EPA-450/3-76-001
March 1976
RELIABILITY STUDY
OF VAPOR
RECOVERY SYSTEMS
AT SERVICE STATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 277} 1
-------
SILITY STUDY
VA
iTION!
R.J. ltr>an. !,.(». Wjiynr. and !{.!.. .%'orlon
Pacific Kn\iri>nmriilal S««r>i«M-s. inc.
!««<) 1 I lli Sir.-.-t
Santa .^logiica. California <>0 HM
Conlracl \«». 6H-02-I IO5. Task Onh-r .No. 2
KI'A IVojrcl Offiri-r: Kthvin J. \'incfiil
I'roparoil for
KNVIKOiNMENTAL PROTWITION ACJENCY
Offioi' of Air aiul Wasic Maiuificgiu-nl
Offin-i- of Air Quality Planning am! Stiin<3ar(!s
Ri-srarvli Triangle Park. North C.iirolisiii 277 11
Mart-h 1976
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available
free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees,
and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution
Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc. , Santa Monica, California 90404, in fulfillment
of Contract No. 68-02-1405. The contents of this report are reproduced
herein as received from Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily
those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company or
product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-001
11
-------
USEPA
This is not an official policy and standards
document. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
are those of the authors and not necessarily those
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Every attempt has been made to represent the
present state of the art as well as subject areas
still under evaluation. Any mention of products,
or organizations, does not constitute endorsement
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ABSTRACT
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) conducted a study
of the operational reliability of vapor recovery systems at gasoline
service stations in San Diego County. This work was performed under
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1405, Task Order No. 2. Periodic inspections
of vapor recovery systems at twenty-four stations were conducted
over the period May through July 1975 to examine the condition of
these systems, to determine their operational status, and to check
for observable gasoline vapor losses from control equipment. In all,
140 such inspections were made. During these.visits, 506 vehicle
refuel ings were observed and the gasoline vapor capture effectiveness
checked at the nozzle-vehicle fillneck interface using a combustible
gas analyzer.
The study demonstrated that capture of vapors at the vehicle
as determined by the use of a combustible gas analyzer was more
effective with vacuum-assisted systems than with vapor-balance
systems. Gasoline vapor concentrations exceeding one tenth of the
lower explosive limit were detected in fourteen percent of the
vehicle refuel ings where vacuum-assisted systems were used. The
percent of refuel ings exceeding the 0.1 LEL criterion among the
individual manufacturers ranged from six to eighteen percent. For
vapor balance systems, nozzle design strongly influences effective-
ness. The number of refuel ings where gasoline concentration at balance
systems exceeded 0.1 LEL ranged from twenty-nine percent where better
fitting nozzles were used to eighty percent where poorer fitting
nozzles were used. The effect of greater capture efficiency of vacuum
assist systems was offset to some degree by poorer reliability.
-------
The reliability of the vacuum-assisted systems, as determined
by the frequency of equipment malfunctions and gasoline vapor leaks
at the vapor recovery units and vents,was not good although there
were substantial variations in performance depending upon the type
of unit and the location. Specifically, there was some evidence of
malfunction or vapor loss in eighty-eight percent of the visits to
vacuum assist stations. There were, however, four locations which
were partially inoperative during the entire period of the study.
In these cases, retrofits expected during the planning stages of
the project were not accomplished. If these locations are not
included in the evaluation, the proportion of visits to vacuum
assist stations where hydrocarbon losses or malfunctions were
observed becomes eighty-four percent. There were no hydrocarbon
losses or equipment malfunctions observed at one location equipped
with a direct flame afterburner unit not incorporating intermediate
vapor hold-up in a carbon bed or in a vapor holder. Excessive vapors
may have been consumed by this unit because of nearly continuous
operation possibly resulting from piping leaks. (See Table V).
Vapor capture effectiveness at the nozzle-fill tube interface
did not appear to be affected by "self-serve" gasoline delivery.
These were very few instances of gasoline spillage during delivery
operations. Activated carbon adsorption bed vents appeared to be
a minor source of hydrocarbon losses.
No data on quantitative control efficiencies of complete
vapor recovery systems were obtained during this study nor can
direct inferences be drawn on efficiencies from the information
presented.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
II. VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS II-l
A. VAPOR-BALANCE SYSTEMS II-l
B. VACUUM-ASSIST SYSTEMS II-l
1. General II-l
2. The Intermark System II-4
3. The Process Products System 11-4
4. The Clean Air Engineering System II-8
5. The Environi cs System 11-8
6. The Hirt System 11-12
III. METHODS AND EQUIPMENT III-l
A. THE STUDY PLAN III-l
B. STATION SELECTION III-l
C. INSPECTION FORMS III-2
D. INSPECTION PROCEDURE III-4
E. EVALUATING OPERATIONAL STATUS 111-4
F. DETECTION OF HYDROCARBON VAPOR LEAKAGE .... 111-5
G. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION . II1-6
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION IV-1
A. GENERAL IV-1
B. SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS IV-3
C, MEASURED OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS IV-6
D. HYDROCARBON LOSSES ON FILLING VEHICLE TANKS . IV-11
E. EFFECTIVENESS OF SYSTEMS WHEN OPERATING
OPTIMALLY IV-13
F. EFFECT OF NOZZLE TYPE ON VAPOR LOSSES (WITH
VAPOR-BALANCE SYSTEMS) IV-15
G. EFFECT OF ATTENDANT SERVICE VS. SELF-SERVICE
ON VAPOR LOSSES IV-15
H. EFFECT OF VEHICLE FILLNECK CONFIGURATION ON
VAPOR LOSSES IV-18
I. LIQUID LOSSES IN FILLING VEHICLES IV-18
J. VAPOR LOSSES THROUGH CARBON CANISTERS .... IV-19
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
V. CONCLUSIONS V-l
A. EFFECTIVENESS OF VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS IN
CAPTURING HYDROCARBON VAPORS WHEN FILLING
VEHICLE TANKS V-l
B. OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY OF VAPOR RECOVERY
SYSTEMS V-2
APPENDIX A. INSPECTION FORMS A-l
APPENDIX B. AUTOMOBILES TESTED B-l
APPENDIX C. MEASURED OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS C-l
APPENDIX D. AUTOMOBILES WITH FILLNECKS POORLY FIT BY
NOZZLES D-l
APPENDIX E. OBSERVATIONS WITH EPA HYDROCARBON DETECTORS E-l
Figures LIST OF FIGURES Page
1-A. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF MANIFOLDED BALANCE SYSTEMS . 11-2
1-B. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF NON-MANIFOLDED BALANCE
SYSTEM II-2
2. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF INTERMARK SYSTEM (MARK I) . II-5
3. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF PROCESS PRODUCTS SYSTEM . . 11-6
4. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING
SYSTEM (MODEL 5000B) 11-9
5. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF ENVIRONICS SYSTEM (MODEL
A-3000) 11-11
6. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF HIRT SYSTEM 11-13
Tables LIST OF TABLES Page
I. FILLING STATIONS SELECTED FOR STUDY 111-3
II. SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS IV-2
III. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SPECIFIC MALFUNCTIONS
AT VACUUM ASSIST STATIONS IV-4
IV. FREQUENCY OF CAUSES OF FAILURE TO OPERATE AT
VACUUM ASSIST SYSTEMS IV-5
V. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SPECIFIC MALFUNCTION
BY MANUFACTURER IV-7
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
VI. FREQUENCY OF CAUSES OF HYDROCARBON LOSSES AT
VACUUM ASSIST STATIONS IV-8
VII. FREQUENCIES OF OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS OF HYDRO-
CARBONS AT NOZZLE-FILLNECK INTERFACE BELOW
VARIOUS CRITERION VALUES IV-12
VIII. DEGREE OF CONTROL ACHIEVED WITH VAPOR-CONTROL
STATIONS OPERATING OPTIMALLY IV-14
IX. FREQUENCIES OF OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS OF HYDRO-
CARBONS AT NOZZLE-FILLNECK INTERFACE EXCEEDING
VARIOUS CRITERION VALUES, WITH DIFFERENT NOZZLES
(VAPOR-BALANCE SYSTEMS) IV-16
X. VAPOR LOSSES OBSERVED AT SELF-SERVICE AND ATTEN-
DANT-SERVICE STATIONS IV-17
m
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In the prevention of photochemical oxidant air pollution,
control of gasoline vapor displaced during retail marketing opera-
tions has been recognized as an important measure. In a pioneering
effort, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District promulgated in
1972 regulations requiring the use of vapor recovery systems at
gasoline filling stations, to minimize the escape of hydrocarbon
vapors to the atmosphere during the delivery of gasoline to individual
vehicles. Several manufacturers have devised and marketed systems
for this purpose. They are currently in use in the San Diego and
San Francisco areas and to a lesser degree in other metropolitan
areas of the United States. These are known as Stage II controls
although they can be used to assist in controlling vapors during
bulk delivery of gasoline to the service station (Stage I control).
As a special task under EPA Contract 68-02-1405, PES has
conducted a study of the effectiveness and operational reliability
of new and modified vapor-control systems in San Diego County. The
objective was to investigate new systems and those which had been
*
modified since the TRW study of 1974 . Most new and modified systems
which were in operation were included in the study. A large number
of units were in the process of being modified and were shut down.
The approach used in this study was to conduct periodic inspections
of selected operating systems to determine whether the systems were
in proper operating condition and were being properly utilized, and
to test for observable hydrocarbon vapor losses from the equipment
and from the interface between the dispensing nozzle and the vehicle
fillneck during filling operations.
The San Diego County area was chosen for the study because
the two principal types of service station vapor recovery equipment,
vapor balance and vacuum assist, were in use and available for
*
Powell, D.J. and D.E. Hasselmann. "Reliability Observations and
Emission Measurements at Gasoline Transfer Vapor Recovery Systems."
TRW, Inc., for EPA under Contract 68-02-0235, November 1974.
1-1
-------
observation. In vapor balance systems, the vapor laden air from
the fuel tank of the vehicle is displaced directly (through tubing)
into the vapor space of the underground storage tank. The motive
force is supplied by the pressure generated by the dispensed gaso-
line in the vehicle tank and by the vacuum created in the undeground
tank by gasoline removal. In vacuum assist systems, displaced
vapors from the vehicle fuel tank are captured at the vehicle fillneck
by means of an air pump or blower. In the latter type of system,
excess vapors are treated in a supplementary control unit. Two
types of vapor balance and five types of vacuum assist systems were
in use at filling stations selected for the survey. These systems
are described in Section II of this report.
This report deals primarily with Stage II vapor recovery.
Although some information was gathered on Stage I, the data was not
sufficient to be treated in this report. (Stage I vapor recovery
deals with underground tank refilling operations, Stage II vapor
recovery deals with vehicle refueling operations). Subsequent
sections cover methods of investigation and equipment utilized in
the study, inspection procedures, study-findings, discussion, and
conclusions.
Hydrocarbon breakthrough detectors, supplied by the
Environmental Protection Agency, were installed at the outlet of
carbon bed adsorption units at six service stations. There were two
types of detectors (described in Section III-F below) and three
makes of control equipment represented. Thus, each type of detector
was installed on each of the three makes of control equipment.
The detectors were installed to determine whether hydrocarbon
concentrations above a pre-set level in exit gases were discharged
from the carbon beds.
Further study of the characteristics and performance of
carbon units is to be carried out as part of the same contract.
The purpose of the carbon study is to determine the capacity of the
1-2
-------
carbon beds and effectiveness of regeneration cycles, and to indicate
whether there is a build-up of residual high molecular weight
hydrocarbons on the carbon beds. Carbon samples will be taken once
each month for about six months and tested to determine:
1. Capacity and retentivity in adsorption of carbon
tetrachloride.
2. Hydrocarbon content by thermal analysis.
3. Loading of particular hydrocarbons, by gas
chromatography.
4. Bulk density.
As another subtask, costs associated with the various vapor
control sytems have been determined. Information was obtained from
installation contractors, station operators, oil companies, the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, and the office of the San
Diego County Assessor. A final report on this subtask was submitted
earlier.titled "Cost Data, Vapor Recovery Systems at Service Stations"
by R.J. Bryan and R.L. Norton. Information on this report is available
from EPA Emissions Measurement Branch, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
1-3
-------
II. VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
A. VAPOR-BALANCE SYSTEMS
The simplest vapor recovery systems are the vapor-balance
systems, which operate on the principle of a simple exchange of
materials between the vehicle tank and the service station storage
tank. As liquid gasoline is withdrawn from the underground storage
tank and pumped into the vehicle tank, it displaces an equivalent
volume of vapor-laden air, which either enters the underground
tank through a return line to replace the liquid removed or leaks
to atmosphere. In principle, with tight connections, such systems
might operate indefinitely without loss of hydrocarbons. Achieving
such operation is difficult, however, because in practice it is
difficult to obtain a tight seal between the nozzle and the fill-
neck for all vehicles. Therefore, leakage at this point is fre-
quently encountered. Figure 1 illustrates a typical balance system.
Vapor-balance systems installed by Gulf Oil Corporation
and by Standard Oil Company of California at four of the twenty-
four systems were the only balance systems in operation in the area
during the study period.
Two different piping layouts were used for the vapor balance
systems. In the first case vapor return lines were manifolded to-
gether and the vapor spaces of the underground tanks were inter-
connected. In the second design, only the vapor return lines serving
the same grade of gasoline were manifolded with no interconnection
between tanks.
B. VACUUM-ASSIST SYSTEMS
1. General
In vacuum-assist systems, a negative pressure is maintained
within the vapor-return tubing, thus enhancing the capture
of vapor at the nozzle-fillneck interface. This approach
II-l
-------
Figure 1A. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
MANIFOLDED BALANCE
SYSTEM
o
STORAGE TANK
STORAGE TANK
Figure IB. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
NON-MANIFOLDED BALANCE
- SYSTEM
VENT
STORAGE TANK
©
STORAGE TAXK
VEST
EXP1.0SIMETER MONITORING LOCATIONS
VAPOR LINES
LIQI III LINES
-------
is usually more effective in capturing vapor at the
fillneck, provided sufficient flow of air is maintained,
as compared to vapor balance systems.
Air movement, in such systems, is induced by blowers or
other aspirating devices (in one of the systems suction
is provided by a Venturi ejector operated by compressed
air). In all vacuum assisted systems the quantity of
vapor-air mixture returned exceeds the amount of gasoline
delivered, i.e. the V/L ratio exceeds 1, thus requiring
the processing of the excess vapor mixture to capture or
destroy the hydrocarbons contained therein. In various
systems, this processing is achieved by condensation, by
burning with or without a catalyst, or by some combination
of these methods. Intermittant accumulation of hydrocarbons
by use of vapor holders or activated carbon is sometimes
utilized.
Reliability and malfunctioning of the mechanical and
electrical components are potential problems associated
with vacuum assist systems. Specific problems include:
leaks at seals, fittings, and vents; mechanical failure
of components; improper sequencing; loss of carbon sorbency;
poor combustion conditions in afterburners; and failure
to follow operating or maintenance procedures.
Vacuum-assist systems marketed by five manufacturers were
investigated in this study. For convenience, in this report,
the different designs studied will be identified by the
names of the manufacturers. It should be noted that the
manufacturer of the vacuum assist systems is not usually
responsible for full service installations which include
piping, electrical hook-up, P-V valves, nozzles, etc.
Illustrations shown are examples of the vapor recovery systems.
The vendors will usually carry a line of varying sized units.
II-3
-------
Intermark Compression Refrigeration Condensation (CRC) System
A system developed by Intermark Industries, Inc., depends
upon compression and refrigeration to condense hydrocarbons
from the gas stream. A unique feature is a surge tank for
containing the air-hydrocarbon vapor until an appropriate
amount for processing is accumulated.
Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the Intermark Mark I
system. Vapors are drawn from the nozzle by a blower;
a tee provides for the return of vapor to the underground
tank. Vapor laden air passing through the blower bubbles
through liquid gasoline in the surge tank. This causes
further gasoline evaporation if the air is not initially
saturated. Mi thin the tank, a flexible bladder moves a
switch, activating the compressor of a refrigeration unit
when a predetermined position is reached. Air and vapor are
withdrawn from the surge tank, compressed and refrigerated,
condensing the hydrocarbons to a liquid which is returned to
the surge tank and thence to the storage tank.
Figure 2 also indicates the locations of points (x) which
were monitored by the study team to detect possible leakage
of hydrocarbon vapors, and the location of a pressure tap (p)
which was installed to permit checking the bladder tank pressure
at which the compressor was activated. New features since the
TRW study were the addition of a vapor flow control valve and
use of a different model compressor.
Process Products Refrigeration/Adsorption System
A system developed by Process Products, Inc. processes the
vapor-laden air, first by condensation, then by adsorption.
Figure 3 shows a schematic diagram of this system. Vapor-
laden air is collected by means of a blower, located at the
pump island, and is delivered to the underground storage
II-4
-------
___ Liquid Line
>J/r Pressure-Vacuun Relief Vent
Ixi
^
Pressure Relief Valve
Pressure Tap
Combustible Caa Monitoring Locations
Figure 2. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF INTERMARK SYSTEM (MARK I)
-------
Carbon
Regeneration
Vacuum Pump
Solenoid Valve
Pressure Tap
(x) Exploslmeter Monitoring Location
_____^ Vapor Lines
Liquid Lines
Temperature Tap
o
Figure 3. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF PROCESS PRODUCTS SYSTEM
CTV
-------
tank. When the pressure in the tank reaches a predetermined
value, a second blower is activated, moving air from the tank
to a refrigeration unit, from which condensate flows back to
the storage tank. As shown in the schematic this model
incorporates partial recirculation through the refrigeration
unit. The air then passes through carbon beds, which remove
much of the remaining hydrocarbons before venting to the
atmosphere. When the tank pressure is reduced to another
predetermined value, or after thirty minutes, the refrigera-
tion blower is deactivated.
To regenerate the carbon, a pump evacuates the canister
(one at a time), delivering the air and desorbed vapors to
the air space of the storage tank. This operation is per-
formed automatically, 30 minutes after the refrigeration
blower is deactivated.
Figure 3 also indicates the locations of points monitored
by the study team to detect possible leakage of hydrocarbon
vapors, and the locations of pressure and temperature taps
installed to determine tank pressure and condensate tempera-
ture. Information provided by the manufacturer indicated
that the blower serving the refrigeration unit should be
automatically activated when the tank pressure (gauge)
reaches one inch of water, and deactivated when tank pressure
falls to one half inch.
The condensate temperature is expected to be about 20°F.
Modifications to this system since the TRW study consist of
the replacement of the belt-driven blower by a direct drive
blower and the routing of the refrigerated gas stream directly
through the carbon canisters to the atmosphere instead of
recycling to the underground tank.
II-7
-------
4. Clean Air Engineering Adsorption/Incineration System
A system developed by Clean Air Engineering Inc. employs
carbon canisters to adsorb vapors and direct flame burners
to dispose of the hydrocarbons released when the sorbent
is regenerated. A schematic diagram of the clean air
model 5000B is shown in Figure 4. Vapor-laden air is
collected by means of a blower and delivered to the pro-
cessing unit. A tee connector ahead of the blower provides
for drainage of any entrained liquid back to the storage
tank. A second tee after the blower directs part of the
vapor-laden air to the underground tank and the remainder
to the processing unit. In the processing unit, activated
carbon adsorbs hydrocarbons and the stripped air is vented.
After 30 seconds of operation in this mode, a second blower
is activated, which draws fresh air through the carbon
canisters, delivering the desorbed hydrocarbons to a set of
burners, where they are destroyed. Two stages of combustion
are employed; the burning continues until the rate of de-
sorption becomes too low to support combustion at either
stage, at which time the second blower is deactivated.
Figure 4 also shows the locations of points monitored by
the study team to detect possible leakage of hydrocarbon
vapors, as well as the location of a pressure tap which was
installed to permit checking pressures in the burner manifold.
According to the manufacturer, this pressure should normally
be maintained at 5 to 5 1/2 inches of water. The modification
to this system since the TRW study consists of the replace-
ment of the gasoline engine (which burned the vapors) by a
direct-flame, two-stage burner.
5. Environics Adsorption/Catalytic Incineration System
A system developed by Environics, Inc. employs carbon canis-
ters to adsorb vapors and a catalytic reactor to burn the
hydrocarbons released when the sorbent is regenerated. A
II-8
-------
Pressure
Vacuum
Vent
Float Check
Valve
Storage Tank
Storage Tank
___ Liquid tine
_____^ Vapor Line
f\j Swing Check Valve*
£3 Solenoid Valvea
Pressure Tap
f*\ Exploalneter Monitoring Location
Figure 4. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING SYSTEM
(Model 5000B)
-------
schematic diagram of the Environics Model A-3000 is shown
in Figure 5. Vapor-laden air is collected by means of a
blower and delivered to the underground tank and to the pro-
cessing unit. (Entrained liqiiid is trapped and drained to
the storage tank).
In the processing unit, activated carbon adsorbs hydro-
carbons and the stripped air is vented.
At regular intervals of about thirty minutes, one of two
carbon canisters is individually flushed with clean air
which carries desorbed vapors to the reactor after dilution
with additional air, while the other canister is on stream.
Cycling is accomplished by a system of solenoid values.
The reactor is designed to operate at temperatures between
900° and 1200°F. Preheating with an electric element initiates
combustion when the unit is activated. When the feed becomes
so lean that a temperature of 900°F cannot be maintained, the
flushing is terminated. A temperature override switch is
also provided, which deactivates the unit in case of over-
heating; this is set for a limiting temperature of 1300°F.
Figure 5 also shows the locations of points monitored by
the study team to detect possible leakage of hydrocarbon
vapors, as well as the locations of pressure and tempera-
ture taps installed to facilitate observation of the opera-
ting parameters of the system. According to information
supplied by the manufacturer, a pressure-activated switch
allowing the vapor-laden air to enter the carbon canisters
should open when the pressure reaches 3 1/2 inches of water.
The modifications to this system since the TRW study consist
of: 1) the addition of a vapor flow control valve, 2) the
rerouting of most of the vapors to the underground tank,
and 3) the addition of a thermal overload switch to the
reactor.
11-10
-------
Carbon
Canisters
Solenoid Valve
Manual Valve
* Carbon Regeneration
-------
6. The Hirt System
A system developed by Hirt Combustion Engineers employs
an air-actuated ejector to maintain negative pressure in
the underground storage tank and burners to destroy
the hydrocarbons which are carried through the system.
A schematic diagram is shown in Figure 6.
Flow of compressed air is initiated whenever the absolute
pressure (for clarity of discussion, performance in terms of
absolute pressures is used; in practice, differential
pressure actuators are used) in the tank rises above a pre-
determined absolute value. The air flows to a set of burners,
entraining vapor-laden air from the tank. Combustion is
initiated by a pilot light, fueled by propane; an alarm
system notifies the station operator in case the pilot flame
should fail. The compressed air flow is automatically halted
when the absolute pressure in the underground tank falls below
a preset value.
Figure 6 also shows the locations of points monitored by the
study team to detect possible leakage of hydrocarbon vapors,
as well as the locations of existing pressure taps which were
used to check on pressures in the storage tank and in the
compressed air system. In the single system observed in this
study, the.preset levels were -0.58 inches of water to activate
compressed air flow, and -0.61 inches to deactivate it. This
system was designed and built since the TRW study.
11-12
-------
Exhaust
\ V t V VV V\
*
4
y
^
\\ > ^ \^ \\
Burner
A
a>-i
Coaprosed Air
n
O H53
Propane Supply
For Pilot
•
•
1— '
T:
^
I
1
_____ Vapor Lln«
Liquid Line
__ __ Compressed Air Line
11 Propane Line
Ejector
Solenoid Valve
Check Valve
(x) Explostmeter Monitoring Location
MM Pressure Tap
Figure 6. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF HIRT SYSTEM
-------
III. METHODS AND EQUIPMENT
A. THE STUDY PLAN
The basic study plan was to undertake repeated inspection of
the operational status of vapor-recovery systems and components at
a selected group of gasoline filling stations, to identify reliabi-
lity problems and to monitor parameters which affect vapor control
at these stations. Using a combustible gas indicator the frequency
and approximate magnitude of vapor losses were to be checked at
delivery nozzles during vehicle service and at potenital leakage
points associated with the various recovery systems. As discussed
below, there were several criteria used for inclusion of stations
in the study, which included selection from a list of stations which
had permits to operate as supplied by San Diego County.
Inspection procedures were developed taking into account the
configuration of the vapor recovery system and were designed for one
visit per station per week. These visits were performed on varying
days and at varying times during the day (inspection visits made only
during daylight hours).
B. STATION SELECTION
Information necessary for selecting the stations to be studied,
as well as for designing inspection forms, checklists and other pro-
gram elements, was obtained at meetings and interviews with represen-
tatives of the vapor recovery system manufacturing companies, the
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, and others. The original selection plan
called for five stations for each of the manufacturers or types of
control systems represented in the general study protocol. These
stations were to have throughputs of at least 30,000 gallons per
month. In order to have sufficient repeat visits, not all operating
III-l
-------
systems of some manufacturers were included. For other manufacturers
where the available number of stations was small, some units which were
expected to be in operation soon were included. It was not possible
to meet the 30,000 gallons/month minimum criteria in all cases, but
most of those which had lower monthly throughputs, did dispense high
volumes at certain times of day, associated with shift changes. These
stations were non-commercial, self-service stations operated by govern-
ment agencies or local enterprises with large vehicle fleet operations,
such as Stations 16 and 21, of the California Highway Patrol; Station
15, the U.S. Postal Service; and Station 3, for Terminix Pest Control.
Station 22 was included because it was the only available example of
the Hirt Combustion Engineers vapor control system. Table 1 lists the
stations selected, the type of control system used, and other pertinent
information.
As shown in Table I, monthly throughput observed during the
study ranged from 4,600 to 212,500 gallons but most of the stations
ranged between 15,000 and 90,000. The number of vapor-control units
representing each type of system was either 4 or 5, except for the
single Hirt system installation.
C. INSPECTION FORMS
Using information obtained in the preliminary meetings and
interviews, the study team developed an inspection strategy for each
type of control system, involving determination of the operational
status of the unit, observation of the operational sequence, and tests
for hydrocarbon leakage at various appropriate points. For each
type of system, an inspection form was designed for recording infor-
mation to be acquired on each inspection visit. These forms are
exhibited in Appendix A; they served as a check list of inspection
points, as well as a field record.
III-2
-------
Table 1. FILLING STATIONS SELECTED FOR STUDY*
Station Control
No. System
1 Process Products
2 Clean A1r Eng.
3 Environics
4 Clean Air Eng.
5 Process Products
6 Vapor-balance
7 Environics
8 Intermark
9 Process Products
10 Process Products
11 Intermark
12 Vapor-balance
13 Vapor-balance
14 Vapor-balance
15' Environics
16 Clean Air Eng.
17 Clean Air Eng.
18 Process Products
19 Intermark
20 Intermark
21 Clean Air Eng.
22 Hirt
23 Environics
24 ' Environics
Supplier
Standard
R.H. Dairy
Terminix
Standard
Union
Standard
Texaco
Sears
Standard
Mobil
Gemco
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Post Office
Highway Pa-trol
Dep't. of Educ'n
Standard
Standard
Union
Highway Patrol
Phillips
Phillips
Union
No. of
Pumps
9
4
2
6
8
10
8
8
12
8
16
6
6
13
2
2
10
12
10
2
6
'6
12
Throughput,
Gallons/mo. Locality
44,700 Clairmont, and Clairmont Mesa, San Diego
20,500 Mt. Ada Road, San Diego
4,600 Vickers and Mercury, San Diego
87,100 Tierrasanta Blvd. San Diego
25,100 Waring Rd., San Diego
44,600 Baltimore and Lake Murray, La Mesa
36,400 Baltimore and Fletcher Parkway, La Mesa
72,900 Johnson and Fletcher Parkway, El Cajon
52,400 Johnson Ave., El Cajon
60,900 University and College, San Diego
212,500 30th and Highland, National City
39,000 University and 40th, San Diego
53,000 University and Boundary, San niego
63,800 Texas and El Cajon, San Diego
19,200 Midway Drive, San Diego
36,100 Pacific Highway, San Diego
n.a. Linda Vista Rd., San Diego
36,000 Friars and Frazee, San Diego
153,200 Carmel Valley Rd., San Diego
63,500 Santa Fe Dr., Encinitas
16,300 Oceanside Blvd., Oceanside
12,500 Mission and Canyon, Oceanside
68,300 Elm and Harding, Carlsbad
80,000 6th and Robinson, San Diego
*Not all the stations had completed Installations when the study started, but completion was expected soon.
The systems at Stations 10 and 19 were not completed during the study. Station 17 was dropped when It became
apparent that the monthly throughput was substantially less than had been expected,
i
co
-------
D. INSPECTION PROCEDURE
On each inspection visit, the study team announced their
presence to the station manager and inquired about the operational
status and recent experience with the control system. If the unit
was operational, an operation sequence check was performed, and
relevant pressures and temperatures were measured and recorded.
Serial numbers of component machinery (blowers, compressors, pumps,
refrigeration units) were recorded and any replacements noted.
Combustible vapor readings were taken at all prescribed locations.
In most cases, a number of vehicle tank fillings were monitored for
hydrocarbon vapor losses, using a combustible gas meter. The probe
tip was moved in a circular motion around the nozzle-filler tube inter-
face at a distance of one half inch. Information on the station's
throughput of gasoline was recorded, and the operator's comments
colicited, before terminating the inspection.
E. EVALUATING OPERATIONAL STATUS
On each visit to each station, the study team was required
to determine whether the vapor control system was operating in
accord with design specifications. This was done by observing the
performance of the various elements of the system to answer the
questions listed under "Operational Sequence Check" on the corres-
ponding inspection form (Appendix A).
For each of the vacuum-assist systems, pressures within the
system were measured at strategically located pressure taps as
indicated in the schematic diagrams, Figures 2 to 6. Magnehelic
gauges having a sensitivity of 0.01 inch of water were used, with
self-sealing, quick-connecting Imperial Eastman fittings. With two
of the systems, temperatures were also determined. For this purpose
thermocouples were used, and the potentials generated were measured
with a portable potentiometer (Thermo-Electric Co., Model 31101,
"Minimite").
III-4
-------
F. DETECTION OF HYDROCARBON VAPOR LEAKAGE
An important aspect of the inspections was the detection
of leaks. For this purpose the study team used a Combustible Gas
Analyzer, Model SSP, manufactured by Bacharach Instrument Co., with
scales reading from 0 to 1000 ppm and from 0 to 1.0 relative to the
lower explosive limit (L.E.L.). Readings were taken at the points
indicated in Figure 1 through 6 on each visit to each station, and
at the fillneck of the vehicle tank for each of the several cars served
by the station on each visit.
For studying the effectiveness of the carbon adsorption systems
(in removing hydrocarbons from the exhaust air), hydrocarbon detectors
were installed at two stations for each of the three vapor-control
systems (Process Products, Clean Air Engineering, Environics) which
incorporate adsorption. These devices were of two designs. The
first, or "latching" type triggers a timer whenever the hydrocarbon
concentration exceeds the set point, 1.2 percent or 12,000 ppm, V/V.
The second, or "non-latching" type similarly triggers a timer at the
set-point but, unlike the first, the timer is stopped whenever the
hydrocarbon concentration subsequently falls below the set-point. The
timers were checked, readings recorded, and instruments re-set if
necessary at each inspection of the six selected stations.
There were several purposes for installation of the hydro-
carbon detectors: 1) to indicate whether any hydrocarbon leakage
above the set point occurred during normal operation, 2) to indicate
whether the carbon beds saturate before regeneration, and 3) to in-
dicate whether high molecular weight hydrocarbons build up on the
carbon beds and reduce capacity.
III-5
-------
6. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
For purposes of performance evaluation,effectiveness of vapor
collection at the vehicle fuel tank was considered separately from
performance of the vapor recovery system itself. That is, it would be
possible for a system to be nearly completly effective in vapor
collection and yet perform poorly in processing these vapors so as to
prevent their discharge to atmosphere. For purposes of evaluating
reliability of the processing equipment the term malfunction is
defined to include both demonstrable malfunction of a component or
evidence of a hydrocarbon loss exceeding 100 ppm (the minimum detectable
concentration) using a combustible gas analyzer.
III-6
-------
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. GENERAL
During the study, 140 inspection visits were made to the
stations listed in Table I, and 506 vehicle fillings monitored.
The data on vehicle fillings are shown in Appendix B. In the great
majority (88 percent) of visits to vacuum assist stations, some
malfunction was detected; in only 14 of 115 visits were the vacuum
assist systems found to be operating in accord with the manufacturer's
specifications and free from hydrocarbon vapor losses. If the stations
which did not operate during the entire study period are excluded,
malfunctions were detected in 84 percent of the visits (14 of 89
visits).
Since the magnitude of the losses could not be determined, the
results of the study are here presented and discussed in terms of
frequency of occurrence of combustible vapor readings relative to
certain benchmarks, namely, 100 ppm hydrocarbon (lower scale of the
indicator); 0.1 LEL (one tenth of the lower explosive limit, as
shown on the upper scale of the indicator); and 0.6 LEL. The 0.1
LEL criterion is based upon an EPA finding which stated when there
were no leaks at the nozzle/fillneck interface, hydrocarbon concen-
trations did not exceed 0.1 LEL. The 0.6 LEL criterion is the upper
limit allowed by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
Table II shows for each type of control system, the frequency
of inspection, the number and percent of the visits on which the con-
trol system was found to be operating correctly and without leaks,
the number of vehicle fillings observed and the number and percent of
vehicle fillings in which hydrocarbon vapors were not detectable.
The four vapor-balance systems, having far fewer mechanical components,
evidenced no equipment failures, and since no potential leakage points
were accessible for testing, no instances of faulty operation were
observed. However, the vacuum-assist systems, when operating correctly,
were much more effective in controlling vapor losses at the nozzle.
IV-1
-------
Table II. SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS
Control System
Vapor-balance
Intermark
Process Products
Clean Air Eng.
Environlcs
Hirt
All Vacuum Systems
All Systems
in Study
4
4 (3)e
5 (2)
4
5
1
19 (15)
23 (19)
No. Of
Visits
25
25 (19)
35 (15)
26
23
6
115 (89)
140 (114)
Correct Operations*
No. %
25
- 0
4
3
1
6
14
39
100°
0
11 (27)
12
4
100*
12 (16)
28 (34)
Vehicle Refuel ings
No. of No. with
of Obs. No HC lossb %
Vehicle Fillings
105
85 (70)
120 (57)
104
78
14
401 (323
506(468)
21
46
67 (49)
77
24
10
) 224(206)
245(227)
20
54(66)
56(86)
74
31
71
56(64)
48(53)
a: For this tabulation "Correct Ooerations" indicates that the operational seauence followed
the manufacturer's specifications and that no combustible vapors (hydrocarbon losses)
could be detected at preselected check points.
b. This column indicates the number of fillings observed in which hydrocarbon losses could not
be detected; that is, the combustible gas analyzer registered no vapor concentration above its
lower detectable limits (100 ppm)
c. At the stations with vapor-balance systems, operated by Gulf Oil Corporation, clear plastic
tubing was Installed in the vapor return lines at the beginning of the study. These were in-
tended to permit visual inspection of the lines for possible blockage by accumulated liquid
gasoline. After about three "weeks this tubing was replaced by ordinary opaque tubing, when it
was found that the clear plastic deteriorated rapidly and was easily kinked, causing unsatisfactory
operations of the system. It should be noted that when the clear plastic tubing was installed, vapors
could be seen to easily bubble through any liquid blockage that did occur.
d. Although the Hirt system was always operational, the observed frequency of cycling-
about once per minute - suggests that air leaks into the system may have been triggering
operation more often than satisfactory vapor loss control would require.
e. Numbers in parentheses denote totals if stations not operating during
the study period awaiting retrofit are excluded.
-------
Total system efficiency is not a direct function of nozzle
losses as the excess air/vapor ingested and the vapor processing
unit efficiency must also be considered.
B. SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS
During the 115 inspection visits to stations with vacuum assist
systems, 174 instances of specific malfunctions were observed, as
listed in Table III. The only evidence of malfunction was, in 130
instances, observation of hydrocarbon losses at one of the testing loca-
tions specified on the inspection forms. Such malfunctions did not
necessarily interfere with the continued operation of the system, but
did impair the effectiveness of vapor control. Tn 36 instances, the
systems were inoperable or were, for other reasons, not in operation
at the time of the inspection visit. The distribution of these 36
malfunctions is shown in Table IV. In only 9 of these instances (8
percent of the visits) were equipment failures the immediate cause of
the shutdown. Another 15 instances were due to failure of station
personnel to activate either the vapor collection device or the
entire system. In the remaining instances, disconnected vacuum hoses
were responsible 8 times, and automatic shutdown due to overheating
of a catalyst reactor occurred 4 times. Thus, although the control
equipment was out of operation on approximately one third of all the
inspection visits, only one third of these instances (13, or 11 percent
of the visits) were attributable to system failures. In another 8
instances, the systems were operable but an indication of a malfunction
was described by the station operator (4 instances of excessive
cycling resulting in extremely high electric bills, 4 instances of
poor ITT valve adjustment).
On 14 other inspection visits the systems were inoperable due
to the fact that equipment installation had not been completed. Of
these visits, 7 occurred at one station where the processing unit
had been disconnected because of a fire and not reconnected. The
IV-3
-------
Table III. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SPECIFIC MALFUNCTIONS
AT VACUUM ASSIST STATIONS
Hydrocarbons observed at blowers and pumps
Hydrocarbons observed at underground tank vent
Hydrocarbons observed during burner ignition
Hydrocarbons observed at surge tank vent
Hydrocarbons observed at carbon canister vent
Unit turned off
Vacuum hoses disconnected
Hydrocarbons observed at reactor vent
Hydrocarbons observed at condenser relief vent
Island blower not on
Hydrocarbons observed at piping connection
Hydrocarbons observed at compressor
Hydrocarbons observed at compressor relief vents
Poor ITT valve adjustment
Unit off due to temperature override
Broken blower belt
Constant cycling by unit controls
Blower motor failure
Unit down due to compressor failure
Total
33
25
19
13
9
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
3
_2
174
IV-4
-------
Table IV. FREQUENCY OF CAUSES OF FAILURE TO OPERATE
AT VACUUM ASSIST SYSTEMS
1. Unit turned off
2. Vacuum hoses disconnected
3. Vapor-collection blower turned off
4. Broken blower belt
5. Automatic temperature cutoff
6. Blower motor failure
7. Compressor failure
Total
8
8
7
4
4
3
_2
36
IV-5
-------
other 7 instances were noted at another station where installation
of a new compressor had not been completed. Table V lists the
observed malfunctions by manufacturer.
Hydrocarbon losses, evidenced by testing with the combustible
gas analyzer, were predominantly associated with, or caused by
equipment failure, as shown in Table VI. Approximately two thirds
of the observations appeared to be attributable to such failures.
The cause of hydrocarbon observations at the underground tank
vent could be attributed to bulk drops in only 10 percent of these
occurrances. Other causes were incomplete or faulty installation,
as well as improper adjustment or failure to use the equipment
properly. About twenty percent of the hydrocarbon loss observations
occurred during normal system operation. These included small
losses at the Clean Air Engineering burners, prior to ignition, and
at the reactor vent of the Environics system. Such losses ordinarily
do not continue for any protracted period.
C. MEASURED OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
Pressures and temperatures recorded at the taps described, for
the various vacuum-assist vapor control systems, were compared with
the values specified as standard by the manufacturers, as given in
Section II. Notes reflecting the observations on these parameters
are presented in Appendix C.
For the Intermark System, no pressures or temperatures in the
CRC unit or bladder tank were specified. Pressures as high as 7.5
inches of water in the surge tank were observed when the bladder
was fully distended. When the level indicator registered about one
eighth of capacity, observed pressure ranged from about 0.5" to
2.0".
With the Process Products systems, only two of the stations
provided useful data; the other units were inoperative most of the
time, awaiting delivery of vapor collection blowers. The two operating
IV-6
-------
Table V. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SPECIFIC
MALFUNCTION BY MANUFACTURER
ENVIRONICS - 23 visits
HC at Reactor vent -
HC at Carbon Canister Vent -
HC at Underground Tank Vent -
HC at Blowers and Pumps -
Unit Off Due To Temperature Override
Poor ITT Valve Adjustment -
Blower Motor Failure -
HC at Unit Piping -
Vacuum Lines Disconnected -
Unit Turned Off -
7
6
6
6
4
4
3
2
2
J_
41
PROCESS PRODUCTS - 35 visits
HC at Underground Tank Vent -
HC at Blowers and Pumps -
Island Blower Not on -
Processing Unit Not on -
Excessive Cycling -
HC at Carbon Canister Vent -
HC at Unit Piping -
15
14
7
6
4
3
J_
50
PROCESS PRODUCTS (St #5 and St #18 only) - 15 visits
HC at Underground Tank Vent -
HC at Blowers and Pumps -
HC at Carbon Cannister Vent -
Excessive Cycling -
5
4
3
_3
15
IV-7
-------
Table V, FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SPECIAL
MALFUNCTION BY MANUFACTURER (continued)
INTERMARK - 25 visits
HC at Surge Tank Vent - 13
HC at Blowers and Pumps - 8
HC at Condenser Relief Vent - 7
HC at Compressor - 6
Vacuum Lines Disconnected - 6
HC at Compressor Relief Vent - 5
Broken Blower Belt - 4
HC at Unit Piping 3
HC at Underground Tank Vent - [ . . ' 2
Compressor Failure - • , _2
56
CLEAN AIR - 26 visits
HC at Burner Exhaust During Ignition 19
HC at Blowers and Pumps - 5
HC at Underground Tank Vent - 2
Unit Off - J.
27
HIRT - 6 visits
Unit prone to vacuum leaks which cause unit to
fire approximately every minute.
IV-8
-------
Table VI. FREQUENCY OF CAUSES OF HYDROCARBON LOSSES
AT VACUUM ASSIST STATIONS
Malfunctions due to equipment failure
Malfunctions as consequence of equip-
ment failures*
Malfunctions inherent to systems (i.e.,
hydrocarbons observed at burner
ignition are usually very small and
last for less than 30 seconds).
Malfunctions due to poor installation
Malfunction due to improper unit adjust-
ment
Total
Number Observed
52
46
26
6
8
138
Per Cent
of Total
37.7
33.3
18.8
4.4
5.8
100.0
Example:
Failure of equipment may cause underground tank pressure to
increase if blowers are operating but no processing is taking
place. This will force venting and hydrocarbons will be
detected at the underground vent.
IV-;9
-------
units had slightly different settings, but pressures showed
consistent behavior from week to week. At Station 5, the refrigera-
tion unit was found to start at pressures ranging from 3.5 to 4.5"
and to stop at pressures ranging from 0.2 to 1.0" H20. At Station
18, the unit started at 1.0 to 1.1" and stopped at 0.3 to 0.5" H20.
(Manufacturer's information suggested start and stop pressures of
1" and 0.5" hLO, respectively). The condensate temperature was
measured only at Station 18 and was found to vary from 12 to 40°F
(expected was about 20°F).
For the Clean Air Engineering systems, design pressure at the
burner manifold was 5 to 5 1/2" w.c. Stations 16 and 21 operated
consistently within this range. Station 2, for unknown reasons,
operated at pressures ranging from 4" to 15", while Station 4
operated in the range of 3.2" to 3.5". The burner system at the latter
station had reportedly been readjusted and the manifold pressure
reduced in an attempt to control accumulation of soot in the burner.
In the Environics System, the pressure-actuated switch was
expected to open at 3.5" HpO w.c. In actual operation, the switches
opened at lower pressures; 2.6" in one case, 1.6" in another.
Reactor temperatures also were sometimes found outside the range
(900-1200°F), expected for the automatic controls. In one case
the reactor pump started when the reactor was at a temperature of
1290°F and continued running until the reactor temperature dropped
to 740°F. In another, the reactor was at 848 F when the pump started,
and at 760°F when the pump stopped.
In the single Hirt system installation (Station 22), the small
burner and the compressed air flow were usually, but not always,
activated at -0.58" H_0; on one visit, the observed activation pressure
was -0.61". The burner system was deactivated at -0.61" to -0.65".
The controls for these pressures are accessible to station personnel
and may occasionally have been adjusted by them.
IV-10
-------
With respect to the vacuum-assist systems as a group, it
appears that the operating parameters are not consistently main-
tained within design limits; however, the extent to which this lack
of control may adversely affect vapor control cannot be assessed
from the data obtained in this study.
D. HYDROCARBON LOSSES ON FILLING VEHICLE TANKS
As indicated in Table II, no leaks were detected at the nozzle-
fillneck interface in about half of the observed vehicle fillings.
The actual fraction was 20 percent with vapor-balance systems, and
from 31 to 74 percent with the various vacuum-assist systems,
averaging 56 percent for all vacuum-assist units.
A higher proportion of no leak fills is evident if attention
is directed only to occasions when the study team found on checking,
that the vapor collection blower was operating. Also deleted in
this consideration are the stations where the operators complained
of poor vapor collection due to poor ITT valve adjustment. About
one fourth of the fillings are excluded by this condition. Among
those that remain, the proportion of successful control was from
71 to 89 percent with the various vacuum-assist systems, averaging
79 percent.
The proportion of successful control will, naturally be higher,
also, if "successful" is defined more leniently. Although the com-
bustible gas analyzer could not be used for a quantitative determina-
tion of vapor losses, it seems likely, on the whole, that when higher
vapor concentrations are detected, they correspond to greater vapor
losses. Also it is possible that vapor losses at times might be
negligible, even though detectable with the analyzer.
Accordingly, Table VII lists the results of the refueling
checks where hydrocarbon concentrations at the nozzle-fillneck inter-
face were less than three different criterion levels. These were
100 ppm, 0.1 LEL, and 0.6 LEL, respectively. (For gasoline vapors,
IV-11
-------
Table VII. FREQUENCIES OF OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS OF HYDROCARBONS AT NOZZLE-
FILLNECK INTERFACE AT SELECTED VEHICLE FILLINGS*
MANUFACTURER
Vapor Balance
Intermark
Process Pro-
ducts
Clean Air
Environics
Hirt
All Vacuum
Systems
All Systems
Number of
Fillings*
105
52
57
104
28
14
255
360
Frequency below given level
<100 ppm
No.
21
46
49
76
20
10
201
222
Percent
20
88.5
86.0
73.1
71.4
71.4
78.8
61 7
<0.1 LELa
No.
40
49
51
86
23
13
222
262
Percent
38.1
94.2
89.5
82.7
82.1
92.9
87.1
72.7
<0.6 LELa
No.
43
49
51
89
23
13
225
268
Percent
41.0
94.2
89.5
85.6
82.1
92.9
88,2
74.4
* Fillings when vapor collection system of nozzle was operating correctly
a. LEL: Lower explosive limit
ro.
-------
the lower explosive limit is approximately 1.2 percent by volume,
or 12,000 ppm, V/V.) These figures refer only to those fillings
in which the avpor collection system, at the nozzle, was operating
as stated above. They show that, of 268 cases with concentrations
below 0.6 LEL, 262 or only six less, were also below 0.1 LEL.
The number of cases with concentrations below 100 ppm, however,
dropped to 222.
Judged at the 0.1 LEL criterion level, as Table VII shows,
the vapor-balance systems are far less effective than vacuum-
assist systems in capturing vapors during the filling of vehicle
tanks. Thirty-eight percent of the fillings with vapor-balance
systems were below this level while the corresponding proportion
for various vacuum-assist systems, when operating properly, was
from 82 to 94 percent.
E. EFFECTIVENESS OF SYSTEMS WHEN OPERATING OPTIMALLY
Since both system malfunctions and operator inattention can
prevent vapor-control systems from operating at full efficiency, it
is of interest to examine the study data to determine what degree
of effectiveness can be observed at those stations where these
problems were least apparent. Table VIII shows, for each type of
system, the record of successful capture of vapors at the nozzle
using three-different criterion levels, for the single station
having the best record.
With the vapor-balance system, the best record of capture at
the 0.6 LEL criterion level was slightly over 50 percent. With
vacuum-assist systems, however, four of the five systems demon-
strated better than 95 percent success in limiting nozzle losses
to the 0.6 LEL criterion level.
IV-13
-------
Table VIII. DEGREE OF CONTROL ACHIEVED WITH VAPOR-CONTROL STATIONS
OPERATING OPTIMALLY
System
Vapor-balance
Intermark
Process Products
Clean Air Eng.
Environics
Hirt
Station9
I.D..NO.
6
11
5
21
3
22
No. of
Fillings Observed
29
37
24
19
8
14
Tests showing less than
100 ppm 0.1 LEL 0.6 LEL
No. % No. % No. %
10 34 13 45 15 52
34 92 35 95 36 97
23 96 23 96 23 96
18 95 19 100 19 100
5 63 6 75 6 75
10 70 11 77 14 100
a. Station showing the highest proportion of reliable operation (fewest
malfunctions or hydrocarbon leaks) during the study period.
-------
F. EFFECT OF NOZZLE TYPE ON VAPOR LOSSES (MITH VAPOR-BALANCE SYSTEMS)
An insight into the possible importance of seemingly minor
details of system construction was fortuitously furnished as the
result of a system change which occurred during the study. About
three weeks after the beginning of the study, many of the original
nozzles of the vapor balance systems were replaced by new nozzles.
The new design incorporated a metal disc and Teflon seat, a device
intended to provide an improved seal between the nozzle and the
fillneck while avoiding undue stress on the rubber boot sheathing
the nozzle. Both were manufactured by the same firm.
A comparison of the results obtained before and after the
change shows clearly that the performance of the new nozzles was
inferior to that of the old. The results are shown in Table IX.
With the original nozzles, vapor losses were detected in slightly
more than half the fillings (55 percent); with the new nozzles,
the proportion rose to over 90 percent. With the original nozzles,
fewer than one fourth of the losses (23 percent) reached the 0.6
LEL criterion; with the new nozzles, more than three quarters (78
percent) did so.
G. EFFECT OF ATTENDANT SERVICE VS. SELF-SERVICE ON VAPOR LOSSES
Several stations included in the study permitted customers to
use the pumps to fill their own vehicle tanks. Table X shows, for
each type of vapor control system, a comparison of the vapor loss
experience in such stations with the experience where service was
performed by attendants; the data used in compiling the table are
taken only from those inspection visits on which the vacuum system
was operating satisfactorily. For Intermark and Clean Air Engineering
control systems, vapor losses were observed in a smaller proportion
of fillings at self-service stations than at other stations. For
Environics and vapor-balance systems, the reverse was true.
IV-15
-------
Table IX. FREQUENCIES OF OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS OF HYDROCARBONS
AT NOZZLE-FILLNECK INTERFACE EXCEEDING VARIOUS CRITERION
VALUES, WITH DIFFERENT NOZZLES (VAPOR-BALANCE SYSTEMS)
Nozzles
Original
Replacement
Number of
Fillings
31
74
Frequency of Exceeding Level
100 ppm 0.1 LELb
No. Percent No. Percent
17 55 9 29
67 91 59 80
0.6 LELb
No. Percent
7 23
58 78
The original nozzles were OPW Model 7VN
the replacements were OPW Model 7,VP
b. LEL: Lower explosive limit
-------
1
Table X. VAPOR LOSSES OBSERVED AT SELF-SERVICE AND ATTENDANT-SERVICE
STATIONS
Control System
Intermark
Clean A1r Eng.
Environics
Vacuum-Assist
Subtotal
Vapor-Balance
All
Self -Service a
Number Losses
of Fillings Observed
37
48
9
94
45
139
3
9
4
16
41
57
Per
Cent
8
19
44
17
91
41
Attendant-Service
Number Losses9 Per
of Fillings Observed Cent
15
56
19
90
60
150
3
17
4
24
43
67
20
30
21
27
72
44
a. Criterion is detection of hydrocarbons at 100 ppm or above
-------
These differences are not statistically significant and,
therefore, furnish no clear evidence that vapor losses at the nozzle
are either more or less likely when vehicles are serviced by their
drivers than when service-station attendants perform the operation.
H.. EFFECT OF VEHICLE FILLNECK CONFIGURATION ON VAPOR LOSSES
In testing the vapor losses on filling vehicle tanks, it was
obvious that observed losses were sometimes caused by difficulty of
fitting the nozzle to the fillneck, due to unusual and inconvenient
configurations of the fillneck or obstructions on the vehicle. Such
occurrences were noted on the inspection records.
About forty such observations were recorded, or less than ten
percent of the 506 fillings observed. A list of the vehicle models
and model-years involved is given in Appendix D, which shows that
automobiles of at least eleven manufacturers exhibited poor fits.
Only one model (the Chevrolet Corvette) appears more than once in
the list. It is therefore apparent that the problem, although a
relatively minor one, is likely to be widely encountered.
I. LIQUID LOSSES IN FILLING VEHICLES
A condition known'as "spitback" or "spillage", in which liquid
gasoline is lost from the tank either after the nozzle is withdrawn
from the vehicle fillneck or during filling, was observed by the
study team in eight instances, while monitoring more than 500 vehicle
fillings. This corresponds to an overall frequency of 1.6 percent.
Of these 8 instances, 3 occurred with vapor-balance systems (3 in
105fillings)and 5 with vacuum-assist systems (5 in 401 fillings).
Some station managers and operators have expressed concern
about possible losses of liquid into the vapor line, from which the
liquid would drain, unobserved, into the storage tank. The occurrence
of spitback may appear to lend substance to these concerns in some
cases. However, the study team was unable to detect such liquid losses,
and no conclusion can be reached as to whether they occurred during the
course of the study.
IV-18
-------
0. VAPOR LOSSES THROUGH CARBON CANISTERS
Six hydrocarbon detectors were installed at stations with
vaccum-assist systems containing carbon canisters. The data are
shown in Appendix E. At one station, the detector circuit was
tripped shortly after installation, indicating some vapor loss
i.e. in excess of 1.2% by volume. After the detector was reset
on the next inspection visit, no further losses were detected.
However, the vapor control system was not actually in operation
during most of the time monitored. At another station, a detector
having the accumulating record feature showed a total activation
time of 2.6 hours during six weeks of monitoring.
The two observations described occurred at stations equipped
with the Environics system. None of the other detectors showed
any indications of vapor losses through the carbon canisters.
IV-19
-------
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. EFFECTIVENESS OF VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS IN CAPTURING HYDROCARBON
VAPORS WHEN FILLING VEHICLE TANKS
1. The study demonstrated that several vacuum-assist vapor
recovery systems, when operating optimally, can be
effective in capturing gasoline vapor losses at the
nozzle-fill neck interface. In more than 90 percent of
vehicle fillings in large retail gasoline outlets
measured hydrocarbon levels near the nozzle were less than
0.6 LEL. In contrast, vapor-balance systems, at best,
prevented losses in only about half of the fillings.
2. Under conditions of this study, vacuum-assist vapor
recovery systems are found to be non-operational more than
vapor-balance systems. When the vacuum-assist stations were
not operating, the vapor balance systems were found to be
more effective in control of vapors at the nozzle/fillneck
interface.
3. Vapor capture is as effective, on the whole, for self-
service gasoline marketing as for ordinary attendant-
service.
4. The type of delivery nozzle used can have an important
effect on vapor capture, especially with vapor-balance
systems.
5. A small proportion (less than 10 percent during study)
of vehicles served may be expected to have fillneck con-
figurations incompatible with effective us.e of nozzles
in use during this study.
V-l
-------
6. In a very small proportion of fillings, liquid losses may
be observed as a result of drainage from an overfilled tank
("spitback" or "spillage").
Concern has been expressed about the possibility of liquid
returning to the storage tank, unobserved, via the vapor
line; the study did not evaluate this problem.
B. OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY OF VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
1. Reliability of the system in use, as shown by 140 inspection
visits, varied from good to poor. Equipment failures
caused shutdown of the units in less than ten percent of
the inspections, although tardy delivery of components
and delays in installation and maintenance resulted in
non-operation of the systems in about one third of the
inspection visit. (Three systems from Process Products
and one from Intermark remained out of operation from this
cause throughout the study.)
2. Only a few of the vacuum assist units operated reliably
and without vapor leaks throughout the study. One hundred
and thirty-eight instances of hydrocarbon losses from leaks
in the vapor recovery systems were detected; the predominant
cause of these leaks was system failure of some sort.
3. Incorrect operation or inattention by station operators
was a factor in about 20 percent of the observed mal-
functions.
4. Operating parameters (pressure and temperature) as observed
in the inspections were frequently different from those
specified by the manufacturers. It is not clear to what
extent these deviations may have resulted from, or possibly
caused, system malfunctions.
V-2
-------
5. Hydrocarbon vapors were detected in the effluent air
from carbon adsorption units in two of six systems
tested. The significance of such losses has not been
evaluated.
V-3
-------
APPENDIX A
Inspection Forms
-------
Time In
Date
Inspector _
Time Out'
INSPECTION TORM - VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEMS
Station
Address
1. Atmospheric Conditions^
Temperature
Sky Conditions
Wind Speed
Humidity
2. Vehicle Fill Nozzle
Type of Nozzle
Make of car being filled
Explosimeter reading
Operator attempt to make a good fit Yes
No
3. Vapor Return Lino.
Vacuum at
Yes
No
If No, Explain (if reason is known)
Kinks or Liquid Blockade in lines Ye.s
Does Operator attempt to straighten
No
A-l
-------
Vehicle Fill Nozzle
Type of nozzle
Make of car being filled
Explosimeter reading
Yes No Operator attempt to make a good fit Yes No
Location of gas inlet on car
Type of nozzle
Make of car being filled
Expolsimeter reading
Yes No Operator attempt to make a good fit Yes No
Location of gas inlet on car
Type of nozzle
Make of car being filled
ExmjJLsimeter reading
Yes No Operator attempt to make a good fit Yes .No
^^_- Location of gas inlet on car
A-2
-------
Time In
Time Out
Date
Inspector
INSPECTION FORM - INTERMARK MARK I
Station
Address
1. Atmospheric Conditions
Temperature
Sky Conditions_
Wind Speed
Humidity
Vehicle Fill Nozzle
Type of Nozzle_
Make of car being filled_
Explosimeter reading
Operator attempt to make a good fit Yes No
3. Vapor Return Line
Vacuum at Nozzle Yes - • No _.
If No, Explain (if reason known)
A-3
-------
Kinks or Liquid Blockage in Lines Yes Ho
Does Operator attempt to straighten
lines to minimize liquid blockage Yes No
A. Tank Vent
Explosimeter reading
'5. Tank Drop
Tank Drop made during visit Yes No
Volume of Tank Drop (if known)
Vapor Collection Blower
Explosimeter Reading
Condition of drive belts Good Poor
7. Surge Tank
Explosimeter Reading
Bladder Condition Good Poor
8. Compressor
Condition Good Poor
Explosimeter Rea'ding
- At Compressor
- At Compressor Relief Valves
Condenser Pressure Relief Valve
Explosimeter Reading
A-A
-------
10. Refrigeration Unit
Condition Good Poor
11. Overall Piping
Explosimetcr Reading
12. Operational Sequence Check
Vapor collection blower starts with
dispensing Yes No
Vapor collection blower stops when
dispensing stops Yes No
Compressor starts when level switch
in surge tank reaches design level (1/8 capacity) Yes No
Compressor stops when bladder level
' drops to design shut off level Yes No
Refrigeration unit goes through
defrost cycle (20 min.) Yes No
13. Comments
A-5
-------
Titno In _
Time Out
Date
Inspector
INSPECTION VORM - l'UOC!:GS PRODUCTS
Vapor Savor Model No.
Station
Address
1. Atmosnheric Conditions
Temperature
Sky Conditions
Wind Speed
Humidity
2. VoMcle Fill Nozzle
Type of Nozzle
Make of car being filled
N
Explosimeter reading
Operator attempt to make a good fit
Yes
No
3. Vapor Return Line
Vacuum at Nozzle
Yes
No
If No,explain (if reason is known)
A-6
-------
Kinkr; or Liquid Blockade in lines Yes No
Docs Operator atltxpt to straighten
linos to Minimize liquid blockade Yes No
/«. Tank Vent
ExplosiniC'tcr rending
5. Tank Drop
Tank Drop made during visit Yes No
Volume of Tank Drop (if known)
6. Island Blower
Explosimeter reading
Condition of drive belt Good Poor
7. Vapor Refriteration Blower
Explosimeter reading
Condition of drive belt Good Poor
8. Carbon Regeneration Blower
Explosimeter reading
Condition of drive belt Good Poor
A-7-
-------
2. Carbon Cnnir.tor Vent
Explosimcter reading
1C.
11-HK* Overall Pj piinf.
Explosimeter reading
J ^L
Operational Sequence Check
Island blower starts with dispensing Yes
Island blower stops when dispensing stops Yes
Refrigeration blower starts when tank
•pressure reaches 1" H^O Yes
Refrigeration blower stops after four
15 min. cycles or when tank pressure
reaches 1/2" H20 Yes _
Carbon regeneration blower starts when
refrigeration blower stops
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Comments
A-8
-------
Time in Date
Time out Inspector
INSPECTION FORM - CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING 500B & 1000B
Model No.
Station _
Address
1. Atmospheric Conditions
Temperature
Sky Conditions
Wind Speed
Humidity
2. 'Vehicle Fill Nozzle
Type of Nozzle
Make of car being filled
Explosimeter reading
Operator attempt to make a good fit— Yes No
3. Vapor Return Line
Vaccuum at Nozzle Yes No
If No, Explain (If reason is known)
A-9
-------
Kinks or Liquid Blockage in lines Yes
No
Does Operator attempt to straighten lines
to minimize liquid blockage Yes No
A. Tank Vent
Explosimeter reading
5. Tank Drop
Tank Drop made during visit Yes No
Volume of Tank Drop (if known)
6. Vapor Collection Blower
Explosimeter reading
Condition of Drive Belt Good
Poor
7. Carbon Canister Vent
Explosimeter reading
8. Burner Exhaust
Explosimeter reading
9. Overall Piping
A-10
-------
Explosimeter reading
10. Operational Sequence Check
Vapor Blower starts with dispensing - Yes No
Vapor Blower stops when stage two
burner stops - . Yes No
Stage two burner starts when stage
one burner stops - Yes No
Burner ignition energized when
dispensing stops - Yes No
11. Comments
A-ll
-------
Time in
Time out
Date
Inspector
INSPECTION FORM - CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING 2500B & 5000B
Model No.
Station _
Address
1. Atmospheric Conditions
Temperature
Sky Conditions
Wind Speed
Humidity
2. Vehicle Fill Nozzle
Type of Nozzle
Make of car being filled
Explosimeter reading
Operator attempt to make a good fit Yes
No
3. Vapor Return Line
•Vaccuum at Nozzle Yes
No
If No, Explain (if reason is known)
A-12
-------
Kinks or liquid blockage in lines Yes No
Does Operator attempt to straighten
lines to minimize liquid blockage Yes No
6. Vapor Collection Blower
Explosimeter reading
8. Burner Pump
Explosimeter reading
4. Tank Vent
Explosimeter reading
5. Tank Drop
Tank Drop made during visit Yes No
Volume of Tank Drop (if known)
Condition of drive belts Good Poor
7. Carbon Canister Vent
Explosimeter reading
• Condition of drive belt
9. Burner Exhaust
Explosimeter reading
A-13
-------
10. Overall Piping
Explosimeter reading
11» Operational Sequence Check
- Vapor collection blower starts with
dispensing -
- Burner pumps start with dispensing
- Burner ignition energized when
burner pump starts -
- If neither burner starts, burner
pump stops -
- Once burner pump stops, does not
start until dispensing starts -
- Second stage burner starts when
fir&t stage burner stops -
- Burner pump stops when second
stage burner stops -
- Vapor collection blower stops
when dispensing stops -
Yes No
Yes No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
12. Comments
A-14
-------
Time In Date
Time Out Inspector
INSPECTION FORM - ENVIRONICS VAPOX A-3000, A-1500, A-400 & A-AOO-M
Model No.
Station __
Address
1. Atmospheric Conditions
Temperature
Sky Conditions
Wind Speed
Humidity
2. Vehicle Fill Nozzle
Type of Nozzle
Make of car being filled
Explosimeter reading
Operator attempt to make a good fit Yes No
3. Vapor Return Line
Vacuum at Nozzle Yes . No
If No, explain (if reason is known)
A-15
-------
Kinks or Liquid Blockage in lines Yes No
Does Operator attempt to straighten
lines to minimize liquid blockage Yes No
4. Tank Vent
Explosimeter reading
5. Vapor Collection Blower
Explosimeter reading
Condition of drive belt Good Poor
6. Carbon Canister Vent
Explosimeter reading
7. Reactor Vent
Explosimeter reading
Reactor down due to 1300°F override
during visit Yes No
8. Carbon Regeneration Blower
Explosimeter reading
Condition of drive belt Good Poor
A-16
-------
9. Overall Piping
Explosimeter reading
10. Operational Sequence Check
Vapox A-3000
Vapor Collection Pump starts with dispensing Yes No
Pressure switch opens at 3.5" HoO Yes No
Vapor collection pump stops when dispensing
stops- Yes No
Carbon regeneration pump stops when reactor
temperature is below 900°F or above 1300°F. Yes No
Vapox A-1500, A-A00 £ A-400-M
Vapor collection blower starts with dispensing Yes No
Pressure switch opens at 3.5" H 0 Yes NO
Vapor collection blower stops when dispensing
is over- Yes No
Carbon regeneration blower starts when
dispensing is over- . Yes No
Carbon regeneration blower stops when
dispensing starts- Yes No
Carbon regeneration stops when reactor
temperature is below 900°F or above 1300°F Yes No
A-17
-------
11. Tank Drop
Tank Drop made during visit Yes No
Volume of Tank Drop (if known) *
12. Comments
A-18
-------
Time In Date
Time Out ' Inspector
INSrECTION FORM - HIRT/HAZELETT
Station
Address
1. Atmospheric Conditions
Temperature
Sky Conditions
Wind Speed
Humidity
2. Vehicle Fill Nozzle
Type of Nozzle
Make of car being filled _
Explosimeter reading
Operator attempt to make a good fit Yes- No
3. Vapor Return Line
Vacuum at Nozzle Yes No
If No, Explain (if reason is known)
"Kinks or Liquid Blockage in lines Yes No
A-19
-------
Does Operator attempt to straighten
lines to minimize liquid blockage Yes No
4. Tank Vent
Explosimeter reading
5. Tank Drop
Tank Drop made during visit
; visit
if known)
Yes No
6. Burner Exhaust
Explosimeter reading
Pilot operating during visit Yes No
7. Propane Gas Supply
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
8. Compressed Air Supply
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
9. Overall Piping
Explosimeter reading
10. Operational Sequence^ Check
2 A-20
-------
Compressed Air starts when tank pressure
reaches -0.15" H20 Yes No _
Small burner comes on when tank
pressure reaches -0.15" HO Yes No
Large burner comes on when tank
pressure reaches +0.1" 1^0 Yes No
Compressed air stops when tank
pressure reaches -0.23" 1^0 (for
small burner) l Yes No
Compressed air stops when tank pressure
reaches -05"H 0 (for large burner) Yes No
11. Comments
A-21
-------
APPENDIX B
Automobiles Tested
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED
CD
MAKE
Oldsmobile
Ford
Ford
Chevy
Mercury :
Ford
Datsun V*
Chevy •:'
Dodge
Bulck
Chevy
Datsun
Chevy
Mazda
Chevy
Chevy
VW
VH
Plymouth
Chevy
Toyota
Ford
Chevy
Ford
Datsun
Chevy
Plymouth
Ford
Ford
Ford
Dodge
Chevy
Oldsmobile
Ford
-
Chevy
MODEL
-
Fair lane
Pinto
Nova
-
Maverick
-
Pickup
Polara
Skylark
LOV
Pickup
Bel-Air
-
Pickup
Nova
-
-
Fury
Impala
-
Pinto
Mallbu
Pinto
1600
Chevelle
Duster
Mustang
Pinto
Pickup
-
Van
StaWag
StaWag
Pickup
Bel-Air
STATION NUMBER
YEAR WHERE TESTED
1973
1969
1972
1970
1968
1970
1975
1972
1967
1964
1972
1975
1966
1971
-
-
1967
1970
1972
1967
1970
1970
1972
1973
1970
1970
1974
1966
1972
-
1964
1975
1971
1972
1970 .
1974
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FILL NECK
LOCATION
-
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
-
.
-
-
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
-
Left Rear Panel
-
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Behind Left Door
Under License Plate
HC
OBSERVATION
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 -1- LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
800 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0'+ LEL
0
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
High
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1,0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
800 PPM
1.0 + LEL
0 PPM
1.0 + LEL
.0
0
0
0
COMMENTS
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Poor Fit Unit down
-
-
Poor Fit Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down •
Unit down.
-
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Poor Fit Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Poor Fit Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
CO
MAKE
Mercury
Ford
Datsun
Dodge
Dodge
Ford
Mercury
Dodge
Ford
Buick
Datsun
Ford
Ford
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Datsun
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Datsun
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
TO
Volvo
Ford
BMW
Ford
Ford
Volvo
VW
Ford
MODEL
-
LTD
1600 P/U
Pickup
Dart
Mustang
Capri
CoronetWag.
Pickup
Sta.Wag
-
Mustang II
.Pickup
Step-Van
Maverick
Corvette
1600
Pickup
Truck
Pickup
350 Truck
C/50
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Irapala
Bus
Sta.Wag.
Pinto
-
Pinto
Pinto
Sta.Wag.
Sta.Wag.
Fair lane
YEAR
1967
1973
1973
1971
1964
1968
1973
1973
1970
1967
1974
1974
1969
1964
1971
1972
1973
1972
-
1973
1973
1968
1973
1974
1968
1969
1968
1973
1972
1969
1970
1973
1971
1970
1969
STATION NUMBER
WHERE TESTED
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 •
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
. ' 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Behind Left Door
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
-
-
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Above Trunk
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
-
Behind Right Door
Below Cab Right Side
Behind Left Door
Right Rear Panel
Behind Left Door
Behind Left Door
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
•Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Front Panel
Under License Plate
HC
OBSERVATION
0-200 PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0
0-100 PPM
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0
0-600 PPM
0
0-300 PPM
0
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
0
400 PPM
COMMENTS
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Insufficient Vacuum
Poor Fit
Self-Serve
Spit Back At End of Fill
Spit Back at End of Fill
Poor Fit
Poor Fit
Poor Fit
Supply Hose Leaks Gas at
Nozzle
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
MAKE
Ford
Chevy
Ford
Ford
VW
Opel
Volvo
Toyota
Chevy
Datsun
Mercury
VW
VW
Pontiac
VW
Datsun
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Volvo
Buick
Lincoln
VW
Chevy
Ford
Buick
Plymouth
Ford
Inter-
national
Lincoln
Toyota
oo Dodge
I
oo Chevy
Plymouth
VW
MODEL
Falcon
Vega Wagon
Mustang
Pickup
Bus
Coupe
Sta.Wag.
Pickup
Vega
1600
Capri
Rabbit
Bug
Sta.Wag.
Bug
1200
Chevelle
Pinto Wagon
LUV
Sta.Wag.
Le Sabre
MK IV
Sta.Wag.
El Camino
Fairlane
Regal
-
Pinto Wagon
_
Continental
-
Van
Van
Fury
Bug
YEAR
1962
1971
1968
1973
1971
1970
1967
1973
1971
1973
1972
1975
1968
1974
1974
-
1973
1973
1972
1974
1973
1972
'1971
1968
1967
1971
1969
1974
1971
1974
1971.
1963
1974
1968
1967
STATION NUMBER
WHERE TESTED
4
4
4
4
4
4 •
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Mid Panel
Under License Plate
Right Rear Panel
Right Front Panel
-
-
-
-
Right Rear Panel
-
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Right Front Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
-
-
-
_
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Right Front Panel
HC
OBSERVATION
0
0
0
0
1.0 +
0
0
0
1.0 '+
0
1.0 +
0
0
0
0
LEL
LEL
LEL
1000 PPM
1.0 +
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0 +
0
0
0
0
0
LEL
LEL
COMMENTS
Poor Fit
Nozzle Being Repaired
Good Fit
Poor Fit .
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
DO
.MAKE
Chevy
Chevy
Ford
Dodge
Chevy
Ford
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Buick
Lincoln
Ford
Ford
Dodge
Ford
Chevy
Ford
Dodge
Pontiac
Dodge
Plymouth
Chev
CMC
Chev
Datsun
VW
Ford
Ford
Chevy
Ford
Ford
Chevy
MODEL
Impala
-
Bronco
Sta.Wag.
Pickup
Pinto
LTD
El Camino
Camaro
Torino
El Camino
Sta.Wag.
Riviera
MK IV
Pinto
Ranchero
Charger
Sta.Wag.
Pickup
Granada
Polara
-
Van
-
Monte Carlo
Pickup
Pickup
610
Bug
LTD
Pinto
.Van
Pinto
Pickup
• Pickup
.YEAR
1964
1965
1970
1972
1973
1972
1975
1970
1972
1973
-
1970
1966
1974
-
-
1970
1973
1973
1975
1972
1973
1974
1973
• 1974
1969
1975
1973
1967
1972
1970
1974
1973
1972
1973
STATION NUMBER
WHERE TESTED
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Right Mid Panel
Under License Plate
Right Mid Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
-
•
-
Right Mid Panel
-
.
-
-
^
Under License Plate
-
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Front Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Right Side Panel
HC
OBSERVATION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-0.2 LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0.2 LEL
0
0
0-600 PPM
0-700 PPM
0
0-100 PPM
'
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0-500 PPM
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
0-1000 PPM
0
0
COMMENTS
Poor Fit
Poor Fit
Readings not taken because
of gas spillage
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
en
MAKE
Pontiac
Plymouth
Datsun
Cadillac
Ford
Ford
Inter-
national
vw
Chevy
Ford
Dodge
Ford
VW
Ford
Ford
Oldsmobile
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Ford
Oldsmobile
Ford
Chevy
Datsun
Chevy
Dodge
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Datsun
Oldsmobile
Dodge
thevy
MODEL
LeMans
Duster
Pickup
-
LTD
LTD
.-
Bug
Camaro
Maverick
Colt
Pickup
Bug
Van
Fairlane
Sta.Wag.
Mustang
Chevelle
-
Mustang
98
Fairlane
Camaro
-
-
Satellite
Chevelle
Pickup
Malibu Wag.
240Z
-
-
Monte Carlo
YEAR
1966
1972
1972
1974
1972
1970
1968
1964
1968
1970
1975
1969
1969
1969
1971
1964
1969
1968
1957
1966
1968
1971
1968
1973
1969
1974
1970
1967
1968
1969
1973
1973
1974
STATION NUMBER
WHERE TESTED
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Under License Plate
Left Side Panel
-
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
-
Behind Right Door
Inside Trunk
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Front Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
.
-
Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Behind Left Door
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
HC
OBSERVATION
0
0
1.0 + LEL
400 PPM
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0-600 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
-
100 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1000 PPM
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
COMMENTS
-
-
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
-
-
-
Vacuum line not hooked
up
Poor Fit
-
-
_
Vacuum line not booked
up
-
-
Vacuum Line not hooked
up
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
-
-
-
Unit down
Liquid gas leak at
nozzle union
-
-
Poor Fit
-
Unit down
Unit down
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
DO
MAKE
Opel
Ford
Chevy
Ford
AMC
Pontiac
Honda
Chevy
Fiat
Chevy
Dodge
Honda
Datsun
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Chrysler
Oldsmobile
Ford
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Datsun
Dodge
Chevy
Chevy
Mercury
Ford
Oldsmobile
Ford
Porsche
Chevy
Mercury
Buick
Pontiac
Toyota
MODEL
1900
Van
' -
Van
Rebel
Grand Prix
Civic
Pickup
1200
Monte Carlo
Sta.Wag.
Civic
B210
Vega
Maverick
Monte Carlo
-
98
Maverick
Bel-Air
Pinto
Pickup
610
Colt
Pickup
Impala
Cougar
Maverick
-
Mustang
912
Impala
Capri
-
Sta.Wag.
' Pickup
STATION NUMBER
YEAR WHERE TESTED
1972
1969
1973
1969
1967
1969
1974
1968 .
1963
1970
1974
1974
1973
1970
1972
1973
1974
1968
1972
1974
1972
1973
1973
1971
1968
1959
1970
1970
1972
1968
1970
1966
1971
1973
1972
1974
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
-
-
Left Rear Panel
Behind Left Door
-
-
-
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Rear Panel
Under License Plate
.Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Right Mid Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Rear Panel
-
-
•
Under License Plate
-
Left Mid Panel
HC
OBSERVATION
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1000+PPM
1000+PPM
1000+PPM
1.0 + LEL
High at end of fill
1.0 + LEL
COMMENTS
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
-
-
'
-
-
-
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
-
Poor Fit
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
03
MAKE
Ford
Mercury
Ford
Ford
Ford
Inter-
national
Jeep
Pontiac
Buick
Mercury
Chevy
Dodge
Buick
VW
Ford
Chevy
Oldsmobile
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Toyota
Chevy
Mercury
Ford
VW
Pontiac
AMC
Dodge
Chevy
Datsun
Buick
VW
Chevy
MODEL
Galaxie
Comet
3/4 Ton P/U
Ranchero
Galaxie
Travelall
-
GTO
Riviera
Cougar
Nova
Futura
Le Sabre
Bus
3/4 Ton P/U
Sta.Wag.
98
Nova
Falcon
Van
-
Camaro
Pickup
Pickup
Nova Wagon
Cougar
Maverick
Bug
Ventura
Javalin
Pickup
Nova
-
Skylark
Bus
Impala
STATION NUMBER
YEAR WHERE TESTED
1965
1964
1966
1975
1966
1969
1973
1967
1966
1970
1973
1972
1970
1971
1970
1972
1974
1970
-
1970
1970
1973
1974
1969
1968
1970
1972 -
1970
1972
1968
1974
1972
1968
1972
1969
1964
11
11
11
11
11
11'
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Left Rear Panel
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
'
-
'
Right Rear Panel
-
-
-
Under License Plate
-•
'
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Behind Door
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Rear Panel
Right Front Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Behind Left Door
Under License Plate
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
HC
OBSERVATION
0
0
1000+PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COMMENTS
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self -Serve
Self-Serve
-
-
-
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
-
-
Poor Fit
-
-
-
Self-Serve
Self -Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self -Serve
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cent)
STATION NUMBER
.HAKE
Plymouth
Da t sun
Ford
Fiat
Datsun
Chevy
Dodge
Ford
VW
Ford
Chevy
Triumph
Ford
Ford
Dodge
Opel
Buick
Mazda
Chevy
Ford
Inter-
national
Cadillac
Ford
Ford
Ford
Datsun
Ford
Fiat
Chevy
Datsun
O3 Ford
I
00 CMC
Ford
Buick
MODEL
Pickup
Ranchero
128
240Z
Monte Carlo
Charger
Pinto
-
Falcon
Nova
TR6
Falcon
Pickup
Satellite
1900
Riviera
Pickup
Impala
Maverick
Pickup
-
Pinto
LTD
Mustang
Sea. Wag.
Courier
Coupe
LUV
1600
LTD
Duravan
LTD
Electra
YEAR WHERE TESTED
1966
1973
1967
1973
1973
1972
1966
1971
1964
1967
1965
1968
1970
1969
1974
1972
1971
1974
1972
1973
1954
1970
1971
1969
1968
1971 '
1971
1971
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
1964
11
12
12
12
12
12
12.
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Under License Plate
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Behind Rear Window
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Side Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Behind Left Door
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Mid Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
HC
OBSERVATION
0-200 PPM
0-1.0 + LEL
0
0
0-1000 PPM
0-800 PPM
0,6 LEL
1.0 +. LEL
1.0 + LEL
1,0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0-400 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
COMMENTS
Self-Serve
High HC Observation
at end of fill
-
Poor fit must be hand
held
Bad Seal
-
-
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Poor fit
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
-
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Poor fit
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self -Serve. Poor Fit
-
-
-
High HC observations
appeared to be caussd
by nozzle
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
MAKE
Chrysler
Mercury
Dodge
Pontiac
Dodge
Ford
Chevy
Ford
Ford
Ford
Chevy
. Datsun
Chevy
Chevy
Ford
Pontiac'
Ford
Chrysler
VW
Ford
Chevy
Alfa Romeo
VW
Ford
Dodge
Ford
MGB
Datsun
Ford
Plymouth
i Plymouth
vo
Mercedes
Chevy
VW
MODEL
Imperial
Capri
Dart
Le Man's
Dart
LTD
Sta.Wag.
Pinto
Mustang
Falcon
6/50 Truck
1200 P/U
El Camlno
Camaro
Pinto
Catalina
Falcon
Le Baron
"Thing"
Thunderbird
Van
-
Dasher
Pinto
Sta.Wag.
Custom P/U
-
Pickup
Mustang
-
Sta.Wag.
Sta.Wag.
Bus
STATION NUMBER
YEAR -WHERE TESTED
1970
1972
1964
1974
1974
1972
1970
1974
1968
1972
1971
1965
1963
1967
1971
1966
1964
1968
1973
1968
1975
. 1973
1974
1970
1973 .
1974
1968
1971
1969
1968
1965
1971
1970
1969
13
13
13
13
13
13
13 '
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14 '
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Under License Plate
Right Front Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
-
-
-
.
•
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
-
-
-
-
-
-
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
fceft Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
HC
OBSERVATION
1.0 + LEL
. 1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0-200 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0 PPM
0-200 PPM
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0-1000 PPM
1000 + PPM
0
0 .
1000 PPM
-
0.2 LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
1000 + PPM
1000 + PPM
1000 + PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
COMMENTS
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
-
-
Self-Serve Poor Fit
Self-Serve
Attendant Serve
Self-Serve
Self -Serve
-
-
-
-
Good fit
Good fit
Poor Fit
Poor Fit must be hand
held
Good fit
Hand held
-
-
'
-
Self-Serve nozzle fell
out of car did not shut
off
Poor fit
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
-
Self -Serve
Poor Fit
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cent)
.o
MAKE
Toyota
Mercury
Toyota
Chev.
Ford
Ford
Oldsmobile
Dodge
Toyota
Chev.
Ford
Inter-
national
Ford
Jeep
Inter-
national
Dodge
Chevy
AMC
Jeep
GM
Chevy
AMC
AMC
Inter-
national
Inter-
national
Jeep
Jeep
Jeep
Jeep
Jeep
Ford
Ford
Inter-
national
MODEL
Corona
Capri
Corrolla .
Vega
LTD
-
88
Pickup
1900
Corvette
Van
CO 1600
. Fair lane
-
Truck
4 Ton Truck
Truck
-
-
Truck
1 Ton Truck
Truck
Truck
1/2 Ton
Step-Van
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Torino
5 Ton Truck
Loadstar
STATION NUMBER
YEAR WHERE TESTED
1974
1974
1972
1971
1973
1972
1968
1974
1968
1966
1970
1969
1972
1975
1969
1970
1968
1973
1968
1972
1968
1971
1971
1969
1968
1968
1970
1968
1975
1975
1973
1974
1968
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14 '
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Left Rear Panel
-
Left Side Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Left Mid Panel
Under License Plate
Above Trunk
Left Rear Panel
"
-
-
Right Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Side Panel
Right Front Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Right Side Panel
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
-
HC
OBSERVATION
0-200 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0-300 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0-200 PPM
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
1000 + PPM
0-1000 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0.6 LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 -1- LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1,0 LEL
1.0 LEL
0
COMMENTS
Self-Serve
-
-
Spit Back
-
-
Self-Serve
Self-Serve
-
Poor Fit
-
_
-
-
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Poor Fit
Poor Fit
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
MAKE
Inter-
national
Jeep
Ford
Jeep
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
00 Dod8e
1, Dodge
Dodge
MODEL
1310 Truck
- .
15$ Ton Truck
-
-
-
-
-
-
Polara
Polara
Folara
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
-
-
-
-
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
YEAR
1973
1971
1971
1975
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974 •
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
STATION NUMBER
WHERE TESTED
15
15
15
15
16
16.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
i 16
16
16
16
16
16
FILL NECK
LOCATION
_
-'
-
-
'
-
-
-
-
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
-
-
-
-
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
HC
OBSERVATION
0-100 PPM
0-400 PPM
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0.1 LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
100 PPM
0-200 PPM
0
0-300 PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0.1 LEL
300 PPM
0
0.2 LEL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COMMENTS
1.0 LEL just before
shut-off
1.0 LEL just before
shut-off
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
MAKE
Cadillac
Chevy
Ford
Da t sun
Datsun
VW
Chevy
Ford
Ford
MG
Chevy
Cadillac
Ford
Chevy
VW
VW
Oldsmobile
AMC
Dodge
Chevy
VW
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Pontiac
Chevy
Opel
Toyota
Ford
Cadillac
Chevy
VW
Co Ford
— ' Plymouth
Inter-
national
MODEL
-
Corvette
Pinto
1600 Sportscar
510
Bus
Impala
Pinto
LTD
-
LUV
-
LTD
Chevelle
Bug
Bug
Cutlass
Hornet Wagon
Van
Chevelle
Bug
350 Pickup
Chevelle
Vega
-
LUV
1900
-
Mustang
Coupe DeVille
Pickup
-
Pinto
Road Runner
5 Ton Truck
YEAR
1973
1969
1971
1967
1968
1974
1974
1971
1973
1970
1969
1973
1973
1975
1974
1969
1973
1974
1971
1974 .
1964
1972
1974
1971
1968
1972
1972
1969 '
1969
1973
1970
1972
1970
1969
1970
STATION NUMBER
WHERE TESTED
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Under License Plate
Top of Trunk
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Side Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Under License Plate
-
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Right Mid Panel
Right Front Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Below Cab Left Side
HC
OBSERVATION
0
1.0 + LEL
0
50-100 PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
0
0
0-200 PPM
1.0 + LEL
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
COMMENTS
Poor Fit
Poor Fit
Poor Fit
No Vacuum
No Vacuua
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
Go
MAKE
Chevy
Cadillac
VW
Datsun
Ford
Rambler
Dodge
TO
Audi
Mazda
Ford
Opel
Datsun
Cadillac
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Rambler
Chevy
Toyota
Toyota
Mercury
Mazda
Ford
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
MODEL
Monte Carlo
-
Bus
1600 P/U
Falcon
-
Dart
Bus
Fox
Coupe
Maverick
1900
Coupe
-
Mustang II
Corvette
Chevelle Wagon
Maverick
Impala
% Ton P/U
Nova
StaWag- ;
Camaro
Corrolla
Pickup
Montego
RX-3
Galaxie
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
YEAR
1974
1974
1968
1969
1964
1964
1974
1972
1974
1972
1970
1973
1972
1973
1974
1969
1974
1972
1973
1971
1973
1966
1966
1974
1974
1974
1972
1965
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
STATION NUMBER
WHERE TESTED
19
19
19
19
19
19-
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
. 21
21
21
21
21
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Right Rear Panel
Left Mid Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
-
-
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Above Trunk
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Under License Plate
-
-
'
-
Left Rear Panel
Left Mid Panel
-
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
HC
OBSERVATION
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1000 + PPM
100 PPM
1.0 -C LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
-
0
1000 + PPM
0
0
0
0
0.8 LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COMMENTS
No Vacuum
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Unit down
Poor Fit Unit down
Unit down
Vacuum lines disconnected
Vacuum lines disconnected
Nozzle does not fit
Unit down
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cent)
co
MAKE
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Pontiac
Dodge
Chev.
Plymouth
Dodge
Chev.
Datsun
Dodge
Dodge
Chev.
Ford
Ford
Dodge
Ford
Buick
Ford
Ford
Ford
Dodge
Plymouth
Ford
Ford
MODEL
Monaco
Monaco
Polara
Monaco
Monaco
Polara
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Monaco
Le Mans
Coronet
Malibu
Belvedere
Coronet Wagon
Monte Carlo
-
Coronet
Coronet Wagon
Vega
Ranchero
Maverick
Coronet Wagon
Granada
Electra
Mustang
Fairlane
Falcon
. -
-
Ranchero
Torino
STATION NUMBER
YEAR WHERE TESTED
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1965
1968
1973
1964
1965
1970
1974
1968
1973
1972
1971
1971
1973
1975
1967
1968
1964
1968
1973
1966
1974
1972
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21 •
21
21
21,
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
FILL l.'ECK
LOCATION
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
-
-
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Under License
Under License Plate
-
-
-
Under License Plate
Right Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
-
Under License Plate
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
HC
OBSERVATION
0
100 PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000 + PPM
0
1000 + PPM
100 PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-800 PPM
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
0
0
COMMENTS
1,0 + LEL at end
of fill
Tow Hitch caused
poor fit
Poor Fit
Poor Fit
Good Fit
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Fit Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Spit back at.end of fill
Spit back at end of fill
-------
AUTOMOBILES TESTED (cont)
MAKE
VW
Ford
VW
Dodge
Mercedes
Ford
VW
Mazda
Chevy
Cadillac
Chevy
Volvo
Rambler
Ford
Datsun
Ford
VW
Chevy
Jaguar
Cadillac
MODEL
Bug
Pinto Wagon
Bus
StaWag
-
Pinto
Bug
RX2
Van
Coupe DeVille
Camaro
142 Sedan
Nash
LTD
StaWag
Pinto
Bug
Vega
XKE
DeVille
• YEAR
1966
1973
1967
1973
1969
1970
1970
1972
1973
1974
1974
1970
1967
1973
1967
1970
1965
1971
1971
1974
STATION NUMBER
WHERE TESTED
23
23
23
24
24
24'
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24 .
FILL NECK
LOCATION
Inside Trunk
Left Rear Panel
Right Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Right Front Panel
Left Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Right Rear Panel
Rear Panel
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Inside Trunk
Under License Plate
Left Rear Panel
Under License Plate
HC
OBSERVATION
1.0 -1- LEL
0
0
1.0 + LEL
0-600 PPM
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
0
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
200 PPM
0
1.0 + LEL
1.0 + LEL
COMMENTS
Poor Fit
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Fit Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
Poor Vacuum
03
(Jl
-------
APPENDIX C
Measured Operational Parameters
-------
I. INTERMARK SYSTEMS
Date of
Visit
in/75
7/9/75
7/2/75
7/9/75
Station
Location
Sears
Sears
Gemco
Gemco
7/30/75
7/3/75
7/10/75
7/10/75
Gemco
Encinitas
Encinitas
Carmel Valley
Comments
Bladder level indicator read 1/8 capacity,
pressure =0.64" HjO.
Bladder down, pressure «= 0.45" H.O,compressor
came on when level indicator read 1/8 capacity,
pressure = 2" H20.
Pressure » 1.5" H.O when bladder level indicator
read 1/8-3/8 capacity, pressure = 0.35" H.O
when level indicator read 1/16 - 1/8 capacity and
compressor turned off, pressure = 1.4" H.O when
level indicator read just under 1/8 capacity and
compressor started.
Bladder in down position, pressure = 0.45" H.O,
pressure = 1.4" H.O when level indicator read 1/8
capacity.
Bladder in full up position, pressure •= 7.5" H_0.
Pressure « 2.4" H.O, corresponding bladder level
not known because level indicator does not work.
Pressure •= 0" H.O, processing unit down.
Pressure ° 0" H.O, processing unit down.
6/18/75
6/30/75
7/8/75
II. PROCESS PRODUCTS SYSTEMS & TEMPERATURE DATA
Waring Road
Waring Road
Waring Road
Refrigeration unit starts at 4" H20 stops at
0.5" HO.
Refrigeration unit starts at 3.5 - 3.8" H20, stops
at 0.5" H20
Refrigeration unit starts at 4.5" H.O, stops at
OEM jj f.
. J B.U
C-l
-------
II. PROCESS PRODUCTS SYSTEMS & TEMPERATURE DATA (cont)
Date of
Visit
7/16/75
7/22/75
7/29/75
6/19/75
6/23/75
6/26/75
7/3/75
7/9/75
7/17/75
7/22/75
7/30/75
7/15/75
7/22/75
7/9/75
6/25/75
6/30/75
7/8/75
7/22/75
7/29/75
Station
Location
Waring Road
Waring Road
Waring Road
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Clairmont &
Clairmont Mesa
Clairmont &
Clairmont Mesa
Bubble Machine
III.
Tierrasanta
Tierrasanta
Tierrasanta
Tierrasanta
Tierrasanta
Comments
Refrigeration unit starts at 4.5" H.O, stops
at 0.5" H20
Refrigeration starts at 4.2" H.O, stops at
0.2" H.O
Refrigeration starts at 4.5" H.O, stops at
Condensate return = 12F, no pressure data
Refrigeration starts at 1.1" H.O, stops at 0.5" H.O
Condensate return = 22F, no pressure data
Refrigeration starts at 1" H.O, stops at 0.5" H.O.
Condensate return = 30F, refrigeration starts at
1.1" HO, stops at 0.3" H20
Refrigeration starts at 1" HO, stops at 0.5" HO
Condensate return «= 30F, refrigeration starts at
1.1" HO, stops at 0.5" H20.
Condensate return - 40F, refrigeration starts at
1" H20, stops at 0.5" H20
Tank pressure at 0.6" H.O, processing unit down
Tank pressure 0" H.O, unit down.
Tank pressure = 3.5" H.O, unit down.
CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
Manifold pressure = 3" H20.
Manifold pressure = 3.5" H20.
Manifold pressure » 3.5" H.O (low pressure adjusted
to reduce sooting, according to Clean Air).
Manifold pressure = 3.2" H20 while burning.
Manifold pressure - 3.3" H20
C-2
-------
III. CLEAN AIR ENGINEERING SYSTEMS (cont)
Date of Station
Visit Location
6/26/75 Highway Patrol,
S.D.
7/2/75 Highway Patrol,
S.D.
7/10/75 Highway Patrol,
S.D.
7/15/75 Highway Patrol,
S.D.
7/28/75 Highway Patrol,
S.D.
6/30/75 Rocky Home Dairy
7/8/75 Rocky Home Dairy
7/16/75 Rocky Home Dairy
7/22/75 Rocky Home Dairy
7/28/75 Rocky Home.Dairy
7/3/75 Highway Patrol,
Onsde
7/10/75 Highway Patrol,
Onsde
7/18/75 Highway Patrol,
Onsde
7/31/75 Highway Patrol,
Onsde
Comments
Manifold pressure - 5.5"
15" H-O when just vapor recovery blower on, 5.3" H_0
when burner pump starts, when burner pump stopped
pressure went to -3" H.O but leveled to zero
after 2 min.
Manifold pressure = 5" HO.
Manifold pressure = 5.5" H_0 while burning.
Manifold pressure = 5.3" HO
14. A" H_0 when vapor collection blower on, pressure
went to 6.8" H_0 when burner on.
Pressure goes to 15" H.O when vapor collection blower
starts, as burner starts pressure decreases to
6.5" H20.
Manifold Pressure = 6.8" H.O while burning
Manifold Pressure = 6.3" H20.
Manifold Pressure = A. 2" H20.
5.5" HO while burner pump on, 15" H.O before
burner activated.
15" HO before burner pump on, 5-5»s" HO after
burner pump started.
Manifold pressure = 5.3" H0
Manifold pressure = 4.0"
IV. HIRT SYSTEM DATA
7/10/75
Oceanside
Compressed air starts when tank pressure = -0.58"
small burner starts when tank pressure
-0.58" H20,
C-3
-------
IV. HIRT SYSTEM DATA (cont)
Date of
Visit
Station
Location
7/15/75
7/31/75
7/1/75
7/9/75
7/16/75
7/29/75
7/2/75
7/10/75
7/17/75
7/21/75
Oceanside
Oceanside
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Post Office
Post Office
Post Office
6th & Robinson
Comments
compressed air and burners stop when tank pressure
» -0.65" H-O (large burner starts when tank pressure
«• -0.1" HO, this was not observed but information
was supplied by Hirt).
Compressed air starts when tank pressure = -0.61" H_0,
small burner starts when pressure = -0.61" H_0.
Compressed air and small burner start when tank pressure
- -0.58" H20, both stop when tank pressure = -0.61" H_0.
V. ENVIRONICS SYSTEMS
Reactor Temp. = 73F (?), unit down.
Reactor Temp. = 1065F.
Reactor starts at 1290F, carbon regeneration pump
deactivates when temp, reaches 740F.
Pressure switch at 1.6" HO, 2.6" HO when vapor !
collection blower starts then back to 1.6" H-0.
Reactor Temp, at 848F when burner pump came on, then went
down to 760F.
Reactor temp at 872F before any gas fillups.
Processing unit down, reactor temp = 635F.
Pressure switch opened at 1.5" H-0.
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
Automobiles with Fillnecks Poorly Fit by Nozzles
-------
AUTOMOBILES WITH FILLNECKS POORLY FIT BY NOZZLES
Maker
BMW
Bulck
Buick
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Datsun
Datsun
Datsun
Datsun
Datsun
Datsun
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Model
-
Riviera
Sta. Wag.
Malibu
Corvette
El Camino
Nova Wagon
Corvette
1/2 Ton Pickup
Van
Chevelle
350 Truck
L/50 Truck
Corvette
Sta. Wag.
1600
240 z
240z
Sta. Wag.
Pickup
Coronet Wagon
Satellite
Sta. Wag.
Year
1969
1966
1967
1973
1966
-
1968
1969
1971
1975
1973
1973
1968
1969
1971
1973
1973
1969
1967
1975
1973
1974
1973
Location of Fillneck
Right Rear Side
Under License Plate
On Top Of Trunk
Left Rear Side
Left Rear Side
On Top Of Trunk
(Nozzle Did Not Fit)
Below Cab On Right Side
Behind Left Cab Door
On Top Of Trunk
Right Rear Side
Right Rear Side
Right Rear Side
Right Rear Side
Under License Plate
Left Rear Side
On Left Rear Side
Under License Plate
Left Rear Side
D-l
-------
AUTOMOBILES WITH FILLNECKS POORLY FIT BY NOZZLES (Continued)
Maker
Model
Year
Location of Fillneck
Dodge
Fiat
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Mercedes
Oldsmobile
Pontiac
Pontiac
Pontiac
VW
VW
VW
Polara
128
LTD
Falcon
Pickup
Maverick
Torino
5 Ton Truck
Falcon
-
98
Le Mans
Catalina
-
Bus
Bug
—
.1967
1973
1972
1964
-
1970
1973
1974
1968
1971
1968
1965
1966
1968
1971
1966
1972
Under License Plate
Left Rear Side
Left Rear Side
At Rear
Under License Plate
At Rear
Under License Plate
Under License Plate
Under License Plate.
Tow Hitch Hindered
Fit.
Under License Plate
Right Rear Side
Inside Trunk
Right Front Side
Poor Fits can be due to obstructions such as towing hitches, pop-up gas caps,
anti-syphon devices, door hatches over fill necks, etc.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
Observations with EPA Hydrocarbon Detectors
-------
OBSERVATIONS WITH EPA HYDROCARBON DETECTORS
I. Clean Air Engineering Systems
Date of
Visit
6/10/75
6/18/75
6/19/75
6/25/75
6/30/75
7/8/75
7/16/75
7/22/75
7/28/75
6/17/75
6/26/75
7/2/75
7/10/75
7/15/75
7/28/75
Station
Location
Rocky Home Dairy
Rocky Home Dairy
Rocky Home Dairy
Rocky Home Dairy
Rocky Home Dairy
Rocky Home Dairy
Rocky Home Dairy
Highway Patrol, S.D.
Highway Patrol, S.D.
Highway Patrol, S.D.
Highway Patrol, S.D.
Highway Patrol, S.D.
HC Detector
Reading
10.6 Hr
10.6 Hr
No Reading
10.6 Hr
10.6 Hr
10.6 Hr
10.6 Hr
Rocky Home Dairy No Reading
Rocky Home Dairy 10.6 Hr
Highway Patrol, S.D. 0.5 Hr
No Reading
0.5 Hr
0.5 Hr
0.5 Hr
0.5 Hr
Comments
Start time on detector
was 10.6 Hr, detector
installed was #245-3
504-3 Probe #5
(Latching Type)
Recorded as 0.6 Hr on
data sheet, but detector
will not run in reverse
and not enough hours had
passed to complete a
total revolution of the
timer, so reading was
assumed to be 10.6 Hr
Recorded as 0.6 Hr
Start time on detector
was 0.5 Hr, detector
installed was #245-2,
504-1, Probe #2
(Non-latching Type)
E-l
-------
OBSERVATIONS WITH EPA HYDROCARBON DETECTORS (Continued)
II. Environics Systems
Date of
Visit
6/11/75
6/24/75
6/27/75
7/2/75
7/10/75
7/17/75
7/31/75
6/10/75
6/17/75
6/18/75
6/26/75
•7/1/75
7/9/75
7/16/75
7/29/75
Station
Location
Midway Post Office
Midway Post Office
Midway Post Office
Midway Post Office
Midway Post Office
Midway Post Office
Midway Post Office
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
Parkway Texaco
HC Detector
Reading
0.2 Hr
306.5 Hr
306.6 Hr
306.6 Hr
306.6 Hr
306.6 Hr
306.6 Hr
0.35 Hr
No Reading
O.AO Hr
0.45 Hr
0.80 Hr
1.6 Hr
2.4 Hr
2.6 Hr
Comments
Start time on detector
was 0.2 Hr, detector
installed was #245-3
504-1, Probe #6
(Latching Type)
Read at 0830 and reset
with start at 306.6 Hr
Upon visit found main
power to processing
unit off. Reason unknown.
Blower failure observed
during visit.
Blower still not repaired
Blower still not repaired
Blower repaired
Start time on detector
was 0.35 Hr, detector
installed was #245-2,
504-1, Probe #3
(Non-latching Type)
E-2
-------
OBSERVATIONS WITH EPA HYDROCARBON DETECTORS (Continued)
III. PROCESS PRODUCTS SYSTEMS
Date of
Visit
6/19/75
6/23/75
6/26/75
7/3/75
7/9/75
7/17/75
7/22/75
7/30/75
Station
Location
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
Friars & Frazee
HC Detector
Reading
0.3 Hr
0.3 Hr
0.3 Hr
0.3 Hr
0.3 Hr
No Reading
No Reading
0.3 Hr
Comments
Start time on detector
was 0.3 Hr, detector
installed was #245-2,
504-2, Probe #1
(Latching Type)
HC Detector disconnected
by ARE so they could do
their own testing
6/17/75
College Car Wash
No Reading
6/18/75
7/2/75
7/11/75
7/17/75
7/23/75
7/30/75
College Car Wash
College Car Wash
College Car Wash
College Car Wash
College Car Wash
College Car Wash
No Reading
No Reading
0.2 Hr
No Reading
No Reading
No Reading
Processing unit down
Detector installed was
#245-3, 504-2, Probe
//4 (Non-latching Type)
Processing unit down
Processing unit down
Processing unit down
Found blown fuse in
detector
Processing unit down
Processing unit down
Processing unit down
E-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-76-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Reliability Study of Vapor Recovery Systems at
Service Stations
5. REPORT DATE
March 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHQR(SL
R. d. Bryan
L. G. Wayne
R. L. Norton
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
1930 14th Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1405
Task Order No. 2
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Control Systems Evaluation
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A study was conducted of the operational reliability of vapor recovery
systems at gasoline service stations in San Diego County, California. Periodic
inspections at 24 stations were conducted to examine the condition of these
systems, to determine their operational status, and to check for detectable
gasoline vapor losses from control equipment.
The study demonstrated that capture of vapors at the vehicle was more
effective with vacuum-assisted systems than with vapor balance systems.
However, the reliability of the vacuum-assisted systems was not good in
general although there was substantial variation depending upon the type
of unit.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Gasoline Marketing
Service Station Vapor Recovery
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Mobile Sources
Hydrocarbons
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NpTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of.
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 196S COSAT1 Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price. .
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2720-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
------- |