EPA 340/1-77-012
COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS OF
SMALL BULK PLANTS
m
\
01
C3
OCTOBER 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Division
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
-------
COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS OF SMALL BULK PLANTS
(Testing)
Final Report
by
R. J. Bryan
R. L. Norton
P. S. Bakshi
J. Stevenson
Contract No0: 68-01-3156, Task Order No. 17
Project Officer: Gary Parish
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Division
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado 80203
October 1976
-------
ABSTRACT
Pacific Environmental Services (PES) has completed a test-
ing program of vapor recovery systems at small bulk plants (less
than 20,000 gallons/day) under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3156. Test-
ing was conducted on a vapor balance system and on a secondary
processor (straight refrigeration) system. The results of 41 tests
are presented. Twenty-five of these tests were performed on the
secondary system (7 transport deliveries, 18 bulk plant delivery
vehicles) and sixteen were conducted on the vapor balance system
(5 transport deliveries, 11 bulk plant delivery vehicles).
The test results indicate that both systems can function
with vapor recovery efficiency greater than 90 percent, but only
if account trucks are maintained leak-free.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION I- 1
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION II- 1
A. VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEM II- 1
B. REFRIGERATION SYSTEM II- 3
III. TESTING AND EQUIPMENT Ill- 1
A. VAPOR RETURN LINE Ill- 1
B. STORAGE TANK VENTING LOSSES Ill- 1
C. TEMPERATURE OF STORAGE TANKS Ill- 4
D. HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION Ill- 4
E. REID VAPOR PRESSURE AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC
SAMPLES Ill- 6
F. LEAK DETECTION Ill- 6
G. CALIBRATIONS... Ill- 8
H. DESCRIPTION Ill- 8
1. REFRIGERATION SYSTEM Ill- 8
2. VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEM -Ill- 9
IV. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ,,,,.,,,,,,,.., IV- 1
A. TESTING OF REFRIGERATION SYSTEM IV- 1
1. PRESSURE RELATIONSHIP IV- 7
2. EXHAUST VENT LOSSES IV- 7
B. TESTING OF VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEM IV- 8
1. PRESSURE RELATIONSHIP IV-12
2. EXHAUST VENT LOSSES IV-12
C. GAS CHROMATOGRAPH ANALYSIS IV-17
D. RVP ANALYSIS IV-20
V. CONCLUSIONS , V- 1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section page
APPENDIX A
TEST PROCEDURES AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS A-l
APPENDIX B
LIST OF EQUIPMENT B-l
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE DATA SHEETS C-I
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORTS D-l
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE CALIBRATION CURVES E-l
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEM - BOULDER, COLORADO II-2
2 REFRIGERATION SYSTEM- ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA II-5
2a EXPANDED VIEW OF FLOW LINES AROUND
REFRIGERATION UNIT U_6
3 VAPOR RETURN LINE TESTING FLOW DIAGRAM III-2 & 3
4 VENTING LOSS TESTING FLOW DIAGRAM III-5
5 TYPICAL CHART RECORDING OF HYDROCARBON CONCENTRA-
TION III-7
Appendix Figiires
A-l SAMPLING LOCATIONS A-8
A-2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS (continued) A-9
E-l CALIBRATION OF DRY GAS METER E-l
E-2 CALIBRATION OF ROTOMETERS E-2
E-3 CALIBRATION OF BECKMAN 400 FID E-3
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS - ESCONDIDO IVr 2 & 3
2 EFFICIENCIES OF ACCOUNT TRUCKS AT ESCONDIDO IV- 5
3 FREQUENCY OF OPERATION VERSUS EFFICIENCY FOR
ACCOUNT TRUCKS AT ESCONDIDO IV- 6
4 ESCONDIDO - EXHAUST VENT DATA IV- 8
5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS - BOULDER ,. IV-10 & 11
6 BOULDER - EXHAUST VENT DATA IV-14
7 PRESSURE DATA DURING VENTING AT BOULDER IV-15
8 SUMMARY OF G. C. ANALYSIS IV-18
ill
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Pacific Environmental Services (PES), under EPA Contract
Number 68-01-3156, has conducted efficiency testing of vapor
recovery systems installed at small bulk plant facilities. For
;
the purposes of this study, a small bulk plant was defined as
having a daily throughput of gasoline products of less than 76,000
liters (20,000 gallons). Two installations were studied, one a vapor-
balance system without secondary vapor recovery, the other a vapor-
balance system modified by refrigeration to maintain a reduced tem-
perature in the storage tanks. The first, located in Boulder,
Colorado, is operated by Continental Oil Company; the second, in
Escondido, California, is operated by Standard Oil Company of Cali-
fornia. These installations are described in Section II.
Efficiency testing was done by measuring amounts of liquid
gasoline transferred and of gasoline vapor retrieved during trans-
fers of gasoline into and out of the storage tanks. Efficiency is
defined as the ratio of vapor retrieved to a theoretical estimate
of the amount which would be lost during transfer if emissions were
uncontrolled.
Testing was done under summer conditions. Data were obtained
during 16 transfers in a four-day period in Boulder and during 25
transfers on five days of operation in Escondido. Data obtained included
volume of liquid gasoline transferred; volume, temperature, pressure
and hydrocarbon concentration of the displaced gas (vapor-laden air)
and of any gas vented from the storage tanks; and temperature and
pressure of the storage tank contents.
Equipment used for these measurements and the manner of
installing and operating it are described in Section III; a detailed
formal account of test procedures and of methods of calculating
results is attached as Appendix A, and a list of necessary items of
equipment constitutes Appendix B. Results of the testing are tabulated
1-1
-------
and discussed in Section IV, with supporting information presented
in Appendices C (Sample Data Sheets), D (Laboratory Analysis Reports)
and E (Sample Calibration Curves). Finally, conclusions from this
study are reviewed in Section V.
1-2
-------
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A. VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEM
The vapor recovery system installed at the CONOCO bulk plant
in Boulder, Colorado employs a vapor balance system which operates'
on the principle of a simple exchange of fluids between the truck
tank and the storage tanks. In Phase I vapor recovery, liquid
gasoline is pumped from the transport vehicle into the storage
i
tanks and displaces an equivalent volume of vapor-laden air which
is routed back to the vehicle through the vapor return line. In
Phase II vapor recovery, the system is reversed, with the liquid
gasoline pumped into the bulk plant delivery vehicle and the vapor-
laden air displaced back to the storage tanks through the vapor re-
turn, line. In principle,, with tight connections, the system should
operate with no hydrocarbon losses but due either to poor main-
tenance or improper installation, hydrocarbon losses were discovered
i
through bulk plant delivery truck hatch covers and through safety
vents on the fixed roof storage tanks.
The CONOCO vapor balance system incorporated a two inch vapor
I
return line which was mainfolded to each of the five storage tanks
handling gasoline. ,A spring actuated poppet valve was installed
at the loading rack outlet of the vapor return line to eliminate hy-
drocarbon losses when the plant was idle. The CONOCO bulk plant
was also designed to utilize one vapor return hook-up for both trans-
port deliveries and dispensing product into bulk plant account trucks.
This was accomplished through a series of valves enabling the load-
ing rack pumps to be used for pumping in either direction. Figure
1 illustrates the vapor balance system tested at the CONOCO facility.
The system also incorporated a series of pressure relief vents
installed in the storage tank system. A pressure vacuum (PV) vent
2 *
was located in the vapor return line with a 2586 N/m (6 oz) pres-
o
sure setting and a 215 N/m (1/2 oz) vacuum setting to allow the re-
2 2
* N/m = Newton/meter
II-1
-------
I'
CONOTANE
Tank #1
Capacity
17,000 gal
CONOTANE
Tank #4
Capacity
17,000 gal
PREMIUM
Tank #3
Capacity
17,000 gal
UNLEADED
Tank #2
2" Vapor Return Line
Pumps &
Meters
Vapor Recovery
Connection
COMMON LOADING RACK FOR
Tanker & Account Trucks
Figure 1. VAPOR BALANCE SYSTEM - BOULDER, COLORADO
-------
lease of vapors or the entrance of air into the system during severe
pressure changes in the loading or unloading operations. If the sys-
tem pressure continued to increase ,and the PV vent could not allow
the escape of vapors quickly enough, each storage tank had an emer-
2
gency vent set to openat.4309 N/m (10 oz) of pressure. If under
extreme conditions these vents could not relieve the system pressure,
a series of carbon shear pins and hatch covers would open between
13,790 N/m2 and 20,680 N/m2 (2 and 3 Ibs) pressure. These final
2 steps in pressure relief are installed primarily as safety fea-
tures if the PV vent cannot handle the pressure load.
B. REFRIGERATION SYSTEM
The San Diego area was selected to obtain a suitable test lo-
cation for a secondary processing unit since the vapor recovery reg-
ulations require such controls at small bulk plants. Initially, the
majority of the bulk plants installed a catalytic incineration sys-
tem for the control of vapors. Upon inspection of bulk plants in
San Diego, it was found that all of these units were inoperative
due mostly to mechanical failures. The only operating vapor recovery
unit utilizes refrigeration to minimize pressure variations and,
therefore, breathing losses caused by temperature changes within the
storage space. This system differs from conventional secondary
systems for vapor recovery in that there is no provision for venting
stripped air directly from the refrigeration unit.
This vapor recovery system, installed at the Standard Oil
Company bulk plant in Escondido, employs the refrigeration unit to
reduce pressure in the storage tanks and thereby to minimize venting.
In this system, vapors are drawn from the storage tanks by a blower,
pass over cooling coils in the refrigeration unit and exhaust back to
the storage tanks through an insulated return line. .The system
makes no effort-to condense vapors but is designed strictly to maintain
a constant temperature in the storage tanks (in this case 60°F) and
thereby maintain a pressure below the venting level. The system is
II-3
-------
2
actuated when the storage tank pressure reaches 748 N/m (3 in H90)
2
and continues to operate until the pressure falls below 374 N/m
(1.5 in HO) or until 20 minutes have elapsed. If after 20 minutes
2
the pressure has not decreased to 374 N/m the system is actuated
again and runs for another 20 minutes. This cycle continues until
2
the pressure falls below the set level of 374 N/m .
The Standard Oil bulk plant incorporated a 3-inch vapor re-
turn line manifolded to all tanks handling gasoline which included
the insulated line that ran from the refrigeration unit back to the
storage tanks. Separate vapor return connections were used for the
delivery of gasoline to the bulk plant and the loading racks for
dispensing gasoline. At each location the vapor return connection
was sealed with a spring actuated valve.
The bulk plant also had four gasoline service-station-type
pumps connected into the vapor recovery system. The same blower
which was used for the storage tank refrigeration system was also
used to supply vacuum assist at the nozzle of these pumps and was
actuated when the dispensing pump was energized.
The PV vent utilized in the vapor recovery system had settings
of 1,495 N/m2 (6 in H20) for pressure relief and 249 N/m2 - 498 N/m2
(1 - 2 in HO) on vacuum. A series of safety vents similar to those
used at the CONOCO facility were installed in the storage tank sys-
tem. Figure 2 illustrates the refrigeration system studied.
II-4
-------
N
TANK
#3
3" VAPOR
LINES
PV VENT
VAPOR RECOVERY CONNECTIONS
FOR TANKER DELIVERY
TANK PRESSURED
GAUGE
VAPORTROL UNIT
REFRIGERATION
5 TON
280 GAL.'
U.G.TANK
550 GALLON
U.G. TANK
Figure 2. REFRIGERATION SYSTEM - ESCONDIDO, CA
-------
JJ Chilled vapor return to tank
2) Vapor return line (vapors can
flow either into or from storage
tanks)
3) Chilled vapor line
£) Liquid condensate line
5) Liquid drop-out in vapor
return line
) Condensate dr6p-out in
chilled vapor system
Figure 2a. EXPANDED VIEW OF FLOW LINES AROUND
REFRIGERATION UNIT
II-6
-------
III. TESTING AND EQUIPMENT
A. VAPOR RETURN LINE
The hydrocarbon vapors returned to either the storage tanks
or the transport vehicle were diverted from the existing vapor re-
turn line through a modified return system. This modified system
used existing truck couplers to pass into a 3-inch flexible vapor
recovery hose, through a volume meter and back into the vapor re-
covery system. The return volume was measured with a turbine flow
meter rated at 9,000 CFH (Rockwell Model TP-9) which possesses an
2
extremely low pressure drop of 50 N/m (0.2 in H 0). Pressure
taps were installed in the modified return line at the inlet and
the outlet of the turbine meter and pressure was determined using
2
dual inclined manometers having ranges of 0 - 1,500 N/m (0-6
2
in HO) and 0 - 6,800 N/m (0 - 2 in Hg). An iron-constantan
thermocouple was installed up stream of the meter for determina-
tions of return vapbr temperature. A vapor sample tap was located
after the meter to insure the entire volume of return vapors passe^l
through the meter. The sample extracted was extremely small (maxi-
mum 146 cc/min) and had no effect on the volume of vapors in the
system. Figure 3 illustrates the vapor return test set-up for the
filling of account trucks and transport delivery vehicles.
B. STORAGE TANK VENTING LOSSES
A pressure switch and solenoid valve arrangement was installed
in the vapor return line at the top of the storage tanks to simulate
the pressure side of the PV vent allowing the measurement of vent-
ing losses. Since the measurement of in-breathing of air into the
storage tanks was not required, the vacuum side of the PV vent was
not simulated. The existing PV vent was not removed from the
system and it could therefore allow in-breathing when necessary
and would also: act as a safety vent if there was a loss of elec-
tric power to the solenoid valve system.
III-l
-------
H
I
S3
ACCOUNT
TRUCK
LIQUID
GASOLINE
DRAFT GAGE
(0-6" H00)
U
DRAFT GAGE
(0-2" Hg)
_1
VAPOR FLOW
^
LOADING
RACK
TO STORAGE
SAMPLE
AMBIENT AIR
FUEL
CYLINDER
AIR
Figure 3a. VAPOR RETURN LINE TESTING FLOW DIAGRAM (FOR DISPENSING INTO ACCOUNT TRUCK)
-------
TRANSPORT
TANKER
T
LIQUID
GASOLINE
THERMOCOUPLE
VAPOR FLOW
-^
FLOW
METER
/
X
1
X
DRAFT GAGE
(0-6" H00)
DRAFT GAGE
(0-2" Hg)
I
I
Li
LOADING
RACK
SAMPLE
RECORDER
FROM STORAGE
AMBIENT AIR
FUEL
* CYLINDER
AIR
Figure 3b. VAPOR RETURN LINE TESTING FLOW DIAGRAM
(FOR TRANSPORT TANKER DISPENSING INTO BULK TANKS)
-------
The pressure switch in the simulation system was set to ener-
gize just below the PV pressure setting so that the system would
vent through the pressure and solenoid valve and not through the
PV vent. At the exit of the solenoid valve a dry gas meter with a
rated capacity of 1,000 CFH (American Meter AL-1,000) with a pres-
2
sure drop less than 125 N/m (0.5 in HO) was plumbed into the
line to measure the volume of the vented vapors. Pressure, jtemp-
erature and sample taps were placed in the exhaust line in a simi-
lar manner to the vapor return line. Figure 4 illustrates the test
set-up for determining tank venting losses.
C. TEMPERATURE OF STORAGE TANKS
Temperatures of storage tanks handling gasoline were monitored
with surface mounted thermocouples placed on the shaded side of the
tank. The assumption made when using surface mounted thermocouples
is that the surface temperature of the metal storage tanks is equal
to the liquid temperature within the tank. The thermocouples (Type
J iron-constantan) led to a portable potentiometer (Thermo Electric
"Minimite" Model No. 31101) for the determination of the temperatures.
Using surface mounted thermocouples eliminated the problem of immers-
ing a temperature indicating device through the top of the storage
tank down to the liquid level.
D. HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION
The sample taps from the vent line and vapor return line each
led to a Beckman 400 Flame lonization Detector (FID) capable of
measuring hydrocarbon concentrations of 0 - 10 percent (as methane)
for determination of total hydrocarbon concentration. Each instru-
ment had a corresponding dilution panel which diluted the sample
approximately 30 to 1. The sample gas passed through a rotameter
with a maximum capacity of 146 cc/min and was diluted with ambient
air which passed through a rotameter with a maximum capacity of 2.5
liters/min. The rotameters were controlled with needle valves.
III-4
-------
PV VENT
PRESSURE
SWITCH,
STORAGE
TANK
VAPOR
DRAFT GAGE
(0-6" H20)
._.,
DRAFT GAGE
(0-2" Hg>
THERMOCOUPLE
* ATMOSPHERE
SAMPLE
AMBIENT AIR
FUEL
Figure 4. VENTING LOSS TESTING FLOW DIAGRAM
H
M
-------
Interferences due to hydrocarbons in the ambient air or outgassing
of hydrocarbons from the polyethylene sample line were ignored be-
cause they were very small compared to the extremely high concen-
tration of the sample gas being analyzed. Continuous concentrations
were recorded from both instruments simultaneously by a dual pen
strip chart recorder. A typical chart recording is presented in
Figure 5.
E. REID VAPOR PRESSURE AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC SAMPLES
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) samples were taken during selected
test runs for analysis of product volatility. Samples were taken
as described in ASTM Method D270-65 and analysis performed as des-
cribed in ASTM Method D323-58. Grab samples of the returned hydro-
carbon vapors were obtained for gas chromatographic (GC) analysis
using an evacuated gas sampling bulb drawn to approximately 10
inches of mercury absolute. A lower absolute pressure could not be
obtained because of problems with the vacuum pump in the field.
This was corrected for in the GC results by calculating, using par-
tial pressures, the amount of air not removed from the sample bulb
and adjusting the hydrocarbon concentrations. One sample of the
liquid condensate taken from the vapor return line was also sub-
jected to GC analysis. The GC samples were transported to the
laboratory and analyzed for concentrations of C1 - C._ hydrocarbons.
F. LEAK DETECTION
Hydrocarbon vapor leaks in the vapor recovery system were
identified using a portable combustible gas analyzer (Bacharach In-
struments Combustible Gas Analyzer Model SSP).* During the test
runs the vapor return line, storage tank vents, hose connections
and vehicle hatch covers were all checked for hydrocarbon leakage.
*This unit measured hydrocarbon concentrations in the ranges of 0 -
1,000 ppm and 0-1 LEL (lower explosive limit). This instrument
measures only relative concentration and not volume.
III-6
-------
BECKMAN
--.
-''
-100
.100
-I'-l ! :l
-.^.... W)n. ... , . «Y) -..- -
. _ . i ^^ i . _ _ . . i ^"* , '
-100-T. .,, UX) ,
"T-- '1*-T ft p>kl« i- : I '(
,- - 100
T'lT'M
-reo -;-.;.
«/::,;
. T 60-1 .
-' GO
J. _ . _ .
.1^:1
T-m-'i.T \W.,:"!-'
i .1- i- . .. _j_J--r
, Htfit! !,L
..;... BO.!.-H--T~i-y«»J....;...
j-! .;; I:.1-.: ; .; .i/i-
'!';!;:!:-: :
' i -| i ' . i ; ' . i
-i. -i::i.ad-fr>:.h>i.-j7t
.-i-- ;.! 14-!;..; ![-.-!- ! |-[-
,;... ...-..-: 40
-'.-; .; .y.!:, , i"c
4.i::L.l4:.J.^:J- "^
;^i:|-|.:;i;m5;t&];:M^
o^f|:n^r/rv|:|:vv:;!---;;:\^^
|±p-tm^:i.: ^iT^^jqrj-^-^^^-^^fr;
rLH-!:.'i.'riB2 j"'.':,' c--^--
BECKMAN««"»«
.... -,-100 . .-.- 100
-VXt
-.-..,- ,-- - | |" ,-| -j- £ ;
^^R^-i;:-!-:;-:-^.-:..
t-80-~-l
£|:>j^ir^^^^
I _i- .i..:!iv|v:l_i.' T.r.i'h^.^' .j.'j-.r-.L.: 'V-.M..,/, :,r-.f:.r. /^-i::!:.i:.jv.i-7r.b.L:j...H:V|r
; ' ; '' ' t> '-/-'''"' "' »' '' ' ' ' i ''"' o ':" y-o"'i"^i'ii~i"T~r ni"'^:!"
..-.._..,..
-M-I-EO-KI- -
Ztt~ --
^33p 4- '--;
-.-,-;-- ' I- - -
rn:;ri:
=£!:!.
flil
v§i,i:pt!:
IB
- i-
W$t-
^;..tt:
%f-;:3^i:
\> \> O O O O <>
.f* O C> O O--t).O
O O
O O, O <>.<>l.> o <> <> O O O «.' O O i
t>O O
B1, B_, etc. Curve for concentration of vapors in vapor return line
R , R0, etc. Curve for concentration of vapor through P.V. vent on bulk tank
. 2.
Figure 5. TYPICAL CHART RECORDING OF
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION
M
M
H
-------
G. CALIBRATIONS
Two rotameters used to measure sample gas flow rate (0 - 146
cc/min) were calibrated using a moving bubble meter and rotamevters
used for measuring dilution air (0 - 2.5 liters/min) were calibrated
against a wet test meter. Procedures presented in the EPA Air Pollu-
tion Training Institute Course Manual 435 were used. Since the rota-
meters were calibrated with air at room conditions, they were cor-
rected for standard conditions and density when measuring gasoline
vapor flow rates. The dry gas meters were calibrated against a
standardized orifice meter. All temperatures were measured by thermo-
couples attached to a portable potentiometer and calibrated against
a mercury-in-glass thermometer.
Two model 400 FID's were used for measurement of hydrocarbon
concentrations. Both analyzers were subjected each day to a multi-
point calibration using 1.48 percent propane gas. These calibra-
2
tions were performed for a sample pressure of 6,900 N/m ( 1 psi).
2
The Dwyer 1823-20 pressure switch, having a range of 750 N/m -
9
5,500 N/m (3 - 22 in HO), was adjusted with a U-tube manometer.
Typical calibration curves are attached in Appendix E.
H. DESCRIPTION
1. Refrigeration System
Testing was performed on the refrigeration system in Escondido
from July 19, 1976 through July 26, 1976. In all, 7 transport de-
liveries and 19 bulk plant account trucks were monitored. Arrange-
ments were made with the plant manager to have the transports de-
liver gasoline during normal operating hours (deliveries were usual-
ly made at night) because of problems with access to the plant.
Since the refrigeration unit did not vent to the atmosphere but in-
stead back to the storage tanks, the testing was the same as woul,d
be performed when testing a vapor balance system.
III-8
-------
On the first day of testing at the Escondido facility, a
sizeable leak was discovered through a maintenance hatch on one of
the storage tanks. Standard Oil personnel, present on site to ob-
serve the testing, assisted in sealing the hatch and the testing
resumed.
Initially when sampling return vapors to the transport de-
livery vehicle, an OPW 1711D female dry break connector was in-
stalled so that when the return line was disconnected from the ve-
hicle, vapors would not escape from the system. This coupler would
also connect directly to the test vehicle. The male vapor return
coupler on the vehicle did not have a compatible dry break thereby
not actuating the mechanism to allow the flow of vapors. For this
reason, the OPW coupler was removed from the set-up and the exist-
ing bulk plant spring loaded fitting was used which required the use
of an adapter to attach to the vehicle. Because no flow of vapors
was present in run 6,* this test was discarded. Insufficient data
was recorded in run number 1, therefore, it has not been included
in the calculations.
2. Vapor Balance System
Testing was conducted on the vapor balance system in Boulder
from August 2, 1976 through August 5, 1976. In all, 5 transport
deliveries and 11 bulk plant account trucks were monitored. On
2 occasions, arrangements were made with bulk plant personnel to have
3 product pumps running simultaneously to obtain data on a worst case
flow through the system (approximately 300 gal/min).
Numerous hydrocarbon vapor leaks were found in the system emi-
nating from the storage tank safety relief vents and from the compart-
ment hatch covers on the account trucks. Attempts were made to force
these vents and hatches closed and thereby eliminate the leaks but
this could not be done so steps were taken to quantify the emissions.
This was accomplished by sealing a plastic bag over the leak area,
timing the fill of the bag and determining the volume of the vapors
in the bag. Approximate leakage rates derived from this method ranged
o 3
from 0.014 mj/min (0.5 CFM) through 1 safety relief vent to 0.085 /min
III-9
-------
(3 CFM) through the account truck compartment hatch covers. These
leak rates were only approximate and not used in efficiency calcu-
lations, but only to show the relative loss of vapors through these
"sealed" vents.
111-10
-------
IV. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results of 41 tests are presented. Twenty five of these
were performed at Escondido and sixteen at Boulder. Copies of the
original data sheets can be obtained by contacting the EPA Project
Office..
A. Testing of Refrigeration System
The Standard Oil Company facility at Escondido has been
treated as a vapor displacement system. The refrigeration system
at this facility does not condense vapors but is designed strictly
to maintain a constant temperature in the storage tanks (60 F)
and thereby maintain a pressure below the venting level, thus
decreasing both breathing and working losses. This made a direct
evaluation of the refrigeration system impossible since it was
difficult to relate its operation as being independent of the
vapor balance system.
Seven transport deliveries were tested at Escondido and an
average volumetric efficiency of 97.0 was obtained. The above
average is based on five deliveries (see Table 1) because on run
#6, the poppet of the dry break coupling jammed causing no return
vapor volume to be measured and in run #9, insufficient data was
recorded and, hence, they have been excluded from the calculations.
The average loss in volume (theoretical minus standard) was esti-
mated at 36.5 cu. ft.
For the account truck tests, the average efficiency would
be a rather misleading number since various factors have to be con-
sidered, such as the type of account truck, system pressure and
ambient temperature. Each account truck has its own character-
istics, (i.e. hatch leakage, capacity, etc.) and these all vary
from one truck to another.
Truck #2 was the smallest account truck at the facility, and
was not in daily use as were the other trucks. More pressure build-
up occurred during the loading of this truck than when any of the
IV-1
-------
Table 1. SUMMARY OF RESULTS - ESCONDIDO
Date
7/20/76
7/20/7*
7/20/76
7/21/76
7/21/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7./26/76
7/26/76
7/26/76
Run
2 +
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Plant
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Dispensed
Liquid
Gal.
8170
980
1220
8200
6710
2110
1540
8200
2610
2650
800
1930
8200
1660
1660
1930
8200
1930
650
2650
2600
520
2110
2640
8815
Liters
30920
3708
4617
31037
32967
7986
5829
31037
9879
10030
3028
7305
31037
6283
6283
7305
31037
7305
2460
10030
9841
1968
7986
9992
33365
Returned Vapor Volume
Actual
Ft3
1081.0
139.0
110.5
1090.0
-
220.0
184.0
-
242.0
200.0
116.0
242.0
1041.0
125.5
170.5
353.5
1100.0
218.0
70.0
200.0
344.5
80.0
120.5
390.5
1172.5.
M3
30.6
3.9
3.1
30.8
-
6.2
5.2
-
6.9
5.7
3.3
6.9
29.5
3.6
4.8
10.0
31.2
6.2
2.0
5.7
9.8
2.3
3.4
11.1
33.2
Standard
Ft3
1032.0
128.0
103.0
1054.0
-
219.0
182.6
'
237.2
188.0
109.2
230.0
992.2
124.3
168.0
248.8*
1051.3
207.3
65.6
187.9
320.2
74.5
118.7
376.6
1121.5
M3
29.2
3.6
2.9
29.8
-
6.2
5.2
-
6.7
5.3
3.1
6.5
28.1
3.5
4.8
7.0
29.8
5.9
1.9
5.3
9.1
2.1
3.4
10.7
31.8
Theo.**
Ft3
1066.0
127.0
153.0
1079.0
-
277.3
202.6
1063.1
344.1
345.0
103.7
249.1
1062.0
218.5
217.9
254.6
1070.2
251.2
84.0
338.9
332.5
65.9
275.5
345.1
1142.4
M3
30.2
3.6
4.3
30.5
-
7.9
5.7
30.1
9.7
9.8
2.9
7.1
30.1
6.2
6.2
7.2
30.3
7.1
2.4
9.6
9.4
1.9
7.8
9.8
32.4
Average
Bulk Tank
Temperature
Of
76.9
80.7
81.3
71.2
-
71.0
71.1
81.8
70.5
77.3
79.8
82.0
80.5
73.3
. 74.5
75.0
78.0
79.0
83.0
88.8
88.5
93.0
74.1
73.9
79.0
°C
24.9
27.1
27.4
21.8
. -
21.7
21.7
27.7
21.4
25.2
26.6
27.8
26.9
22.9
23.6
23.9
25.6
26.1
28.3
31.6
31.4
33.9
23.4
23.3
26.1
Average
Vapor
Temperature
°T
88.7
107.0
99.. 5
81.0
-
65.0
67.0
77.1
73.7
96.8
96.0
90.7
89.3
70.0
73.0
72.0
89.6
92.0
100.0
98.8
104.7
103.5
69.5
81.4
83.4
°C
31.5
41.7
37.5
27.2
-
18.3
19.4
25.1
23.2
36;0
35.6
32.6
31.8
21.1
22.8
22.2
32.0
33.3
37.8
37.1
40.4
39.7
20.8
27.4
28.6
Pressure
In Vapor
Return Line
Inches
of
Water
-1.20
1.71
4.43
-1.04
-
-0.04
1.40
-0.16
4.20
1.91
5.59
0.69
' 1.00
-0.16
1.95
3.80
2.60
-0.11
3.30
-0.98
0.90
1.96
-1.27
3.86
0.66
N/M2
- 299
426
1103
- 258
-
- 10
349
- 40
1046
476
1392
172
249
- 10
486
947
648
- 28
822
- 244
224
488
- 316
962
164
Vapor Line
Concentration
In Z Propane
By Volume
Trans-
port
12.12
-
14.94
. -
-
-
14.06
-
-
-
-
49.22
-
-
-
45.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45.64
Truck
13.08
38.70
-
-
10.16
11.78
-
14.10
9.70
13.83
13.40
-
27.38
29.23
42.26
-
39.85
41.56
28.25
42.89
26.74
27.41
28.45
-
Vapor Line
Cone. In 7. HC
'by Volume
Based on Avg.
Carbon Number
Trans-
port Truck
8.13
-
10.03
-
-
-
9.44
-
-
-
-'
33.03
-
-
-
30.54
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.63
8.78
25.97
-
- .
6.82
7.91
-
9.46
6.51
9.28
8.99
-
18.37
19.62
28.36
-
26.74
27.89
18.96
28.78
17.95
18.40
19.10
-
to
* An observation error-corrected from 348.8 to 248.8
** Theo. - Theoretical volume of vapors displaced based upon the volume of gasoline transferred,
+ Run number 1 not included because of insufficient data recorded.
-H- Sample calculations in Appendix A.
(V/L - 1.0)
-------
Table 1. SUMMARY OF RESULTS - ESCONDIDO (Cont' d)
Run
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Volume of
Vapor Lost
Due co Leaks
Ft3
34.0
-
50.0
25.0
-
58.3
19.6
-
106.9
157.0
-
19.1
69.8
94.2
49.9
5.8
18.9
43.9
14.4
151.0
12.3
-
156.8
-
20.9
M3
.96
-
1.42
.71
-
1.65
0.56
-
3.03
4.45
-
0.54
1.98
2.67
1.41
0.16
0.54
1.24
0.41
4.28
0.35
-
4.44
-
0.59
Mass of Vapors
Lost
Based on
% Vol. as
Propane
Cms
-
-
1004.0 .
-
-
307.4
119.8
-
781.8
790.3
-
132.8
-
1338.6
756.5
127.2
-
908.0
310.5
2213.3
273.7
-
2229.6
-
-
Based on
* Vol. as
H.C.
Cms
-
-
986.7
-
-
302.1
117.8
-
768.5
776.7
-
130.5
-
1314.9
744.0
125.0
-
892.0
305.2
2175.5
269.0
-
2192.4
-
-
Mass of
Returned Vapors
lased on
K Vol as
Propane
Cms
-
-
2068.2
-
-
1154.4
1116.1
-
1734.8
945.7
-
1598.9
-
1766.3
2547.4
5455.0
-
4285.8
1414.4
2754.4
7125.5
'-
1687.6
-
-
Based on
% Vol. as
H.C.
Cms
-
-
2032.6
-
-
1134.9
1097.6
- '
1705.1
930.0
-
1571.2
-
1735.1
2504.7
5361.7
-
4212.2
1390.3
2707.2
7002.7
.
1659.7
-
-
Pressure In Bulk Tanks
Before
"B20
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.3
-
-0.6
0.5
0.5
1.3
1.3
4.0
0.1
0.3
-0.8
0.9
3.5
2.3
2.0
0.6
0.5
-0.2
0.0
-1.5
3.3
2.9
N/M2
249
125
125
324
-
-149
125
125
324
324
996
25
75
-187
-218
872
573
498
149
125
- 50
0
-374
822
722
After
"H20
5.1
3.0
0.5
-
-0.5
0.4
1.9
3.5
2.5
5.6
0.8
0.6
-0.5
4.5
3.0
3.7
2.9
0.3
-1.6
0.0
1.3
-0.4
3.3
3.2
N/M2
1270
-
747
125
-
- 125
100
473
872
623
1395
199
149
- 125
1121
747
922
722
75
-399
0
324
- 100
822
797
Emission Rate
.
iased on
% Vol as
Propane
Gms/Gal
-
-
0.823
-
-
0.146
0.078
-
0.299
0.293
-
0.069
-
0.806
0.456
0.066
.-'
0.467
0.477
0.836
0.105
-
1.056
-
-
Based on
7. Vol. as
H.C.
Gms/Gal.
-
-
0.809
-
-
0.143
0.076
-
0.294
0.293
' - .
0.068
-
0.792
0.448
0.065
. -
0.462
0.469
0.821
0.103
-
1.039
-
-
Efficiencies
Ew=Ev
%
Transport
96.8
-
-
97.7
-
-
-
.
-
-
93.4
_
-
-
98.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
98.7
%
Truck
-
100.0
67.3..
-
-
79.0
90.3
-
69.0
54.0
100.0
92.0
-
57.0
77.0
98.0
-
83.0
78.0
55.0
96.0
100.0
- 43.0
100.0
-
Type of Loading
Transport Tanker
Account Truck
Account Truck
Transport Tanker
-
Account Truck
Account Truck
Transport Tanker
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Transport Tanker
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Transport Tanker
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Transport Tanker
-------
others were loaded. This trend had been noticed by the bulk
plant manager even before the testing started. Possibly, the small
compartments in the account truck caused a rapid displacement of
vapors from the compartments, which further caused a transient
pressure build-up.
Of the four account trucks used at the Escondido plant,
account trucks number 1 and 2 had few leaks but trucks 3 and 7
both had substantial leaks through the hatches. The wear and
tear undergone by trucks number 1 and 2 was comparatively much
less since they were used every other day. Table #3 lists the
number of loads of gasoline carried by each truck. Truck # 1
was the newest and least used truck. This could be responsible
for the high efficiency (Table 2) obtained whenever truck #1 was
used. In certain runs, efficiencies greater than 100% were ob-
tained which are unlikely and are basically attributed to measure-
ment errors.
An average concentration of 30.24% by volume as propane (20.30%
by volume as hydrocarbons) was obtained in the vapor return line dur-
ing delivery of gasoline by the transport tanker. The concentration
in the vapor return line during loading of the account truck was found
to be 25.44% by volume as propane (17.07% by volume as hydrocarbons).
The G-C analyses are attached in Appendix D.
IV-4
-------
Table 2. EFFICIENCIES OF ACCOUNT TRUCKS AT ESCONDIDO
Date
*
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
.7/23/76
7/23/76
7/26/76
7/26/76
Run
Number
7
8
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Truck
Number
7
2
3
7
2
3
7
3
1
1
2
7
1
2
7
1
Capacity
Gal.
2650
1540
2650
2650
1540
2650
2650
2650
2910
2910
1540
2650
2910
1540
2650
2910
of Truck
Liters
10030
5829
10030
10030
5829
10030
10030
10030
11014
11014
5829
10030
11014
5829
10030
11014
EW%
79.0
90.3
69.0
54.0
100.0
92.0
57.0
77.0
98.0
83.0
78.0
55-0
96.0
100.0
43.0
100.0
* Runs from 7/20/76 to 7/21/76 were not included because of
insufficient data collected [data collected did not include
truck number]
IV-5
-------
Table 3. FREQUENCY OF OPERATION
VERSUS EFFICIENCY FOR BULK TRUCKS AT ESCONDIDO
Truck
Number
1
2
3
7
Capacity
in
Gallons
2910/load
1540/load
2650/load
2650/load
Number of
Loads Per
Week
6
8
10
10
Average
Observed
Efficiency
94.3%
92.1%
79.3%
57.6%
IV-6
-------
1. Pressure Relationship
An increase in pressure occurred after every transport deliv-
ery. Usually, a similar pressure increase was noticed during the
loading of account trucks, but there were certain runs such as
# 17, where there was a decrease in pressure. A decrease in
pressure signifies a possible leak either in the account truck
(hatches) or in the vapor return line or a possible vacuum being
present in the account truck before loading. A pressure drop
always occurred when account truck #1 was loaded. Since this
truck had no leaks, a possible explanation could be that the ini-
tial equalization of pressure between tank and truck caused the
drop in pressure.
2. Exhaust Vent Losses
Venting of vapors through the exhaust vent on the bulk tanks
only took place on the 22nd of July in the afternoon, at an ambient
temperature of 80 °F. The pressure exceeded the 1308 N/m (5.25
inches) of H»0 limit set on the PES pressure switch, thus opening
the solenoid valve and venting vapors to the atmosphere. The
volume vented was extremely small (less than 1 cu. ft.), since no
reading was recorded on the dry gas meter, but a maximum concen-
tration of 9.3% by volume as propane (6.2% by volume as hydrocar-
bons) was recorded on the F.I.D. The results are shown in Table
#4. Some other concentrations were obtained during run numbers
10 and 12 but these were due to malfunction of equipment on the
bulk tanks and hence, have been disregarded in calculations.
IV-7
-------
Table 4. ESCONDIDO - EXHAUST VENT DATA
Date
7/20/76
7/20/76
7/20/76
7/21/76
7/21/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/26/76
7/26/76
7/26/76
Run
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Plant
Escondido
Escondtdo
Escondido
Escondido
Fscondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondtdo
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Escondido
Time
10:50
14:10
14:30
8:36
1-1:15
7:25
7:55
8:30
9:05
10:59
11:17
14:21
16:56
7:42
7:55
8:06
9:01
9:51
10:20
11:55
14:08
14:45
7:25
8:52
9:18
Ambient
Temperature
°F
68
83
83
68
78
65
65
65
67
72
80
81
-
65
68
70
73
76
77
86
86
86
70
70
73
°C
20.0
28.3
28.3
20.0
25.5
18.3
18.3
18.3
19.4
22.2
26.7
27.2
-
18.3
20.0
21.1
22.8
24.4
25.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
21.1
21.1
22.8
Pressure
«g
29.68
29.65
29.65
29.60
29.62
29.61
29.61
29.63
29.63
29.64
29.64
29.65
29.65
29.72
29.73
29.73
29.74
29.74
29.74
29.74
29.72
29.72
29.57
29.59
29.59
N/M2xl03
100.5
100.4
100.4
100.2
100.3
100.3
100.3
100.4
100.4
100.4
100.4
100.4
100.4
100.7
100.7
100.7
100.8
100.8
100.8
100.8
100.7
100.7
100.2
100.2
100.2
Gas Meter
Initial
Ft*
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
Final
Ft3
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'o
Vapor
Temperature
°F
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
94.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
°C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34.9
-
-
' -
-
-
-.'
-
-
-
-
- '
_..
-
-
-
Exhaust
Concentration
% Prop.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
5.6
9.3
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
% H.C.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
3.8
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0-.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
Pressure in Bulk Tanks
Pre
Inches
H20
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.3
-
-0.6
0.5
0.5
1.3
1.3
4.0
0.1
0.3
-0.8
-0.9
3.5
2.3
2.0
0.6
0.5
-0.2
0.0
-1.5
3.3
2.9
N/M2
249.0
124.5
124.5
323.7
.
i-129.0
125.0
.125,0
324.0
324.0
996.0
25.0
75.0
-187.0
217.0
872.0
573.0
498.0
149.0
125.0
- 50.0
0.0
-374.0
822.0
722.0
Post
Inches
HaO
5.1
3.0
0.5
-
-0.5
0.4
1.9
3.5
2.5
5.6
0.8
0.6
-0.5
4.5
3.0
3.7
2.9
0.3
-1.6
0.0
1.3
-0.4
3.3
3.2
N/M2
1270
-
747
125
-
- 125
100
473
872
623
1395
199
149
- 125
1121
747
922
722
75
-399
0
324
- 100
822
797
Liquid
Dispensed
Gals.
8170
980
1220
8200
8710
2110
1540
8200
2610
2650
800
1930
8200
1660
1660
1930
8200
1930
650
2650
2600
520
2110
2640"
8815
Ltrs.
30923
3709
4618
31037
32967
7986
5829
31037
9879
10030
3028
7305
31037
6283
6283
7305
31037
7305
2460
10030
9841
1968
7986
9992
33365
-------
B. Testing of Vapor Balance System
The testing at Boulder, Colorado was much less complex,
mainly because the CONOCO bulk plant had a much smaller through-
put. Only one truck had vapor recovery apparatus and this was
used for nearly all deliveries. Another smaller bulk truck with
no vapor recovery apparatus was used on two of the four days of
tes ting.
Five transport deliveries and eleven account truck loadings
were tested. The average volumetric efficiencies for the trans-
port deliveries were found to be 95.39%. Consistent values were
obtained indicating that leaks were minimal. An average concen-
tration of 43.88% by volume as propane (29.45% by volume as hydro-
carbons) was found in the vapor return line.
The efficiency for the account trucks ranged from 79.45% to
97.02%. This wide range of efficiencies was due to the leaks
present in the account truck and bulk tanks. In general, when
high pressure is present in the system, low efficiencies are ex-
pected, as in run #2, 11, and 16 because greater leak rates oc-
cur for higher pressure values in the bulk tanks. An average
concentration of 38.34% by volume as propane (25.73% by volume
as hydrocarbon) found in the vapor return line. Table #5 gives
all the various efficiencies and emission rates for tests per-
formed at Boulder, Colorado.
The highest emission rate was 0.553 grams/gallon (based on
calculation of mass of vapors lost by % volume as hydrocarbons
and average molecular weight) in run #11. The average emission
rate of 0.277 grams/gallon was obtained for the eleven account
trucks tested.
IV-9
-------
Table 5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS - BOULDER
Date
6/2/16
8/2/76
8/2/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
873/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
8/4/75
8/4/76
8/4/76
8/5/76
8/5/76
8/5/76
8/5/76
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plant
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Dispensed
Liquid
Gals. Liters
9500 35958
3000 11355
3000 11355
3000 11355
3000 '11355
3000 11355
9500 35958
3000 11355
9500 35958
3000 11355
3000 11355
9500 35958
9500 35958
3000 11355
3000 11355
3000 11355
Returned Vapor Volume
Actual
Ft3
1182
324
390
340
356
360
1252
380
1070
360
326
1184
1230
380
355
342
M3
33.5
9.2
11.0
9.6
10.1
10.2
35.5
10.8
30.3
10.2
9.2
33.5
34.8
10.8
10.1
9.7
Standard
Ft3
1023.5
279.3
334.0
295.7
303.3
300.0
1053.8
317.4
933.5
308.1
274.2
988.9
1061.8
319.9
295.4
278.0
M3
29.0
7.9
9.5
8.4
8.6
8.5
29.8
9.0
26.4
8.7
7.8
28.0
30.1
9.1
8.4
7.9
Theo.**
Ft3
1093.7
344.2
344.3
345.0
344.3
34&.1
1055.1
336.3
1063.8
340.2
345.1
1040.7
1077.5
340.3
341.5
335.3
M3
31.0
9.7
9.7
9.8
9.8
9.7
29.8
9.5
30.1
9.6
9.8
29.5
30.5
9.6
9.7
9.5
Average
Bulk Tank
Temperature
°F
74.4
64.1
66.2
62.66
63.45
64.33
80.00
74.8
84.5
71.3
69.9
91.7
83.5
72.0
72.1
76.2
°C
23.6
17.8
19.0
17.0
17.5
18.0
26.7
23.8
29.2
21.9
21.1
33.2
28.6
22.2
22.3
24..6
Average
Vapor
Temperature
°F
59.8
64.0
67.5
57.0
70.2
79.8
86.8
77.0
62.8
66.7
82.2
81.4
74.2
76.3
84.5
91.5
°C
15.4
17.8
19.7
13.9
21.2
26.6
30.5
25.0
17.1
.19.3
27.9
27.4
23.4
24.6
29.2
33.1
Pressure
In Vapor
Return Line
Inches
of
Water
4.54
3.03
1.15
1.17
1.69
3.03
5.18
-0.13
4.68
2.10
3.32
1.18
1.27
3.36
4.62
4.83
N/M2
1131
755
286
291
422
754
1290
- 31
1166
522
826
293
305
837
1150
1202
Vapor Line
Concentration
In % Propane
By Volume
Trans-
port
39.58
-
-
-
-
-
47.50
-
43.60
-
-
47.00
41.70
-
-
-
Truck
_
37.36
39.19
36.05
40.55
47.30
-
46.90
-
38.30
45.90
-
-
14.90
36.60
38.70
Vapor Line
Cone . ' In % HC
by Volume
Based oh Avg.
Carbon Number
Trans-
port
26.56
-
-
-
-
-
31.88
-
29.26
-
-
31.54
27.99
-
-
-
Truck
_
25.07
26.30
24.19
27.21
31.74
-
31.48
-
25.70
30.80
-
^ _
10.00
24.56
25.97
** Theo. - Theoretical volume of vapors displaced based upon
the volume of gasoline transferred, (V/L - 1.0)
+ Sample calculations in Appendix A.
-------
Table 5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS - BOULDER (Cont'd)
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Volume of
Vapor Lost
Due to Leaks
Ft3
70.20
64.90
10.27
49.30
41.03
44.10
1.30
18.90
130.23
32.17
70.93
51.79
15.70
20.44
46.03
57.25
M3
2.0
1.8
'0.3
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.1
0.5
3.7
0.9
2.0
1.5
0.4
0.6
1.3
1.6
Mass of
Los
Based on
Z Vol. as
Propane
Cms
-
1258.1
208.8
922.1
863.2
1081.4
-
459.8
-
638.2
1689.2
-
-
158.0
874.1
1149.56
Vapors
Based, on
% Vol. as
H.C.
Cms
%
1236.4
205.2
906.2
848.4
1063.6
-
452.1
-
628.2
1660.1
-
-
155.3'
859.05
1129.8
Mass of
Returned Vapors
Based on
% Vol as
Propane
Cms
-
5414.6
6791.9
5530.6
6381.5
7356.3
-
7722.1
-
6122.2
6529.3
-
-
2472.8
5610.3
5582.2
Based on
% Vol. as
H.C.
Cms
-
5320.8
6675.0
5435.8
6271.2
7235.7
-
7592.6
' -
6016.9
6417.5
-
-
2430.9
5513.0
5486.1
Pressure In Bulk Tanks
Before
"H2°
4.5
2.7
1.0
-0.1
3.0
3.2
3.8
-0.8
-0.6
1.1
3.6
-0.5
0.5
2.5
4.7
5.2
N/M2
1-121
673
249
- 25
747
797
947
- 199
- 149
274
897
- 125
125
623
1171
1295
After
"H20
6.0
0.8
-0.1
0.0
0.7.
2.3
8.5
-0.7
1.7
0.8
1.4
3.0
2.3
1.8
2.2
3.0
N/M2
1495
199
- 25
0
174
573
2117
- 174
423
199
349
747
573
448
548
747
Emission Rate
? Vol as
'ropane
Jms/Gal.
-
0.420
0.069
0.307
0.288
0..361
-
0.152
-
0.213
0.565
-
-
0.052
0.293
0.379
Based on
% Vol as
H.C.
Gms/Cal.
-
0.412
.0.068
0.302
0.283
0.355
-
0.151
-
0.209
0.553
-
-
0.052
0.286
0.377
Efficiencies
Ew=Ev
%
Transport
93.58
-
-
-
.-
-
99.87
-
89.94
-
-
95.02
98.54
-
-
-
I
Truck
-
81.14
97.02
85.71
88.08
87.18
-
94.38
-
90.55
79.45
-
-
93.99
86.52
82.92
Tvnp of T onHlnff
x y jjc vi, i^uttu j.iig
Transport Tanker
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
Transport Tanker
Account Truck
Transport Tanker
Account Truck
Account Truck
Transport Tanker
Transport Tanker
Account Truck
Account Truck
Account Truck
-------
1. Pressure Relationship
During a transport delivery, a consistent pressure increase
in the bulk tanks was found. An average pressure increase of
2
683 N/m (2.74 inches of water) was obtained for the five de-
liveries. This is in line with what was found in Escondido. The
change in pressure could be attributed to various factors. This
is explained in the next section.
A consistent loss of pressure in the bulk tanks was found
during the loading of the account trucks. Considering the large
leaks through truck hatch covers, it seems evident that the loss
of vapors through here, as well as the transfer of liquid gaso-
line from the bulk tanks, were responsible for the decrease in
the pressure reading. The amount of pressure loss was different
2
in each loading but an average loss of about 314 N/m (1.26
inches of water) was obtained for the eleven tests performed with
the account trucks.
2. Exhaust Vent Losses
On the second day of testing at Boulder, Colorado, it was
cloudy in the morning and the ambient temperature was as low as
16.7 C (62 F). It did get warmer in the afternoon and the am-
bient temperature went up to 32.2 °C (90 °F). Either this sudden
rise in temperature or vapor growth from the recent gasoline
transfer (9,500 gallons) caused venting of vapors through the
exhaust vent on the bulk tank.
Vapor growth occurs after air is drawn in through tank vac-
uum vents or through potential leaks to compensate for the de-
crease in volume of liquid drained from tank. This fresh air di-
lutes the vapor concentration causing volatile hydrocarbons to
evaporate from the liquid to restore the equilibrium.
IV-12
-------
The pressure exceeded the PES pressure switch setting of
2 3
2553 N/m (10.25 inches). A volume of 0.14 m (5 cubic feet) was
recorded on the Dry Gas Meter at a vapor temperature of 33.1 C
(91.6 °F). Tabulated data is shown in Table 6. The pressure
2
kept rising constantly and reached a maximum value of 3014 N/m
(12.1 inches) twenty-four minutes after venting started. This
sudden rise in pressure caused all the safety vents on the bulk
tanks to leak, necessitating flow measurements with plastic bags.
3
The pressure decreased below 2553 N/iii (10.25 inches) about sixty
minutes after venting started. Table #7 shows the rise and fall
of pressure with time.
2
Although the pressure went below 2553 N/m (10.25 inches of
water), substantial leaks were present through all the PV vents
on the bulk tanks. Efforts to prevent leakage by sealing
the vents were fruitless, though the leaks were reduced.
3
A total of 7,08 m (250 cu. ft,) of vapor was estimated to
have been vented out through various leaks, (Leakage of vapor from
various hatches and vents was estimated using the bag technique
described on Page III-9). This, with the 0.14m'3 (5 cu. ft.) reading
3
of the dry gas meter gave a total of 7.22 m (255 cu. ft.) of vapor
2
vented during the period when pressure was above 2553 N/m (10,25
inches of water). The concentration of vapors vented was recorded
as 40.8% by volume as propane (27,4% by volume as hydrocarbons).
This venting of vapors could be attributed to two possible
factors. Run #9 was a transport delivery of 35958 liters
(9500 gallons) to the bulk plant, and the entrance of this gasoline
into the system could have caused vapor growth. Coupled with
the increase of ambient temperature, considerable pressure in-
crease could take place. Since the pressure in the vapor space
in the bulk tank increased with temperature, probably some of the
air-vapor mixture in the bulk tank had to be discharged or "breathed-
out" to prevent the safe operating pressure of the tank from being
IV-13
-------
Table 6. BOULDER - EXHAUST VENT DATA
Date
8/2/76
8/2/76
8/2/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
8/3/76
8/4/76
8/4/76
8/4/76
8/5/76
8/5/76
8/5/76
8/5/76
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Special
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plant
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Time
1127
1315
1430
0724
0840
0955
1040
1350
1425
1530
0745
0850
1350
0725
0825
0935
1115
Ambient
Temperature
°F
58
58
58
62
66
69
72
79
68
90
71
72
.78
68
75
74
79
°C
14.4
14.4
14.4
16.7
18.9
20.6
22.2
26.1
20.0
32.2
21.7
22.2
25.6
20.0
23.9
23.3
26.1
Pressure
Hg
-
-
-
30.13
30.13
30.13
30.13
30.13
30.10
30.10
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.05
30.05
30.05
30.05
N/M2xl03
-
-
-
102.1
102.1
102.1
102.1
102.1
102.0
102.0
101.6
101.6
101.6
101.8
101.8
101.8
101.8
Gas Meter
Initial
Ft3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Final
Ft3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5+250*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vapor
Temperature
°F
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
91.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
°C
-
-
-
-
- .
-
-.
-
-
33.1
-
-
-
-
-
Exhaust
Concentration
Z Prop.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
. 0.0
0.0
0.0
40.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Z H.C.
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
Pressure in Bulk Tanks
Pre
Inches
H20
4.5
2.7
1.0
0.1
3.0
3.2 .
3.8
- 0.8
- 0.6
10.2
1.1
3.6
- 0.5
0.5
2.5
4.7
5.2
N/M2
1121
673
249
- 25
747
797
947
- 199
- 149
2553
274
898
- 125
125
623
1171
1295
Post
Inches
V
6.0
0.8
- 0.1
0.0
0.7
2.3
8.5
-00.7
1.7
10.2
0.8
1.4
3.0
2.3
1.8
2.2
3.0
N/M2
1495
199
- 25
0
423
573
2117
- 174
423
2553
199
349
747
573
448
548
747
Liquid
Dispensed
Gals.
9500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
9500
3000
9500
3000
3000
9500
9500
3000
3000
3000
Ltrs.
35958
11355
11355
11355
11355
11355
35958
11355
35958
12355
11355
35958
35958
11355
11355
11355
*Leak Total - 250 cu. ft.
I-1
*-
-------
Table 7. PRESSURE DATA DURING VENTING AT BOULDER
Time on
8/3/76
1531
1532
1537
1539
1542
1545
1548
1556
1557
1601
1605
1613
1617
1622
1630
1634
1636
1641
1646
1652
1655
Pressure in Bulk
Tanks
Inches H20
10.0
10.3
10.7
11.0
11.3
11.5
11.7
12.0
12.1
12.1
12.0
11.8
11.3
10.7
10.2
9.9
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.4
8.7
N/m2
2491
2553
2653
2740
2815
2865
2914
2989
3014
3014
2989
2939
2815
2665
2541
2479
2441
2416
2391
2342
2167
Average
Temperature in
Bulk Tanks
°F
79.0
79.6
81.2
83.2
°C
26.1
26.4
27.3
28.4
Remarks
Start of
venting
Venting
stopped
IV-15
-------
exceeded. Other than the venting on this particular day, no
other venting through the exhaust vent took place for the re-
mainder of the tests.
IV-16
-------
C. Gas Chromatograph Analysis
A gas chromatograph analysis was done on grab samples taken
during testing both at Boulder and Escondido. Altogether, nine
samples were analyzed. Analyses were performed at West
Coast Technical Service in Cerritos, California and Rinehart
Labs, Inc. in Denver, Colorado.
Analysis for composition by gas chromatography indicated
that the main constituents were butanes (C.) and pentanes (C,.).
The lab reports are attached in Appendix D.
Glass bulbs were used for sampling. The bulbs were first
evacuated and then grab sampling was done through a quick dis-
connect in the vapor return line. Five samples were taken at
Escondido and seven samples at Boulder. During transportation
from Escondido to West Coast Technical Service, evidence of
leakage was found in several sample bulbs and the samples were
discarded. Only two bulbs could be salvaged, but because of the
high percentage of air (Appendix D) these had leakage problems
also. No such problems were encountered at Boulder.
In Table 8, total hydrpcarbon concentration is presented
both in % volume as hydrocarbons and % volume as propane. Since
the chromatograph analysis gives the total concentration in %
volume as hydrocarbons, the flame ionization detector concentra-
tion in % volume as propane has been converted to % volume as
hydrocarbon based on the ratio of average carbon number obtained
from G.C. analysis and the carbon number of propane (3) which the
F.I.D. is calibrated to detect.
The average molecular weight of the hydrocarbon vapors ob-
tained from G.C. analysis is 64.44. This average is based on the
seven G..C. samples obtained in Boulder. The two G.C. samples ob-
IV-17
-------
Table 8. SUMMARY OF G. C. ANALYSIS
Run No.
11
15
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
Location
Escondido
Escondido
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Boulder
Date
7/22/76
7/23/76
8/ 3/76
8/ 4/76
8/ 4/76
8/ 5/76
8/ 5/76
8/ 5/76
8/ 5/76
*
Average
Molecular
Weight
67.93
69.71
65.49
65.. 64
63.52
63.99
65.44
64.73
62.28
*
Average
Carbon
Number
4.74
4.87
4.55
4.56
4.41
4.44
4.54
4.49
4.32
Total H.C. from
G.C. Analysis in
% Volume Hydrocarbons
As analysed
1.24
4.58
10.23
19.67
17.46
23.93
8.34
16.47
20.49
**
Corrected
for Air
1.84
6.78
17.05
33.17
29.22
40.92
14.32
28.27
35.11
Total H.C. from
F.I.D.
7, Volume
l.C. Based on
Carbon Number
8.90
16.87
28.75
30.20
31.97
28.17
9.85
24.45
26.88
% Volume
Propane
14.06
27.38
43.60
45.90
41.70
41.70
14.90
36.60
38.70
Total H.C.
From G.C.
Analysis.
% Volume"
Propane
Corrected
for Air
Content
2.90
11.00
25.85
50.43
42.97
60.62
21.70
42.37
50.56
Average Carbon number excluding Run numbers 11 and 15 = 4.47
Average Molecular Weight excluding Run numbers 11 and 15 = 64.44
* Sample calculation in Appendix A.
**Corrected for amount of air not evacuated from sample bulb.
i-"
00
-------
tained in Escondido were excluded in the calculation because of
the high percentage of air present in them.
The concentration derived from the F.I.D. curve is the
average concentration of hydrocarbons during the test period. A
grab sample of vapors was also taken during the test period for
G. C. analysis. Since the G. C. sample is a relatively instanta-
neous concentration. This value is not necessary equivalent to
the average concentration obtained for the test period.
IV-19
-------
D. RVP ANALYSIS
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) samples were drawn from the ac-
count trucks and the transport tankers. These samples were taken
according to method specified by ASTM D270-65. All RVP samples
were analyzed by E. W. Saybolt & Company, Wilmington, California.
Copies of their lab reports are included in Appendix B.
The range of RVP samples collected at Escondido is from 8.7
to 9.3. Samples collected at Boulder had a range of 7.6 to 8.8.
Existing reference tables,which relate volume percent
hydrocarbons in a saturated gasoline vapor/air mixture to the
variables RVP and temperature, generally predict higher values of
percent HC than observed among the sample analyses performed for
this program. For instance, a gasoline of 8 Ib RVP at 100°F normally
contains 57.8%* hydrocarbons by volume (at saturation) and approxi-
mately 65.3% for a gasoline of 9 Ib RVP representing the range of
expected values of percent HC during the testing.
Comparing this with the average values for percent HC observed
during the testing at Escondido, the analyses indicate that a typi-
cal vapor/air emission during product transfer was not saturated. On
the other hand a few analyses taken during the testing at Boulder did
indicate percent HC values very close to the predicted saturated values.
The deviation from equilibrium of saturation is usually
caused by "in breathing" by tanks. When the air temperature cools,
as at night, the vapor space within the tank cools and the vapors
contract. Fresh air is drawn in through tank vacuum vents to compen-
sate for the decrease in vapor volume. As this fresh air dilutes the
vapor concentration, more volatile hydrocarbons evaporate from the
liquid to restore the equilibrium.
*API Bulletin 2518, June 1962.
IV-20
-------
Another possible cause of unsaturated vapors at Escondido
could be the use of gasoline station pumps which have a vacuum
assist system of operation. (The suction of vapors at the noz-
zle interface causes air to be drawn in.)
Escondido, California
Average R.V.P.
Average R.V.P.
Transport Tankers
Account Trucks
9.25
8.84
Boulder, Colorado
Average R.V.P.
Average R.V.P.
Transport Tankers
Account Trucks
8.48
8.42
The tanker and bulk tank R.V.P.'s were nearly equal and
suggest that the volatility of the gasoline was not appreciably
different.
IV-21
-------
V. CONCLUSIONS
As a result of tests performed on vapor recovery installations
at two gasoline bulk plants, the following conclusions have been
reached.
1. Vapor-balance systems, with or without associated
refrigeration for cooling storage tanks, can con-
trol vapor emissions, during delivery of gasoline
by transport tankers, with efficiency greater
than 90 percent. In all of ten such transfers
observed in this study, the efficiency observed
ranged from 90 to 100 percent.
2. Vapor-balance systems, with or without associated
refrigeration, can control vapor emissions during
loading of account trucks with efficiency greater
than 90 percent. In twelve of thirty such trans-
fers observed in this study, the efficiency
observed ranged from 90 to 100 percent.
3. The tests performed yielded no evidence that the
secondary system employed at one bulk plant pro-
vided better emission control than the unassisted
system employed at the other plant. Minimum
observed efficiencies in loading of account trucks
were 43 percent with the refrigeration system, as
compared with 79 percent for the unassisted vapor
balance system.
4. The efficiency attainable in loading account trucks
appears to depend markedly on the condition of
hatches and seals, and on the degree of care
exercised in making connections. At the Escondido
bulk plant, four account trucks were used; during
loading, the two newer trucks had consistently
lower emissions than the oldest truck, but none of
the four consistently showed control efficiency
as high as 90 percent.
5. Venting of a storage tank occurred once during the
period of testing at each of the plants. The
venting of the tank at Escondido, with the re-
frigeration system, released only a negligible
amount of gas, unmeasurable with the study equip-
ment. The venting from the tank at Boulder,
however, continued for about an hour and released
V-l
-------
an estimated 7 cubic meters (250 cubic feet)
of gas containing about 25 percent hydrocarbons.
(This would be roughly equivalent to about 7
liters of liquid gasoline, or about two gallons),
Losses of this order of magnitude may be pre-
ventable by a secondary control system of the
type used in the Escondido plant.
6. The average molecular weight of hydrocarbon
vapors recovered, as indicated by gas chroma-
tographic analysis, was about 64 (intermediate
between butane and pentane).
7, Reid Vapor Pressure measurements of the liquid
gasoline transferred indicated that gases
emitted during liquid transfer at the Escondido
facility were typically not saturated with
gasoline vapor, whereas those emitted during
transfer at Boulder were near saturation.
This difference is possibly attributable to the
effect of the refrigeration unit at Escondido.
Control of gasoline vapors associated with product transfer
at the bulk plant is a relatively new field. This testing has
resulted in the understanding of many factors as well as the
evolution of new uncertainties. As an aid to minimizing hydrocarbon
losses to the atmosphere, thorough inspections could be conducted
periodically of bulk tanks, vapor return connections and bulk
trucks for leakage of vapor. To eliminate hydrocarbon losses from
the pressurized storage tanks due to the opening of liquid level
measuring hatches, tank level indicators could be installed.
The testing required for compliance will vary depending upon
the regulation promulgated. A regulation based upon emission rate
(gm/gallon) would require testing as described in Appendix A for
both balance systems and secondary vapor recovery systems. A
regulation based upon volume percent could require simplified
testing for vapor balance systems and secondary systems whose
processor does not vent to the atmosphere (as the system in Escon-
dido) . In these cases, volume measurements of the return vapor
and venting losses (barring any leaks) would only be required.
V-2
-------
Assuming that the concentrations in the return line and at the
vent are the same, efficiencies would be calculated on theoreti-
cal versus actual volume of vapors returned to the system.
V-3
-------
APPENDIX A
TEST PROCEDURES AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
-------
GASOLINE VAPOR EMISSION TEST PROCEDURE FOR SMALL BULK PLANTS
1. Principle
Hydrocarbon mass emissions are determined directly and indirectly
using flow meters and hydrocarbon analyzers. The volume of liquid gaso-
line dispensed (or transferred to storage tanks) is determined. Results
are expressed in terms of grams emitted per gallon dispensed (or volu-
metric control efficiency, for filling storage tanks equipped with vapor
balance systems not utilizing secondary processing units).
2. Application
This method is applicable to determining emission rates from the
delivery of gasoline to bulk plant storage tanks utilizing secondary
processing systems, and to the dispensing of gasoline from bulk plants
to delivery trucks equipped with vapor return lines whether or not
secondary processing units are utilized at the bulk plant. Volumetric
efficiency only is determined for delivery of gasoline to bulk plant
tanks where vapor balance systems not utilizing secondary processing units
are installed.
3. Definitions
3.1 Small bulk plant. An intermediate gasoline distributing facility
where delivery to and from the bulk plant storage tanks is by truck,
and where total volume of gasoline delivered from the plant does not exceed
20,000 gallons per day.
3.2 Vapor balance or displacement vapor recovery system. A gasoline
vapor control system which uses direct displacement to force vapors into
the storage tanks (or bulk delivery truck tank) to prevent the emission
of displaced vapors to the atmosphere during delivery of gasoline to the
bulk plant storage tanks or during the filling of bulk delivery truck tanks
from the bulk plant.
3.3 Secondary processing unit. A gasoline vapor control system which
utilizes a means of destroying or recovering gasoline vapors which other-
wise might be vented during the transfer of gasoline to or from bulk plants.
Some secondary processing units incorporate vacuum-inducing devices to
aspirate vapors into the processing unit.
4. Summary of the Methods
This procedure describes test conditions and test procedures to be
followed in determining hydrocarbon emission rates and or recovery
efficiencies from vapor balance and secondary processing vapor recovery
systems installed to control emissions from the filling of bulk plant
A-l
-------
storage tanks or bulk delivery truck loading operation at small
bulk plants.
4.1 Transport delivery to bulk plant having vapor balance system
only. Direct measurements of volumetric vent losses are made for determina-
tion of emission losses and system efficiency of vapor balance collection
systems during bulk deliveries to small bulk plants. The volume of vapors
exhausted to atmosphere during a bulk delivery is measured, Control
efficiency is determined from the ratio of volume emitted (corrected to
the temperature of the bulk tank) divided by the volume of gasoline
delivered.
4.2 Transport delivery to bulk plant having vapor return plus
secondary processing unit. Direct measurements of hydrocarbon concentration
and volume of secondary processor emissions are made in order to determine
efficiency of the secondary system in controlling vapors displaced during
bulk delivery of gasoline to bulk plant storage tanks. All possible points
of emission are checked for vapor leafcs and estimates made of their
magnitude.
4.3 Loading of bulk delivery trucks at bulk plants having vapor
balance system only. Direct measurements of hydrocarbon concentrations
and volume at tank vent and in vapor return line are made in order to
determine mass rate of emissions and efficiency in controlling vapors
displaced during loading of bulk delivery trucks at bulk plants. All
possible points of emission are checked for vapor leaks and estimates made
of their magnitude.
4.4 Loading of bulk delivery trucks at bulk plants having vapor return
plus secondary processing unit. Direct measurements of hydrocarbon concen-
trations and flow are made on 3econdary processor emissions and on vapor
returned from the bulk delivery truck in order to determine mass rate of
emissions and efficiency in controlling vapors displaced during loading
of bulk delivery trucks at bulk plants. All possible points of emission are
checked for vapor leaks and estimates made of their magnitude.
5. Test Scope and Conditions
5.1 Test Period. The elapsed time during which the test is conducted
shall not be less than three days.
5.2 Number of loadings to be tested:
5.2.1 Transport delivery to bulk plant. A minimum of five transport
deliveries shall be tested.
5.2.2 Loading bulk delivery trucks. A minimum of ten bulk delivery
truck loadings shall be tested.
A-2
-------
5.3 Bulk plant status during test period. The test procedure is
designed to measure emissions and control efficiency under normal
conditions of operation. The following guidelines are provided to assist
in determining normal operation.
5.3.1 Simultaneous use of more than one dispenser during loading
of bulk delivery trucks shall occur to the extent that such use would
normally occur.
5.3.2 Dispensing rates shall be at the maximum rate possible
consistent with normal and safe operating practices.
5.4 Secondary processing unit status during test period. Control
set points, cycling rates, temperatures of cooling devices, pressures,
and other operating parameters shall be as specified for the processing
unit by the manufacturer. Any deviations from these conditions shall
be allowed only to the extent that normal operating practice has resulted
in a permanent change in these conditions. Allowance shall be made for -
effects of ambient temperatures.
6. Basic Measurements and Equipment Required
6.1 Basic measurements required for the determination of emissions from
gasoline bulk plants are described below. Some measurements are noted as
optional. These are not necessary in determination of emission rates or
of efficiencies of control, but can be of value in the description of the
operation of the vapor recovery system. The various sampling points are
numbered in Figure 1.
6.1.1 Transport delivery to bulk plant - vapor balance.
Sample Point Measurement Necessary
1 (Vent outlet for bulk plant Volume of vapors exhausted
tank)
2 (Bulk plant tank) Temperature of liquid, pressure
in tank
3 (transport tanker) Temperature of liquid.pressure in
tanker truck,.volume and rate of
gasoline delivered, Reid vapor -
pressure of fuel delivered. Check
for leaks at all connections
6.1.2 Transport delivery to bulk plant - secondary processor
A-3
-------
a. Transport delivery to bulk plant- vapor balance
0
To other tanks
Tank
b. Transport delivery to bulk plant - secondary processor
Tank
Processor
Figure 1. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
A-A
-------
Sample Point Measurement
1 (inlet of processor) Hydrocarbon concentration
2 (exhaust vent of processor) Hydrocarbon concentration
Volume of exhaust gases
Temperature
Pressure
3 (tank vent) Check for hydrocarbon leaks
4 (bulk plant, tank) Temperature of liquid
Pressure in tank
5 (transport tanker) Temperature of liquid
Pressure in tank
Volume and rate of gasoline
delivered
Reid vapor pressure of gasoline
Check for leaks at all connections
6.1.3 Loading bulk truck at bulk plant - vapor balance
Sample Point Measurement
1 (tank vent) Hydrocarbon concentration
Volume of vapors exhausted
2 (tank) Temperature of liquid
Pressure in tank
3 (vapor return line) Hydrocarbon concentration
Volume of returned vapors
Pressure
Gas chromatograph analysis of
HC vapors
4 (bulk truck) Temperature of liquid
Pressure in truck before and
after filling
5 (gasoline dispenser) Volume and rate of delivered
gasoline
Reid vapor pressure of dispensed
gasoline
leak check at all connections, vents, and hatches
A-5
-------
6.1.4 Loading bulk plant truck - secondary processor
Sample Point Measurement
1 (inlet to processor) Pressure
2 (exhaust vent of processor) Hydrocarbon concentration
Volume of exhaust gases
Temperature
Pressure
3 (tank vent) Check for leaks
4 (tank) Temperature of liquid
Pressure in tank
5 (return vapor line) Hydrocarbon concentration
Volume of returned vapors
Pressure
Gas chromatograph analysis
of HC vapors
6 (bulk truck) Temperature of liquid
Pressure in truck before
and after loading
7 (gasoline dispenser) Volume and rate of dis-
pensed gasoline)
Reid vapor pressure of
dispensed gasoline
leak check at all connections, vents, and hatches
A-6
-------
7.0 TEST PROCEDURES
7.1 Install into the vapor return line the (TP-9) Rockwell Turbine
meter. This meter is equipped with flexible hosing and appropriate
couplings (OPW female #17110 and # 1711GC). At the coupling on the
meter inlet side install one tap for 1/4" O.D. tubing and
a tap for a thermocouple. At the coupling on the outlet side in-
stall two taps for 1/4" O.D. tubing connected to the Beckman F.I.D.
Hydrocarbon Analyzer and to a 0-6" inclined manometer. The sample
line to the H.C. Analyzer pump should draw about 500 cc/min of sam-
ple, and the sample line should be disconnected when no loading is
in progress.
7.2 Install negative and positive pressure switches (Dwyer) on the
vacuum and positive pressure sides at the exhaust vent. The diaphragm
motion of the pressure switches will actuate the electric switch of
the appropriate solenoid valve. Thus, regulating breathing in and out
of the bulk storage tank. (These pressure switches and solenoids
valves (ASCO) perform the same function as the P-V vent at the ex-
haust) . On the positive pressure side a 1000 cfh dry gas meter is in-
stalled. Attach a 1/4" tap at the volume meter outlet. Attach a sam-
ple line for the F.I.D. Hydrocarbon Analyzer to this tap.
8.0 MEASUREMENTS AND DATA REQUIRED FOR EVALUATING SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
INCLUDE;
8.1 Record the temperature and volume of gasoline in each bulk
storage tank at the beginning and end of each test period (or daily
at least).
8.2 At the end of each test period, record the meter readings of
the gasoline dispensed.
8.3 Record the initial reading from the dry gas meter at the exhaust
gas vent of the bulk storage tank.
8 .4 Record ambient temperature and barometric pressure every two
hours during the test period.
8.5 Record the identification number, compartment number and volume
of each truck tested.
8.6 Prior to loading, record the liquid temperature and pressure in
bulk storage tanks.
8.7 Record the initial reading on the meter in the vapor return line
prior to loading.
8.8 Time the loading operation so as to obtain the total dispensing
time and dispensing rate of liquid.
A-7
-------
8.9 After loading begins, record the pressure in the vapor return
line.
8.95 Extract a sample for RVP analysis during loading from the
delivered gasoline.
8.10 During loading check all fittings with the explosimeter. Record
any incidents of leakage of hydrocarbon vapors.
8.11 During loading monitor the temperature and hydrocarbon
concentration of the returned vapors and/or vented vapors.
8.12 During refueling, extract a sample of the returned vapors for
chromatograph hydrocarbon analysis.
g.13 After refueling, record the final gas meter reading, average
temperature and average concentration of returned vapors and/or
vented vapors.
8.14 Record the meter readings associated with any changes in H.C.
concentration. (It would be helpful to extract samples of the
exhaust vapors for chromatograph analysis during periods of increased
H.C. concentration.)
A-8
-------
c. Loading bulk truck at bulk plant - vapor balcince
_J
C3-
Tank
d. Loading bulk truck at bulk plant - secondary processor
0
"OH
Tank
©
Processor
Figure 1. SAMPLING LOCATIONS (continued)
A-9
-------
BULK PLANT
GASOLINE VAPOR CONTROL
SUMMARY OF MEASUREMENTS
AMBIENT DATA
Temperature, °R
.Barometric Pressure, in.Hg.
BULK PLANT TANKS'
Temperature of vapor, °R
Gage pressure of vapor, in.H^O
Gasoline volume change, gal.
TRANSPORT TANKER
Identification Data
Vapor temperature, °R
Gage pressure in tanker, in.HpO
RVP of gasoline
Gasoline delivered, gal.
Delivery time, minutes
Leak checks
BULK PLANT TANK VENT
Volume of vapor vented, ft
Temperature of metered vapors, °R
Ga.ge pressure at njeter, in. FLO
Hydrocarbon concentration, vol. frac.
Leak check (only)
VAPOR RETURN LINE FROM TRUCK
Volume of return vapor, ft
Temperature of metered vapors, °R
Gage pressure at meter, in.H-O
Hydrocarbon concentration, vol. frac.
(GC Analysis)
TRANSPORT DELIVERY
TO
BULK PLANT
Vapor
Balance
System
Only
Ta
Pa
©**
b *
(AHb)
(Gb)
©
+
-------
BULK PLANT
GASOLINE VAPOR CONTROL
SUMMARY OF MEASUREMENTS
(continued)
PROCESSOR INLET
Hydrocarbon concentration, vol. frac.
Gage pressure, inches H»0
PROCESSOR EXHAUST VENT
Volume of vapor vented, ft
Temperature of metered vapor, °R
Gage pressure at meter, in.H20
Hydrocarbon concentration, vol. frac.
GASOLINE DISPENSER
Gasoline dispenced, gal. (total)
Gasoline dispensed, gal. (during operation of processor)
Delivery time, minutes
RVP of gasoline
BULK TRUCK
Identification Data
Vapor Temperature, °R
Gage pressure in truck, in.HpO
Leak checks
TRANSPORT DELIVERY
TO
BULK PLANT
Vapor
Balance
System .
Only
Vapor Return
Plus
Secondary
Processing
'Unit
©
Ci
AH.
©
vs
Ts
Cs
LOADING OF
BULK DELIVERY
TRUCKS
Vapor
Balance
System
Only
©
Gv
(t)
4.
©
+
(Tv)
(^v)
*
Vapor Return
Plus
Secondary
Processing
Unit
©
AH.
©
vs
Ts
c!
©
Gv
GP
(t)
+
©
f
(Tv)
(AHV)
+
-------
CALCULATIONS
Notes: a) SCF = ft3 0 68°F (528°R) and 29.92 in.Hg
b) Starred (*) values subject to increase if leaks occur.
1. Transport delivery to bulk plant having vapor balance system only
(Vapor Displaced - Vapor Vented) ,
Ey, Volumetric efficiency, % = ( Vapor Displaced )
Gv /528\ / Pa+AHv/13'6\
Vapor displaced, SCF = ^p (f^j (29ag* )
/52
V9 \Tg
P +AH /13.6
Vapor vented, SCF = Vg (ff) ( ^
Assume AHr = AH
Then Ey % = ((y7 481 ^ _ 100
= 100 - 748.1 v* Tfc
2. Transport delivery to bulk plant having vapor return plus
secondary processing unit
i) Ev, vol. effic. , % = 100 - 748.1 v* Tfa
GvTs
ii) V = volume of vapor vented from processor, SCF
s v x 528 x(P
TS x 29.92
iii) .W = wt of hydrocarbon vented from processor, gm
vs x cs x MP x m
where M = Molecular wt. of calibration gas (propane), Ib/lb-mole
*
iv) Emission Rate, gm/gallon = W /G
v) Weight efficiency (optional)
A-12
-------
v) continued
(Mt HC Displ. - Wt. HC vented)
E, weight efficiency, % = 100 (Wt. HC Displ.:)
w
Vy = Vol. of vapor displaced, SCF = Gy x 528 x (Pa + AH./13.6)
7.481 x T. x 29.92
b
W = Wt. of hydrocarbons displaced, gm = V x C. x M x 454/385
Ew, % = 100 (Wv - Ws)/W*v
3. Loading of bulk delivery trucks at bulk plants having vapor
balance system only
i) V = volume of vapor vented from bulk tank, SCF
= Vg x 528 x(Pa +AHg/13.6)
T x 29.92
ii) W = weight of hydrocarbon vented, gm
y
= V x C x M x 454/385
iii) vr = Volume of vapor returned from bulk truck during filling, SCF
= v x 528 x (Pa + AH/13.6)
r a r
Tr x 29.92
iv) W = weight of hydrocarbons returned, gm
= Vr x Cr x M x 454/385
v) Emission Rate, gm/gallon = W /G
vi) Weight efficiency, %
Eo/ _ inn 9 ' 9 . irtrt
,, % = 100 a a =
A-13
-------
4. Loading of bulk delivery trucks at bulk plants having vapor return
plus secondary processing unit
i) V = vol. of vapor vented from processor, SCF
= vc x 528 x(J> + AH/13.6)
S a a
TS x 29.92
ii) W = wt. of hydrocarbon vented, gm.
= Vs x Cs x M x 454/385
iii) V - total vol. of vapor returned from bulk truck
r during filling, SCF
= v,. x 528 x (Pa + AH /13.6)
r a r
T x 29.92
r
iv) V = vol. of vapor vented to processor when latter is
operating, SCF
V * VS
v) W = weight of hydrocarbon vented to processor, gm.
= V x C x M x 454/385
r r p
vi ) Emission Rate, gm/gallon = W*s/Gy
vii) Weight efficiency, %
(W + W ) - W W
Eu, % = 100 - ^ - r- - §- = 100
W
w + W
A-14
-------
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
1) Transport delivery to bulk plant
Volumetric efficiency (E ) = 100 /Vapor displaced - Vapor vented and lost
Vapor displaced
Run #7 - Boulder, Colorado
Vapor displaced, S.C.F. = G
v
7.481
528\
\b/
(P + AH/13.6)
SL
29.92
= 9500 x (528) (.25.7 + .622/13.6)
7.481 (546.83) 29.92
= 1055.1 ft3
Vapor vented (V ) = 0
O
3
Volume of vapor lost due to leaks = 1.3 ft
Volumetric efficiency = /1053.8^ IOQ
\1Q55.1,
= 99.87%
2) Loading of account trucks at bulk plants
Run #8 - Escondido, California
i) Volume of vapor vented from bulk tank S.C.F.
3
but leaks = 19.6 ft
ii) W = weight of hydrocarbon vented, gm
O
= V x C x M x 454/385
8 8 P
= 19o6 x 11.78 x 44 x 454/385
100
= 119.8 grams
A-15
-------
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS (Cont'd)
lii) V = Volume of vapors returned from account truck during
r filling SCF
= V x 528 x (P + AH /13.6)
r 3. r
Tr x 29.92
184 x 528 x (29.6 + 0.2/13.6)
(460 + 67) 29.92
182.6 ft3
iv) W = Weight of hydrocarbons returned, grams
= V x C x M x 454/385
r r p
= 182.6 x 11.78 x 44 x 454
100 385
= 1116.1 grams
vi) Weight efficiency %
E % = 100 (Wr/W + W )
w r r g'
= 100 ( 1116.1/1116.1 + 119.8)
= 90.3%
Note:
Since it is assumed that concentration of leaks is the same
as that of the vapors in the vapor return line, the volumetric
efficiency is equal to weight efficiency and a direct calculation
for efficiency can be made from the standard and ideal volumes.
E = E = 202.6 - 19.6J 100
y 202.6
= 9003%
A-16
-------
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS (Cont'd)
G.C.
Total % Hydrocarbons = 20.491 [reference Page D-4]
, , . Total number of carbon atoms present
Average carbon number = - - - , , - - - * -
& Total Hydrocarbons
= [1.13 x 1 + 0.001 x 2 + 0.15 x 2 + 0.03 x 3 + 0.82 x 3 +3.03
x 4 + 1.12 x 4 + 3.53 x 4 + 0.84 x 4 + 6.18 x 5 + 2.89 x' 5
+ 0.44 x 6 + 0.16 x 7 + 0.17 x 8]/ 20.491
= 88.532/20.491
= 4.32
Similary
Average molecular weight = [1.13 x 16 + 0.01 x 26 + 0.15.x 28
+ 0.03 x 42 + 0.82 x 44 + 3.03 x 58 + 1.12 x 56 + 3.53 x 58
+ 0.84 x 56 + 6.18 x 72 + 2.89 x 72 + 0.44 x 86 + 0.16 x 100
+ 0.17 x 114]/ 20.491
= 1276.146
20.491
62.28
% volume as hydrocarbon = % volume as propane x carbon number of propane
Av. Carbon Number
- 38.70 x^_
% volume as hydrocarbon = 26.88
A-17
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF EQUIPMENT
-------
EQUIPMENT FOR BULK PLANT TESTING
2 Beckman Model 400 FID continuous hydrocarbon analyzers with
automatic fuel shut-off
1 Dual Pen - Dual speed compatible recorder
1 American Meter Model AL-1000
2 Inclined manometers Dwyer Model 246 (0-6")
2 Inclined Manometers Dwyer Model 202.5 (0-2")
1 Rockwell turbine meter Model TP-9
1 Combustible gas analyzer - Bacharach Instruments Model SSP
2 Solenoid valves with accompanying pressure switches
1 Male-Female pair modified OPW vapor return truck connectors
40 RVP Sample Recovery Containers
15 G.C. Gas Sample Bulbs
7 Thermocouples Thermo Electric J-18-G-304-0-120-4A
1 Portable Potentiometer Thermo Electric Minimite Model 31101
1 Thermocouple Panel and Selector switch Thermo Electric Models
41806-Jx and 33104
1 Instrument Rack Assembly (Standard 19")
1 Equipment Support Cart
3
2 150 ft Hydrogen fuel mixture cylinders (He 60%, H_ 40%) Scott-Marrin
3
4 150 ft zero air cylinders - Scott-Marrin
3
1 150 ft span gas cylinder (1.48% propane in air) - Scott-Marrin
3 2-Stage regulators - Scott-Marrin 2SB75-350 & 2SB75-590
2 Brooks Rotameters (0-140 cc/min.)
2 Brooks Rotameters (0-2.5 1/min.)
4 Needle valves
Polyethylene tubing
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE DATA SHEETS
-------
P.E.S. - SANTA MONICA, CA. 90404
BULK PLANT TEST PROGRAM
VAPOR RETURN DATA
TEST NO.
DATE
TEST LOCATION
NO. OF BULK TANKS
D TRANSPORT
TIME
DELIVERY D BULK TRUCK DISPENSING
GAS METER READING
READING CF
PRESSURE, "H20
INLET
OUTLET
REMARKS
,
TYPE AND VOLUME OF I
GASOLINE BEING PUMPEDI
RVP SAMPLE $
G,C. SAMPLE //
LEAK CHECKS:
DATA TAKEN BY
C-l
-------
P.E.S. - SANTA MONICA, CA. 90404
BULK PLANT TEST PROGRAM
BULK TANK AND AMBIENT DATA
TEST NO.
DATE
TEST LOCATION
NO. OF BULK TANKS
CONTROL SYSTEM
BULK TANK NO.
CAPACITY GAL.
LIQ. VOL. INITIAL
LIQ. VOL. FINAL
GASOLINE VOL.
CHANGE, GAL.
TIME
GAUGE PRESSURE
OF VAPOR, 'XO
GASMETER READING,
C.F.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, "Hg
LEAK CHECKS
AMBIENT TEMP
REMARKS:
DATA TAKEN BY
C-2
-------
P.E.S. - SANTA MONICA. CA. 90404
BULK PLANT TEST PROGRAM
H.C. VAPOR DATA
TEST NO.
DATE
TEST LOCATION
NO. OF BULK TANKS
POSITIVE
P.V. SETTINGS
P.E.S.
VACUUM
TIME
TEMPERATURE
OF
J?l
n
#3
#4
#>
#fi
#7
ROTOMETERS
BLUE
VAPOR
AIR
RED
VAPOR
AIR
HYDROCARBON
CONCENTRATION
NOTED FROM
POINTS //
REMARKS
REMARKS;
DATA TAKEN BY
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY ANALYSES REPORTS
-------
;;j3 1 21976
AND FATS.
LOS ANGELES AREA -
SPRUCE 5-1153
HARBOR AREA -TERM IN AL 5 -B 38 3
JOS. H. McCABE JOS. H. MCCABE, JR.
APPROVED AND LICENSED BY
THE NEW YORK PRODUCE EXCHANGE
INSPECTORS OF PETROLEUM
LOS ANQELES AREA
P. D. BOX 1146 - US AVALON BLVD.
WILMINGTON. CALIF. 9O744
ERVINO THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY FOR OVER *Q YEARS
DEPENDABLE INSPECTION SERVICE AT ALL PORTS ON THE ATLANTIC, OULF AND PACIFIC COASTS
LABORATORIES
KENILWORTH. N.J.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
HAMMOND. I NO.
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX.
PASADENA (HOUSTON), TEX.
WILMINGTON, CALIF.
TAMPICO, MEX.
SEATTLE. WASH.
PORTLAND, ORE.
CHICAGO. ILL.
BOSTON. MASS.
WEST HAVEN. CONN.
AMPLE DESIGNATED BY CLIENT AS
FOR
LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT
GASOLINE AUGUST 11,1976
Submitted by Pacific Enironmental Services, Inc.
Analysis
Premium,
Premium,
Premium,
Supreme,
Supreme,
Supreme,
Unleaded
Unleaded
Unleaded
Regular,
Conotane
Conotane
Conotane
Conotane
Conotane
Conotane
Conotane
Conotane
Conotane
8-3-76, # 8B
8-4-76, #11A
8-5-76, #16
8-3-76, # 7A
8-3-76, Run B-4
Run B-3, Truck #9
, 8-3-76, Run #6
, 8-4-76, # lifi
, 8r4-76, # 12A
# 11C
Run # B-4
# 7B
# 8A
# 9
#10
8-4-76,
8^3-76,
8-3-76,
8-3-76,
8-3-76,
8-4-76,
8-4-76, # 12-B
8-5-76,
8-5-76,
#13
#14
Run # B-3, Truck #9
REID VAPOR PRESSURE @ 100°F
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.4
8.5
9.7
8.5
8.8
7.6
8.5
8.5
8.0
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.0
8.3
8.3
FORM 14-CAL(RCV. 1/73)
E. W.
INC.
D-l
-------
c
JOB. H. McCABE JOB. M. MCCABE, JR.
APPROVED AND LICENSED BY
THE NEW YORK PRODUCE EXCHANGE
LOB ANGELES AREA -
SPRUCE 5-11S3
HARBOR AREA-TERMINAL 5-8383
INSPECTORS OF PETROLEUM
LOS ANGELES AREA
P. D. BOX 1146 - 115 AVALDN BLVD.
WILMINGTON. CALIF. 9D744
SERVING THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY FOrf OVCR 6O YEARS
DEPENDABLE INSPECTION SERVICE AT ALL PORTS ON THE ATLANTIC, OULF ANO PACIFIC COASTS
LABORATORIES
KEN IL WORTH, N.J.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
HAMMOND. INO.
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
CORPUS CHRIST), TEX.
PASADENA (HOUSTON), TEX.
WILMINGTON, CALIF.
TAMPICO, MEX.
SEATTLE, WASH.
PORTLAND, ORE.
CHICAGO, ILL.
BOSTON, MASS.
WEST HAVEN, CONN.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT
AMPLE DESIGNATED BY CLIENT AS
GASOLINE
JULY 29,1976
Submitted by Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
Analysis
P.O. NO 641
REID VAPOR PRESSURE @ 100 °F
Unleaded,
Unleaded,
Unleaded,
Unleaded,
Lowlead,
Lowlead,
Lowlead,
Lowlead,
Lowlead,
Supreme ,
Supreme ,
Supreme,
Suprem'e ,
Supreme ,
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
#7, 7-22-76
#18, 7-23-76
#20, 7-23-76
#23, 7-26-76
#4 7-22-76
#7 7-22-76
#16 7-23-76
#19 7-23-76
#23 . 7-26-76
#5 7-21-76
#8 7-22-76
#21 7-23-76
#23 7-26-76
#25 7-26-76
8.7
9.2
8.7
9.0
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.9
9.0
9-3
8.9
8.8
9.0
8.8
FORM !4-CAL{REV. t / 73 )
E.W.
& CO., INC.
D-2
-------
RECEIVED AUS 1 J 1S78
RINEHART LABORATORIES, INC
5810 LAMAR STREET ARVADA. COLO. 80001 P.O. BOX 564 PHONE 422-4020
To:
R. W. RINEHART, Sr., Ph.D., Pres.
A. W. STONE, Sec.-Treas.
Reference No. 760330
P.O. #639
August 9, 1976
Mr. Robert L. Norton
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
1930 14th Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
Subject: GC Analysis of Seven Gasoline Vapor Samples
and One Condensate Sample, identified as
follows;
#1 - Run #9 8/3/76
2 - GC Sample #11
3 - GC #12 8/4/76
4 - GC #13 8/5/76
5 - GC #14 8/5/76
6 - GC #15 8/5/76
7 - GC #16 8/5/76
8 - Condensate 8/4/76 Boulder
Transport
8/4/76 Delivery Vehicle
Transport
Transport
Delivery
Delivery
Delivery
Results:
Interpretation and quantitation of our
gas chromatograph runs of the samples are
shown on the following page.
A. W. S£one
ANALYTICAL
AND
CONSULTING
SERVICES
D-3
-------
Reference No. 760330
P.O. #639
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
Isobutylene
n-butane
cis-2-butane
Isopentane
n-pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes
Octanes
GC #9
0.02
0.0007
0.08
0.03
0.42
1.52
0.46
1.98
0.37
3.21
1.48
0.44
0.17
0.05
GC #11
o.o4
0.001
0.15
o.o4
0.81
2.99
1.03
3.58
0.73
5.93
2.97
0.92
0.37
p. 11
DATA
VOL. %
GC #12
0.04
0.003
0.19
0.17
0.91
2.87
0.96
3.33
0.73
5.32
2.60
0.22
0.07
0.05
GC #13
0.08
0.002
0.25
0.02
1.13
3.83
1.42
4.54
0.93
7.29
3.90
0.36
0.11
0.07
GC #14
0.02
0.001
0.05
0.02
0.32
1.21
0.39
1.60
0.33
2.77
1.29
0.14
0.09
0.11
GC #15
0.03
0.001
0.11
0.02
0.66
2.59
0.86
3.08
0.63
5.37
2.72
0.23
0.09
0.08
GC #16
1.13
0.001
0.15
0.03
0.82
3.03
1.12
3.53
0.84
6.18
2.89
0.44
0.16
0.17
CONDENSATE 2.0 % Water
0.9 % Oil (Lubricating Type)
Balance - Gasoline
Rinehart Laboratories, Inc.
Arvada, Colorado
D-4
-------
RECEIVED A'JO 1 1 1976
Report
Prepared For
Mr. Robert Norton
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
1930 - 14th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Date
August 10, 1976
Job No.
10967
PO. No.
628
WEST
COAST
TECHNICAL
SERVICE
INC.
17605 Fabrics Way, Suite D
Cerritos, California 90701
213/921-9831
714/523-9200
The two gas samples received from you on July 26, 1976 have been
analyzed for composition by gas chromatography. The results are as follows:
Volume Percent
Air
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Butenes
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Pentenes
Hexanes
Hexenes
Heptanes
Benzene
Octanes
Toluene
Nonanes
Sample #1
Run 11
98.74
0.01
0.04
0.08
41
02
35
08
06
0.12
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
Run #15
Standard Oil
Escondido
95.37
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.13
0.25
1.35
0.07
1.26
0.25
0.27
0.55
0.01
0.15
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.01
If we can be of any further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WEST CO/AST TECHNIC^ZrSERVICE INC.
ler, Ph.D.
Vice President-Technical Director
HDF/kd
D-5
This report pertains only to the samples Investigated and does not necessarily apply to other apparently Identical or similar materials. This report Is submitted for the ex-
clusive use of the client to whom it Is addressed. Any reproduction of this report or use of this Laboratory's name for advertising or publicity purposes without written
authorization Is prohibited.
-------
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE CALIBRATION CURVES
-------
2.0
-------
jfli -
o
NJ
20
40
60
80
100 120 140
fe» ML PER MINUTE OF AIR
160
180
-------
* AN.
Hitf
E$
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 340/1-77-012
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
October 1976
Compliance Analysis of Small Bulk Plants
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Pacific Environmental Services,
1930 14th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Inc.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-3156, Task 17
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Division, Region VIII
Denver, Colorado 80203
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Mr. Gary Parish
(303) 327-2361
16. ABSTRACT
Pacific Environmental Services (PES) has completed a testing program
of vapor recovery systems at small bulk plants (less than 20,000
gallons/day) under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3156. Testing was conducted
on a vapor balance system and on a secondary processor (straight
refrigeration) system. The results of 41 tests are presented.
Twenty-five of these tests were performed on the secondary system
(7 transport deliveries, 18 bulk plant delivery vehicles) and
sixteen were conducted on the vapor balance system (5 transport
deliveries, 11 bulk plant delivery vehicles).
The test results indicate that both systems can function with vapor
recovery efficiency greater than 90 percent, but only if account
trucks are maintained leak-free.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Gasoline Bulk Terminals
Vapor Balancing
Vapor Recovery
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Organic Vapors
Organic Vapors
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release: Unlimited
Available free from DSSE/EPA while
the supplies last
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)-
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |