&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-79-06*
March 1979
Air
Survey of Gasoline
Tank Trucks
and Rail Cars
-------
EPA-450/3-79-004
Survey of Gasoline Tank
Trucks and Rail Cars
by
J.C. Hang and R.R. Sakaida
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
1930 14th Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
Contract No.68-02-2606
Task No. 20
EPA Project Officer: Stephen A. Shedd
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
March 1979
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of interest to a
limited number of readers. Copies are available - in limited quantities - from the Library Services
Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., 1930 14th Street, Santa Monica,
California 90404, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2606. The contents
of this report are reproduced herein as received from Pacific Environmental
Services, Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
SUMMARY
Tank vehicles and rail cars used in the gasoline marketing
industry were briefly surveyed. Data were obtained from relevant
trade associations and journals, equipment and tank manufacturers,
tank operators, and the U.S. Bureau of Census.
Based on available information, there are currently an esti-
mated 85,000 tank vehicles in gasoline service. Of these, about
26,500 are tank trucks and 58,500 are tank trailers.
Over 200 contacts, mostly by telephone, were made with those
presumed to have knowledge concerning tank vehicles used in gaso-
line marketing. Descriptions of tank vehicles, population data,
equipment, retrofit requirement for vapor recovery and cost data
were obtained from these sources and are provided.
Information on loading methods and the presence or absence of
vapor recovery systems was gathered for approximately 1,900 tank
vehicles. More than 50 percent of tanks owned by these respondents
contained or had been retrofitted with vapor recovery systems and
bottom loading.
Very little information was available with respect to tank
cars in gasoline service. Tank cars are, apparently, not used in
dedicated service, and vapor collection systems are not common.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Scope 1-1
1.2 Gasoline Distribution 1-1
2.0 GASOLINE DELIVERY TANKS 2-1
2.1 Description 2-1
2.1.1 Tank Vehicle Nomenclature 2-1
2.1.2 Tank Vehicle Equipment 2-2
2.1.3 Overfill Shut-Off 2-4
2.1.4 Tank Cars 2-4
2.2 Tank Vehicle Categories 2-5
2.2.1 Age of Tank Vehicles 2-6
2.2.2 Type/Size 2-7
2.2.3 Loading Techniques 2-1
2.3 Population and Trends 2-11
2.3.1 Population Estimates of Gasoline
Delivery Vehicles 2-11
2.3.2 Population of Rail Tank Cars 2-12
2.4 Tank Categories and Quantity Estimates 2-13
2.4.1 Age 2-13
2.4.2 Body Type 2-13
2.4.3 Loading Method 2-14
2.5 Additional Survey Input 2-18
2.5.1 Vapor Recovery Systems 2-18
2.5.2 Bottom Loading Adaptor 2-19
2.5.3 Secondary Automatic Shut-Off Devices. . . 2-19
3.0 VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS 3-1
3.1 Types of Vapor Recovery Systems 3-1
3.2 Requirements for Vapor Recovery Systems 3-4
3.2.1 Existing Tanks Without Provisions for
Vapor Recovery 3-4
3.2.2 Tanks With Retrofit Provisions 3-7
3.3 Retrofit Consideration 3-7
-------
Section Page
4.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR TANK RETROFIT 4-1
4.1 Capital Costs 4-1
4.2 Maintenance Costs 4-1
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX A-l
IV
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1-1 Petroleum Delivery Tank Vehicle Operations 1-2
2-1 Top Loading Tank 2-3
2-2 Top Tight Submerged Fill Tank 2-9
2-3 Bottom Loading Tank 2-10
2-4 Bottom Loading Discharge Arrangements 2-20
2-5 Bottom Load Adaptors 2-21
3-1 Vapor Recovery System Using Overturn Rail 3-2
3-2 Vapor Recovery System, Overturn Rail Cannot be Used as
Vapor Conduit 3-3
3-3 Vapor Recovery System, Channel Ring 3-5
3-4 Vapor Recovery System, Vapor Compartment 3-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table '
2-1 Tank Vehicle Categories
2-2 Gasoline Tank Vehicle Population Estimate
2-3 Estimated Population of Tanks in Gasoline Service as a
Function of Age 2-1
2-4 Tank Vehicle Survey Data 2-
2-5 Tanks With Bottom Loading and Vapor Recovery as a
Function of Company Size 2-1
4-1 Manufacturer's Price for Tank Retrofit Equipment. . . 4-2
4-2 Installation Labor Costs Estimated as a Percentage of
Purchased Equipment Cost 4-3
4-3 Cost Ranges for Specified Tank Conversions 4-4
4-4 Typical Costs to Retrofit Tanks of Different Age
Groups With Bottom Loading and Vapor Recovery .... 4-5
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCOPE
In gasoline marketing operations, most of the gasoline is
transported between the terminal, bulk plant, and service station
by tank vehicles. A small portion of gasoline is transferred by
rail car. Up to the present time, transport of gasoline had not
been specifically addressed with respect to types, equipment, and
population of gasoline tank vehicles and rail cars. Such data were
found to be of importance to the Emission Standards and Engineer-
ing Division (ESED) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in their current investigation of hydrocarbon and benzene
emissions from gasoline marketing operations.
A survey was, therefore, conducted to gather information re-
garding the current population of gasoline delivery tanks (both
tank vehicles and rail cars), the ages and types of tanks currently
in service, industry trends, requirements for retrofitting exist-
ing vehicles with vapor collection systems, and costs required
for retrofitting existing vehicles. It is expected that the data
presented will be useful in the preparation of future standards
and guideline documents for benzene and other volatile organic
compounds. Aircraft refuelers and tanks transporting materials
other than gasoline were not included in this study.
1.2 GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION
An overview of the tank vehicle industry and the types of
truck operators are shown in Figure 1-1. The major distributors
of gasoline are the "for-hire" carriers and the "private carriers."
The "for-hire" carrier, which accounts for 28 percent of the gas-
oline delivery tanks, operates as a common or a contract carrier.
This type of carrier transports products of manufacturers and
1-1
-------
TANK VEHICLE OPERATIONS
I
OVER-THE-ROAD (35%)
1
LOCAL DELIVERY (65%)
FOR-HIRE CARRIER (28%)
PRIVATE CARRIER (72%)
PETROLEUM JOBBER OR MAJOR OIL COMPANY
DISTRIBUTOR (85%) (8%)
SERVICE STATION
OPERATOR (7%)
Figure 1-1. Petroleum Delivery Tank Vehicle Operations
1-2
-------
other shippers of liquid or dry bulk commodities. In other words,
the "for-hire" carrier acquires its profit by hauling for others.
The private carrier hauls its own products. These carriers and
the percentage of gasoline delivery tanks operated are petroleum
jobbers or distributors (61 percent), major oil companies (6 per-
cent), and service station operators (5 percent).
Gasoline distribution between terminals, bulk plants, and ser-
vice stations can be divided into "over-the-road" and "local deliv-
ery" operations. "Over-the-road" is also known as the intercity
type of operation. As the name implies, the tank vehicles operate
between terminals and redistribution points. Both "for-hire" car-
riers and private carriers deliver gasoline over-the road. The
types of tank vehicles employed are mainly semitrailers, semitrailer-
full trailers, or straight truck-full trailer units. The latter
two types are known as double bottom units.
"Local delivery" operation is engaged in local delivery of
products from terminals or bulk plants to industrial consumers,
homes, farms, and service stations. For small quantity deliveries,
the types of tank vehicles employed are primarily straight trucks
(Bob tail) or small semitrailers.
Practically all of the gasoline transported by delivery tank
from a terminal or bulk plant to a bulk plant or service station is
by tank vehicles. Less than 2 percent of bulk plants were stated
2
to receive products by rail cars. Much of the information gath-
ered and presented in this report will thus be concerned with tank
vehicles.
1-3
-------
2.0 GASOLINE DELIVERY TANKS
2.1 DESCRIPTION
Gasoline tanks are generally built of aluminum alloys, although
stainless steel is sometimes used. The advantage of an aluminum
alloy tank is its lighter weight as compared to other materials.
Aluminum tanks can haul more gallons at an equivalent gross vehicu-
lar weight which means fewer trips to haul the same amount of gaso-
line. These tanks, which range in size from 1,200 to 10,000 gallons,
are usually divided into several compartments with different sizes
to meet the operator's specific requirements. Thus, one delivery
tank can carry several different grades of gasoline or several
different products, if necessary.
Tank vehicles which operate between cities are usually equipped
with hoses, several types of valves, and connections. It is reported
that approximately two-thirds of the vehicles are equipped with pumps
3
and more than one-third with meters. The local delivery tanks are
equipped with meters, valves, pumps, hoses, and hose reels.
The Modern Bulk Transporter reports that the average vehicle
life span is about 13 years for tanks or trailers, and 8 years for
straight trucks. Major carriers will generally use tank vehicles
for less than the average vehicle life span, and a small marketer
may use them for longer than the average life span.
2.1.1 TANK VEHICLE NOMENCLATURE
Tank vehicles are classified into three types: straight truck
(tank truck), semitrailer, and full trailer. A straight truck is
a single self-propelled motor vehicle equipped with cargo tank. As
a single unit, the straight truck is also known as a "Bob Tail" or
"Body Load" truck.
2-1
-------
Additional definitions of tank vehicles are as follows:
1. Semitrailer - Any vehicle equipped with a cargo tank that
is drawn by a tractor by means of a fifth wheel connection.
Some part of the semitrailer's weight and load rests upon
the towing vehicle.
2. Full Trailer - Any vehicle equipped with a cargo tank and
is constructed so that practically all of its weight and
load rests on its own wheels.
3. Double Bottom Unit - A unit comprised of either a semi-
trailer or a straight truck and a full trailer. In this
arrangement, the semitrailer or straight truck functions
as the towing vehicle.
4. Tank Vehicle - Any tank truck, full trailer, or tractor
and semitrailer combination.
2.1.2 TANK VEHICLE EQUIPMENT
Manholes, compartment markers, emergency valves (also called
internal valves), and unloading adaptors are essential equipment
for a typical top loading tank vehicle (Figure 2-1).
Manholes are installed on the top of each compartment. They
function as a product inlet during top loading operation and pro-
vide entry for cleaning or repair. The manhole cover is fitted
with pressure vacuum vents for normal venting requirements. Also,
it is spring loaded and is used for emergency venting. In bottom
loading systems, the cover is commonly used as positive back-up
protection against tank rupture due to overfilling.
When the normal tank vent is mechanically operated, the vents
are installed directly over the internal valves (within one-half
inch ) to which they are mechanically interconnected. The vent
then opens and closes in unison with the valve.
During a bottom loading operation, the internal valve is opened
for product flow, and the vent is open to permit an exit for vapors
which are displaced by the incoming product. The internal valve
2-2
-------
MANHOLE
COMPARTMENT MARKER
i
CO
I EMERGENCY VALVE
Figure 2-1. Top Loading Tank
-------
and vent reopen to draw in air as the product leaves the tank during
unloading. Many of these vents are air or hydraulically operated
and normally located near the center of the compartment. These
vents can be opened or closed independently of the internal valve.
The compartments can be unloaded through a manifold by one
single adaptor when mixed products are allowed. Otherwise, a sepa-
rate adaptor is installed on each compartment. A double bulkhead
and a separate delivery system are required when compartments con-
tain different classes of products. This would insure no mixing
between compartments.
The liquid level in the compartment can be visually checked by
a compartment marker. These markers are visible only from the top
and cannot stop the flow of products. Thus, for bottom loading,
secondary level control systems are required.
2.1.3 OVERFILL SHUT-OFF
The overfill shut-off devices function as a secondary level
control system. It will automatically shut-off the incoming flow
of products when the maximum allowable liquid level has been reached
in the compartment. These devices prevent product overflow due to
meter failure and incorrect meter setting by the operator.
2.1.4 TANK CARS
Very little information was available concerning the use of
tank (rail) cars for gasoline service. However, less than 2 percent
2
of bulk plants receive gasoline via rail cars , and other deliveries
by tank cars are negligible in the gasoline marketing operations.
Therefore, emissions from tank cars used in gasoline distribution
were assumed to be insignificant.
Typically, tank cars used for gasoline delivery range from
10,000 to 20,000 gallons in capacity. Tank cars are, however,
2-4
-------
not normally used in dedicated service (i.e., products carried by
tank cars normally vary from trip to trip). Therefore, the various
sources contacted would not venture an estimate on the number of
tank cars used in flammable liquid service but stated that the number
would fluctuate substantially.
Tank cars are most commonly loaded through the manhole or
through a closed loading system located on the top. Unloading is
through the bottom fittings which are sometimes used for loading.
The Association of American Railroads also indicated that
vapor collection systems are not commonly found on tank cars.
2.2 TANK VEHICLE CATEGORIES
Tank vehicles are categorized in this document according to
age, type and size, and method of loading (Table 2-1).
Table 2-1. TANK VEHICLE CATEGORIES
Pre - 1967
1967 - 1975
1976 - 1979
A
9 e
May not be economical to retrofit to bottom
loading and/or vapor recovery
Generally built with provisions for vapor
recovery and bottom loading
Single Unit
body load
Type a
n d S i z
Straight Trucks (also called ,
or bob tail) '
Tank Semitrailers
Full Tank Trailers
5,
4,
e
200 - 5,000
000 -10,000
000 - 7,000
gal
gal
gal
Top Load
Bottom Load
Loading
M e t h o
Top Tight
d
Submerged
2-5
-------
2.2.1 AGE OF TANK VEHICLES
Contacts with manufacturers of delivery tanks indicated a sub-
stantial number of tanks currently in service were built prior to
1967. In that year, either due to establishment of motor carrier
regulations or other reasons, changes were made in tank construction.
These changes permit the retrofit of tanks with bottom loading and/
or vapor recovery systems without the higher costs required of the
pre-1967 tanks.
Several of the problem areas with retrofitting the pre-1967
tanks include: a smaller manhole, free flowing vents, the use of
single wall instead of double wall overturn protection rails, pres-
sure-vacuum valves which do not meet current EPA requirements, 3-
inch instead of 4-inch discharge line, and the construction of the
tank which makes it difficult to install an internal/emergency valve.
Since 1.976, most delivery tanks for flammable liquids have been
built with provisions for bottom loading and vapor recovery. These
include a taller double-walled overturn rail, which can be used as
a conduit in addition to protecting the vapor recovery hoods. Speci-
fied sites are also designated for and blanked off for future in-
stallation of vents, hoods, vapor recovery lines, internal valves,
and secondary shut-off systems. A few firms had incorporated these
provisions into tanks fabricated since 1974.
Thus, the age category was divided into three periods: (1) for
the pre-1967 tanks, difficulty may be encountered in retrofitting
with vapor recovery; (2) for tanks built during 1967 to 1975, retro-
fitting can be done at some cost; and (3) in the post-1975 period,
most tanks shipped had provisions for addition of vapor recovery and
bottom loading without the need for cutting or welding of the tank.
2-6
-------
2.2.2 TYPE/SIZE
The types of delivery vehicles employed in gasoline marketing
operations are straight truck, semitrailer, and full trailer. Con-
tacts with tank vehicle manufacturers indicated that ranges of cap-
acities for each type of delivery tank were as follows: straight
truck ranged from 1,200 to 5,000 gallons, semitrailer ranged from
5,000 to 10,000 gallons, and full trailer ranged from 4,000 to 7,000
gallons. The total capacity of delivery vehicles including double
bottom units normally do not exceed 10,000 gallons.
2.2.3 LOADING TECHNIQUES
Delivery tanks can either be loaded from the top or the bottom
of the tank according to the systems installed on the tank and at
the loading rack. Tank and rack systems must be compatible.
2.2.3.1 Top Loading
Top loading is divided into open top, with and without vapor
recovery, and top tight submerged fill. Open top involves loading
of products into the compartment via the manhole which is located
on top of the tank. Gasoline can be loaded directly into the com-
partment through a top loading head (splash fill). Attachment of
a fixed or extensible downspout to the loading head provides a means
of introducing the product near the bottom of the tank (submerged
fill). A deflector at the outlet of the downspout provides for
uniform spreading of the product and eliminates both static buildup
and product splash.
In addition to submerged fill, the top loading head can be
designed for vapor recovery. This top loading vapor head must be
compatible with the truck hatch opening, and a vapor tight seal is
required between the head and the hatch to minimize vapor leakage
during transfer of product.
2-7
-------
These top loading systems, which require opening of the hatch
(Figure 2-1), must be equipped with a separate vapor recovery sys-
tem for delivery to customers with vapor balance systems.
Provisions for top tight submerged fill have been installed
in tank trucks primarily in Texas. This installation permits the
loading of product through a vapor tight loading adaptor mounted
on top of each compartment (Figure 2-2) and attached to a submerged
fill pipe. For vapor recovery, the vapor spaces of each compart-
ment are manifolded to the overturn rail or to a vapor return line.
One advantage of this permanently affixed top tight submerged
fill is that the hatch/dome covers remain closed at all times except
for clean up and repair. No vapor loss is, therefore, attributable
to opening of the hatch. The top tight and vapor head system can
collect vapors expelled from the tank during product loading.
2.2.3.2 Bottom Loading
Bottom loading permits the operator to stand on the ground for
loading the tank through connectors at the side of the tank. Since
the discharge opening of the tank is used for loading, submerged
fill occurs naturally. Some of the advantages cited for bottom
loading are: (1) improved safety, (2) faster loading, and (3) re-
duced labor costs. Off-loading and on-loading adaptors, a single
valve for both in and out service or Y-valves, must be provided for
individual compartment loading and unloading (Figure 2-3). Addi-
tionally, an emergency or internal valve is required as well as a
vent valve when gasoline is being loaded. A means to prevent gasoline
spraying into the tank must be included, and a liquid high level
sensor is necessary for secondary automatic shut-off purposes.
Tanks with bottom loading provisions can normally be top loaded
from an open hatch.
2-8
-------
TOP TIGHT SUB-
MERGED FILL
TUBE
TOP LOADING ARM
LEVEL
INDICATOR
COMPATIBLE LEAK TIGHT FITTINGS
MANHOLE
MANIFOLDED VAPOR
RETURN LINE
CONNECTOR FOR LOADING RACK
FLEXIBLE VAPOR RETURN HOSE
Figure 2-2. Top Tight Submerged Fill Tank
-------
VAPOR RECOVERY VENT
ro
i
o
RELIEF VALVE
OVERFILL SHUT-OFF
\ _[ _ ^^
OPENABLE ADAPTOR
Y-VALVES
Figure 2-3. Bottom Loading Tank
-------
2.3 POPULATION AND TRENDS
2.3.1 POPULATION ESTIMATES OF GASOLINE DELIVERY VEHICLES
On the basis of tabulations compiled by the Truck Trailer Man-
o
ufacturers Association, there were 7,415 truck trailer tank ship-
ments (tanks manufactured) for flammable liquids in 1976 and 1977;
26,280 tank shipments for the years 1967 through 1975; and 34,373
tank shipments for the years 1957 through 1966. The total shipment
was 68,068 units during the 21 year period (Table 2-2). These data
were originally obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Census1 Current
Industrial Reports. As a comparison, a total of 124,143 tank trailers
for liquid service was shipped during the same period.
Table 2-2. GASOLINE TANK VEHICLE POPULATION ESTIMATE
Estimates From Several Sources
Total tanks/liquid trailers in use
Number in flammable liquid service (excludes
LPG, fuel oil, asphalt, etc.)
Trailers (semi and full)
Tank trucks
Total
Trailer shipments0 (all flammable liquids)
1976 - 1977
1967 - 1975
1957 - 1966
1954 - 1956
Total (1954 - 1977)
Total (1957 - 1977)
131,920
67,523
30,295
97,818
7,415
26,280
34,373
16,113
84,181
68,068
Commercial Car Journal, p. 138, June 1978
b Modern Bulk Transporter, "The 1978-1979 Tank Trucking Industry
Market Report," Sutherland Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.
c Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, tabulated data from Cur-
rent Industrial Reports of U.S. Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C.
2-11
-------
According to the Commercial Car Journal, there are an estimated
131,920 liquid tank trailers in current use. Based on information
obtained from personnel at the Heil Company, approximately 55 per-
cent of these trailers are used to deliver flammable liquids. This
value (55 percent) is near the number which can be calculated from
•
the tank trailer shipment data. Also, estimates were made that de-
termine that the percentage of flammable tanks used in gasoline
7 fl
service ranged from 70 to 90 percent. ' Taking an intermediate
estimate of 80 percent of the flammable liquid tanks as being used
for gasoline delivery, approximately 44 percent of the total 131,920
liquid tank trailers or 58,000 tank trailers are used for the
delivery of gasoline.
Additionally, "The 1978-1979 Tank Trucking Industry Report"1
estimates that a total of 97,818 tank vehicles are currently carry-
ing flammable liquids (gasoline, etc.) excluding fuel oils and LPG.
Of the total, 30,295 are straight trucks and 67,523 are trailers.
Using the current supply and demand figures for petroleum
q
products, and excluding those products for which a separate listing
of delivery tanks was presented, approximately 87 percent of the
delivery tanks listed under this source for flammable liquids are
used in gasoline service. Estimated numbers are then 26,400
straight trucks and 58,700 trailers, which total 85,000
tank vehicles in gasoline service. In both approximations, the total
number of trailers in gasoline service is estimated to be 58,000.
2.3.2 POPULATION OF RAIL TANK CARS
Of the many contacts made to gather information concerning
rail cars, only the Association of American Railroads provided
population data. There are approximately 100,000 - 111 A tank cars
of which a half or more is estimated to be in flammable liquid
2-12
-------
service. The total number of cars fluctuates because flammable
liquid cars are not in dedicated service.
2.4 TANK CATEGORIES AND QUANTITY ESTIMATES
2.4.1 AGE
Only gross estimates were made of the distribution of tank
vehicles according to age. Data used included: (1) estimates of
flammable tank vehicles in use of 97,800 for 19781 and 83,800 for
1974; (2) the annual tank trailer shipments (Appendix Table A-l);
and (3) the Bureau of Census1 surveys of trucks and trailers for
1972 (Appendix, Table A-2).
Assuming a linear extrapolation of tank vehicles, there would
have been some 75,000 tanks for flammable liquids use in 1972. The
census data were used to estimate the number of tanks built prior
to 1967 and during 1967 to 1972 by using ratios of surveyed tanks.
Subsequently, tank losses of 20 and 10 percent were assumed for the
pre-1967 and 1967 to 1972 tanks, respectively. This resulted in an
estimate of 64,100 tanks built in and before 1972. The balance of
33,700 tanks was assumed proportionate to the trailer shipments for
the periods 1973 through 1975 and 1976 through 1977 (Appendix A-3).
Taking 87 percent of these as being in gasoline service, then
using these age distributions and the tank trailer shipment data as
guidelines, the population distribution as a function of age was
estimated. The results are shown in Table 2-3.
2.4.2 BODY TYPE
Telephone contacts were made with as many gasoline transporters
as possible. Those from whom information was obtained and the data
obtained are given in Table 2-4. Over 1,900 delivery tanks were
accounted for in this brief survey. Although this number represents
2-13
-------
Table 2-3. . ESTIMATED POPULATION OF TANKS IN GASOLINE SERVICE AS A
FUNCTION OF AGE3
Age
1976 - 1977
1967 - 1975
Pre - 1967
Total
Truck
5,000
20,500
1,000
26,500
Trailers
7,000
23,000
28,500
58,500
Total
12,000
43,500
29,500
85,000
These values are only intended as estimates.
only a small percentage of delivery tanks, it is assumed that dis-
tribution of tanks in the respective categories are representative
of the whole. These values may be improved with additional data.
Descriptions of the pulling units were not generally available •
from the sources contacted. From the total capacity of the double
bottom units and the capacity ranges of the tank types (Table 2-1),
it was assumed that combinations,whose total capacity was 9,000
gallons or less, were pulled by straight trucks. This resulted in
182 straight trucks and 227 still unclassified pulling units. Taking
the entire range of 182 to 409 pulling units as straight trucks, 17 to 29
percent of the surveyed tank vehicles are straight trucks, 27 percent
are full trailers, and 44 to 56 percent are semitrailers.
2.4.3 LOADING METHOD
From the data obtained and given in Table 2-4, approximately 7.4
percent of tanks were specified as being bottom loaded only, although
all tanks can be top loaded through the hatch. An additional 69.8
percent had top and bottom loading, 0.1 percent had top tight sub-
mergible loading, and 22.7 percent had only top loading. This
distribution is subject to change with additional data.
2-14
-------
Table 2-4. TANK VEHICLE SURVEY DATA
Arwe Transport
ADA Resource*
Arm nil
Aero nil
American Transfer
Amospost
Armour 01 1
Asbury S>Ste>
AlUnllc Rlrhfleld
At Untie Rtchfleld
AlUnllc Rlchfleld
Atlantic Richfield
Augsburg Corporat ton
Carlos R. Leffler
C t link llnel
Continental Oil
Continental nil
Cook and Cooler
Cook and Cooley
Crown Central Petroleum
Curt»rland Oil
lurtttrland nil
neltl nil
Hum (III
Quantity)
Dou-
ble
lot-
to*
Unit*
6
10
19
54
100
10
20
1
SlRO.lt
Unlib
) (>)
8 (s)
) (>)
148 (1)
55 (>)
UI (b)
10> (f)
15 (t)
1? <»)
258 Is)
1 (O
in l»)
? (
?.non
H.nnn
f.srai - in. mm
»9t
Rcnqt
(yeir)
1971 • 1978
1964 - 1977
1971 - 1978
I9M - 1978
1975 - 1977
1964 • 1978
1968 - 1978
1971 t older
- 1976
1977 - 1978
1977 - 1978
1972 - 1978
1967 - 1971
1970 - 1978
1968 - 1971
1975 - 1978
1975 - 1978
197] - 1978
1971
197? - 1976
1%8 - 19/6
1166
11/1 - 1975
1166 - I9IH
loidlnf Technique1
Open
Top
«
60
8
8
1
e
6
70
6
1
1
1
Sub-
Merged
•ot-
to*
6
12
IS
6
10
n
To*
And
8ot-
tOK
]
110
200
140
55
141
101
40
258
1
4
RotlM lotd Ad«ptorc
on
IndUtdiul line
I
V«l»e
IS
1
10
Open-
tble
1
200
1
4
On
rUnl
(old
6
8
Secondary Autowtlc Shut -of fc
J«t
level
Sensor
]
200
IS
10
1
Flcut
Sensor
148
S5
141
101
9
Oynt-
Probe
1
Horn
60
8
1
20
6
1
1
1
8
4
»«por Recovery S/ste*c
Indl-
vldud
Co»-
ptrt-
•ent
10
1
1?
no
60
6
R
rUnl-
folded
2
140
55
141
101
6
1
10
1
Hoot
60
a
26
1
140
a
is
6
20
1
1
4
Anmul
StsoHnt
Throughput
(qtllont)
0.5 m - 1.5 Id
O.S Ml
IN3
I
cn
-------
Table 2-4. TANK VEHICLE SURVEY DATA (CONTINUED)
OlMMd link llnei
frtnko Oil
fetco liworpnrtti»d
God»l« OH
Golf Kfllnln, Ind H»rlctln«
Hrrculcl Oil
Hulky Oil
Bulky Oil
Horn Dlttrlbulor
Horn DlMrlhutor
(•Mm Olttrllwtor
KtllMi Dlttrlbulor
llcklpno Oil
land O'ltfcel. Incorporated
leMqn oil
Itrncr Oil
rhrilull Oil
X. f. A.
Bid Continent
HI lei l>nk Itan
Miller nil
Niph-lnl >e(li>lni|
nilllrld Irur.ilni)
n\4q* Oil end Irtntporlit Ion
0 U • « 1 I t »
Bou-
M*
lat-
Unlt*
10
S
1
»
I
*
;
41>
Sln«1«
IMIl6
> (>l
1) 10
7 (>)
1 (b>
1 l«)
1 (bl
1 (b)
U (>)
s (>l
« (1)
4 ID
l« (>l
t I'l
«» (>)
• (4|
? Is)
S IM
lilt
(tnfi
|«lllon<)
1.000 - 1.000
4.500
1.000
i.100 - 1.400
8.600
• .BOO
9.000
4.000
9.000
I.6HO
11.000
2.000
9.100
9. am
(.600 • 1.100
8. TOO - 1.000
e.soo
ft .100
«.noo
i.im - 9.000
I4.nno
n.flim
R.MM)
&
(x*O
1W1 - 1971
iiei - I9;«
nn - 191;
lilt - 1174
is*; . ti;s
Ufa
I97B
H»K
1964
1961 - 1971
1171 • 1*77
197} - 1177
1177 • 1978
I97S • I97B
1971 - 1177
I9M • 197)
19(6 - I97«
1911 . lift
ms - I97J
I9(? - I97S
HJS
19411 - !9Ji
11)4
I04dlo« leclmlqu**
Opt»
lop
1
1
1
1
I
19
17
1
t
S«b-
«r4t«
t
tet-
to»
4
J
IS
1
13
tot-
Ion
20
10
14
14
2
1
14
S
4
U
4
t
HO
S
•Dttoi ton) Adaptor1
0*
IndUIAul llM
»
«•!««
20
t
7
Opwi-
•bl>
4
II
14
t
16
4
4
(10
On
NM(.
fold
12
a
1
StconUry AutMtlc $hul-o»fe
J«t
UMl
Scntor
20
i
IS
1
no«t
S«»or
ao
OTW-
•rob.
J
•
•ont
14
II
11
17
7
Vtpor **con>ry Sr«t«"C
IlKjI-
•Idutl
COK-
M't-
M
-------
Table 2-4. TANK VEHICLE SURVEY DATA (CONCLUDED)
C o n p • n y
Peerless Distributor
Phillips Petroleu*
Rich Distributor
Rocknood Oil
Roc I wood Oil
Rockxood Oil
Smith link Lines
Southern Fuel Distributor
Southern Fuel Distributor
Thonas Pelroleut)
transit Oil
V. 8. Morgan
Ventura Transfer
Western Hyway Distributors
Western tlyway Distributors
Western Marketing Distributors
Western Marketing Distributors
wldlng Transport
Totil
Percent
Quantity
Oou-
ble
Dot-
ton
Unit*
2
10
9
14
40
409
Single
Unit6
1-2 (s)
ISO (s)
3 (s)
1 (s)
1 (s)
1 (s)
3
-------
Table 2-5 shows the percentage of bottom loading tanks found
in the survey as a function of company size. Most tanks in all
categories as subdivided have bottom loading capabilities.
Table 2-5. TANKS WITH BOTTOM LOADING AND VAPOR RECOVERY AS A
FUNCTION OF COMPANY SIZE3
Number of
Tanks in
Company
1 - 4
5 - 10
11 - 49
> 50
Total
Total
Tanks
43
79
316
1,501
1,939
Bottom Loading
With
27
57
208
1,182
1,474
Without
15
22
90
319
446
Total Tank Basis
Percent
With
64
72
70
79
77
76
Vapor Recovery
With
19
69
177
746
1,011
Without
18
5
135
278
436
Percent
With
51
93
57
73
70
52
Data were not available for all tanks counted.
Percentages assuming that tanks for which data were not avail-
able did not have bottom, loading or vapor recovery capabilities.
2.5 ADDITIONAL SURVEY INPUT
2.5.1 VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
The overall survey value indicates that 70 percent of those
tanks for which data were available had vapor recovery systems.
Assuming that tanks for which data were not provided did not have
vapor recovery capabilities, the overall percentage drops to 52
percent (Table 2-5).
2-18
-------
2.5.2 BOTTOM LOADING ADAPTOR
The three most common bottom loading discharge arrangements
are shown on Figure 2-4. "Y" valves and openable adaptors are in-
stalled on the tank when individual compartment loading and unload-
ing are required by the state. When the compartments are manifolded,
API type and Buckeye adaptors are installed. The latter type of
adaptor is only used on some old tanks and is not commonly found
(Figure 2-5). As evidenced by Table 2-4, approximately 87.7 percent
of tanks are equipped with individual lines for each compartment,
and 12.3 percent with two or more compartments manifolded. The per-
centage of "Y" valves and openable adaptors installed on compart-
ments with individual lines are 11.7 and 76.0. These percentages are
based on 512 tanks for which this specific information was available.
2.5.3 SECONDARY AUTOMATIC SHUT-OFF DEVICES
There were three secondary automatic shut-off devices found to
be in use. These devices include the jet level sensor, float switch,
and Dynaprobe. As estimated from the survey (Table 2-4), approxi-
mately 24.8 percent of tanks were reported to have jet level sensors,
51.1 percent to have float switches, and 3.3 percent to have Dyna-
probes. These percentages are based on 1,091 tanks for which this
specific information was available.
11 12
From comments received from the API and Fruehauf Corporation, '
the percentage of jet level sensors in use appeared excessive. A
review of the survey data showed that one large tank operator used
jet level sensors exclusively and may have skewed the results.
Further, the API feels that less than 10 percent of tanks use jet
level sensors. Furthermore, Fruehauf has experienced more interest
12
in Dynaprobes and fiber optic systems than jet level sensors.
2-19
-------
BOTTOM LOAD ADAPTORS
ON MANIFOLD
"Y" VALVES ON
INDIVIDUAL LINES
OPENABLE ADAPTORS ON
INDIVIDUAL LINES
COURTESY
THE HEIL CO.
Figure 2-4. Bottom Loading Discharge Arrangements
2-20
-------
API TYPE
BUCKEYE 3 SLOT
BETTS "Y" VALVE
EMCO WH EATON "Y" VALVE
CARTER OPENABLE
COURTESY
THE HEIL CO.
Figure 2-5. Bottom Load Adaptors
2-21
-------
3.0 VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
PES conducted a telephone survey which included over 1,900
tanks owned by tank vehicle operators throughout the United States.
Vapor recovery information was obtained for 1,446 tanks. Of these
tanks, 70.5 percent were indicated to be fitted with vapor recovery
systems. Assuming that those tanks without vapor recovery informa-
tion did not contain a recovery system, over half the surveyed tanks
would still have capability for vapor recovery. Thus, there are
indications that a significant number of tanks have been retrofitted
with vapor recovery capability.
3.1 TYPES OF VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Four possible arrangements are described for the installation
of vapor recovery systems on tank trucks. Each of the vapor
recovery systems is described in subsequent paragraphs.
The first arrangement consists of vapor recovery hoods equipped
with vapor lines. They are usually manifolded to the right side of
the overturn rail. A flange connection is installed on either end
of the rail for connnection to the vapor collector. In the most
common arrangement, the connection to the vapor collection line is
at the rear of the tank. Other possible connections to vapor col-
lectors can be made at the bottom of the tank. This requires a
vapor line with a flange connection which runs through the tank
from top to bottom (Figure 3-1).
The second arrangement is generally applied to tanks with
single- or double-wall flashings. They are not completely welded
at their attachment points. A 4 inch, or a U-shaped 3 inch vapor
line is connected to the vapor recovery hood and is manifolded by
a 4 inch pipe. The 4 inch pipe terminates at the rear of the tank
with a vent valve and a vapor recovery valve. These valves are
interlocked with one valve open, the other closed (Figure 3-2).
3-1
-------
to
I
(V)
4&
-------
CO
I
CO
THEHEILca
Figure 3-2. Vapor Recovery System, Overturn Rail Cannot Be Used as Vapor Conduit
-------
The third arrangement employs both sides of the turnover rail
as manifolded vapor lines. A channel ring around the tank is con-
nected to the rails, and a flange connection is installed at the
bottom. The flange connection connects to the vapor collector
during loading operations (Figure 3-3).
The fourth arrangement also utilizes both sides of the rail as
vapor lines. The vapor from each compartment is manifolded into
the vapor collection compartment. This compartment is located at
the rear of the tank. The vapor collection compartment is equipped
with a vent on the top for normal venting and off-loading. A vapor
recovery valve at the bottom connects to a vapor collector (Figure 3-4)
3.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
3.2.1 EXISTING TANKS WITHOUT PROVISIONS FOR VAPOR RECOVERY
The equipment required for retrofitting the tank vehicle with
vapor recovery depends on the existing tank equipment. If auxiliary
vents are present, a vapor recovery hood is installed on each vent
to recover vapor. If no vents are available or the existing vent
does not meet requirements, then new vents are added. Vapor lines
are connected to hoods and manifolded to turnover rails, or a sepa-
rate tube is laid along the top of the tank, as shown in Figure 3-2.
This main vapor collection pipe is routed along the curb side and
terminates in a suitable coupling. The coupling must be closed or
covered when not in use.
Recommended practices for bottom loading and vapor recovery
for gasoline tank vehicles are provided by the American Petroleum
Institute in their bulletin "Bottom Loading and Vapor Recovery for
MC-306 Tank Motor Vehicles" (API RP 1004).14
3-4
-------
to
I
Figure 3-3. Vapor Recovery System, Channel Ring
THE HE I LCO
-------
OJ
I
CTi
Figure 3-4. Vapor Recovery System, Vapor Compartment
THE HEILCO
-------
Most pre-1967 tanks require replacement of the old manhole
cover by a current spring-loaded cover. These old covers are ad-
justed by the use of shims and are not generally leak tight. This
requirement may create the need to enlarge the manhole to accept
current manhole cover assemblies. Some older tanks do not have
internal or emergency valves installed, or the configuration is
such that the installation of this internal valve is difficult and
time-consuming. These and other considerations make it more expen-
sive to retrofit many pre-1967 tanks than tanks built more recently.
3.2.2 TANKS WITH RETROFIT PROVISIONS
Currently, most new tank vehicles delivered for gasoline use
include provisions for bottom loading and vapor recovery. These
include the installation of pilots and mounting brackets to facil-
itate the future installation of internal valves and secondary auto-
matic shut-off devices. Blanked off ports are provided in the man-
hole covers and the overturn rail for easy addition of vapor hoods
and piping. The liquid line is also blanked off for the future in-
stallation of loading adaptors. In effect, no welding or cutting
of the tank will be required to retrofit newer tanks. As a result,
the tank is easily and economically converted to bottom loading
with vapor recovery systems and secondary automatic shut-off devices,
3.3 RETROFIT CONSIDERATION
Many factors are considered when a decision is made as to
whether or not modification of equipment on an existing tank is the
effective and economical way to meet requirements for gasoline
marketing operations. Key factors in determining the economic ad-
vantages for purchasing a new tank are age and condition of the
existing tank with respect to performance, safety, and repair costs.
3-7
-------
4.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR TANK RETROFIT
4.1 CAPITAL COSTS
Equipment costs from the major tank truck equipment manufac-
turers are listed in Table 4-1. These costs are current listed
prices. A certain percentage discount is generally given to oil
companies, tank truck manufacturers, and carriers.
Associated labor costs for retrofitting the vehicle with bot-
tom loading, vapor recovery system, and liquid level sensor are
identified in Table 4-2 as a percentage of equipment cost.
Costs to convert existing top loading (open top) tanks to bot-
tom loading with a vapor recovery system and secondary automatic
shut-off depend on the construction of the tank and the type of
components being installed. Both labor costs and the necessary
equipment can be influenced by the tank construction. Some older
tanks require extensive modification. Newer tanks, some fabricated
up to 4 years ago, have provisions preinstalled to permit conversion
to bottom loading and vapor recovery without welding or cutting.
Cost ranges for specific conversions are given in Table 4-3.
Typical retrofit costs per compartment as a function of the age of
the tank are presented in Table 4-4. Retrofitting cost differences
between tank trucks and trailers are not significant.
4.2 MAINTENANCE COSTS
Maintenance costs for vapor recovery equipment are estimated
by the National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc., to be nearly $500 per
year for each tank. This value is estimated to be nearly 9 percent
higher than the maintenance cost for tanks without vapor recovery
equipment.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. MANUFACTURER'S PRICE FOR TANK RETROFIT EQUIPMENT6
FOR BOTTOM LOADING
Equi pment
Float Switch Controls
With fixed shut-off level
With adjustable shut-off level
Vapor Vents
Air actuated 3 inch
Air actuated 5 inch
Mechanically operated 3 inch
Mechanically operated 5 inch
Internal (Emerqency) Valve
Air actuated
Mechanically operated
Adaptors
"Y" Valve
Openable
Adaptor on manifold
Pressure Actuated Manhole Cover
1978
53.40
58.97
145 ..39
303.65
131.66
187.25
87.35
80.55
300.00
202.20
97.75
Cost ($)
- 79.50
- 79.55
- 146.55
- 145.45
- 204.90
- 450.00
- 249.23
- 123.50
75.00
FOR VAPOR RECOVERY
Equipment
Vapor Recovery Hood, P-V Vent and
Vapor Recovery Lines
Drybreak
1978 Cost
($)
250.00
150.00
Sources: OPW, Emco Wheaton, Parker Hannifin
4-2
-------
Table 4-2. INSTALLATION LABOR COSTS ESTIMATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT COST
Conversion
Top load (open top) to Bottom load
Vapor recovery system
Liquid level sensor
Top load (open top) to Bottom load only
Top load (open top) to Top Tight Submerged
fill
Installation of vapor recovery system
(tank equipped with air/mechanically
operated emergency valve)
Installation of emergency valves
Percent
Equipment
40 - 50
30
30
30
30
of
Cost
Source(s): Ruan Trucking Company, Des Moines, Iowa
Smith Tank & Equipment, Waco, Texas
Reliable Tank Company, Waco, Texas
The Heil Company, Wisconsin, estimates costs of $200 to $300
every 2 years for seal and gasket replacement and an additional
$200 or more to replace internal valves and manholes in 8 to 10
13
years. This could result in annual replacement costs of approxi-
mately $600 to $700. Since vapor recovery systems have not been
used extensively for a sufficient duration, users of tanks equipped
with vapor recovery were reluctant to provide estimates of
maintenance costs.
4-3
-------
Table 4-3. COST RANGES FOR SPECIFIED TANK CONVERSIONS
Cnnv/ov^ i n n
Open top to bottom load, vapor
recovery, automatic shut-off
Open top to top tight submerged
fill with vapor recovery
Open top to bottom load only
Installation of vapor recovery
system
Installation of liquid level
sensor (automatic shut-off)
Dollars Per Compartment
(includes Labor)
(Tank Manu-
facturers)3
900 - 2,000
700 - 750
300 - 400
450 - 750
60 - 200
(Tank
Operators)
800 - 2,000b
-
420C
320C
138C
•Sources: J&L Tank, Weld-It, Clough Incorporated, Heil Company,
Fruehauf Corporation, Smith Tool and Equipment, Emco Wheaton,
Reliable Tank Company, Onnen Tank and Trailer, C&W Equipment.
Sources: Western Marketing, Incorporated; Southern Fuel Dis-
tributors; Continental Oil; Rich Distributors; Rockwood Oil;
Mid Continent; Ruan Trucking.
c Source: Ruan Trucking, Des Moines, Iowa
4-4
-------
Table 4-4. TYPICAL COSTS TO RETROFIT TANKS OF DIFFERENT
AGE GROUPS WITH BOTTOM LOADING AND VAPOR RECOVERY
9 £
Pre - 1967
1967 - 1975
1976 - 1978
Equipment
Cost
$l,160a
1 ,085b
445C
Percent Added
for Labor
50
40
30
Total Cost per
Compartment
$1 ,740
1,520
580
Equipment includes an adjustable shut-off level float switch,
5 inch air-actuated vent, Y valve, manhole cover and internal
valve replacement, vapor recovery hood, P-V vent and vapor
recovery lines. Add drybreak at $150 per tank.
Equipment includes an adjustable shut-off level float switch,
5 inch air-actuated vent, air-actuated internal valve, Y valve,
vapor recovery hood, P-V vents, and vapor recovery lines.
Add drybreak at $150 per tank.
c Equipment includes an adjustable shut-off level float switch,
Y valve, and vapor lines. Add drybreak at $150 per tank.
4-5
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
1. "The 1978-1979 Tank Trucking Industry Market Report," Modern
Bulk Transporter, Sutherland Publications, Inc., Washington,
D.C.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census "1972 Census of
Wholesale Trade, Methods of Receiving Bulk Liquid Products"
3. "Media and Market Fact File," Modern Bulk Transporter, Suther-
land Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.
4. "Petroleum Handling Systems and Components," Parker Hannifin,
Irvine, California, 1973
5. Personal communication with Guinan, Ms. O.K., Association of
American Railroads, Washington, D.C., October 1978
6. "Estimated Total Trailers in Use by Body Type," by Commercial
Car Journal , June 1978
7. Personal communication with Richard J. McCarthy, Arthur D.
Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 1978
8. Personal communication with Dave Fellows, Heil Company, Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, October 1978
9. National Petroleum News, Factbook Issue. June 1978
10. "The 1974-1975 Tank Trucking Industry Market Report," Modern
Bulk Transporter, Sutherland Publications, Inc., Washington
11. Miller, W.M., American Petroleum Institute, Letter to S.A.
Shedd of EPA, January 9, 1979
12. Botkin, L.A., Fruehauf Corporation, Letter to R.T. Walsh of
EPA, December 22, 1978
13. Personal communication with Ken Williams, Heil Company, Mil-
waukee Wisconsin, October 1978
14. American Petroleum Institute, "Bottom Loading and Vapor Recov-
ery for MC-306 Tank Motor Vehicles" (API RP 1004) Fourth ed. ,
Washington, D.C., September 1977
15. Personal communication with Albert B. Rosenbaum III, National
Tank Truck Carriers, Inc., September 1978
5-1
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Table A-l . TRUCK TRAILER TANK SHIPMENTS0
Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
Flammable
Liquids
3,099
4,316
3,093
4,450
3,041
2,743
2,572
2,487
2,757
2,210
2,927
3,379
2,936
2,548
3,452
2,855
2,639
3,470
4,542
3,942
4,610
5,511
5,125
Total Tanks
8,766
6,556
4,875
8,610
6,211
5,341
4,736
4,537
5,114
4,862
7,197
6,481
5,359
4,755
5,777
5,463
4,855
5,694
6,976
5,624
6,354
6,584
5,843
a From tables compiled by Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association,
Washington, D. C. (Original source: current industrial reports
of U.S. Bureau of Census).
A-l
-------
Table A-2. TANK VEHICLE SURVEY, PETROLEUM TANK TRUCKS OR COMBINATIONS'
Code
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
44
45
46
47
48
19
50
51
53
54
55
56
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Washington, D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyomi ng
Totals
(Year of Manufacture)
1941-
1960
7
24
10
3
34
12
16
10
0
7
7
26
20
10
7
17
10
5
4
10
11
23
4
28
6
9
10
17
31
11
13
9
31
10
7
6
12
27
25
35
16
9
3
18
17
3
6
14
10
6
26
692
1961-
1963
5
6
7
3
14
16
18
12
2
12
14
4
10
16
6
7
2
4
7
16
9
11
6
11
6
7
6
10
6
22
17
9
24
15
3
6
12
7
16
27
12
10
5
18
11
3
7
4
14
12
17
524
1964-
1966
18
19
7
10
12
10
30
n
5
22
16
3
n
22
20
21
16
16
14
36
16
32
8
18
17
13
6
30
11
40
24
16
31
30
5.
19
23
18
16
35
28
15
17
26
15
26
19
7
13
27
15
935
1967-
1969
19
31
6
22
25
12
44
22
7
21
30
10
18
38
19
42
22
21
28
61
14
40
21
42
30
10
13
43
8
57
25
18
52
50
19
19
26
15
38
41
30
22
25
51
20
39
26
7
17
33
22
1,371
1970-
1972
21
23
8
21
9
8
31
20
9
26
27
6
13
27
11
27
19
20
24
61
12
26
25
45
21
17
15
45
8
34
34
22
48
37
4
25
25
19
24
30
21
17
33
52
22
38
27
4
14
33
25
1,213
Totals
70
103
38
59
94
58
139
75
23
88
94
49
72
113
63
114
69
66
77
184
62
132
64
144
80
56
50
145
• 64
164
113
74
186
142
38
75
98
86
119
168
107
73
83
165
85
109
85
36
68
111
105
4,735
3 1972 Census of Transportation Truck Inventory and Use Survey, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, 1973. Data retrieved for petroleum or petroleum products.
A-2
-------
Table A-3. ESTIMATE OF NUMBERS OF VEHICLES IN AGE CATEGORIES
Tank Data
Year Built
Number
Vehicles surveyed by Census Bureau
(petroleum products handling)
Adjusted total for 1972 (basis 75,000
tanks in flammable liquid service in
1972)
Corrected for assumed depletion to 1977
20 percent
10 percent
1977 estimated total tanks
Tanks accounted for to 1972
Balance
Estimated using direct ratios of tank
trailer shipment data for the relevant
years
Pre-1967
1967 - 1972
Total
Pre-1967
1967 - 1972
total
Pre-1967
1967 - 1972
total
1973 - 1975
1976 - 1977
2,151
2.584
47735"
34,070
40,930
75,000
27,300
36,800
64,100
97,800
64,100
33,700
19,800
13,900
A-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Survey of Gasoline Tank Trucks and Rail Cars
5. REPORT DATE
March 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
J. C. Hang and R. R. Sakaida
EPA-450/3-79-004
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.
68-02-2606, Task 20
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency I
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer: Stephen A. Shedd
16. ABSTRACT
This informational document provides the basic and current use of tank
trucks and rail cars in the gasoline marketing industry. Information contained
in this document includes population, type and age of equipment, industry trends
and costs for retrofitting existing vehicles to bottom loading and/or vapor"
recovery.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTlFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Volatile Organic Compounds
Gasoline Marketing
Rail Cars
Tank Trucks
Air Pollution Control
Mobile Sources
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This p^f
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rov. 4-77) PREVIOUS COITION is OBSOLETE
------- |