March 1985 -- Water seal was lost. The decanter was flushed out. There was
1 hour of downtime.
o April 1985 -- Valve vibrated open, lost water seal. Unit down for 10 minutes.
Decanter flushed out -- 1 hour downtime.
o June 1985 -- Glycol pump leak, down 5 hours. lost seal on decanter, no
downtime.
Plant R - Edwards Engineering Refrigeration System
Site Description--
Terminal R has a throughput capacity of greater than 150 million gallons per
year, although throughput during the study was 50 to 100 million gallons per year.
The terminal is staffed from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm. Product is brought into the
terminal by pipeline and is bottom-loaded into trucks. There is a 6,000 gallon
knock-out tank between the loading racks and the control unit.
An Edwards Engineering model number DE2000 refrigeration system is used to
control hydrocarbon emissions during loading operations. The unit was installed in
1979 and is rated at a gasoline throughput of one million gallons per day. The unit
consists of dual banks of compressors. Condensors switch cycles approximately every
eight hours.
4-44
-------
TABLE 4-22. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT 0, UNIT 1 EDWARDS REFRIGERATION SYSTEM --
JANUARY - AUGUST 1985
No. readings
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Pa ramete r rangea observations readings range
R22 Precooler
Suction pressure 5-45 1 b 110 10-40 1 b 0
Discharge pressure 175-230 1 b 110 70-255 lbb
Oi 1 pressure 30-70 lb 111 8-45 1 bb
Oil 1 eve 1 1/4 gl ass 113 1/4-1/4 0
Freon sight gauge Full 113 Full-Full 0
Glycol System:
Pump pressure 12-16 lb 113 15-15 1 b 0
Pump leaks None 113 None-None 0
Glycol temp. in 35-40°F 114 25-47°F 72
Glycol temp. out 32-35°F 114 30-47°F 88
Glycol liq. level 3/4-7/8 114 OK 0
R502 System:
Suction pressure 2-20 lb 110 3-16 1 b 0
Discharge pressure 175-250 lb 108 55-240 1 bb
Oi 1 pressure 50-70 lb 110 0-65 lbb
Freon sight gauge Full 113 Full-Full 0
Oi 1 1 ev e 1 1/4 gl ass 113 1/4-1/4 0
Defrost heat exchanger:
Pump pressure 5-10 lb 113 5- 5 1 b 0
Leaks None 113 None-None 0
R503 System:
Suction pressure 2-20 lb 111 0-11 1 b 5
Discharge pressure 150-275 lb 112 120-200 lbb
Oi 1 pressure 50-70 lb 112 0-60 lbb
Suction gas temp. -90- +250F 112 -40-+36 4
Oil 1 evel 1/4 glass 113 1/4-1/4 0
Condensor coil temp. -90- -120°F 112 -110 - -114°F 0
Defrost pump pressure 22-30 lb 112 0-15 1 bb
Brine temperature 100-1250F 112 60-1040F 89
T r i coli qui d 1 eve 1 3/4-7/8 113 OK 0
Glycol liquid level 3/4-7/8 113 OK 0
Hydrocarbon pump press. 12-26 1 b 105 OK, off
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant 0 personnel.
blncludes readings made when pump not operating.
4-45
-------
TABLE 4-23. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT 0, UNIT 2 EDWARDS REFRIGERATION SYSTEM --
JANUARY - AUGUST 1985
No. readi ngs
outside
Recommended No. of Range of recommended
Pa rameter rangea observations readings range
R22 Precooler
Suction pressure 5-45 1 b 126 12-42 1 b 0
Discharge pressure 175-230 lb 126 55-250 lbb
Oi 1 pressure 30-70 1 b 126 10-48 lbb
Oil 1 evel 1/4 glass 127 1/4-1/4 0
Freon sight gauge Full 127 Full-Full 0
Hr. meter range
Glycol System:
Pump pressure 12-161b 127 5-15 1 b 35
Pump 1 eaks None 127 None-None 0
Glycol temp. in 35-40°F 127 28-46°F 78
Glycol temp. out 32-35°F 127 32-42°F 90
Glycol liq. level 3/4-7/8 127 OK 0
R502 System:
Suction pressure 2-20 lb 126 3-17 1 b 0
Discharge pressure 175-250 lb 126 75-250 lbb
Oi 1 pressure 50-701b 126 0-65 lbb
Hr. meter range
Freon sight gauge Full 126 Full 0
Oi 1 1 eve 1 1/4 glass 126 1/4 0
Defrost heat exchanger:
Pump pressure 5-101b 126 5-5 1 b 0
Le a k s None 126 None 0
R503 System:
Suction pressure 2-20 lb 126 2-18 1 b 0
Discharge pressure 150-275 1 b 126 12-190 lbb
Oil pressure 50-701b 126 0-60 lbb
Suction gas temp. -90- +250F 126 -24-+240F 0
Hour meter range
Oil 1 eve 1 1/4 glass 126 1/4 0
Condensor coil temp. -90- -120°F 125 -84--112°F 1
Defrost pump pressure 22-30 lb 121 15-15 lbb
Brine temperature 100-1250F 123 72-1200F 84
Trico liquid level 3/4-7/8 126 OK 0
Glycol liquid level 3/4-7/8 126 OK 0
Hydrocarbon pump press. 12-261b 126 5-19 lbb
aSource of recommended value ranges -- Plant 0 personnel.
blncludes readings made when pump not operating.
4-46
-------
Maintenance Summary*--
Terminal R uses a service contractor to perform most of the maintenance and
repai~ work on the refrigeration system. The only routine maintenance performed by
Plant R personnel is the weekly lubrication of pumps in the pre-cooler, defrost, and
hydrocarbon recovery circuits.
The service contractor performs a routine system inspection on a monthly basis,
and will perform more frequent repair work as necessary. For example, visits were
made to the terminal on January 11 and 13, and February 7, 11, and 22, 1983, to
perform the following work:
MOnthly general service checks
Drain and replace compressor oil
Change all suction and liquid line filters
Repair leaks at vapor condenser, expansion
control switch
o Add refrigerant to low-stage circuit
o Troubleshoot and correct problem with oil
compressor.
o
o
o
o
and dryers (semi-annual replacement)
valves, and pressure limiting
pressure loss in No.2 high-stage
While the maintenance records for the latter part of the study, March through
August, 1983, were not made available, it is assumed that a similar level of mainten-
ance was performed during this period.
Summary of Operational Problems .and Repairs*--
The repair records for the latter part of Phase 1 of the study, March through
August, 1983, were not made available. Because of this lack of information on system
malfunctions, a summary cannot be presented here. However, an estimate of the
percentage of system downtime has been made based on the terminal's daily operating
checklists.
Plant X -- Edwards Engineering Refrigeration System
Site Description--
Terminal X is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
loaded into tank trucks. There is a 550 gallon knock-out tank
racks and the control unit.
Product is bottom
between the loading
Emissions are controlled by a model number DE2400 Edwards Engineering refrigera-
tion system. The unit was installed in 1981.
Maintenance Summary*--
MOst of the maintenance and repairs on the refrigeration system at Plant X are
performed by a service contractor. A monthly inspection is made of the system by the
service contractor, at which time certain basic inspections and adjustments are made.
Less frequently-needed maintenance activities are performed on a periodic basis.
Should any repairs be necessary, they are made at the time of the monthly maintenance
inspection or during a special service call. Prior to the initiation of the study,
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-47
-------
most of the work performed by the service contractor involved extensive repair and
upgrading of several aspects of the system. During the study, the extent of the
required work was considerably less. The repairs and upgrades on the system are
discussed in the next subsection.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
The first monthly maintenance inspection was performed by the service contractor
at Plant X in May 1982, 14 months after the refrigeration system was installed.
Since the system had operated for about one year without any formal maintenance
program, considerable repair and refurbishment were necessary to restore the system
to proper operating condition. This restoration period preceded Phase 1 of the
study, and the service invoices for the study period show a dramatic reduction of
repair items compared to the months of May and June, 1982. The repairs performed
after the initial restoration period, when the operating status of the system had
been stabilized, are as follows:
o
July 1982
o August 1982
o
September 1982
o October 1982
o November 1982
o January 1983
o May 1983
o August 1983
-- Replaced gasket and dryers to repair leak on high-stage
dryer shell. Replaced two temperature recorders.
-- Defective defrost pump and motor replaced. Defective
hydrocarbon return pump and motor replaced.
-- Defrost pump replaced with heavy duty pump. Defective
overload heaters on defrost heat exchanger circuit replaced.
-- Major leak of defrost solution diagnosed and repaired.
-- Replaced defective pre-cooler oil pressure gauge.
~- Low-stage compressor down. Adjustments made to pressure
controls.
-- Replaced defective overload heaters on hydrocarbon pump.
-- Replaced pressurizing fan motor knocked out by thunderstorm.
Plant Z -- Edwards Engineering Refrigeration System
Site Description--
Plant Z uses an Edwards Engineering model number DE1200 refrigeration system.
The unit was installed in 1980.
Maintenance Summary*--
The terminal retains a service contractor to maintain and repair its refrigera-
tion processor. Preventive maintenance inspections are performed monthly by the
service contractor. In the routine maintenance inspection: all compressor tempera-
ture readings are taken, all control settings are checked for proper operation; the
electrical control circuits are monitored for proper voltages and currents; and the
decanter is checked for proper operation. Other specific maintenance work is per-
formed at various intervals determined appropriate. During the study, the following
periodic maintenance actions were performed in addition to the routine monthly work:
o
November 1982
- Changed oil in low- and high-stage compressors. Crankcase
bearings and oil screen inspected. Compressor filter/dryers
changed. R-22 refrigerant added to pre-cooler system. Air
filter on pressurizing fan changed.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-48
-------
o
March 1983
- High- and low-stage compressor belts replaced. Compressor
motors lubricated.
- Pre-cooler and high-stage condenser coils cleaned.
o July 1983
This list is not necessarily exhaustive of all maintenance activities performed, but
summarizes the principal items. Various levels of repairs were made during the
inspection visits and service calls, and these are described in the next subsection.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
The problems experienced with the refrigeration system and the repair efforts
made are summarized on the work invoices of the service contractor, which are avail-
able for the period of October 1982 to July 1983. These items are summarized as
follows:
o October 1982 -- Several leaks in defrost system repaired. Expansion and
contraction leaks on low-stage compressor repaired.
o November 1982 -- Replace defective cage assembly on high-stage compressor
expansion valve. Small leak repaired in pre-cooler system.
o December 1982 -- Erratic shutdown action corrected by replacement of low
pressure control on high-stage compressor.
-- Defective defrost heat exchanger gauge replaced. Repair
low-stage compressor and calibrate all controls after storm
damage.
-- Pre-cooler compressor and motor starter replaced after motor
windings shorted.
-- Recalibrated temperature recorder and replaced indicating
light bulb.
o April 1983
o June 1983
o July 1983
Summary
Table 4-24 presents the summary of maintenance and repair data for the Rheem
Superior Refrigeration/Absorption System. The installation date, annual operating
and maintenance cost, percent downtime, and the operation and maintenance problems
experienced during the study are presented for the one Rheem Superior system. Table
4-25 presents the same data for all of the nine Edwards Engineering Refrigeration
systems included in the study. Table 4-26 presents the product recovery rates for
the Rheem Superior unit and six of the Edwards Engineering units in the study.
THERMAL OXIDATION
There were three thermal oxidizers in the study -- one McGill Incorporated
system, one National AirOil (NAO) system, and one AER system. This section describes
the terminals using the burners and discusses O&M problems.
Plant K -- NAO Burner System
Site Description--
Terminal K has a total throughput (gasoline and distillate fuels) between 100
and 150 million gallons a year; approximately 70 percent of which is gasoline. There
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-49
-------
TABLE 4-24. SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DATA FOR
RHEEM SUPERIOR REFRIGERATION/ABSORPTION SYSTEM
% Downtime O&M
In sta 11 at ion Annual Jlrnount of Unit Problems
Date of O&M of Data Duri ng Experienced
Pl ant Unit Costs Avail ab 1 e St udy Du ring St udy
E 1974 $4,200 for main- 8 months 0% 0 Repl aced
tenance contractor pressure
gauge on
separator
4-50
-------
TABLE 4-25. SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DATA FOR
EDWARDS ENGINEERING REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS
% Downtime
Installation Annual .Amount of un it O&M problems
date of Model O&M of data during experienced
Plant unit se ri es costs available study during study
I 1976 VC $20,000 5 months 5.1% 0 Crystal s formed in
methylene chloride
bri ne. Down for
4-5 days.
0 Added gasoline to
low stage. Down
~ 1/2 hour.
I 0 Wiring on north
()l
...... bank. Down 2 hours.
o Addition of R503
and oil. No downtime.
o New solenoid valve
installed. No down-
time.
J 1984 (con- VC c on- Unknown 8 mont hs 2.7% 0 Hi gh stage oi 1 re-
versi on verted set arm broken,
date) to DE down 24 hours.
0 Unit tripped, oil
pressure re1 ay.
Replaced low pres-
sure control. Down
44 hours.
L 1977 VC $7,500-parts 7-1/2 0% 0 None.
$9,600-1abor months
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4-25. (continued)
% Downtime
In sta 11 at ion Annual Jlrnount of un it O&M prob 1 ems
date of Model O&M of data during experienced
Pl ant unit se ri es costs available study during study
M 1975 VC $16,000 3 monthsa _a 0 Rebuilt 2-way valve
maintenance and added chemical
and repa i rs to methylene chloride
by servi ce tank. Down 0 hr.
contractor 0 Replace pressure
gauge.
0 Change compressor
contractors.
O-Unit 1981 DE $3,150 main- 8 months 0.4% 0 Suppl emental heaters
-+:> No.1 -tenance parts down, replaced heat-
I and costs for ing elements. Down
U1
N Jan-May 1985 8 hours.
for units 1 0 Decanter pump coup-
and 2 ling malfunctioned.
Down 0 hr.
0 Flush out decanter
tank. Down 1 hr.
o De-superheater fan
tripped. Down 12 hr.
o Leak in hydrocarbon
decantor. Down 4 hrs.
O-Unit 1981 DE $3,150 main- 8 months 0.1% 0 Limonene circulator.
No.2 tenance parts Down 0 hr. (off-line
and cost s fo r 3 hr.).
1-5/85 for 0 Fl ushed out decanter.
units 1 and 2 Down 1 hr.
0 Fl ushed out decanter.
Down 1 hr.
0 Glycol pump 1 eak .
Down 5 hours.
-------
TABLE 4-25.
(continued)
Install ation
date of Model
Plant unit se ri es
R 1979 DE
X 1981 DE
~
I
U1
W
Annual
O&M
costs
Amount
of data
available
% Downtime
of un it
during
study
O&M problems
experienced
duri ng study
Unknown
$23,665 ex-
penses bi 11 ed
by servi ce
contractor
June-Oct 1982
5 months
6 months
9%
2%
o Unknown, repair logs
not available.
o Leak on high stage
dryer shell, replaced
gasket and dryers.
o Replace 2 temperature
recorders.
o Defective defrost
pump and motor
repl aced.
o Replaced defrost pump
with heavy duty pump.
o Defective overload
heaters on defrost
head exchanger cir-
cu it replaced.
o Leak of defrost solu-
tion repaired.
o Replaced defective
pre-cooler oil pres-
sure gauge.
o Low temperature com-
pressor down.
o Replaced defective
overload heaters on
hyd roca rbon pump.
o Replaced defective
pressurized fan motor
knocked out by storm.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4-25.
(concluded)
In sta 11 at ion
date of Model
Plant unit se ri es
Z 1981 DE
% Downtime
of un it
during
study
Annual
O&M
costs
Amount
of data
a vail ab 1 e
Unknown
12 months
4%b
~
I
01
~
O&M problems
experienced
duri ng study
o Leaks on defrost sys-
tem repaired.
o Expansion and con-
tractor leaks on
low-stage compressor
repa ired.
o Low stage compressor
tri pped. Repl aced
power head assembly
and fil ter/dryers in
high-stage compressor.
o Replace defective
cage on high-stage
compressor expansion
valve.
o Small leak in pre-
cool er system.
o Replacement of low
pressure control on
high stage compressor.
o Repair low stage com-
pressor.
o Precooler compressor
and motor starter
replaced after motor
windings shorted.
aData available for 5 months, however, there is insufficient information of the checklists
to calculate downtime for a two month period.
bSeven of the 12 days of downtime arose from pre-cooler compressor breakdown. Rest of sys-
tem operated while the compressor was under repair.
-------
TABLE 4-26. AMOUNT OF PRODUCT RECOVERED BY VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS
Type Top or Typi cal Ra n g.e
of bottom tvbde 1 amount of amount
Pl ant system loading no. recovered recovered
E Rheem Superior Bottom 0.9 gall
Refri gerati onl 1,000 gala
Absorpti on
I Edwards Engi - Bottom VC800 400 gal I day -
neering Refri g -
erat ion
L Edwards En 9 i - Top VC600 0.181 gall 0.111-0.304
neeri ng Refrig- 1,000 gal galll,OOO gal
eration
M Edwards En g i - Bottom VC800 Un kn own
neeri ng Refrig-
erat ion
0 Edwards En gi - Bottom DE 3200 0.78 gall 0.56-1.17 gall
neeri ng Refrig- 1,000 galb 1,000 gal b
eration
R Edwards Engi - Bottom DE2000 0.20 gall
neeri ng Refrig- 1,000 gal
erati on
aGallons of recovered product per 1,000 gallons of throughput.
bAverage of two identical units.
4-55
-------
are nine loading arms at the facility -- 1 top loading fuel oil arm, 2 bottom loading
fuel oil arms, and 6 bottom loading gasoline arms. The terminal operates 24 hours a
day for 52 weeks a year and is staffed from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm on weekdays. Product
is brought into the terminal via pipeline.
The loading arms are connected to a NAO thermal oxidation unit. The unit was
installed in 1974, and was remodeled in May 1985 to update the unit. The unit is a
combustion chamber type burner with an enclosed flame. There is a 4000 gallon
knock-out tank between the loading racks and the control unit. There are high level
shut off switches at the loading racks and the knock-out tank.
The unit is designed to control gasoline loading at a maximum of 5,000 gallons
per minute.
Maintenance Summary--
The remodeling in May 1985 included: three new burner nozzles, a new stainless
steel liner, conversion of the pilot fuel from oil to propane, addition of a glycol/
water seal in place of a water seal, and the addition of a forced air fan. Sometime
during the Summer of 1985 a larger blower was installed to increase combustion
efficiency. Terminal personnel hope the remodeling will reduce downtime as a result
of fire-eye failures, eliminate water line freezing problems, reduce pilot fuel
costs, and reduce burner smoking.
Terminal personnel do not complete a daily check of the unit (there are no
gauges on the unit). Proper operation of the unit is determined by the absence of
smoke. If the unit is smoking, terminal personnel clean the burner tips and nozzles.
Nozzles and tips are cleaned at least annually.
General maintenance and repair of the unit is performed by terminal personnel.
Major work in the unit is done by the manufacturer.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs--
Between January and August 1985 the unit was down for the following reasons:
o
May 1985 --
Down between 8:45 am and 4:00 pm on May 7th as a result of a
broken underground vapor line.
The unit was down between 8:00 am on May 21 and 9:00 am on May 24
for remodeling.
The burners were out of adjustment on May 28 and the unit was
down between 8:00 am and 12:00 noon.
Plant Q -- McGill Incorporated Thermal Oxidation System
Site Description--
Plant Q uses a McGill thermal oxidation system, Model V-200 to control hydrocar-
bon emissions.
4-56
-------
Maintenance Summary*--
Very little maintenance work has been performed on the McGill thermal oxidation
system at Plant Q. The level and specific gravity of the glycol/water solution in
the hydraulic seal has to be checked occasionally, but this has not been a problem
area for the terminal. Shortly after installation, the spark igniter plug was
replaced because of
fouling. The propane storage tank must be replenished approximately every 2 weeks.
The air pressure supply from the compressor to the burner has had to be reset occa-
sionally when it dropped slightly from its nominal value of 7 psi. One indicating
light bulb was replaced during the study.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
The air compressor on the system was rebuilt shortly after the system was
installed. A few instances of flame failure and failure of the system to ignite as
loading commenced are noted on the checklists completed during the study. A resetting
of the supply air pressure corrected the failure-to-ignite problem.
Plant S -- AER Thermal Oxidation System
Site Description--
Plant S receives product from a pipeline; the terminal only distributes gasoline.
The average gasoline throughput is less than 50 gallons per year. All product is
bottom loaded. The terminal is staffed 16 hours a day,S days a week.
Hydrocarbon emissions are controlled by a Model 600 AER thermal oxidizer.
The unit was installed in 1981 and was designed for a maximum throughput of 4,500
gallons per minute.
Maintenance Summary*--
The maintenance performed on the AER control system at Terminal S is very
minimal. The principal routine item involves the propane storage tank, which is
refilled approximately every 3 weeks. Terminal personnel observe temperature and
pressure readings and make frequent adjustments to maintain the proper settings. In
addition, the valves controlling the flow of vapors into the system are periodically
lubricated.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*-- .
The problems incurred with this system have been minor, and have principally
involved the electrical controls. Various microswitches and mercoid controls which
control the operational sequence of the oxidizer have been replaced due to malfunc-
tioning.
Problems were encountered with the purge valve relay system on December 9, 1982,
and the system was taken off line so that the solenoid could be replaced. The
replacement part, installed 3 days later, also failed in February and the system went
down for 2 days. The new solenoid was installed on February 3 and the system operated
consistently through the end of the study.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-57
-------
Summary
Available operational and repair data, O&M data and downtime are shown on Table
4-27 for the three thermal oxidation units included in the study. The specific
information listed on the table includes installation date, manufacturer, annual O&M
costs, amount of data available, percent downtime during the study, and O&M problems
experienced during the study.
LEAN OIL ABSORPTION
There was one lean oil absorption system in the study.
Plant CC -- Southwest Industries Lean Oil Absorption System
Site Description--
Plant CC hydrocarbon emissions are controlled by a lean oil
The Model No.9 system was manufactured by Southwest Industries.
reconditioned unit when it was installed in 1980.
absorption system.
The unit was
Maintenance Summary*--
Routine maintenance on the Southwest Industries lean oil absorption unit at the
Plant CC is quite simple. The only regular item involves the various pumps in the
system, including centrifugal, rotary vacuum, and sump pumps in the system. The
pumps using standard bearings and seals are lubricated on an as-needed basis, or
approximately weekly.
Pressure and temperature readings for the operating system indicate to terminal
personnel whether the system is operating properly. These readings are checked
frequently and adjustments are made if necessary to keep these parameters within the
correct ranges.
Table 4-28 summarizes the daily checklist data for the lean oil absorption
system gathered during the study. Typical, low, and high pressure and temperature
readings are shown for the unit.
Summary of Operational Problems and Repairs*--
About 1 year prior to initiation of the study, compressor seals had presented a
problem through leakage, and were replaced. Again in October 1982, leakage through
compressor seals was causing automatic system shutdown. The seals were replaced
within 1 day.
Also in October 1982, the bearings in the gasoline supply pump (storage to
stripping unit) were found to be excessively worn, as had been the case approximately
every 8 months. The impeller was trimmed from 10-1/4 to 9-3/4 inches at the sugges-
tion of Southwest Industries. This reduced the current draw of the pump and solved
the pump overheating problem.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-58
-------
TABLE 4-27.
SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DATA FOR
THERMAL OXIDATION SYSTEMS
Annual .Amount of % Downtime O&M Problems
,Installation Manufacturer O&M Data of Un it Experi enced
Pl ant Date of Unit of Unit Costs Available Duri ng Study Du ri ng St udy
K 1974 NAO $200a 5 Months O.2%a 0 Broken under-
ground vapor
line. Down
7 hr.
0 Down 3 days
for remodeling
o Burners out
of adjustment.
Down 4 hr.
Q Un known Me Gi 11 Un kn own Un kn own 0% 0 Fl ame fai 1 ure
o Fa il ure for
system to
i gni te, reset
air supply
S 1981 AER Un kn own Un kn own 1% 0 Purge ai r
valve system,
replaced
solenoid.
Down 3 days
o Purge air
valve failed
again. Down
2 days
aDoes not include May 1985 remodeling project.
4-59
-------
TABLE 4-28. SUMMARY OF DAILY CHECKLIST DATA FROM
PLANT CC LEAN OIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM --
SEPTEMBER 1982 - AUGUST 1983
Design Typical Low Hi gh
Parameter and gauge no. reading value va 1 ue value
Pressures
P-1 pump discharge, PI-1 91-93 psig _a 93 146
P-2 pump discharge, PI-2 20 1 b mi n. 24 21 30
Compressor suction, PI-4 5 1 b max. 2 0 4
Compressor 2nd Stage, PI-5 140 lb max. 145 100 160
Compressor lube 20 1 b mi n. 24 13 35
Temperatures
Heater no. 1, TI-2 235°F max. 250 232 265
Stripper sump, TI-3 255°F 250 220 266
Heater no. 2, TI-4 255-285°F 285 260 295
Compressor suction, TI-5 165-185°F 165 150 180
Compressor 2nd Stage, TI-6 315°F max. 315 303 342
aNo typi cal value; reading gradually increased over the course of the
st udy .
4-60
-------
At the same time, the openings in the distribution tray of the absorption column
were enlarged to permit a greater quantity of lean oil to pass through the column.
This was found to increase the system control efficiency to an acceptable level.
Automatic shutdowns due to excessive temperatures and pressures have been a
continuing problem. This situation has required careful attention to and adjustment
of the control settings of the system.
In March 1983, the electrical connection lugs for heater No.1 (warms incoming
gasoline) were replaced with heavy duty lugs to prevent the carbon buildup which was
causing loss of electrical supply to the heater. At this time, an apparent leak in
the vapor holding tank bladder allowed liquid to penetrate the bladder and rest on
its top surface. The liquid was pumped from the top of the bladder skin, and the
problem has not reoccurred.
Summary*
The principal area of maintenance concern for this system involves periodic
lubrication of the moving parts of the system and observation of temperature and
pressure readings for proper values. Settings must be frequently adjusted to main-
tain the correct system balance and to ensure adequate control efficiency.
The system has been fairly reliable, with most of the problems relating to
maintaining the correct system parameter levels to create adequate control efficiency
and prevent system shutdowns. Pump bearings and compressor seals have presented some
problem with wear and leakage, indicating that spares of these items should be kept
on hand to minimize system downtime.
Table 4-29 summarizes O&M problems for the lean oil absorption system at
plant CC by presenting annual O&M costs, amount of data available, percent downtime
during study, and O&M problems experienced during study.
*This section was taken, essentially verbatim, from Mechanical Reliability Study of
Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environmental Services,
December 1983.
4-61
-------
TABLE 4-29. SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DATA FOR
SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIES LEAN OIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM
Plant
Installation
date of unit
Amount % Downtime
of data of unit
available during study
Annual
O&M costs
O&M problems experienced
during study
CC
1980a
Un kn own
7-1/2 Months
10%
o Compressor seal leaks
down 1 day.
o Gasoline supply pump
bearings worn
o Openings in distribution
tray of absorption
column enlarged
o Excessive temperatures
and pressures have been
continuing problem
o Electrical connection
lugs for heater no. 1
replaced
o Apparent leak in bladder
tank.
aInstalled as a reconditioned unit.
4-62
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
The primary goal of the study was to determine how operation and maintenance
practices affect the 'performance of vapor recovery systems. In addition to address-
ing the primary goal, the study has characterized the common maintenance and opera-
tional problems of each type of control unit, the operational reliability (in terms
of percent downtime) of the units, operating and maintenance costs for the units, the
effect of equipment age upon reliability, climatological effects upon operation, and
the use of continuous emission monitors on vapor recovery units.
The purpose of this section will be to present each of these areas of comparison
in order to better evaluate the performance of the thirty vapor recovery units
included in the study. Because most of the characteristics presented in this section
are discussed in the earlier sections of this report the format of this section will
be primarily summary tables which tie together the above points of discussion, plus a
brief explanatory text.
CHARACTERISTIC PROBLEMS INHERENT TO EACH TYPE OF CONTROL SYSTEM
Carbon Adsorption Systems
The manufacturers of carbon adsorption systems report that motor operated valve
(MOV) failures, liquid high/low levels, and actuators are the highest maintenance
areas in the units. The preliminary results of the study concur ~th the manufactur-
ers' experiences. During the study the following recurring problems were also noted:
switch failures, problems ~th vacuum pump, general electronic problems, and air
purge problems. The type of malfunctions above are diverse and no one type of
failure predominated. The data gathered during this study do not allow for any
definite conclusions about the relative frequency of each type of occurrence or the
specific nature and resulting downtime from each.
Refrigeration Systems
There appears to be O&M problems ~th the compressors in the older VC model
Edwards Engineering systems. Terminals using VC models reported replacing an indi-
vidual compressor about once every 3 to 5 years (there are at least three compressors
on each unit). Edwards Engineering redesigned the compressor system in the DE
models.
For the data gathered during the study, there are no clear trends in component
failures with the exception of the replacement of malfunctioning gauges, repairs of
fluid leaks, and correcting fluid levels. One unit (Plant I, a VC model) had prob-
lems t~ce in four months with the formation of crystals in the methylene chloride
brine, which took the unit off-line for 8 to 10 days. Methylene chloride brine is
not used in the DE model series. Three plants (all using DE models) had problems
with pumps -- a defrost pump failure (pump was replaced), a decanter pump coupling
failure, and replacement of defective overload heaters on a hydrocarbon pump.
There was no downtime at the Rheem Superior refrigeration/absorption system at
~ant E.
5-1
-------
Thermal Oxidation Systems
There was very little downtime for the three thermal oxidation units included in
the study. Plant K experienced problems with burners becoming out of adjustment.
Plant Q, on two occasions, had problems with flame ignition. The purge air valve
failed twice at Plant S.
Lean Oil Absorption Systems
The single lean oil absorption system in the study experienced shutdowns twice
as a result of compressor seal leaks, excessive wear on gasoline supply pump bearings
(occurred approximately every 8 months). The unit also experienced recurring shut-
downs due to excessive temperatures and pressures in the system.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS, AND DOWNTIME
Available O&M costs are summarized on Table 5-1. Unfortunately, the O&M costs
on the table were reported by terminals in a variety of different ways, including or
excluding various aspects of O&M (such as labor, parts, maintenance contractors,
etc.) The O&M costs cannot reasonably be compared to one another and need to be
viewed on an individual basis.
Most units in the study did not meter power usage at the vapor control system
separate from plant power. Unfortunately, most of the power meters on the few
terminals with separate meters on the vapor control systems were malfunctioning. Two
pl ants, Pl ant F and 0, had properly operati ng power meters. Pl ant 0 (Edwards
Engineering refrigeration system) reports an average power usage of 2.8 KWH per 1000
gallon throughput for units 1 and 2 combined for the period January through May
1985. Plant F (Zink carbon adsorption system) reports an average power usage of 4.8
KWH per 1000 gallon throughput for the period July 1 through December 31, 1984. It
should be noted that Plant F runs the unit continuously during winter months; that
is, the unit continues to operate even when no trucks are loading.
John Zink Company reports a power usage of less than 1 KWH per 1000 gallons of
throughput for a typical carbon adsorption system. The power usage is dependent upon
the inlet vapor concentration (typically 30 to 40 percent) and the percent operating
capacity of the system. McGill Incorporated reports a power usage of approximately
0.5 KWH per 1000 gallons of throughput. The figure depends on the loading profile at
the terminal. Edwards Engineering reports power usage by the DE refrigeration models
to be 1 to 1.2 KWH per 1000 gallons of throughput; power usage by the VC models is
2 to 3 times higher than power usage of DE models. The power usage figures for the
Edwards Engineering refrigeration systems are also dependent upon inlet hydrocarbon
loadings.
In order to evaluate the effects of O&M practices on control system downtime, a
subjective "maintenance program rating" scale was developed. The rating is a number
from 1 to 3 assi gned as fo 11 ows:
Rating 1 -- little or no established maintenance program (such as -- no daily
checks of unit, no scheduled preventive maintenance actions, no
readily available spare parts, no in-house maintenance or service
contract, no repair log maintained)
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF O&M COSTS AND PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PR OGRAMS
M3jor or M3 i ntenance
independent M3 i ntenance Repai rs O&M program
Pl ant Type of system oil co. . performed by performed by costs ratinga % Downtimeb
A link, Carbon Adsorption M3jor Service Contractor Service $4, 800/yr 2 0
Contractor Maintenance
Contract
B Me Gi 11, Ca rbon Adsorpti on M3jor In-house In-house $10,000- 3 0
20,000/yr
maintenance
C Me Gill, Ca rbon Adsorption Independent Outside Electrician Outside $750/yr 1 27
Electrician maintenance
D link, Carbon Adsorption Major In -house/ Se rv i ce Service $8000/yr 3 0
Contractor Contractor Maintenance
E Rheem Superior, Refrigera- Major In-house/ Servi ce Service 3 0
ti on/ Ab sorpti on Co nt racto r Contractor
F link, Carbon Adsorption Major In-house Service $10,000/yr 2 0.4
<.J'1 Contractor maintenance
I G link, Carbon Adsorption M3j or In -house Servi ce $10,000/yr. 2 5.7
w Contractor maintenance
H Me Gi 11, Carbon Adsorption M3jor In-house In-house $1000- 3 0.4
1500/yr
maintenance
I Edwards Engineering, M3jor In -house In -house/ $20, OOO/yr. 2 5.1
Refrigerati on Service
Contractor
J Edwards Engineering, Independent In -house Service 2 2.7
Refrigerati on Contractor
K NAO, Thermal Oxidation M3jor In -house Servi ce $200/yr 2 0.2
Contractor
L Edwards Engineering M3j or Service Service 2 0
Re fr i gerat ion Contractor Contractor
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-1. (continued)
Major or Ma i ntenance
independent Ma i ntenance Repai rs O&M program
P1 an t Type of system oil co. performed by performed by costs ratinga % Downtimeb
M Edwards Engineering Maj or In-house/ Service $16,000/ 2 0
Refrigeration Servi ce Contractor yr main-
Contractor tenance
contractor
bi 11 s
N Me Gill, Carbon Adsorption Independent In -house/ In-house/ Un kn own 2 0
Service Service
Contractor Contractor
O-Unit Edwards Engineering Maj or In-house/ Service $3,150 for 3 0.4
1 Refrigeration Service Contractor maintenance
Contractor parts and
costs for
O-Unit Edwards Engineering Maj or In -house/ Servi ce Jan-May, 1985 3 0.1
2 Refrigerati on Servi ce Contractor for units
U'1 Contractor 1 and 2
I P Me Gi 11, Ca rbon Ad so rpt ion Maj or Un kn own Unknown Un kn own 2c 1
.po
Q Me Gi 11, Therma 1 Oxidation Independent Un kn own Unknown Un kn own lc 0
R Edwards Engineering Maj or In-house/ Service 2c 9
Refrigerati on Servi ce Contractor
Contractor
S AER Thermal Oxidation Maj or Un kn own Unknown Un kn own lc 1
T MeGill, Carbon Adsorption Major Un kn own Unknown Un kn own 3c 3
U MeGill, Carbon Adsorption Maj or Un kn own Un kn own Un kn own 2c 14
V MeGill, Carbon Adsorption Independent Un kn own Un kn own Un kn own lc 2
W Zink, Carbon Adsorption Maj or In -house/ Service Un known 2c 35
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-1. (concluded)
fv1ajor or fv1a i ntenance
independent fv1a i ntenance Repai rs O&M program
Pl ant Type of system oil co. performed by performed by costs ratinga % Downtimeb
X Edwards Engineering fv1aj 0 r In-house/ Se rv ice $23,665 2c 2
Refrigerati on Service Contractor expenses
Contractor billed by
Servi ce
Contractor
June-Oct., 1982
y McGill, Carbon Adsorption Independent Un kn own Unknown Un kn own 2c 10
Z Edwards Engineering fv1aj 0 r Servi ce Se rvi ce Uknown 2c 4
Refrigerati on Contractor Contractor
AA Zi nk, Carbon, Adsorption fv1aj 0 r Un kn own Un kn own Un kn own 2c 1
BB McGi 11, Carbon Adsorption fv1aj or Un kn own Un kn own Un kn own 3c 3
CC Lean Oil Adsorption fv1aj or Un kn own Un kn own Un kn own lc 10
(J1
I
(J1
aSubjective rating of maintenance program:
maintenance program.
bRefer to Table 6-1 or Tables 4-15,4-16,4-24, 4-25,4-27, and 4-29 for time periods of study for each terminal.
cBased on information in Mechanical Reliability of Vapor Control Systems at Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Pacific Environ-
mental Services, December 1983.
I--Minimal maintenance program; 2--Moderate maintenance program; 3--Extensive
-------
Rating 2 -- moderate maintenance program (such as -- unit checked several times
weekly or perhaps daily, some readily available spare parts, knowledge-
able in-house maintenance personnel or service contract)
Rating 3 -- extensive maintenance program (such as -- unit checked at least once
daily, knowledgeable maintenance personnel and/or service contract,
up-to-date repair log, scheduled preventive mainteriance program,
readily available spare parts inventory)
The downtime data for all control technologies, categorized by the maintenance
program ratings, is as follows:
Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3
No. of Control Systems 5 17 8
t"'e a n % Downtime 7.1% 6.1% 0.9%
t"'edi an % Downtime 2% 2% 0.3%
Mode % Downtime NA 0% 0%
Ra ng e % Downtime 0-27% 0-35% 0-3%
Using the simple statistics in the above table there does appear to be a lower
percent downtime for the terminals classified as Rating 3 when compared to the
terminals rated as 1 or 2. Please note that in viewing data with a wide range, such
as systems in Rating 1 and 2 categories, the median is generally considered a more
appropriate descriptor of central tendency.
Downtime data for refrigeration systems (includes refrigeration/absorption),
categorized by maintenance program ratings, is as follows:
Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3
No. of Control Systems 0 7 3
t"'ean % Downtime NA 3.3% 0.2%
t"'edi an % Downtime NA 2.7% 0.1%
Range % Downtime NA 0-9% 0-0.4%
Carbon adsorption system downtime, categorized by maintenance program ratings,
is as follows:
5-6
-------
Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3
No. of Control Systems 2 9 5
t-'ean % Downtime 11.6% 8.6% 1. 5%
~di an % Downtime NA 1% 0.4%
Range % Downtime 2-27% 0-35% 0-3%
CLIMATOLOGICAL EFFECT ON SYSTEM RELIABILITY
One of the goals of this study was to correlate climatological effects with
system reliability. Plant personnel at the 16 vapor recovery units covered in Phase
2 of the study could not offer any definite opinions or conclusions regarding cor-
relation between climatological effects and system reliability. It should be noted
that all 16 units are in the same general climatological area. Table 5-2 presents
the percent downtime per month for the 16 systems included in Phase 2 of the study.
For the eight carbon adsorption systems, the months of April and May show the highest
percent downtime. For the six refrigeration systems the month of April showed the
highest percent downtime. The combination refrigeration/adsorption unit had no
downtime. The thermal oxidation unit had downtime in May. The summer months (June
through August) show the lowest percent downtimes. There were no definite conclu-
sions drawn regarding climatological effects on the 14 vapor recovery units included
in Phase 1 of the study because the winter of 1982-1983 was unusually mild in the
geographical areas included in the study.
Most of the plants covered in Phase 2 of the study had a winterizing or summer-
izing program which was either administered in-house or through the service contractor
(i.e. maintenance of 85 percent glycol, 50 percent glycol by weekly checks and
semiannual glycol change). Several terminals using carbon adsorption systems,
operated the units continuously (rather than only during loading operations) during
the ~nter to prevent freeze-ups. Manufacturers did not advocate this practice.
IMPACT OF AGE ON SYSTEM RELIABILITY
Table 5-3 is a presentation of the percent downtime for each vapor recovery unit
as a function of age of the unit at the time of the study. All 30 vapor recovery
units are listed along with date of installation, plant identification code and unit
manufacturer. The installation date for the 30 units ranges from 1974 through 1984,
however 15 of the units were installed during 1980 and 1981. The column labeled
average percent downtime is a weighted average of the percent downtime for each age
group (in years). It is difficult to draw any definite conclusions from this data;
however several ideas should be considered when evaluating the impact of age. First,
as with any new equipment there is a break in period during which the unit is debugged
and operators are being trained. Second, at the other extreme, units which have been
in operation the longest may be operated by workers who have become extremely adept
at troubleshooting and repairs. The high average downtime figures in the 2 to 4 year
old units is caused by several unusually high percent downtime figures (a 27 percent
and a 35 percent).
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-2. MONTHLY DOWNTIME FOR SYSTEMS IN PHASE 2 OF THE STUDY
Type of system Pl ant Jan. Feb. Ma rch Ap ri 1 May June July Aug. Tota 1
link, Carbon A Un kn own Un kn own 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Adsorption
t1: Gi 11, Ca rbon B 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Ad so rpti on
t1: Gill, Ca rbon C Un kn own Un kn own Un kn own 100% 35% 0% 0% 0% 27%
Adsorption
li nk, Carbon D Un kn own Un kn own Un kn own 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Ad so rpt ion
Zi nk, Carbon F 3% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% 0.002%a 0.002%a 0.002%a 0.4%
Adsorption Unknownb
li n k, Ca rbon G Un kn own Un kn own Un known 7% 21% 0.2%a 0.2%a 5.7%
Ad so rpt ion
t1: Gi 11, Ca rbon H 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1 2.1 1.1 0.4%
Adsorpti on
Adsorption
Rheem Superi or, E 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Re fri gerat i ani
Absorption
Edwards Engi neeri ng, I Un kn own Un kn own Un kn own 25% 0.3% 0% 0% 0% 5.1%
Re fri gerat ion
Edwards Engineering, J 3% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 12.9% 0% 2.7%
Refri gerati on
Edwards Engineering, L 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Re fri gerat ion
Edwards Engineering, M 0% 0% Un kn own Un known 0% Un kn own Un kn own Un known 0%
Refrigerati on
Edwards Engineering, 0- 1% 0% 0% 1.6% 0% 0% 0% 0.5% 0.4%
Refrigeration Un it 1
Edwards Engineering, 0- 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.7% 0% 0% 0.1%
Re fri gerat ion Un i t 2
NAO, Thermal K 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.6b 0% 0% 0% 0.2%
Oxidati on
aFi gure for June through August, 1985.
bExcludes three days planned downtime for remodeling of unit.
-------
TABLE 5-3.
AGE OF CONTROL DEVICE VERSUS DOWNTIME
Age of
unit (yrs)a
Date
installed
11
11
10
1974
1974
1975
9
9
8
8
1976
1976
1977
1977
4
1979
1981
1981
1981
4
4
4
4
1981
1980
1980
3
3
3
3d
1980
1980
1980
1982
1981
1981
1981
1981
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Ie
1981
1981
1983
1982
1984
1984
1984
Un kn own
Ave. %
Percent downtime
downtimeb per ageC
o
0.2
o
0.1
o
2.0
Pl ant
code
R
C
N
0-1
0-2
P
l
BB
CC
T
F
S
V
W
X
y
AA
D
U
A
G
J
Type of system
E
K
M
Rheem Superi or Refri ger-
at ion/ Absorpti on
NAO, Thermal Oxidation
Edwards Engi neeri ng,
Refrigeration
McGill, Carbon Adsorption
Edwards Engi neeri ng,
Refri gerat ion
McGi 11, Carbon Adsorption
Edwards Engi neeri ng,
Refrigerati on
Edwards Engineering,
Refrigeration
McGill, Carbon Adsorption
McGill, Carbon Adsorption
Edwards Engi neeri ng,
Refri gerat ion
Edwards Engi neeri ng,
Refrigeration
McGill, Carbon Adsorption
Edwards Engineering,
Re fri gerat ion
McGi 11, Carbon Adsorption
Southwest Ind., Lean Oi 1
Absorpti on
McGill, Carbon Adsorption
li nk, Carbon Adsorption
AER, Thermal Oxidation
McGill, Carbon Adsorption
link, Carbon Adsorption
Edwards Engi neeri ng,
Refri gerat ion
McGill, Carbon Adsorption
link, Carbon Adsorption
link, Carbon Adsorption
McGill, Carbon Adsorption
link, Carbon Adsorption
link, Carbon Adsorption
Edwards Engineering,
Refri gerat ion
Mc Gi 11, Thermal Ox i dat ion
o
5.1
0.4
o
0.2
B
I
H
L
Q
9
27
o
0.4
5.9
0.1
1
4
3.5
aDuring study.
bRefer to Table 6-1 or Tables 4-15, 4-16, 4-24, 4-25,
time peri ods of study for each termi nal .
CWeighted average based on amount of data available.
dlnstalled in 1980 as a reconditioned unit.
eOriginally installed in 1975, converted from VC to a
3
10
3
0.4
1
2
35
2
9.1
10
1
o
14
o
5.7
2.7
5.7
o
o
5-9
4-27, and 4-29 for
DE model in 1984.
-------
The manufacturers of the control systems (refrigeration, carbon adsorption, and
thermal oxidation systems) estimate a 15 to 20 year equipment life for the units.
The estimate assumes a regular preventive maintenance program.
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING OF VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS
The State of California requires continuous emission monitors (CEM) on vapor
control systems installed since 1977. Carbon adsorption systems must install infrared
or flame ionization devices on the outlet stack to detect and report hydrocarbon
vapors, on a volume percent basis, as propane. Refrigeration systems must use a
continuous temperature recording chart (temperature of the low stage coils directly
correlates with a hydrocarbon concentration from the exhaust).
The manufacturers of carbon adsorption systems reported several units in
California and one unit in Florida using NDIR (nondispersive infrared) techniques to
continuously monitor hydrocarbon emissions. The cost of the monitors is, reportedly,
between $5,000 and $10,000. Carbon adsorption system manufacturers report that the
current CEMs must be calibrated at least once a day and that the CEMs are a high
maintenance item. None of the carbon systems in the study used CEMs to monitor
outlet hydrocarbon concentration.
Continuous temperature recording charts are standard equipment installed on all
Edwards Engineering refrigeration systems. All of the refrigeration systems in the
study are equipped with temperature recording charts. The newer Edwards Engineering
systems also are equipped ~th a manually-operated vapor analyzer to measure hydrocar-
bon concentration at the inlet and outlet. Several units in the study were equipped
with the analyzers, although the analyzers were rarely used.
EFFECT OF PRODUCT THROUGHPUT ON SYSTEM RELIABILITY
Table 5-4 shows the gasoline throughput data versus percent downtime for the
vapor control systems included in the study. There appears to be very little, if any,
difference in system downtime as a result of terminal size (i .e. gasoline throughput).
There is insufficient information to determine if individual breakdowns of the
control equipment are related to product throughput.
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-4. GASOLINE THROUGHPUT VERSUS PERCENT DOWNTIMEa
Approximate
gasoline Percent
throughput downtime Pl ant
< 50 million 27 C
gal/yr 0 E
0.4 F
5.7 G
o N
1 S
14 U
Averageb 6.2
~di an 0.4
50-100 2.7 J
mil 1 ion 0.2 K
ga 1 I yr 0 L
9 R
Averageb 2.4
~di an 1.5
100-150 0 A
million 0 0
gal/yr 0.4 H
0.25 0
3 T
2 V
Averageb 1.0
~d i an 0.3
>150 0 B
mi 11 ion 5.1 I
ga 11 onl yr 0 M
3 BB
Averageb 2.2
~di an 1.5
aGasoline throughputs for Plants P, Q, W, X, Y, Z, AA, and CC are not known.
bWeighted average based on amount of data available.
5-11
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY OF RELIABILITY DATA
Table 6-1 presents downtime data for the vapor control units included in the
study. It is very important to note the varying number of months from which data
was available. Other important notes: the sample of bulk terminals selected for the
study does not constitute a random statistical sampling and the sample size is too
small to represent a portrayal of the true population of bulk terminals. The manu-
facturer of the unit is not the sole factor affecting downtime -- other factors may
include preventive maintenance programs, age of system, or climatological effects.
The percent downtime for the McGill carbon adsorption units ranges from 0 to 27
percent with an average of 5.4 percent and a median of 2.5 percent. The percent
downtime for the Zink Carbon Adsorption units ranges from 0 to 35 percent with an
average of 8.9 percent and a median of 0.7 percent. Edwards Engineering Refrigeration
percent downtimes range from 0 to 9 percent with an average of 2.5 percent and a
median of 2 percent. The Rheem Superior unit in the study had zero downtime.
Thermal oxidation units ranged in percent downtime from 0 to 1 percent with an
average of 0.6%. The lean oil absorption unit in the study had a downtime of 10
percent.
SUMMARY OF STRONG AND WEAK POINTS FOR PREDOMINANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Many factors affect the selection of a vapor control system. Several oil
companies purchase almost exclusively one type of equipment. It is difficult to
discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of the different types of systems;
each manufacturer naturally claims that their system is the most efficient and least
costly to purchase, operate and maintain.
However, as a result of information gathered during this study several strong
and weak points can be discussed for each technology:
o Thermal oxidizers -- Thermal oxidizers do not recover any product. However,
the units require very little maintenance and have little downtime.
o Carbon adsorption systems -- These systems seemed to be preferred by small to
intermediate size terminals. Much of the maintenance and repairs can be
performed by in-house maintenance personnel -- i.e., no extensive or unusual
training is needed to maintain the units. Therefore, O&M costs appear to be
lower. However, the units require two gasoline lines (a supply and return
line) between the gasoline recycle tank, it is more difficult to continuously
monitor emissions, product recovery can not be measured, and the units appear
to be more susceptible to ill effects of switch10ading of non-fuel liquids
(such as toluene).
o Refrigeration Systems -- Refrigeration systems appear to be preferred by
intermediate to large size bulk terminals. The units are equipped with
continuous temperature recorders (considered a continuous emission monitor)
and can measure the amount of recovered product. The units are less suscept-
ible to ill effects from an occasional non-fuel switch10ading. However,
based on information gathered during the current study, the units appear to
6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF PERCENT DOWNTIME OF VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS
Type of Jlrnount of data
system Pl ant a vail ab 1 e % Downtime
McGill Carbon
Adsorption B 8 Months 0
C 5 Months 27a
H 7.5 Months 0.4
N 5 Months 0
P 9 Months 1
T 7 Months 3
U 7 Months 14
V 8 Months 2
Y 10.5 Months 10
BB 10.5 Months 3
Zi nk Carbon A 6 Months 0
Adso rpt ion D 5 Months 0
F 8 Months 0.4
G 5 Months 5.7
W 10 Months 35
AA 10 Months 1
Edwards Engineering
Refrigeration I 5 Months 5.1
J 8 Months 2.7
L 7.5 Months 0
M 3 Months 0
o Un it 1 8 Months 0.4
o Un i t 2 8 Months 0.1
R 5 Months 9
X 6 Months 2
Z 12 Months 4
Rheem Superior E 8 Months 0
Refrigeration/
Absorption
Thermal Oxidation K 8 Months 0.2
Q Unknown 0
S Unknown 1
Lean Oil Adsorp- CC 7-1/2 Months 10
tion
aHigh figure caused by one downtime incident. Company claims less than
1 percent downtime prior to the incident.
6-2
-------
be more expensive to maintain. The majority of the maintenance and repairs
are performed by outside contractors. All units in the studies retained
service contractors; implying that the maintenance and repairs are beyond the
training and ability of in-house service personnel.
RECOMMENDED INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR PREDOMINANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
The proper operation of the various control systems can be ascertained rather
easily by following a few simple inspection procedures.
Simple check points for carbon adsorption systems are as follows:
o Check the stack of the on-line bed to see if any vapors are being emitted;
there should be no visible vapors.
o To determine if the carbon beds are regenerating, follow each bed through an
adsorption/regeneration cycle. During regeneration, the vacuum (observable
by vacuum gauges on each bed) should rise to 27 to 28 inches of mercury. The
air purge should turn on at approximately 27 inches of mercury and the vacuum
should not drop appreciably when the air purge is activated.
o Observe the temperature indicators on the sides of the beds. The on-line bed
should be slightly above ambient temperature.
o Make sure that gasoline is circulating through the system by checking gasoline
supply and return pump pressures.
o Verify that the gasoline supply temperature is below 100°F. Above 100°F the
gasoline is less absorbent, which affects the recycle concentration.
o There should be no red lights on the indicator panel.
A quick check of thermal oxidation systems can be performed by:
o Observing the stack (for enclosed flame systems); there should be no smoke.
o Observing the burner flames or the flare; the flame or flare should burn
IIcleanli.
A simple check point for refrigeration systems is as follows:
o Check the temperature recording chart. Typical temperatures are -90 to
-120°F (except during defrost periods). If the unit is achieving the low
temperatures, the other components of the unit are, most likely, operating
properly.
Copies of blank checklists used in the study are contained in Appendix A.
RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
This section will review the general measures of a successful preventive mainten-
ance program for vapor recovery units. The general measures are a compilation of
those identified in the study at sites with the lowest percent down time. All of
the following measures have shown to be helpful in improving vapor recovery unit
rel iabil ity.
o Maintain contact with manufacturer for troubleshooting advice
o Delegate primary responsibility of unit to one maintenance employee (i.e.,
someone should be accountable for the unit)
6-3
-------
o Perform detailed daily checklist plus several daily "spot checks"
o Enlist the aid of a service contractor unless on-site employees have been
adequately trained
o Keep maintenance repair/log concurrent with checklist records
o Perform seasonal type maintenance and on-going checks (i.e. spring/fall
glycol changeover plus monthly checks)
o Maintain a spare parts inventory either in-house or through the service
contractor (or combination)
The above seven points represent some components of an ideal program. Only one
site in the study (Phase 2) had all of the above points in their maintenance program.
Their program resulted in excellent reliability at their terminals. Based on infor-
mation gathered during this study, it was not sufficient to permit the recommendation
of a preventive maintenance program on a control technology-specific basis.
6-4
-------
Append; x A
B1 ank Ch eck 1; sts
A-I
-------
Edwards Engineering Refrigeration
Checklists
-------
Date Sheet Started:
VAPOR RECOVERY UNIT DAILY CHECKLIST -- EDWARDS UNIT -- VC800
y
Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Frio Sat. Sun.
Inside
Northside - low stage oil level
Northslde - hlgh stage 011 level
Northside - R502 discharge press.
Northslde - R502 suctl0n press.
Norths 1 de - R503 dl scharge press.
Northside - R503 suction press.
Southslde - low stage 011 level
Souths 1 de - hl gh stage 01 I 1 eve 1
Southside - R502 discharge press.
Southslde - R502 suctl0n press.
Southslde - R503 dlscharge press.
Southside - R503 suction press
3-way valve temp.
Recorder temp.
Brine pump pres.
Unusual nOlses, smel IS, or
vibrations
Any red lights on indicator
panel?
Any chern or refrig. leaks
Outside
Level of MC tank
Temperature of MC
Level of brine tank
Temperature of brlne
Vapor condensor lnlet temp.
Vapor condensor outlet temp.
Coolant pump pres.
Det rost pump pres.
Recovered product meter reading
Decanter: small side full,
large slde - no lce
Is vapor condensor coil iced
over or plugged?
Any chern. leaks?
Watt meter readlng
Comments or Notes:
-------
Date sheet started:
Note: Attach recorder chart to this sheet
when recorder chaTt is replaced and
this sheet is complete. Readings should
be taken at the same time each clay.
VAPOR REC
OVERY DAILY (J{ECKLI~
I. Inside Mon. Tues. WP.1 Thurs. Fri. Sat. r'l 1 ~
-
1. Low stage #1 oil level (1/4-3/4)
2. Low stage #2 oil level II
3. High stage #1 oil level II
4. Higl1 stage #2 oil level .11
--
5. 3- way valve temp. (-700 to -1000)
6. Recorder temp. II
7. What time does the defrost cycle start?
8. Brine pump pressure (15# to 601t)
9. Unusual noises, smells, or vibrations?
-
10. Any red lights on indicator ,panel?
11. Any obvious chern. or refrig. leaks?
II. Outside XJ:JXf,Xf.. x x x x XXXXXXX ~xxxxxx} .'{\. '< '
-"
12. M/C tank level (gl. val. may be closed) I
13. Trichlor. tank level II . I
--
14. Trichlor. tank temp. (8Uo to 1100)
15. V.C. inlet temp. (-800 to -1050)
16. V.C. outlet temp. (-600 to -1000)
17. Coolant pump pres. (15# to 60#) ~-
18. Defrost pump pres. (15#-30# if running) ,
19. Recovered prod. meter reading -
20. Decanter: small side should be full,
large side should contain no ice.
21. Is the V.C. coil iced over or plugged?
22. Any ObVIOUS chern. leaks? I
23. Any fire hazards or trash around unit? I
24. Initials of person checking unit.
Comments or notes:
-------
I Telmlnal IUn" number Mo.m r-' ,pe~2of2
Edwards D.E. Vapor Recovery System Dally Log
Delros' Sy.'e~ H8.lch Cowe, Oll'a~ and ukh.d Hydrocarbon y.tem H.C. Vapor Recovery Remark8
Pump Ros:\wolr Pump ......, Oocll.l1t81 "'''" '''OJ> tCMGkov8ry 15d8VI)
Ddltl -rf7 Bllne Trlco f'IGC~ Check -.. ~I Termlnll thrupul gallona HIe
Glvc",1 Damp '.d DocanlOr Opllfale. Cho<, "" Lbo.
, n/OI! . run liUI1P liquid liqUId OnIOIl PUIU. lube .1" TolBlgaUon. w4Ilflr ,,~ makereu.o
cond !arlce ," '4HC. ~He ~He He.
liI~ul le~eI pump Mol ve", ... In 0" po'
f8COW.
Normal 2210 100'F '.In '" 1210 Wlltlkly <»0<, Mg.IB
LUI1U,IIOI1 "" ;J?'f \'011.111 \\11.111 26' d,'"
1 I
- --~ -~- - !
;, . >---
- I---- -- ~
3
4
-
5
6
7
.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
- -
25
f---.
26
27
28
29 -
-- - - - -- -
30 - -
-
31
DJ~tributlon: Whlle- Terminal Vapor Recollery ilia, Canary-Exlra Copy
-------
HIGH -STAGE COMP
s.:":~~ ~m Pressure
DiR~h~~Be Pressure
Oil Level
Oil
On
Off
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesda
Thursda
Friday
--- ..
y
y
LOW STAGE REFRIGERANT. CONTROLS
Suction Pressure
Discharge ~essure
Oil Level
Oil
On
Off
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
,
I
Defrost 'l'aM'
Tempera. t~e Gau,q:e
D.F. Pump
On Off
Low Stage R50) Thermal ~nsion
Value Pressure Gauge
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
-.
-------
McGill Carbon Adsorption
Checklists
-------
?:,{~~.;'t:;.l::\,)~~:)\Y',:,\7-,'_-',. "::;(~';_\~',.;\';,'r-',:\':; ._~),\\:f~.,\:'-' ';:"-;':';'- H'Idtotech" Maintenance Check Sheet -"',/'::'" ,.'-,,- ,',' " ' " '," ,,'.,' ,,',",;/.-"
Comments
Form Completed By:
Send carbon copy weekly to:
Environmental Department
Sun Refining and Marketing Company
1B45 Walnut St, 21st Floor, Philo PA 19103
F lie original In log book
Complate twice daily 7am and 7pm
9. Glycol flow rate to vacuum pump
from rotometer/s) P - 3 FI/FSL 1A
GPM
GPM
Terminal:
Date:
.P.4FI/FSL1B
Important, read the following first:
10. Check the clock meter and record Its reading and the time of day
the reading Is being taken.
Clock Meter Reads
am
pm
Never hit the ESD (Emergency Shut Down) button to shut the unit down unless
there Is a Real Emergency (i.e. - a fire, etc.)
Time of Day
11. Bed Temperatures
If you must shut the unit down for some reason other than an emergency, turn
it to the cycie "Off" position. Depending on what point In Its cycle the unit Is
In. It will take from 0 to 20 minutes for the unit to shut down completely.
Wait! Do not push the ESD button.
OF
of
of
Bed B
Top
Middle
Bed A
Top
Middle
OF
of
of
Never touch or adjust any- unit valves unless Instructed to do so by Terminal
Maintenance.
Bottom
Bottom
1.
Maximum vacuum pulled
12. The following checks to be performed only when trucks are loading.
a. Are vapors emitting from the stack of the bed that Is
accepting vapors1
DVes oNo
Please note the following items:
PI . 2A, Bed A
PI - 2B, Bed B
In. Hg
In. Hg
b. Are vapors emitting from the emergency vent stack 1
DVas DNa
2.
Hot Air Purge System
a.
Does hot air heater feel warm1
oVes
oNo
13.
Dally H Isto.ry
PI - 2A, Bed A
PI . 2B, Bed B
In. Hg
In. Hg
a. Was the unit down at any time (other than normal shut-
down) during the past 24 hours1
o Ves 0 No
b.
At what vacuum gauge pressure did purge turn on1
'I 3.
\
PI . 4A, Gasoline supply pump pressure
TI . 1A, Temperature Gasoline supply
PSIG
of
b. If yes, for how long1
State reason
hours
4.
PI - 1A, Gasoline Return pump pressure
Glycol Level
PSIG
Gasoline Level
~
I ndlcata Level
Sightglasses are
located on slda
of separator
~
PI - 3B, Absorber tower gasoline pressure
PSIG
PI - 3A, Seal pump discharge pressure
PSIG
c. Ware local Regulatory Agencies notlfled1
7.
TI - 1C, Glycol temperature to vacuum pump
OF
B.
Glycol temperature from vacuum pump
TI-2A
OF
-------
Vapor Recovery Unit Daily Check1 i st
Da te:
Time:
Comp 1 eted by:
Currently Loadi ng Gaso1 i ne?
Max. vacuum pulled, PI-2A:
Max. vacuum pulled, PI-2B:
Does hot air heater feel warm:
Gasoline supply pump pressure, PI-4A:
Gasoline supply pump temp., TI-IA:
Gasoline return pump pressure, PI-IA:
Indicate levels on sight gauges:
LG-IB
in Hg
in Hg
PSIG
OF
PSIG
LG-IA
High
-
Normal
Low
Low
Absorber tower gasoline pressure, PI-3B:
Seal pump discharge pressure, PI-3A:
Glycol temp. to vacuum pump, TI-IC:
Glycol temp. from vacuum pump, TI-2A:
Gas temp. out, TF-2B: of
Bed temperatures:
PSIG
PSIG
OF
OF
TI-3A: of TI-3D: of
-
TI-3B: of TI-3E: of
TI-3C: of TI-3F: of
-
Flow indicator/flow switch, FI/FSL-IA: gpm
*Any vapors from top of bed during gasoline loading:
*Was the unit down at any time in the past 24 hours?:
*If yes, for how long:
Reason(s) for shutdown:
Comments:
*Especially important questions
-------
link Carbon Adsorption
Checkl ists
-------
d ~O,
?~"L
o
o :1°3
;)o'{
...,
()
Ct.ye_L To C .
1'1 :;10'
.N..,-
V 1- 0
,
i
I
I
I
Vl P/S-' 1M /I
V I pIS".'
V'I
l"oN"
C
I
G llSo P~.H
~. 7""."
,.s;
11-.30'
11
. '0'
'III"
.
~
.
'113
co
fi 101
r'fl
I
~ ,. Sot
Y42 ~
- .
c::«.'
v("... f:'''-tot C'
T. :$':P£Il"~
I(
PI 541
Sl5PERA.,oJt
GL)'CoL
<;L'IC.'" -r,;ht-
1, 341 "
0"$0 .,,'tc... ~
,,1 '''I .' pSJ;
() /11;0 "J.N &. E 1-
P$!
.
- T -I-7()1-
vn-rE
,
1
1
,
K~H
.1'''181£1\1 P
..
-- -----
H ~s
." N'-
TI JOJ
I'" IJ(,.
,
G -S. h
t'u'"
c." T.W Ii~
F>-, S.R BEll.
1"we. ~
G dStH'IJE
CIS4 ~EI'\tP
11 .,301:
.
o
-------
PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTION SERVICE
quality s~'v;c~ you d~s~'v~
DAILY CHECKLIST
ZINKVAPOR PROCESSOR
DATE:
INSTRUMENT READING NORMAL
TI-303 .. of
PI-302 psig 14.0 psig
Separator Level ~ of glass
PI..;601 psig 30-40 psig
PI-701 -psig 30-40 psig
Glycol Level \ of glass
TI-301 of
TI-701 of
PI-301 psig 10.0 psig
PI-l0l "Hg 0-27 "Hgo
PI-201 "Hg 0-27 "Hg
TI-402 . of
PI-401 psig 5-12 psig
P~C-P/~[~ .-,
"boo t: . 0_.'
:--""";1,00'''''.''''''. .--. ,..:...
; MAR 2 0 1985
(804)741-2530
-------
Company
Date.
JOHN ZINK CmlPANY
CARBON ADSORPTION/ABSORPTION VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM
DAILY OPERATING LOG
Loca lion
Name
VRU Hodel No.
Observe and Record the following data:
Item
No.
Description
Carbon Adsorber Bed temperatures and vacuum levels during regeneration
cycles. Indicate with (*) when purge air trips SV-101 or -to&!':- 2.,1() J
V-l Regen
Temps Start: TI-I0l
TI-102 TI-I03
Regen Time.
tlinutes
Vacuum. inches IIg.
PI-IOI (V-I) PI-501 (C-I)
o
1
2
4
6
6
10
12
14
15
16
16
Temps End:
1'1 -102
TJ-IOI
TJ - 103
11 -1 04
11 -1 04
V-2 Hegen
TI -201
11 -203
Vacuum. inches IIg.
PI'""201 (V-2)
?o-.~e..
\ <:) + (.,
.TI-202
1'1-204
PI-501 (C-1)
TJ -20 I
1'1-203
----
1'1 -202
TI-204
I.OR- ,
-------
Item
No.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DAII.Y OPERATING LOG (Con't)
I
J- ct <+
(j' C\ J ~
Description
Actual
Ambient Temperature
Gasoline Temperatures
Supply (n -701)
Discharge [-} (TI-303)
Separator (TI-302)
Seal Fluid (Ethylene Glycol) Temperatures
Inlet to Vacuum Pump (n-40l)
Discharge Vacuum Pump (TI-402)
Discharge Vacuum Pump (TI-403) 2nd Pump
Separator (TI-301)
Temp. rise across vacuum pump
(TI-402 minus TI-401)
(TI-403 minus TI-401) 2nd vacuum pump
Seal fluid level in separator (LG-301)
Gasoline level in separator (LG-302)
Log-2
-------
Item
"0.
7.
B.
OAII.Y.OPERATIHG LOG (Conlt)
vC"s Q
Description
Actual
Gasoline pressures
To top of Absorber (PI-301)
To botLom of Absorber (PI-302)
Supply Pump discharge (PI-10t)
Return Pump discharge (PI-601)
'S -:;-\'
~
Ethylene glycol seal fluid inlet pressure
Pump (PI -40 1). (PI -402) 2nd Vacuum Pump
@ Vacuum Pump inlet vacuum
PI-501
10" JIg
1511 Jig
2011 Jig
2511 Jig
2711 IIg
to Vacuum
C-l
PHot
C-2
PH02
[.og-)
-------
Item
No.
Description
DAILylOPERATING LOG (Con't)
. ~~
')CA~ ~ '1 ~
\ 0
9.
Actua I
10.
11.
12.
Purge Air (SV-lOl, PSL-502) trip point
(SV-20l. PSL-502) trip point
Vacuum contrdl (SV-501. PSL-50l) trip point
Do Adsorber HOV's Sequence properly
V-I End Regen. HOV-l02
V-I Vacuum Break HOV-lOl
V-I Begin Adsorb.
V-2 Isolated
V-2 Isolated
V-2 Begin Regen
V-2 End Regen
V-2 Vacuum Break
V-2 Begin Adsorb
V-I Isolated
V-I Isolated
V-I Begin Regen
Time vacuum to break
V-I
V-2
HOV-I03
HOV-203
HOV-20l
HOV-202
HOV-202
HOV-201
HOV-203
t10V-l03
tlOV-l 0 1
t10V-102
as follows:
Close
Open partially with
delay to full open
Open
Close
Close
Open partially with
delay to full open
Close
Open partially with
delay to full open
Open
Close
Close
Open partially with
delay to full open
l.og-4
-------
Item
No.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
DAILY OPERATING LOG (Con't)
'? C''- S ~
s ~\'
Description
Actual
Tota I time
102 or 202
V-I
V-2
in Regen(Time from wilen Regen Valve
starts to open until same valve closes)
Total time in equalization (time from when regen
valve on one adsorber closes until regen valve on other
adsorber begins to open)
Any evidence of carbon dust from adsorber vents
V-I
V-2
Any visible gasoline vapor from adsorber vents
V-I
V-2
Difference between seal fluid temperature to
vacuum pump and gasoline return temperature
(TI-401 minus TI-303)
18. Regeneration Valve operation and corresponding
vacuum levels
HOV-I02 cracks open - PI-SOl (Vac. pump)
PI- JO 1 (V- 1)
HOV-102 opens fu 11 y - PI-501 (Vac. pump)
PI-JOI (V-I)
HOV-202 cracks open - PI-501 (Vac. pump)
PI-201 (V-2)
HOV-202 opens fully - PI-sot (Vac. pump)
PI-20t (V-2)
l.og-5
-------
Item
No.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
'\':> C.A- J ~
Cu G-t ~
DAILY ~PERATING LOG (Conlt)
Description
Actual
Any leaks?
Any unusual noises or vibrations
Time for system shutdown after loading operation stops.
Vacuum'Pump and Seal Fluid Pump
Complete System
Are purge air IICV-I0l & 201 set properly to maintain approx.
27" IIg when SV-I0l or 201 are tripped
Is vacuum control IICV-501 set properly to maintain
approx. 27.5-28" IIg when SV-501 is tripped
l.og-6
-------
Rheem Superior Refrigeration/Absorption
Checkl i sts
-------
Dally Log
Location
Trico-Superior Vapor Recovery Unit
Month -
Sheet 1 of 2
V-1 Saluralor V.2 Sepafal~r Compressor V.J Flash Tank V.4 V.5 Absorber V.6 Chiller P-2 Pump
Day Press. Te""1' liquid Press. Temp 1s151age 2nd 5lage Press liquid Press. Press. Temp. Temp. Temp. Oil level
level Pless. Temp. Oil In Pres9. Temp. 011 in level Ie~ oghl Oile' Crank-
each each case
glass glass
Normal 0-10 # Amb. "1'~4 IIJ.JU JII 2JO'F To f151 2JO"F To 5.121 1'''''''4 601 4(..1201 40"F 30"F ''2 10 1s1
line IIn8 I'I.~' lull hne
:
NO'8 1~'gaII0() 011 supply lank lor P-2. Check and 1111 With correct 011.
15. gallon oil supply lank lor compressor (151 and 2nd slage.,. Check Ind 1111 wllh correcl 011.
Compressor cootlng: 50.50 mi. Iwater tlnd coolunt).
30-70Q:u coollmt 10 wider Bre85.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA 340/1-85-017
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
Survey of Mechanical Re 1 i abil ity of Vapor Control September 1985
Systems for Bulk Gasoline Termials 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Marjorie J. Fitzpatrick
Ha rrv \iJ. Baist
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
JACA Corp.
550 Pinetown Road 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Fort Washington. PA 19034 68-02-3962. Task 81
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fi na 1
Stationary Source Compliance Division 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
~Jashi ngton. DC 20460
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) of EPA initiated a two phase
field study in order to determine the principal types of control system operati ng
problems; how the operating problems affect the efficiency of the control system;
and how maintenance practices. weather. and age of the control system affect the
opera~ion of the system. The first phase of the study was conducted by Pacific
Envi ronmental Services between 1982 and 1983. The second stage of the study was
conducted by JACA Corp. The results of both phases of the study are incorporated
in thi s report.
The principal goal of the study was to build a database on the mechanical
reliability of vapor control systems in use at bulk gasoline terminals. The
database and this report will provide federal. state. and local enfo rcement per-
sonnel with a guide to expected operation and likely failures for the control
systems. The report wi 11 assist enforcement agencies in the assignment of
resources where the need is greatest.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSA TI Field/Group
Air Pollution Bulk Gasollne Termlnals
Air Pollution Control Equipment Gasoline Marketing
Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Maintenance Absorption VOC
Re 1 i abil ity Flares
Refri gerati on
Adsorption
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 156
Un 1 i mi ted 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22.PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |