EMB REPORT NO. 77-GA3-19
AIR POLLUTION
EMISSION TEST
0
PHILLIPS FUEL COMPANY
HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
-------
SET 1623 01 1077 i. O 1 U
GASOLINE VAPOR RECOVERY
EFFICIENCY TESTING PERFORMED AT
THE PHILLIPS FUEL COMPANY
BULK LOADING TERMINAL
HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY
Volume I
Task No. 31
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1400
Prepared For:
Emission Measurement Branch
ESED, Mail Drop 13
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
October 1977
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania 18949
-------
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2
2.1 TANK TRUCK VAPOR RECOVERY 2
2.2 BENZENE EMISSIONS AND CONTROL EFFICIENCY 4
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 8
3.1 PLANT DESCRIPTION .
3.2 THE VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM 8
3.3 CARBON BED ADSORBER 10
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 13
4.1 LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS . 13
4.2 CONTINUOUS HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS 13
4.3 HYDROCARBON CHARACTERIZATION . 14
4.4 FLOW MEASUREMENT 14
4.5 TANK TRUCK LEAK DETERMINATION 14
4.6 SAMPLING SCHEDULE 15
4.7 SAMPLING PROCEDURE • • • 15
5.0 CALCULATIONS 16
5.1 TERMINOLOGY 16
5.2 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS 18
6.0 DATA SUMMATION 25
6.1 TRUCK FILL DATA 25
6.2 PROCESSOR DATA 25
6.3 HYDROCARBON RECOVERY RESULTS 25
6.4 COMPOSITION OF HYDROCARBON VAPOR AT PROCESSOR INLET . 25
6.5 COMPOTITION OF HYDROCARBON VAPOR AT PROCESSOR OUTLET 26
6.6 BENZENE CONCENTRATION DATA 26
6.7 BENZENE EMISSIONS 26
7.0 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION DURING TEST PERIOD 36
Scott Environmental ^chnoSogy Inc
-------
-1-
SET 1623 01 1077
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. performed hydrocarbon emission
measurements on the vapor recovery system at the bottom loading bulk gasoline
terminal operated by the Phillips Fuel Company in Hackensack, New Jersey
during the week of May 25, 1977. Gasoline tank trucks and trailers loading
at this terminal serve retail stations equipped for gasoline vapor recovery.
The test program was conducted for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract Number 68-02-1400, Task Order Number 31.
The primary objective of the program was the measurement of the
hydrocarbon mass displaced from the tank trucks and exhausted from the
Hydrotech Engineering, Inc. carbon bed adsorption system installed at the
terminal. The hydrocarbon recovery efficiency of the processing unit and
the overall emission reduction system efficiency at the bulk loading terminal
were also calculated in the program.
To meet these objectives, a sampling and NDIR analysis system
was installed at the terminal which continuously measured the hydrocarbon
concentration of the tank truck vapors which were displaced by the incoming
gasoline. The hydrocarbon concentration of the outlet of the carbon bed
adsorber was also measured. Samples of the gasoline vapors were taken at
the inlet and outlet of the carbon bed adsorption unit and analyzed for
individual hydrocarbons including benzene using a gas chromatograph equipped
with a flame ionization detector. Other data collected included volume
of vapors at the inlet and outlet of the carbon adsorption system and the
extent of vapor leaks around various truck components during each filling
operation.
Scott Environmental "technology Inc.
-------
-2-
SET 1623 01 1077
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The hydrocarbons emitted to the atmosphere during the tank truck
loading operation at Phillips Fuel Company consisted of vapors exhausted
from the processing unit and vapors leaking from the hatches and fittings
of the tank trucks. The daily average hydrocarbon emissions, expressed in
grams per gallon of fuel dispensed, are summarized in Table 2.1. It can
M
be seen that the emissions due to tank truck leakage, ^Or)-i)» were large
M
compared to the emissions from the processing unit, ((7-) )•
ij e
The processing unit efficiency, (E ), relates the mass of hydro-
carbons at the outlet of the unit to that at the inlet. The three day
average was 95.9%. The system efficiency, (E ), relates the hydrocarbons
5
recovered by the processing unit to the total mass of hydrocarbons in the
vapors displaced from the tank trucks by the incoming gasoline. The three
day average was 64.7%.
2.1 TANK TRUCK VAPOR RECOVERY
Tank truck vapor recovery, ((V/L) ), is defined as the volume of
vapor displaced into the processing unit per volume of gasoline loaded
into the tank truck. It is dependent upon the amount of vapor leakage from
the tank truck during filling.
To determine the total mass of hydrocarbon vapors displaced and
thus potentially available for recovery, ((M/L) ), it is necessary to
measure the tank truck vapor recovery for several leak-free trucks. A
leak-free truck is defined as one with no leaks exceeding the lower explosive
limit as measured with explosimeters during filling.
No truck tested in this project met the leak-free requirement.
Therefore (M/L) was estimated from the volume of incoming gasoline by
assuming that the volume of vapors displaced during each truck loading
equaled the volume of gasoline loaded. This is a valid assumption in the
case of a botto:::'Loading terminal where the vapor spaces of the tank trucks
are saturated.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-3-
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE 2.1
SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON RECOVERY AND EFFICIENCY RESULTS
Date
Date
5/25/77
5/26/77
5/27/77
L^
gal
61,899
43,134
76,906
M 2
(-)
Vp
gm/gal
3.68
4.28
3.40
M 3
r
gm/gal
2.66
2.95
2.15
(«)4
Vi
gm/gal
1.02
1.34
1.25
A*
(L>e
gm/gal
0.24
0.10
0.01
i>:
gm/gal
1.26
1.44
1.26
3 Day Weighted Average
°P7
%
91.0
96.6
99.5
95.9
*B8
%
65.8
66.4
62.9
64.7
Notes:
1. Total gallons of gasoline dispensed per day.
2. Average mass of hydrocarbons potentially available for recovery per volume
of gasoline dispensed.
3. Average mass of hydrocarbons returned to processing unit per volume of
gasoline dispensed
4. Average mass of hydrocarbons lost due to truck leakage per volume of
gasoline dispensed.
5. Average mass of hydrocarbons exhausted from the processing unit including
emissions occurring between truck loadings, per volume of gasoline dispensed.
6. Average total mass of hydrocarbons emitted from the system per volume of
gasoline dispensed.
7. Average processing unit hydrocarbon recovery efficiency.
8. Average total system hydrocarbon recovery efficiency.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-4-
SET 1623 01 1077
The tank truck recovery data for each run are given in Table 2.2.
The three day average of hydrocarbon losses due to leakage was 32 % of
the hydrocarbons displaced from the trucks.
The Hydrotech hydrocarbon control system employs the driving
force of the incoming gasoline to drive the vapors from the truck tanks
through the carbon adsorption beds. This created pressures of 10 to 15
inches of water in the tanks during most fillings. Many hatch covers
and other truck components were not sealed tightly enough to prevent sig-
nificant vapor leakage under these pressures.
The hydrocarbon losses due to truck leakage ranged from 0.00 to
3.17 grams per gallon for individual truck loadings. The three day weighted
average was 1.19 grains per gallon.
2.2 BENZENE EMISSIONS AND CONTROL EFFICIENCY
The concentrations of benzene were determined by gas chromatography
for a representative number of integrated bag samples collected at the
inlet and outlet of the processing unit. These data are presented in
Table 6.6. The benzene concentration at the processor outlet was found to
be very low (1-4 ppm) and independent of the outlet hydrocarbon concen-
tration. The benzene concentration at the outlet was also shown to be
lower than that at the inlet by three orders of magnitude. Thus the benzene
losses from the processor can be assumed to be negligible and the total
benzene losses of the system can be equated to the losses due to truck
leakage.
The mass of benzene lost by truck leakage is equal to the total
hydrocarbon mass lost through leakage times the average weight fraction of
benzene in the hydrocarbon vapor. The weight fraction of benzene is given
in Table 6.7 for three vapor samples collected at the inlet during leaded
gasoline loadings and for three samples collected during no-lead loadings.
The average weight fraction is 0.0088. That is, 0.88 out of every 100
grams of hydrocarbons leaked is benzene.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
SET 1623 01 1077
-5-
TABLE 2.2
SUMMARY OF TANK TRUCK RESULTS
/Vv xMv M*
Date
Run //
ft3/f
/1
gm/gal gm/gal gm/gal
5/25/77
Daily Avg.
5/26/77
Daily Avg.
5/27/77
Daily Avg.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
0.69
0.73
0.74
0.60
0.82
0.94
0.06
0.65
0.89
0.86
0.95
0.69
0.67
0.97
0.85
0.41
*
0.85
0.33
0.89
0.83
0.71
0.50
0.86
0.12
0.75
1.00
0.86
0.59
0.11
0.94
0.72
0.63
0.98
0.76
0.63
2.48
2.88
2.46
1.82
2.37
3.95
0.17
2.71
3.56
3.47
4.49
2.66
3.07
4.58
3.61
1.92
*
3.43
1.58
2.83
3.29
2.95
1.59
3.08
0.43
1.36
3.25
3.82
1.87
*
3.18
2.49
2.88
3.93
3.02
2.15
3.58
3.97
3.31
3.01
2.88
4.21
2.93
4.15
4.01
4.04
4.70
3.68
4.58
4.73
4.24
4.67
A
4.02
4.84
3.17
3.97
4.28
3.20
3.60
3.60
1.82
3.23
4.43
3.16
A
3.39
3.44
4.59
3.99
3.98
3.40
1.10
1.09
0.85
1.19
0.51
0.26
2.76
1.44
0.45
0.57
0.21
1.02
1.51
0.15
0.63
2.75
*
0.59
3.25
0.34
0.68
1.34
1.61
0.52
3.17
0.46
0.00
0.61
1.29
A
0.21
0.95
1.71
0.06
0.96
1.25
*No Data
Scott Environmental "fechndogy Inc
-------
-6-
SET 3623 01 L077
The daily mass emissions of benzene,(Mtb)> and tne system efficiency
for benzene, (E ), are shown in Table 2.3. The average loss, ((M/L) ),
was 0.0105 grams of benzene per gallon of gasoline dispensed.
Scott Environmental Technok5gylnc
-------
-7-
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE 2.3
BENZENE MASS EMISSION AND RECOVERY EFFICIENCY
Date
5/25/77
5/26/77
5/27/77
(M/L)tb
grams /gal
.0090
.0118
.0110
Mtb
grams
557
509
846
Esb
%
72
69
63
Weighted Average .0105 68
C5>
Scott Environmental Technotosy'nc
-------
-8-
SET 1623 01 1077
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3.1 PLANT DESCRIPTION
Phillips Fuel Company is an independent distributor of Texaco
distillation products. It supplies one hundred Texaco service stations
in the northern New Jersey area. In addition, Phillips supplies approxi-
mately 150 independent dealers.
Distribution is accomplished by a fleet of Phillips owned trucks
consisting of two 4000 gallon tank trucks, two 8500 gallon trailer trucks,
one 7500 gallon trailer truck and one 1000 gallon truck. A contractor
owned truck is used occasionally as a replacement carrier.
The handling of no-lead fuel is reserved for specific tank trucks
rather than compartments within tank trucks to minimize chances for contam-
ination. Whenever a tank truck used for leaded fuel is to be utilized for
no-lead, company procedures call for an intermediate load of diesel fuel
to be carried.
The bulk loading terminal of Phillips Fuel Company is located
at 432 South River Street, Hackensack. The terminal consists of three
loading racks covered by a single canopy. Rack Number 1 supplies high
test and regular gasoline. Rack Number 2 supplies high test, regular and
no-lead gasoline. Rack Number 3 supplies diesel fuel and heating oil.
The terminal typically pumps 85 - 90,000 gallons of fuel per day
including diesel fuel. Of gasoline sold, 45% is regular, 30% is no-lead
and 25% is high test. The heaviest demand is usually on Friday when
120,000 gallons may be pumped. Mondays are next busiest with the average
for Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday being 50 - 65,000 gallons.
3.2 THE VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM
A Hydrote.ch Engineering, Inc. carbon bed adsorption-absorption
gasoline recovery system is installed at the Phillips terminal. The
overall loading and control system is illustrated in Figure 3.1
Scott Environmental Technology Inc
-------
FIGURE 3.1 TANK TRUCK GASOLINE SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND LOADING VAPOR CONTROL SCHEMATIC
VEv/T
-f^—Outlet Sampling
Point Location
Inlet Sampling
Point Location
i
VO
-------
-10-
SET 1623 01 1077
Prior to loading a truck, the driver is required to attach a
gasoline vapor exhaust hose to the vent port of his truck. Once loading
commences, the incoming gasoline provides the sole driving force to
displace the vapors from the truck through the vapor exhaust hose to a
manifold located along the canopy over the filling area and then through
the carbon bed adsorption system. The carbon bed adsorption system oper-
ates automatically and requires no action by the driver.
3.3 CARBON BED ADSORBER
The Hydrotech carbon bed adsorption unit consists of two verti-
cally positioned carbon beds and a vacuum regenerative system (see Figure
3.2). The beds were arbitrarily designated A and B by Scott. The system
is designed to cycle from one bed to the other by an automatic valving
system. During operation one bed is always in the adsorbing mode and the
other is being vacuum stripped.
On 5/25 Bed B was in the adsorbing mode for a substantially greater
period of filling time than Bed A. It is not clear whether this was caused
by chance or by the system logic. However, it resulted in Bed B's
suffering breakthrough with emissions in excess of 10% propane during
several test runs. This same problem began to develop on 5/26 and the
Bed B emissions exceeded 10% propane during Run 2. Shortly after this,
Hydrotech personnel adjusted the switching system so that.the beds switched
every 15 minutes regardless of whether a truck was filling or not. The
alternate 15 minute adsorb and 15 minute desorb cycles were in effect for
Runs 4 to 9 on 5/26 and for all runs on 5/27. It was reported that the
system was set to shut off if no filling occurred for two hours, but this
did not take place during Scott tests.
Hydrocarbon vapors stripped from a bed during regeneration are
reclaimed by passing them through a condensing bath which is returned to
the supply tanks as liquid gasoline. The air and any remaining hydrocarbons
exiting from the condensing bath are then passed through the adsorbing bed, and
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
FIGURE 3.2 HYDROTECH ADSORPTION-ABSORPTION GASOLINE RECOVERY SYSTEM
AIR
VENT
1
ARRESTOR
INLET
VAPOR
CARBON
ADSORPTION
BEDS
-S
-a
3-
AIR RECYCLE
LIQUID RING
VACUUM PUMP
COOLER
SEPARATOR
.GASOLINE
SUPPLY
PU.V.P
.GAS01J.VE
RETURN-
-------
-12-
SET 1623 01 1077
exhausted to the atmosphere. Thus, even when no trucks are loading, vapors
are emitted from the processor. The hydrocarbons in these emissions were
included in calculations of processor and system efficiencies.
Scott Environmental "fechnotogylnc
-------
-13-
SET 1623 01 1077
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
4.1 LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Three locations on the vapor recovery system were sampled simul-
taneously during this program. Two points were on the vapor exhaust lines
from Racks 1 and 2. The third point was located at the outlet of the
processing unit.
At each sample point, a Rockwell T-30 turbine flow meter was
installed along with a gas sampling line, a thermocouple, and a static
pressure line. The gas sampling lines were routed to a building on the
terminal grounds where the NDIR analyzers and the gas chromatograph were
located. The turbine meters, temperature bridges, and manometers were
read at the sampling locations. Figure 3.1 illustrates the sample
locations.
4.2 CONTINUOUS HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS
Continuous hydrocarbon monitoring was performed at each sampling
location by three Beckman Model 315 non-dispersive infrared hydrocarbon
analyzers. These were connected to the individual sample points with Jj
inch tubing through stainless steel bellows pumps. The flow rate through
each sampling system was about two liters per minute. The two hydrocarbon
analyzers monitoring the total hydrocarbon content of the vapors leaving
each tank truck had span ranges of 0-100% propane. They were calibrated
using a Scott close tolerance calibration gas of 50% propane in nitrogen.
The NDIR used for monitoring the outlet had a span range of 0-10% propane.
The calibration gas was a blend of 1.22% propane in nitrogen. All three
NDIR's used nitrogen as a zero gas. Calibrations were performed between
tank truck fillings.
When outlet concentrations exceeded 10% propane, the range of the
NDIR was exceeded and no continuous data were available. In these cases,
the gas chromatographic analysis of the integrated bag corresponding to
that period was used to provide an estimated outlet hydrocarbon concen-
tration. This is indicated on Table 6.2.
Scott Environmental "technology Inc.
-------
-14-
SET 1623 01 1077
4.3 HYDROCARBON CHARACTERIZATION
During each tank truck filling, inlet and outlet integrated
bag samples were taken from a bypass on each sample pump. These bag
samples were analyzed for individual hydrocarbon species and concentrations
using a Perkin Elmer Model 900 gas chromatograph with a flame ionissation
detector. The chromatographic column used was a Supelco 20% SP 2100/.1%
Carbowax 1500 on 100/120 mesh Supelcoport, packed in a 10' by 1/8" length
of stainless steel tubing. The chromatograph oven was programmed from
40 C to 160 C at a rate of 4 C per minute until the benzene peak eluted.
The rate was then increased to 32 C/minute and held at 160 C until no
more peaks eluted. The total analysis time was 15 minutes.
The calibration gas was 1.22% propane in nitrogen. A standard
of 48.7 ppm benzene was used for quantifying the concentration of benzene
in the outlet samples.
4.4 FLOW MEASUREMENT
Vapor flow from each truck to the control unit and also out of
the control unit was measured by three Rockwell T-30 turbine meters. These
were inserted into the vapor return lines and mounted at the exit of the
processing unit respectively. Temperature at each meter was measured with
type "K" thermocouples and potentiometers. The static pressures were taken
at each inlet with two Dwyer 0-10" ^0 manometers placed in series to give
0-20" H20 measurements. All readings were taken every two minutes during
each truck filling. Before each truck was filled the ambient temperature
and barometric pressure were taken.
4.5 TANK TRUCK LEAK DETERMINATION
The tank trucks were checked for leaks using model J-WG combus-
tible gas indicators. Areas checked included hatch covers, the return line
manifold, the liquid dispensing lines, and the automatic fill stops.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-15-
SET 1623 01 1077
4.6 SAMPLING SCHEDULE
The testing consisted of three periods of at least six hours
in duration. The first period was 5/25/77 from 0600 to 1210 during which
data were collected on eleven trucks. The second period was 5/26/77 from
0600 to 1222 during which data were collected on nine trucks. The third
period was 5/27/77 from 0630 to 1430 during which data were collected on
thirteen trucks.
4.7 SAMPLING PROCEDURE
The sampling procedures followed are detailed in Appendix A
and outlined below:
1. Record terminal name and location, date, rack number, tank
truck identification, run number, and time on the data sheets,
2. Record run number, rack number, and time on chart paper.
3. Record initial gas meter reading.
4. Every two minutes during loading, record temperature, static
pressure, and volume; also note stoppages during the run.
5. Check for leaks on the tank truck with explosimeter during
filling.
6. After run, record final meter reading and total amount of
gasoline loaded.
7. Take an integrated bag sample of both the inlet and outlet
to the processor on representative trucks and analyze on
the gas chromatograph.
8. Record times of beginning and end of each run on NDIR
chart paper.
Scott Environmental "fechnotogy Inc
-------
-16-
SET 1623 01 1077
5.0 CALCULATIONS
The procedure outlined by EPA for the determination of the mass
of hydrocarbons lost during a loading requires the calculation of an
average "no-leak" recovery. From this, potential mass recoveries and
estimation of hydrocarbon losses can be made. The basis for determining
a no-leak recovery uses data from trucks which had no explosimeter readings
exceeding the lower explosive limit during loading. In this project, all
tank trucks tested leaked at greater rates, so this calculation procedure
could not be used.
The method used in this project is based on the assumption that
the volume of gas displaced during loading is equal to the volume of
incoming gasoline. This is a valid assumption for bottom loading terminals
where the vapors in the trucks are relatively saturated.
Truck TB901D, an independent, leaked far worse than any of the
Phillips' trucks. Data for this truck are included because it was not
atypical of trucks which fill at the Phillips terminal even though its
leak rate was well outside of the population of Phillips trucks.
5.1 TERMINOLOGY
V = Volume of returned air-hydrocarbon mixture from tanker
loading (ft3)
n
Vri = Initial gas meter reading in vapor return line (ft )
o
Vrf = Final gas meter reading in vapor return line (ft )
Tr = Temperature of returned air-hydrocarbon mixture ( F)
Pr = Absolute pressure of returned air-hydrocarbon mixture
(inches Hg)
Vrs = Volume of returned air-hydrocarbon mixture at standard
conditions (SCF at 20°C, 760 mm Hg)
Ta = Ambient temperature (°F)
Pv = Barometric pressure (inches Hg)
Scott Environmental "fechnofogy Inc.
-------
-17-
SET 1623 01 1077
Lj = Volume of liquid fuel dispensed for each tanker, loading
tested (gallons)
C = Volume fraction of hydrocarbons in returned mixture from
each tanker (volume % as C-jH^Q/100), corrected for methane
content if required.
Mj. = Mass of returned hydrocarbons vapors from each tanker.
(V/L)r = Volume of air-hydrocarbon mixture returned per volume of
liquid dispensed for each tanker (ft'/ft ).
Lfc = Total volume of liquid dispensed from all controlled
racks during the test period (gallons). NOTE: This value
is equal to EL^ only if all loadings during the test period
are tested.
M = Mass of hydrocarbons exhausted from the processing unit (grams)
Ve = Volume of air-hydrocarbon mixture exhausted from the
processing unit (ft^).
C_ = Volume fraction of hydrocarbons in exhausted mixture
(volume % as C-jH^Q/lOO), corrected for methane content
if required.
Te = Temperature at processing unit exhaust ( F).
P = Pressure at processing unit exhaust (in Hg abs.).
(M/L)e = Mass of hydrocarbons exhausted from the processing unit per
volume of liquid loaded, (gm/gallon).
Ep = Average processing unit hydrocarbon recovery efficiency, (%)
V T 3
Cr) = Average potential volumetric recovery factor (ftj/ft ).
(M/L)r = Hydrocarbon mass returned per volume of liquid dispensed
for each tanker, (gm/gallon).
(M/L) = Potential hydrocarbon mass recoverable per volume of liquid
dispensed for each tanker, (gm/gallon).
(M/L)n = Hydrocarbon mass per volume of liquid dispensed lost due
to leakage for each tanker (gm/gallon).
(M/L)t = Total system average hydrocarbon emission, grams/gallon.
E = Average total system hydrocarbon recovery efficiency, %.
s
( ) = Denotes weighted average
* = Denotes loading with no leakage
Scott Environmental Technoksgy Inc
-------
-18-
SET 1623 01 1077
5.2 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Truck 1 on 5/25/77 was used for the sample calculations. When
a calculation was performed based on a weighted average, all truck loadings
on 5/25/77 were used.
5.2.1 Individual Loading Results
The following results are calculated for each tanker loading.
1. Volume of air-hydrocarbon mixture returned:
Vr = vrf - Vri Note: Where (Vrl)n # (Vrf)n_Lj
- Ana"; ^71 (V *) , was used instead of I
= bub.) - jj/l rf n-1
= 514 ft3
2. Volume of mixture returned per volume of liquid dispensed:
V gallons
(V/L)r = —(7.481 —) (ft3/ftj)
Ld ft3
514 .. ,
- 5562
- 0.691
3. Standard volume of returned mixture:
(17.65°R/"Hg) VrPr
Vrs = - SCF 6 68°F, 29.. 92 in. Hg
Tr + 460
17.65 x 514 x 31.2
-- 531 -
- 532 ft3
4. Mass hydrocarbons returned:
grams CoHg
Mr = (51.80 - - - ) VrsCr (grams)
ft3C3H8
= 51.8 x 532 x 0.50
= 13,779 g
5. Mass of hydrocarbons returned per volume of liquid:
Mr
(M/L)r = — (grams/gallon)
r Ld
_ 13.779
5,562
= 2.48
Scott Environmental fechnofogy Inc
-------
-1.9-
SET 1623 01 1077
5.2.2 Average Tanker Loading Results
The following weighted averages are calculated from the results
obtained in 5.2.1 (NOTE: All averages are weighted based on the volumes
loaded to properly proportion the impact of a disproportionately large or
small loading ).
1. Average volume of mixture returned per volume of liquid dispensed:
IV
(WL)r = <-£) (7.481^), (ft3/ft3)
r
_ 5745 x 7.481
61899
= 0.69
2. Average mass of hydrocarbons returned per volume of liquid
dispensed:
_ £Mr
(M/L)r = -rr— (grams/gallon)
r ZLd
164810
61899
= 2.66
5.2.3 Processing Unit Emissions
The following results are calculated for each period of processing
unit operation:
1. Volume of air-hydrocarbon mixture exhausted from the
processing unit :
"ve = Vef - Vei> or
V = Totalized volume from flow rate and time records.
Ve = 58363 - 57925
Ve = 438 ft3
Scott Environmental "fechnotogy Inc
-------
-20-
SET 1623 01 1077
2. Standard volume of exhausted mixture:
(17.65 F/"Hg) VPP
e e
es
SCF @ 68 F, 29.92 "Ilg
Te + 460.0
17.65 x 438 x 30.2
529
= 441 ft3
3. Mass of hydrocarbons exhausted from the processing unit:
grams C,HR
Me = (51.80
ftJC3H8
Ves Ce
(grams)
= 51.8 x 441 x 0.0069
= 139 g
5.2.4 Average Processing Unit Emissions
1. Average mass of hydrocarbons emitted per volume of gasoline
loaded:
(M/L)Q =
(grams/gallon)
61,899
= 0.24 g/gal
5.2.5 Processing Unit Efficiency
The hydrocarbon recovery efficiency is calculated using the
equation below. The system efficiency is calculated on a weighted average
basis.
1. Average processing unit hydrocarbon recovery efficiency:
(M/L).
E
(M7L)r
2.66
x 100%
100
91.0%
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-21-
SET 1623 01 1077
5.2.6 Potential Hydrocarbons Recoverable During Loading
When air-hydrocarbon mixture leakage is detected around hatch
covers or vent valves on the tankers during loading, the actual hydro-
carbons recovered are less than those potentially recoverable. Estimates
of the hydrocarbon losses can be made as follows :
Potential recovery factors: Separate the loadings during which
there were no leakage losses detected by the combustible gas indicator.
For these loadings calculate:
1. The weighted average potential volumetric recovery:
(£Vr*)(7.481 Sallons)
= ftL_ (ft3/ft3)
ZLd*
_ All truck loadings during the three day test period leaked, so
V
(— ) was assumed to be equal to 1.0.
L, p
For the cases where leakage was detected, calculate the potential
hydrocarbon mass per volume of liquid ratio and the hydrocarbon mass lost
per volume of liquid ratio for each loading by:
1. Potential hydrocarbon mass per volume of liquid ratio for
each loading:
(V/L) Mr
(M/L)p = & (M/L)r = v x 7>481 (grams/gallon)
_ 13.779
514 x 7.481
= 3.58 g/gal
2. Hydrocarbon mass lost per volume of liquid ratio for each
loading:
= (M/L)p - (M/L)r (grams/gallon)
= 3.58 - 2.48
= 1.10 g/gal
Scott Environmental TechnoJogy Inc
-------
-22-
SET 1623 01 1077
Average potential recovery and leakage losses. The following
average factors are calculated from the data above.
1. Average potential hydrocarbon recovery ratio:
Z(M/L) x L,
(grains/gal Ion)
228,242
61,899
=3.68 g/gal
2. Average hydrocarbon leakage loss:
v(M/L)n x L,
(M/L).
EL.
63357
61899
= 1.02 g/gal
5.2.7 Total System Average Emissions
The total emissions for the recovery system are calculated by:
(M/L) = (M/L)
= 0.24 + 1.02
= 1.26 g/gal
5.2.8 Total System Average Efficiency
(grams/gallon)
1 -
-
(M/L).
).24 + 1.02~|
~" I X
3.68 J
x 100%
100
65.8 %
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-23-
SET 1623 01 1077
5.2.9 Benzene Emissions using Run 5, 5/25/77.
The outlet benzene emissions can be considered to be zero. The
total emissions of benzene are then approximately equal to the emissions
leaking from the tank trucks.
(M/L)tb = (M/L)lb
(M/L)eb = 0
(M/L)tb = (M/L)lb
Mtb " Mlb
A second assumption made in computing the overall benzene
emissions was that the weight fraction of benzene in the hydrocarbon vapors
was relatively consistent regardless of the type of fuel loaded. Table 2.3
shows that the weight fraction ranged from 0.0040 to 0.0105 with the average
of the six analyses 0.0088.
M , 91.8 grams C,H,/ft3 C,H., C
rb , 66 66. rb
C ~ )
M 51.8 grams C,HH/ftJ C H C
r jo j o r
= 91.8 x 0.271
" 51.8 x 46.3
• 0.0104
M ,
—— = 0.0088 based on six runs
Mr
Applying the weight fraction of benzene to (M/L)1 for each test
day yields the total benzene emissions per volume of gasoline loaded.
(M/L)tb = (Mrb/Mr)(M/L)1 = 0.0088 x 1.02
= 0.090 g/gal
Scott Environmental "fechnotosy Inc
-------
-24-
SET 1623 01 1077
Multiplying by the total gallons loaded each day gives the total
benzene emissions.
Mtb = ()tb X Lt
= 0.0090 x 61,899
= 557 g
The system efficiency in controlling benzene emissions (assuming
100% efficiency for the processor) was calculated as follows:
(M/L),
E = 1 - x 100%
Sb (M/L)p
= 72%
Scott Environmental "fechnotogy Inc
-------
-25-
SET 1623 01 1077
6.0 DATA SUMMATION
6.1 TRUCK FILL DATA
The data taken during the 33 truck fill runs are listed in
Table 6.1. The data include truck identification, loading period, type
and quantity of fuel loaded, average tank pressure during filling and
number of leakage points detected by explosimeter.
6.2 PROCESSOR DATA
The data recorded at the inlet and outlet of the processor unit
are tabulated in Table 6.2. The data for each run at inlet and outlet are
gas volume, temperature and pressure and hydrocarbon concentration as
propane. Data for outlet flow between truck fillings are also included.
6.3 HYDROCARBON RECOVERY RESULTS
Table 6.3 presents hydrocarbon recovery data calculated from the
data in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. Hydrocarbon recovery and loss rates are given
in grams per gallon of fuel dispensed. The mass of hydrocarbons lost during
each filling are listed along with the daily total of losses between fillings.
6.4 COMPOSITION OF HYDROCARBON VAPOR AT PROCESSOR INLET
The composition of the hydrocarbon vapors entering the processor
during three runs with no-lead gasoline and three runs with leaded gasoline
are presented in Table 6.4. The data are given in Mole percent of all
hydrocarbons measured. The various no-lead and leaded samples are quite
similar in composition. The only consistent difference is the larger
amount of 2-butenes and 2-pentenes in no-lead. The 1-olefins can be seen
as greater in no-lead in the chromatograms. This difference is not visible
in the reduced data because they are not adequately separated from the
n-alkanes to show a separate concentration.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-26-
SET 1623 01 1077
6.5 COMPOSITION OF HYDROCARBON VAPOR AT PROCESSOR OUTLET
The composition of the hydrocarbon vapors emitted by the
processor during six runs representing different total hydrocarbon concen-
trations is shown in Table 6.5. The composition is shown on a Mole per-
cent basis. It can be seen that at high hydrocarbon concentrations
(-12% C3) the major components in the exhaust are the same as those in
the inlet gasoline vapor. However, benzene, and other Cf> to Cg hydrocarbons
are effectively adsorbed by the carbon beds. As the total hydrocarbon
content of the vapors decreases, methane becomes a dominant component. The
05 to Cg hydrocarbons now form a somewhat larger portion of the total
only because the total is so low. In reality their concentrations are
essentially independent of total hydrocarbons within the ranges found in
the test runs.
6.6 BENZENE CONCENTRATION DATA
The benzene concentrations in 18 processor outlet samples are
given in Table 6.6. They are compared to processor inlet benzene concen-
trations and outlet total hydrocarbons. When an outlet sample was analyzed
on the gas chromatograph immediately following an inlet sample, some hang-
up occurred because the outlet samples had approximately 1000 times less
benzene than the inlets. These data are marked with asterisks. It is
clear that the benzene at the processor outlet was always extremely low
when compared to the inlet, and the outlet benzene was independent of
total hydrocarbon concentration.
6.7 BENZENE EMISSIONS
The benzene emissions in terms of weight fraction of total
hydrocarbons in the vapors at the processor inlet for three no-lead and
three leaded runs are tabulated in Table 6.7. The overall average is
0.0088 weight percent benzene. There is no significant difference
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-27-
SET 1623 01 1077
between no-lead and leaded runs, so the average value is applied to all
runs. Since the composition of the vapors lost by truck leakage is
identical to that at the processor inlet, the average weight fraction is
used to calculate the mass of benzene lost by the system (Table 2.3). The
average mass of benzene lost is 0.0095 grams per gallon of gasoline. The
mass of benzene lost in the processor exhaust is less than 0.00001 grams
per gallon.
Scott Environmental "fechndogy Inc
-------
SET 1623 01 1077
-28-
TABLE 6.1
TRUCK FILL DATA
AP
Date Run // Truck ID Rack // Time of Loading Gallons
5/25/77 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/26/77 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5/27/77 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TN175D
XKE19C
TN174D
TN175D
XKE19C
TN176D
TB901D
TN175D
XKE19C
TN174D
TN176D
TN175D
TN176D
XKE19C
TN174D
TB901D
XKE19C
TN174D
TN176D
TN173D
TN174D
XKE19C
TB901D
TN177D
TN176D
XKE19C
TN174D
TB901D
TN176D
TN174D
XKE19C
TN176D
TN177D
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
0622-0634
0721-0726
0748-0812
0804-0820
0824-0833
0835-0849
1032-1055
1032-1049
1101-1112
1109-1122
1128-1143
0627-0635
0715-0727
0727-0738
0855-0906
0925-0950
1048-1057
1052-1115
1136-1150
1134-1157
0632-0652
0731-0739
0753-0808
0833-0900
0906-0921
0925-1016
1004-1018
1050- *
1147-1200
1252-1313
1306-1320
1349-1359
1412-1433
5562
1000
6900
7832
3561
6602
7505
7503
3482
5102
6850
4701
5601
3856
6501
• *
3849
6460
6400
5766
8154
2700
8508
6886
6702
3601
7052
6842
6835
8102
2924
. 3600
5000
Reg,
N/L
Reg,
Reg,
N/L
Reg,
Reg,
Reg,
N/L
Reg,
Reg,
Reg,
Reg,
N/L
Reg,
ft
N/L
Reg,
Reg,
N/L
Reg,
N/L
Reg,
Reg,
Reg,
N/L
Reg,
ft
Reg,
Reg,
N/L
Reg,
Reg,
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
2
5
4
3
5
5
ft
3
4
4
8
5
7
6
5
ft
5
5
6
5
7
6
ft
6
10
6
8
. ft
6
5
6
6
5
13.6
10.0
12.1
13.8
11.8
14.9
ft
11.9
13.1
13.1
.15.2
13.4
14.6
12.1
13.7
• ft
13.0
14.2
13.8
11.0
10.5
12.9
*
10.5
12.9
13.1
9.0
ft
13.9
10.7
12.0
11.0
10.3
* No Data
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-29-
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE 6.2
PROCESSOR DATA
Date Run #
5/25/77 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5/26/77 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
vd)
r
Ft3
514
97
686
633
392
827
58
655
413
586
874
421
725
439
358
0
439
284
762
640
C
r
50
55
46
42
40
59
43
58
57
58
68
64
66
60
66
*
57
68
45
57
P
r
"Hg
31.2
30.9
31.1
31.2
31.1
31.3
30.9
31.0
31.0
31.2
31.3
31.0
31.0
30.9
31.0
30.0
31.0
31.0
31.0
30.8
T
r
°F
72
66
^
69]
1
1
73 J
s
69
72
70
78
78
87
93
69
68
75
75
*
77
81
77
81
v(2)
e
Ft3
438
0
75
31
1
1242
I
1
248
90
550
130
]
512
J
; o
]
883
I
J 0
607
306
104
510
2
310
291
213
117
85
218
}
517
J
' 278
805
T
e
°F
69
70
82
81
81
83
87
92
63
68
78
70
*
76
74
c(2)
e
%c3
0.61
1.98
4.07
(3)
6.20^ '
0.06
0.15
0.24
9.04
*
4.88
0.12
12.77
0.18
4.57
0.46
0.76
12. 70^3)
0.31
0.21
0.58
0.03
0.24
0.08
0.56
0.31
0.93
P
e
"Hg
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
*No Data
(l) Total meter volume accounted for by subtracting reading at end of previous
fill from end of fill reading to give Vr.
(2) Listing includes processor emissions between truck loadings.
(3) Concentration estimated from gas chromatogram of integrated bag sample.
Scott Environmental Technoksgy Inc
-------
SET 1623 01 1077
-30-
TABLE 6.2
PROCESSOR DATA
(Continued)
Date Run ff
5/27/77 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
yv '
r
542
309
137
687
901
416
558
103
856
785
245
474
507
C
%C^
44
50
52
26
46
63
46
(51)
49
50
66
58
58
P
r
"He
30.8
31.0
(30.7)
30.8
31.0
31.0
30.7
(30.7)
31.0
30.8
30.9
30.8
30.8
T
r
°F
57
67
70
79
80
(87)
88
87
89
Vv '
e
Ft3
447
143
191
47
115
45
673
17
624
15
751
349<*>
709
232
783
93
331
32
394
T
e
°F
57
61
70
70
72
78
*
80
88
93
93
Cv '
e
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.06
0.15
0.19
1.37
0.24
*
0.09<4>
0.37
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.21
0.28
0.21
P
e
"Hg
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
*No Data
(1) Total meter volume accounted for by subtracting reading at end of previous
fill from end of fill reading to give V .
(2) Listing includes processor emissions between truck loadings.
(3) Concentration estimated from gas chromatogram of integrated bag sample.
(4) V and C for entire period between Runs 7 and 9.
Numbers given in par'entheses are estimated values.
Scott Environmental ^chnoSosy I
-------
-31-
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE 6.3
HYDROCARBON RECOVERY RESULTS
/Vv ,M, /Mx
Vi
M
Date Run // ft3/ft3 gm/gal gm/gal gm/gal gm
5/25/77
Between
5/26/77
Between
5/27/77
Between
1
2
3
• 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Trucks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Trucks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Trucks
0.69
0.73
0.74
0.60
0.82
0.94
0.06
0.65
0.89
0.86
0.95
0.67
0.97
0.85
0.41
*
0.85
0.33
0.89
0.83
0.50
0.86
0.12
0.75
1.00
0.86
0.59
0.11
0.94
0.72
0.63
0.98
0.76
2.48
2.88
2.46
1.82
2.37
3.95
0.17
2.71
3.56
3.47
4.49
3.07
4.58
3.61
1.92
*
3.43
1.59
2.83
3.29
1.59
3.08
0.43
1.36
3.25
3.82
1.87
(0.39)
3.18
2.49
2.88
3.93
3.02
3.58
3.97
3.31
3.01
2.88
4.21
2.93
4.15
4.01
4.04
4.70
4.58
4.73
4.24
4.67
*
4.02
4.84
3.17
3.97
3.20
3.60
3.60
1.82
3.23
4.43
3.16
(3.50)
3.39
3.44
4.59
3.99
3.98
1.10
1.09
0.85 \
1.19 J
0.51
0.26
2.76 \
1.44 J
0.45 1
0.57 J
0.21
1.51
0.15
0.63
2.75
*
N
0.59 \
/
3.25 J
0.34 \
0,68 f
X
1.61
0.52
3.17 •
0.46
0.00
0.61 \
1.29 /
(3.11)
0.21
0.95 "1
1.71 J
0.06
0.96 '
139
78
3921
19
2533
1274
5689
_/ w «/
1387
76
74
3362
49
64
ii
I/O
14 o
384
127
14
6
2
21
61
92
16
134
35
35
41
31
* Insufficient data; omitted from averages
Numbers given in parentheses are calculated from estimated data
Scott Environmental TechnoSosy Inc
-------
-32-
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE 6.4
COMPOSITION OF HYDROCARBON VAPOR
AT THE INLET TO THE PROCESSING UNIT
(MOL %)
Compound
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
N-Butane+CT
2-Butenes
2-Me-2-Butene
Isopentane
N-Pentane+C^
2-Pentenes
Cyclopentane
2-Me-Pentane
3-Me-Pentane
N-Hexane+C~
o
Me-Cyclopentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
C7 Saturate
C-, Saturate
C? Saturate
Toluene
C0 Saturate
o
M+P-Xylene
0-Xylene
5/25
Run 5
No Lead
3.10
0.42
1.10
16.47
29.39
5.23
0.60
15.37
10.98
4.13
- 0.57
4.05
2.00
1.67
1.08
0.88
0.70
0.48
0.34
0.21
0.90
0.06
0.22
0.06
5/26
Run 9
No Lead
2.68
0.46
1.82
13.87
29.09
5.24
0.61
15.56
10.47
4.09
0.37
4.58
2.33
2.07
1.28
0.90
0.98
0.79
0.82
0.31
1.26
0.06
0.28
0.07
5/27
Run 2
No Lead
0.85
0.37
3.58
17.04
30.63
4.99
0.22
17.11
7.00
2.89
0.42
4.80
2.18
1.91
0.93
0.34
0.82
0.70
1.42
0.36
1.19
0.06
0.15
0.03
5/26
Run 2
Leaded
4.20
2.10
5.09
12.77
27.20
2.82
0.32
17.12
10.88
2.47
0.57
3.57
2.40
2.21
1.18
0.87
1.05
0.89
0.74
0.37
0.98
0.08
0.11
0.02
5/26
Run 8
Leaded
2.45
1.36
4.27
12.89
28.15
2.68
1.19
18.95
9.79
2.33
0.45
4.54
2.12
1.87
1.08
0.72
1.04
0.87
0.99
0.39
1.34
0.12
0.33
0.11
5/27
Run 9
Leaded
2.66
1.63
4.63
13.29
28.17
2.54
0.19
18.52
9.95
2.42
0.43
4.72
2.23
2.02
1.10
0.74
0.91
0.77
0.85
0.38
1.30
0.12
0.34
0.10
Scott Environmental "fechnobsy Inc
-------
-33-
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE 6.5
COMPOSITION OF HYDROCARBON VAPOR
AT THE OUTLET OF THE PROCESSING UNIT (MOL %)
AT SEVERAL TOTAL HYDROCARBON LEVELS
Compound
Total HC (% C3)
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
N-Butane+C,
2Butenes
2-Me-2-Butene
Isopentane
N-Pentane+C~
2-Pentenes
Cyclopentane
2-Me-Pentane
3-Me-Pentane
N-Hexane+C7
Me- Cyclopentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Cy Saturate
C Saturate
Cj Saturate
Toluene
Cg Saturate
M+P-Xylene
0-Xylene
5/25
Runs 9 &10
12.77
8.11
3.13
10.81
24.13
41.03
1.62
0.10
9.46
1.18
0.21
0.08
0.11
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5/26
Run 2
12.71
11.79
8.47
20.75
20.01
26.06
1.23
0.04
9.17
1.48
0.67
0.27
0.05
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5/26
Runs 8 & 9
3.04
93.44
1.19
1.23
2.40
1.43
0.04
<0.01
0.10
0.05
0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5/25
Run 2
2.87
17.83
18.76
19.20
18.65
21.15
3.28
0.79
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5/27
Run 9
0.49
67.04
15.75
8.94
4.69
2.01
0.78
0.22
0.06
0.01
0.11
0.07
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.02
5/27
Run 2
0.21
96.73'
0.34
1.02
0.73
0.31
0.01
0.26
0.12
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.01
0.06
0.03
. n\a \
'
Scott Environmental Technok>sy Inc
-------
-34-
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE 6.6
BENZENE CONCENTRATIONS AT PROCESSOR OUTLET
COMPARED TO INLET BENZENE AND OUTLET HYDROCARBONS
Date
5/25
5/26
5/27
Run No.
1
2
3,4
5,6
**
7,8
9,10
1
2
**
4
6
g***
7
8,9
**
1
2
9
g***
Crb
ppm
2770
2150
2770
—
2150
3010
2520
2610
—
2700
2540
2540
2390
2010
—
1710
1040
1730
1730
ceb
PPi"
21.0*
4.1
10.3*
3.6
4.8
3.6
2.3
2.2
1.1
6.1*
2.3
10.3*
1.9
2.5
1.4
1.5
10.7*
2.1
2.7
2.3
ce
%c3
0.61
1.98
6.2
5.9
Not Measured
4.88
12.8
0.46
12.7
0.21
0.58
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.93
0.54
0.06
0.06
0.37
0.37
* Invalid because of hangup from previous inlet analysis
** Sample collected between runs
*** Repeat analysis
Scott Environmental TechnoJosy Inc
-------
-35-
SET 1623 01 1077
TABLE 6.7
BENZENE EMISSIONS
Date
5/25/77
5/26/77'
5/27/77
Average
Average
Overall
Run No.
5
2
8
9
2
9
- Leaded
- No Lead
Average
Fuel Type
No Lead
Leaded
Leaded
No Lead
No Lead
Leaded
Cr
%C^_
46.3
44.4
28.2
44.9
46.3
35.1
Crb
% C^H^
.271
.261
.137
.265
.104
.173
Mrb/Mr
gDi/gm
.0104
.0104
.0087
.0105
.0040
.0087
.0093
.0083
.0088
Notes
1. Hydrocarbon concentration at inlet to processor as measured
by gas chromatograph.
2. Benzene concentration at inlet to processor as measured by
gas chromatography.
3. Weight fraction of benzene in returned hydrocarbon vapors.
Scott Environmental "fechndogy Inc
-------
-36-
SET 1623 01 1077
7.0 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION DURING TEST PERIOD
Table 7.1 illustrates the time sequence of the truck loadings at
each rack with respect to the processing unit emissions. The inlet and
outlet volumes and masses for each run are shown. In addition, the outlet
emissions between loadings are shown. Where available, the adsorbing
beds and the switching times are listed.
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-37-
TABLE 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION
Date
Time Period O£-C1> - O X
Time
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
•<$}
v/
Run.
No.
/
Si
3
Rack 1
Start
Stop
STftftT
;;n.'/'
Time
OC2*.
6'tS-j,
Vr
\Sw
M
r
gm
iWi
Rack 2
Start
Stop
STiVtf
sr&r
ST-M „
fl ^">
7'
•>i
67H^'i
M
gm
•f.3 • t
Outlet
Bed
6
6
n> i
•
B
B
G
Vm<
A
/A
^,-K«
/3
Time
(£^-J-\
1
I
/
ZuW
\
\
1
)
&s\
fiu&y
V
e
ft3
> o
, -^^
)
ii
6^
£>")£> i
/
)
)
M
e
gm
;j?
.--•
•nc^
^r
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-38-
TABLE 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OIT.RATT.OH
Date
Time Period 0 S'Uti - /O ffQ
Rack 1
Rack 2
Outlet
Time
Run
No.
Start
Stop
Time
M
r
gm
Start
Stop
Time
V
r
gra
Bed
Time
ft
M
e
gm
00
05
4
13
10
A
15
20
r
STA/ir
ft
o
25
Mi-
PI
30
35
Obfi
3
A
40
45
a
50
13
55
43
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
_4p_
45
50
55
Scott Environmental Technology Inc
-------
-39-
TABLE 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION
Date
Time Period I O OV "
Scott Environmental Te<:hno!o3y Inc
-------
-40-
TAliLE 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION
Date
Time Period 066*0 -
Rack 1
Rack 2
Outlet
Time
Run
No.
Start
Stop
Time
M
r
gm
Start
Stop
Time
M
r
gm
Bed
Time , ft
M
e
gm
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
7
-------
-41-
TACLL: 7.1 CONTROL SYSTI:M OPERATION
Date
Time
Period 0* -10(:I0
Rack 1
Rack 2
Outlet
Time
Run
No.
Start
Stop
Time
M
gm
Start
Stop
Time
M
r
_gm_
Bed
Time r
it
M
e
gm
00
G
\
05
10
fi
15
A
20
25
fi
30
p.
35
40
A
45
50
.A
55
SW-T
G '
00
J3
05
SL<.'.
10
A
15
ft
20
25
6
30
13
35
> 0
_40_
45
A
50
55
Scott Enviroinrsental Teclinolosy Inc
-------
Date
-42-
TAB1.E 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION
2-
-------
-43-
TAIJL1C 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION
Date
Time Period O & <*> '
00
»
Time
00
05
10 '
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Run
No.
1
a
3
Rack 1
Start
Stop
Time
vr
M
r
gm
Rack 2
Start
Stop
srorr
•srop
sm/tr
Stop
SINK-
Time
06 J. 3]
Vr3
(
I
0 t $" JL.I
O')il "j
01 ^{3*3
01& ]
i
M
gm
\ltfl
JT3/H
Outlet
Bed
A
A '
A
Sw.KCl
G
a ,
i^.ad
/v
A
Sw.ro,
1]
G
*"«'
A (
A ,
>-r«t
B
J3
$u,,lm
Time
Ct**\
&H*.
t
OK*
0^14
07J-7
^j
S55J
w«a)
(,
^,
07&T|
V
e
ft3
i
1
- '^ ?
I
/
y
r j\j 2
i
\
1
/'
V'//
- ^7
M
e
gm
!'i
a
£
O
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
-44-
TABLE 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION
Date
Time Period
O S
Rack 1
Rack 2
Outlet
Time
Run
No.
Start
Stop
V.
Time
M
r
gm
Start
Stop
Time
fr.
M
r
p,ra
Bed
Time
M
e
gra
00
05
A
10
OS' i
15
•c
20
B
25
30
Sl
35
40
45
0
50
Q
55
00
05
6'tVW
n
10
15
•B
20
STcP
a <
i t
25
30
35
A-
_40_
45
13
50
55
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
Date
-AS-
TABLE 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION
Time Period /C
Rack 1
Rack 2
Outlet
Time
Run
No.
Start
Stop
Time
r
ft3
M
r
gm
Start
Stop
Time
Vr
fl-
M
r
gm
Bed
Time
ft
M
00
05
1
x*
IV7?
A
P\
10
15
(016,
13
20
A
25
to)-)
30
A
35
.A
40
A5
13
50
55
/ £>>">
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
_AO_
A5
s
50
Sff&r
1/v
55
Scott Environmental Techinolosy Inc
-------
Date
-46-
TAELE 7.1 CO:;TROL SYSTEM OPERATION
Time Period
1 4 6T;
Rack 1
Rack 2
Outlet
Time
Run
No.
Start
Stop
T
Tine
M
r
gin
Start
Stop
Time
M
r
gra
Bed
Time
ft
M
e
gm
00
05
fl
10
15
20
fi
25
f? (1
1 16
30
A
35
40
/ax;
45
0
50
10
55
00
7*
05
II
10
STOP
i
15
.0
20
25
30
35
_4P_
45
Sr/w
G
50
G
3*
55
Scott Environmental Technology Inc
-------
Date
-47-
TABLE 7.1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION
Time Period
Time
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Run
No.
/3
Rack 1
Start
Stop
srmr
Sfol9
Time
/¥«>
(
v
vr
/
M
r
gm
ISO
Rack 2
Start
Stop
r*~
Time
Vr3.
M
r
gm
Outlet
Bed
Time
t ^
V
/
,
"^
V
e
ft3
> ->-2'
OVV
M
e
gm
/ L ^
T.>
^1
Scott Environmental Technotogy Inc
------- |